Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

The paper claims that engineered fast and slow relaxation—the many-body quantum Mpemba effect—turns a quantum simulator's own noise into a measurement-frugal validation and calibration tool.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 20:49 UTC pith:Q36SZZHT

load-bearing objection The Mpemba validation crossover on two neutral-atom devices is real and worth publishing; the calibration improvement is in-sample and needs an out-of-sample check before it should be sold as actionable. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01788 v1 pith:Q36SZZHT submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.atom-ph

Validation and calibration of quantum hardware through the many-body quantum Mpemba effect

Francesco Campaioli , Marco Avesani , Oren Raz , Roderich Moessner , Gianluca Teza This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.atom-ph
keywords many-body quantum Mpemba effectquantum hardware validationquantum calibrationneutral-atom quantum simulatorsopen quantum systemsBhattacharyya coefficientRydberg atom arraysdissipative Ising model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes that a quantum device's own noise can be used as a diagnostic: prepare the register so that relaxation toward equilibrium is artificially fast in one run and artificially slow in another, then read out simple bit-string counts. This engineered many-body quantum Mpemba effect is reported for the first time in an open many-body system, on two independent neutral-atom processors. From those computational-basis measurements alone, a Bhattacharyya coefficient between observed and predicted configurations upper-bounds the true quantum fidelity, and the fast/slow pair separates errors in detuning from errors in amplitude that either sequence alone would leave degenerate. Applying the resulting corrections improves each device's benchmark score, making anomalous relaxation a transferable validation and calibration primitive for quantum simulators.

Core claim

The central claim is that the many-body quantum Mpemba effect is not just a phenomenon to observe but a usable hardware diagnostic. On a six-atom ring of Rydberg atoms subject to local dephasing and amplitude damping, a preprocessing pulse chosen to minimize or maximize overlap with the slowest-decaying mode of the open-system Liouvillian (the generator of the noisy dynamics) produces fast and slow relaxation trajectories. Measuring these trajectories in the computational basis yields a configuration vector P(t); the Bhattacharyya coefficient with theory satisfies F(ρ,ρ_th) ≤ BC²(P,P_th), so classical bit-string statistics give an upper bound on quantum fidelity. Minimizing the average loss

What carries the argument

The engine is the many-body quantum Mpemba effect: the counterintuitive crossover in which a state starting farther from equilibrium relaxes faster than one starting closer. Concretely, the paper builds the Liouville superoperator of the noisy six-atom Ising ring and tunes the overlap χ₂=|Tr[L₂ρ′₀]| between a preprocessed state and the slowest-decaying relaxation mode L₂, using identical single-qubit rotations U(θ,φ)=⊗Z_i(φ)X_i(θ). Minimizing that overlap gives the fast pathway; maximizing it gives the slow pathway. The pair's complementary responses define the calibration loss, whose contour lines cross in the (δ,Ω) plane, allowing detuning and amplitude errors to be corrected separately.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each device's noise is fully captured by a local GKSL master equation with exactly two decoherence channels—z-basis dephasing and amplitude damping—whose rates are fitted to the data; the paper's own slow-sequence data on one processor are already incompatible with that model beyond about 2 microseconds, a mismatch attributed to unmonitored laser-frequency drift.

What would settle it

Run the same six-atom protocol while independently monitoring the control-laser frequency (or while applying a known deliberate detuning offset): if the inferred calibration minimum does not track the known drift, or if the slow-sequence data remain outside the model's error bars after calibration, the assumed two-channel noise model is missing relevant structure.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A few hundred shots per keyframe in the computational basis bound quantum fidelity and locate control errors, so the primitive sidesteps exponential tomography and works on very large registers where exact reconstruction is impossible.
  • The slow sequence acts as the decisive stress test: both devices score well on the control task but degrade markedly on the slow task, exposing preparation and control imperfections that coherent-regime fidelity alone hides.
  • The fast/slow pair unambiguously separates the two control drifts—roughly 20% amplitude error on one device and 10% detuning error on the other—because their error contours cross transversely in the (δ,Ω) plane.
  • Applying the time-resolved calibration corrections raises each device's benchmark score, and on one device the fast sequence gives a 2.5-fold speedup toward a 12%-error equilibrium sample, a target otherwise unreachable within the device's maximum schedule length.
  • The method scales by design for this model: the transverse-field Ising chain with local dephasing has an exactly solvable relaxation spectrum, so fast and slow preprocessing can be designed for larger registers using only local measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The protocol's reach depends on how well the assumed two-channel GKSL noise model matches reality: if the true noise has extra structure, the inferred corrections absorb model error rather than physical drift. The paper's own slow-sequence data on one processor are already incompatible with the model after about 2 µs, attributed to unmonitored laser-frequency drift—so an independent drift measurem
  • The two devices' orthogonal drift profiles suggest that fast/slow relaxation data could serve as a per-device fingerprint, letting operators track slow environmental drift between calibration sessions without changing their measurement routine.
  • A natural next test is to port the primitive to a platform with different decoherence channels—trapped ions or superconducting circuits—where the slowest-decaying mode is known; if the transfer works, the same pair of preprocessings could become a common cross-platform benchmark.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a validation and calibration primitive for quantum simulators based on engineering the many-body quantum Mpemba effect. A global preprocessing unitary U(θ,φ) is applied to a six-atom Rydberg ring, with angles chosen by minimizing/maximizing the overlap with the slowest-decaying Liouvillian mode. The Bhattacharyya coefficient BC²(P,P_th) between measured and predicted computational-basis distributions is used as an upper bound on the quantum fidelity (Eq. 9). On QuEra Aquila and Pasqal Fresnel, the authors report a fast sequence overtaking a slow sequence despite starting farther from equilibrium (the Mpemba crossover), and use time-averaged (Eq. 10) and time-resolved (Eq. S.25) minimization to infer amplitude/detuning corrections, reporting roughly 20% amplitude error on Aquila and 10% detuning error on Fresnel.

Significance. The qualitative Mpemba crossover in Fig. 3a is model-agnostic, clearly presented, and convincing on both devices; this part of the paper is a solid experimental demonstration. The validation idea is attractive and measurement-frugal: it uses only computational-basis data, the Eq. (9) fidelity bound is correct, and the paper includes exact numerical diagonalization plus a data/code availability statement. If the calibration claim can be supported by out-of-sample evidence, the protocol would be a valuable transferable diagnostic. However, the central calibration conclusion currently rests on in-sample minimization and on a two-channel noise model whose rates are fitted to the same data, so the validation component is substantially more robust than the calibration component.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sequence calibration; Eq. (S.25), Fig. 4b] The time-resolved calibration is demonstrated only in-sample. Eq. (S.25) minimizes O(t_k) at keyframes t_k that are then re-scored in Fig. 4b and Fig. 9. Unless the corrected pulses were re-run on hardware, the improvement shown is a fit-quality measure on training data and is expected from minimization. The penalty weight p is not reported, and the magnitude of the inferred corrections depends on it. An out-of-sample hardware re-run, or at minimum a clear train/test split and the p value, is needed to support the claims of 'significant quality improvement' and 'directly actionable corrections'.
  2. [Table I caption; Eq. (10), Fig. 4c–d] The inferred drift profiles are model-dependent. The rates γ↓ and γ0 are fitted to the data (Table I), and P_th(t;δ,Ω) is constructed from this fitted two-channel GKSL model. Minimizing ε(δ,Ω) therefore yields parameters that make the data agree with the model, not necessarily physical control drifts. The headline 'complementary drift profiles' (Ω*/Ω0≈0.8, δ*/δ0≈0.9) may partly absorb model error. Independent characterization of the decoherence channels, or a robustness analysis varying γ↓ and γ0, is required before these numbers can be interpreted as control calibrations.
  3. [Fig. 3b and following paragraph] The Fresnel slow-sequence mismatch is explained by slow laser-frequency drift attributed to thermal fluctuations, but no independent drift measurement is presented. This attribution is load-bearing because drift is also the quantity the calibration procedure claims to correct. Please provide a direct drift measurement, or show that a time-dependent δ(t) fitted to the data resolves the discrepancy without introducing additional noise channels. Without this, the Fresnel calibration results remain one possible interpretation among several.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (S.15)] The target Hamiltonian contains σ_i^z σ_i^z; it should presumably be σ_i^z σ_j^z. Please correct.
  2. [Abstract/Conclusions] There are typos: 'where where' appears in the Main text after Eq. (1), and 'Frensel' appears in the Conclusions. The phrase 'first demonstration in many-body open quantum system' should be carefully qualified, since Refs. [30,31] already discuss the quantum Mpemba effect; specify exactly what is claimed as first.
  3. [Eq. (10)] The number of keyframes m in Eq. (10) is not explicitly defined in the main text; define it explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 8 and Fig. 9] Fig. 8 shows time-resolved drifts for Aquila only, while the text says the routine was applied to both devices. Clarify whether Fresnel time-resolved results are available and, if so, where they are shown.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Calibration improvement is demonstrated in-sample: Eq. (S.25) minimizes loss on the same keyframes later re-scored, and theory curves use noise rates fitted to the same data.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sequence calibration; Methods: Calibration, Eq. (S.25); Figs. 4b and 9]
    "To perform time-resolved calibration, we use a greedy minimization method. Starting from the first measurement keyframe t1, we minimize the objective function O(tk) := 1−BC2[P(tk), Pth(tk)] + p(δ2(tk)+Ω2(tk)) ... at each measurement keyframe tk ∈ {t1,···,tm} ... we obtain the time-resolved calibrated pulses ... and use them to re-evaluate the quality of each device, as shown in Fig. 4 and in Fig. 9 ... Notably, calibration results in significant quality improvement on each device."

    The objective minimized in Eq. (S.25) is exactly the loss 1−BC2 evaluated at the same keyframes tk that are then re-scored after calibration in Fig. 4b and Fig. 9. As written, the calibrated pulses are selected to make BC2 large on the training keyframes; the improvement is an in-sample fit-quality consequence of the minimization, not an out-of-sample prediction. The text does not state that the corrected pulses were re-run on hardware, and the penalty weight p is unreported, so the magnitude of the 'significant quality improvement' is not independently constrained.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Table I caption; Fig. 3 caption; Eqs. (8)–(10)]
    "The relaxation and dephasing rate parameters γ↓ and γ0 ... cannot be programmed. Their values are fitted to the data starting from the rates reported by QuEra and Pasqal, with an excellent agreement to their nominal value. ... The dashed lines represent expected excitation density dynamics obtained by exact numerical solution of the simulated sequence calibrated to each device (see Tab. I and II)."

    Pth(t) and Pth(∞) are the reference objects in the benchmark BC(P,Pth), in the Mpemba distance ∥P(t)−Pth(∞)∥, and in the calibration loss ε(δ,Ω). These reference configurations are generated by the GKSL model after fitting γ↓ and γ0 to the measured data (Table I). Thus the benchmark partly measures self-consistency with a data-fitted model rather than agreement with independent first-principles predictions. The model-agnostic excitation-density crossover in Fig. 3a is not affected, so this is a partial, not total, circularity.

  3. other [Evidence of quantum Mpemba effect; Sequence calibration]
    "We attribute deviations from theory in of the slow sequence on Fresnel to frequency drift in the control laser fields likely due to thermal fluctuations of the device [50–53]. ... Instead, amplitude and detuning calibration results shown in Fig. 4 indicate that the effect is compatible with frequency drifts of the control lasers."

    The existence and magnitude of the drift are inferred from the same dataset via the calibration minima (δ*, Ω*) and then invoked to explain the slow-sequence mismatch; no independent drift measurement is reported. The explanation is therefore a consistency check with the fitted model, not independent confirmation. This weakens the claim that the inferred 'complementary drift profiles' are real control errors rather than absorbed model error.

full rationale

Most of the derivation is not circular: Eq. (9) is a known information-theoretic inequality, the raw excitation-density crossover in Fig. 3a is a model-agnostic Mpemba signature, and the preprocessing construction is defined from the model without being equivalent to the final benchmark. However, the central calibration claim is partially circular. Eq. (S.25) minimizes the same loss on the same keyframes that are later re-scored; the paper does not state that the calibrated pulses were re-run on hardware, so the reported 'quality improvement' is an in-sample fit outcome. Likewise, the theoretical reference Pth used for benchmarking and calibration is computed with γ↓ and γ0 fitted to the same data (Table I), so the BC2 score partly measures agreement with a data-calibrated model. The Fresnel slow-sequence drift explanation also leans on the fitted calibration results. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; the issue is fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Score 5 reflects a real but partial circularity: the validation component has independent content, while the headline calibration improvement and drift profiles are not yet out-of-sample validated.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on 10 fitted or hand-chosen numbers: 4 dissipation rates fitted to the same data later used for benchmarking, 4 calibration parameters obtained by minimizing the loss on those data, the preprocessing angles fixed by model optimization, and the unspecified penalty p. These are inputs, not outputs of a first-principles derivation. The qualitative Mpemba crossover is not manufactured by the fits (it is visible in raw excitation-density data, Fig. 3a), but every quantitative theory curve (Fig. 3b dashed lines 'calibrated to each device', the 2.5-fold speedup extrapolation, Fig. 4b calibrated scores) uses fitted or calibrated parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Relaxation rate gamma_down (Aquila) = 0.013 MHz
    Table I: 'fitted to the data' starting from QuEra's reported nominal rate; sets the slow dissipation channel used in all theory curves and in the design spectrum.
  • Dephasing rate gamma_0 (Aquila) = 0.10782 MHz
    Table I: fitted to data from the nominal value; dominates the Liouvillian gap and hence the Mpemba mode structure.
  • Relaxation rate gamma_down (Fresnel) = 0.010 MHz
    Table I: fitted to data from Pasqal's nominal value.
  • Dephasing rate gamma_0 (Fresnel) = 0.22222 MHz
    Table I: fitted to data; larger than Aquila's, shaping the different relaxation window.
  • Calibrated amplitude Omega* (Aquila) = 0.46(3) MHz (target 0.58(4))
    Minimizer of the time-averaged loss Eq. (10); 20% below target, the paper's headline complementary-drift claim.
  • Calibrated detuning delta* (Aquila) = 0.84(9) MHz (target 0.86(4))
    Minimizer of Eq. (10); consistent with target, i.e., 'faithfully reproduced'.
  • Calibrated amplitude Omega* (Fresnel) = 0.57(2) MHz (target 0.58(4))
    Minimizer of Eq. (10); consistent with target.
  • Calibrated detuning delta* (Fresnel) = 0.74(4) MHz (target 0.86(5))
    Minimizer of Eq. (10); about 10% below target, the complementary error on Fresnel.
  • Preprocessing angles (theta, phi) for fast and slow sequences = Not stated numerically; encoded in Fig. 6 sequences
    Set by minimizing/maximizing chi_2 (Eq. S.17) in the nominal model, Eq. (S.20); these design choices create the fast and slow pathways the whole protocol rests on.
  • Time-resolved calibration penalty weight p = Unspecified
    Regularizes the greedy objective Eq. (S.25); its value is not given in the text although it shapes the corrected pulses of Fig. 8.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The devices' noise is accurately described by a local GKSL master equation with amplitude damping and dephasing in the z-basis (Eqs. 2-4).
    Invoked to define equilibrium, the predicted relaxation curves (Fig. 3 dashed lines), the Liouvillian modes used to design preprocessing, and the calibration loss Eq. (10). If noise has correlated or non-Markovian structure, calibration outputs absorb model error.
  • standard math The Liouvillian superoperator L is diagonalizable (spectral decomposition Eq. (S.11) holds with right/left eigen-matrices).
    Methods, 'Anomalous relaxation': 'When the superoperator L can be diagonalized...'; the design and spectrum plots (Fig. 5) assume it. Jordan-block degeneracies would change the optimization.
  • domain assumption The mapping (Omega, delta, C6/r0^6, gamma0, gamma_down) -> (2Gamma, 4V, 4V, gamma0, gamma_down) (Eq. S.16) implements the target dissipative Ising model under global addressing.
    Requires periodic boundary conditions and next-nearest-neighbor coupling less than 10% of nearest-neighbor (Methods, 'Mapping to device Hamiltonian'). A mismatch here would shift all inferred parameters.
  • domain assumption The master-equation equilibrium P_th(infinity) (Eq. S.24) is the true asymptotic state of the device, i.e., the device is ergodic under its actual noise.
    Used as the reference for all distances in Fig. 3b and for the 12% threshold speedup claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fresnel slow-sequence discrepancy is caused by slow laser frequency drift (thermal), not by unmodeled noise or atom loss.
    Introduced to explain the data-theory mismatch for the slow sequence on Fresnel (Fig. 3b); supported only by ruling out atom loss (Fig. 10) and by the later calibration fit, not by an independent drift measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 18829 in / 29181 out tokens · 290228 ms · 2026-08-04T20:49:56.696074+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Validation and calibration of quantum hardware through the many-body quantum Mpemba effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q36SZZHT

@misc{pith2026260801788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Validation and calibration of quantum hardware through the many-body quantum Mpemba effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q36SZZHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01788}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We introduce a validation process that harnesses engineered many-body relaxation to control and calibrate quantum hardware. On two independently developed neutral-atom processors, we realize the many-body quantum Mpemba effect in an open system for the first time. Initial-state engineering creates fast and slow relaxation pathways: the fast pathway opens access to unreachable mixed-state physics before hardware noise obscures the target dynamics, whereas the slow pathway amplifies hidden imperfections in preparation and control. Computational-basis measurements directly and independently benchmark dynamical reliability, revealing each processor's actual operating window as a many-body simulator. The processors are thus judged by the very dynamics they are built to reproduce. Complementary responses disentangle control errors and drive an adaptive, time-resolved scheme that supplies hardware developers directly actionable corrections, enhancing faithful reproduction of the target dynamics. These results establish many-body relaxation as a transferable validation and calibration tool for programmable quantum processors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01788 by Francesco Campaioli, Gianluca Teza, Marco Avesani, Oren Raz, Roderich Moessner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: d and details in Methods). To accelerate (slow￾down) the approach to equilibrium, we optimize θ and ϕ by minimizing (maximizing) the overlap between the pre￾processed state ρ ′ 0 := U(θ, ϕ)|↓↓ · · · ↓⟩⟨↓↓ · · · ↓|U(θ, ϕ) † and the slowest decaying mode L2 of the Liouville super￾operator L generating the dynamics, χ2(θ, ϕ) = |Tr [L2ρ ′ 0 ]| , (7) obtained by exact numerical diagonalization3 (see Meth￾ods fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: b, offer model-dependent evidence of the quantum Mpemba effect. Firstly, we note that the fast sequence approaches equi￾librium at a significantly faster rate than the slow se￾quence. Both the fast and control sequences overtake the slow sequence within the first 2.5 µs on both devices, in spite of the slow sequences starting from a larger initial excitation density and smaller distance from equilibrium; t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Haigh and P

    T. Haigh and P. E. Ceruzzi,A New History of Modern Computing(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2021). 12 FIG. 7.Error landscape for time-averaged calibration.Heatmap of the mean error landscapes ε(δ,Ω) defined in Eq. (10) for each control (blue), fast (green) and slow (red) sequences, as well as for their average (white), on both Aquila (a) and Fresnel (b). The l...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bardeen and W

    J. Bardeen and W. H. Brattain, The transistor, a semi- conductor triode, Physical Review74, 230 (1948)

    work page 1948

  3. [3]

    Riordan, L

    M. Riordan, L. Hoddeson, and C. Herring, The invention of the transistor, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, S336 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Quantum computers, Na- ture464, 45 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    K. R. Brown, J. Chiaverini, J. M. Sage, and H. H¨ affner, Materials challenges for trapped-ion quantum computers, Nature Reviews Materials6, 892 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Malinowski, D

    M. Malinowski, D. Allcock, and C. Ballance, How to wire a 1000-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer, PRX Quantum4, 040313 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Foss-Feig, G

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics16, 145 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Bravyi, O

    S. Bravyi, O. Dial, J. M. Gambetta, D. Gil, and Z. Nazario, The future of quantum computing with su- perconducting qubits, Journal of Applied Physics132, 13 FIG. 9.Benchmarking and calibration results.Benchmark (open markers) and calibrated (filled markers) results for Aquila (top row) and Fresnel (bottom row) under three preprocessing regimes, control (b...

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Acharya, D

    R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, Astrakhantsev,et al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Slussarenko and G

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, Photonic quantum in- formation processing: A concise review, Applied Physics Reviews6, 41303 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    J. Wang, F. Sciarrino, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Integrated photonic quantum technologies, Nature Pho- tonics14, 273 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margber, W. Heux, P.-E. Emeriau, A. Ferber, P. Mu- sic,et al., A versatile single-photon-based quantum com- puting platform, Nature Photonics18, 603 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum computing with neutral atoms, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  17. [18]

    Radnaev, W

    A. Radnaev, W. Chung, D. Cole, D. Mason, T. Bal- lance, M. Bedalov, D. Belknap, M. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloomfield, P. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copenhaver, M. Dawes, S. Eubanks, A. Friss, D. Gar- cia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin, D. Goodwin, T. Graham, C. Guttormsson, G. Hickman, L. Hurtley, M. Iliev, E. Jo...

    2025

  18. [19]

    Christandl and R

    M. Christandl and R. Renner, Reliable quantum state tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 120403 (2012). 14

    work page 2012

  19. [20]

    Q. H. Tran and K. Nakajima, Learning temporal quan- tum tomography, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 260401 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [21]

    Caprotti, J

    A. Caprotti, J. Morris, and B. Daki´ c, Optimizing quan- tum tomography via shadow inversion, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033301 (2024)

    2024

  21. [22]

    Knill, D

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

    2008

  22. [23]

    M. P. da Silva, O. Landon-Cardinal, and D. Poulin, Prac- tical characterization of quantum devices without tomog- raphy, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 210404 (2011)

    2011

  23. [24]

    Proctor, S

    T. Proctor, S. Seritan, K. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Scalable randomized benchmarking of quantum computers using mirror cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 150502 (2022)

    2022

  24. [25]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Quantum cer- tification and benchmarking, Nature Reviews Physics2, 382 (2020)

    2020

  25. [26]

    Cattaneo, M

    M. Cattaneo, M. A. Rossi, G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, R. Zam- brini, and S. Maniscalco, Quantum simulation of dissipa- tive collective effects on noisy quantum computers, PRX Quantum4, 010324 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [27]

    J. D. Guimar˜ aes, J. Lim, M. I. Vasilevskiy, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Noise-assisted digital quantum simu- lation of open systems using partial probabilistic error cancellation, PRX Quantum4, 040329 (2023)

    2023

  27. [28]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many- body open quantum systems, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 99 (2025)

    2025

  28. [29]

    Macieszczak, D

    K. Macieszczak, D. C. Rose, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Gar- rahan, Theory of classical metastability in open quantum systems, Physical Review Research3, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [30]

    Moroder, O

    M. Moroder, O. Culhane, K. Zawadzki, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of the quantum mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140404 (2024)

    2024

  30. [31]

    F. Ares, P. Calabrese, and S. Murciano, The quantum mpemba effects, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  31. [32]

    G. Teza, J. Bechhoefer, A. Lasanta, O. Raz, and M. Vucelja, Speedups in nonequilibrium thermal relax- ation: Mpemba and related effects, Physics Reports 1164, 1 (2026)

    2026

  32. [33]

    Beato and G

    N. Beato and G. Teza, Relaxation control of open quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 070401 (2026)

    2026

  33. [34]

    Wurtz, A

    J. Wurtz, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, J. Amato-Grill, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Lukin, F. Liu, P. Weinberg, J. Long,et al., Aquila: Quera’s 256-qubit neutral-atom quantum computer, arXiv:2306.11727 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    Silv´ erio, S

    H. Silv´ erio, S. Grijalva, C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, P. J. Kar- alekas, N. Shammah, M. Beji, L.-P. Henry, and L. Hen- riet, Pulser: An open-source package for the design of pulse sequences in programmable neutral-atom arrays, Quantum6, 629 (2022)

    2022

  35. [36]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press,

    work page

  36. [37]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements, Journal of Mathematical Physics45, 2171 (2004)

    work page 2004

  37. [38]

    Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 35 (2023)

    T. Mori, Floquet states in open quantum systems, An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 35 (2023)

    2023

  38. [39]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The Magnus expansion and some of its applications, Physics Reports 470, 151 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [40]

    Kadowaki and H

    T. Kadowaki and H. Nishimori, Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model, Physical Review E58, 5355 (1998)

    work page 1998

  40. [41]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  41. [42]

    Erbin, P.-L

    H. Erbin, P.-L. Burdeau, C. Bertrand, T. Ayral, and G. Misguich, Many-body quantum score: a scalable benchmark for digital and analog quantum processors and first test on a commercial neutral atom device, arXiv:2601.03461 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  42. [43]

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

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

    2018

  43. [44]

    G¨ uhne, C.-Y

    O. G¨ uhne, C.-Y. Lu, W.-B. Gao, and J.-W. Pan, Tool- box for entanglement detection and fidelity estimation, Physical Review A76, 030305(R) (2007)

    work page 2007

  44. [45]

    Seevinck and J

    M. Seevinck and J. Uffink, Partial separability and entan- glement criteria for multiqubit quantum states, Physical Review A78, 032101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  45. [46]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estima- tion from few pauli measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 230501 (2011)

    2011

  46. [47]

    Kochsiek, F

    S. Kochsiek, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Accelerat- ing the approach of dissipative quantum spin systems towards stationarity through global spin rotations, Phys- ical Review A106, 012207 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [48]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2002)

    2002

  48. [49]

    Campaioli,Tightening Time-Energy Uncertainty Re- lations, Ph.D

    F. Campaioli,Tightening Time-Energy Uncertainty Re- lations, Ph.D. thesis, Monash University (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [50]

    J. Yang, X. He, R. Guo, P. Xu, K. Wang, C. Sheng, M. Liu, J. Wang, A. Derevianko, and M. Zhan, Coherence preservation of a single neutral atom qubit transferred between magic-intensity optical traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123201 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [51]

    Proctor, M

    T. Proctor, M. Revelle, E. Nielsen, K. Rudinger, D. Lob- ser, P. Maunz, R. Blume-Kohout, and K. Young, Detect- ing and tracking drift in quantum information processors, Nature Communications11, 5396 (2020)

    2020

  51. [52]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  52. [53]

    Chen, Y.-H

    J.-R. Chen, Y.-H. Chang, and Y.-W. Liu, A custom-built high-finesse reference cavity for cold Rydberg atom exci- tation, Applied Physics B131, 169 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [54]

    Huber, A

    T. Huber, A. E. Torda, and W. F. van Gunsteren, Op- timization methods for conformational sampling using a boltzmann-weighted mean field approach, Biopolymers 39, 103 (1996)

    work page 1996

  54. [55]

    P. C. Lotshaw, G. Siopsis, J. Ostrowski, R. Herrman, R. Alam, S. Powers, and T. S. Humble, Approximate boltzmann distributions in quantum approximate opti- mization, Phys. Rev. A108, 042411 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [56]

    Al-Kayed, C

    N. Al-Kayed, C. St-Arnault, H. Morison, A. Aadhi, C. Huang, A. N. Tait, D. V. Plant, and B. J. Shastri, Pro- grammable 200 GOPS Hopfield-inspired photonic Ising machine, Nature648, 576 (2025). 15

    work page 2025

  56. [57]

    Reiter, A

    F. Reiter, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and C. A. Muschik, Dissipative quantum error correction and application to quantum sensing with trapped ions, Nature Communica- tions8, 1822 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [58]

    Islam, E

    R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. Joseph Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Onset of a quan- tum phase transition with a trapped ion quantum simu- lator, Nature Communications2, 377 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [59]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  59. [60]

    T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang, E. Forati, Rossi,et al., Thermalization and criticality on an ana- logue–digital quantum simulator, Nature638, 79 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [61]

    G. Teza, F. Campaioli, M. Avesani, and O. Raz, Finite-temperature criticality through quantum anneal- ing, arXiv:2507.07167 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [62]

    M. H. Amin, E. Andriyash, J. Rolfe, B. Kulchytskyy, and R. Melko, Quantum boltzmann machine, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021050 (2018)

    2018

  62. [63]

    C. A. Fuchs,Distinguishability and Accessible Informa- tion in Quantum Theory, Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (1996)

    work page 1996

  63. [64]

    Rossignolo, T

    M. Rossignolo, T. Reisser, A. Marshall, P. Rembold, A. Pagano, P. J. Vetter, R. S. Said, M. M. M¨ uller, F. Mot- zoi, T. Calarco, F. Jelezko, and S. Montangero, Quocs: The quantum optimal control suite, Computer Physics Communications291, 108782 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [65]

    Ansel, E

    Q. Ansel, E. Dionis, F. Arrouas, B. Peaudecerf, S. Gu´ erin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and D. Sugny, Introduction to theoretical and experimental aspects of quantum op- timal control, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics57, 133001 (2024)

    2024

  65. [66]

    Zheng, X

    Z.-Y. Zheng, X. Wang, and S. Chen, Exact solution of the boundary-dissipated transverse field ising model: Struc- ture of the liouvillian spectrum and dynamical duality, Phys. Rev. B108, 024404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [67]

    Prosen, Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open fermi systems, New Journal of Physics10, 043026 (2008)

    T. Prosen, Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open fermi systems, New Journal of Physics10, 043026 (2008)

    2008

  67. [68]

    Roberts and A

    D. Roberts and A. A. Clerk, Exact solution of the infinite- range dissipative transverse-field ising model, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 190403 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [69]

    Foss-Feig, K

    M. Foss-Feig, K. R. A. Hazzard, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Nonequilibrium dynamics of arbitrary-range ising models with decoherence: An exact analytic solution, Phys. Rev. A87, 042101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  69. [70]

    Pawsey Supercomputing Research Centre, Setonix Su- percomputer (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [71]

    Campaioli, J

    F. Campaioli, J. H. Cole, and H. Hapuarachchi, Quantum Master Equations: Tips and Tricks for Quantum Optics, Quantum Computing, and Beyond, PRX Quantum5, 020202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [72]

    Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe, EPJ Quantum Technol.9, 19 (2022)

    Koch, Christiane P., Boscain, Ugo, Calarco, Tom- maso, Dirr, Gunther, Filipp, Stefan, Glaser, Stef- fen J., Kosloff, Ronnie, Montangero, Simone, Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, Thomas, Sugny, Dominique, and Wilhelm, Frank K., Quantum optimal control in quantum tech- nologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Europe, EPJ Quantum...

    work page 2022

  72. [73]

    Macieszczak, M

    K. Macieszczak, M. Guta, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Gar- rahan, Towards a Theory of Metastability in Open Quan- tum Dynamics, Physical Review Letters116, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  73. [74]

    Carollo, A

    F. Carollo, A. Lasanta, and I. Lesanovsky, Exponentially accelerated approach to stationarity in markovian open quantum systems through the mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 060401 (2021)

    2021

  74. [75]

    Nava and R

    A. Nava and R. Egger, Mpemba effects in open nonequi- librium quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136302 (2024)

    2024

  75. [76]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  76. [77]

    Qadence: a differentiable interface for digital-analog programs

    D. Seitz, N. Heim, Jo˜ ao P. Moutinho, R. Guichard, V. Abramavicius, A. Wennersteen, G. Both, A. Quelle, C. de Groot, Gergana V. Velikova, Vincent E. Elfving, and Mario Dagrada, Qadence: a differentiable interface for digital-analog programs., arXiv:2401.09915 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024