Deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian signal processing

Diogo O. Soares-Pinto; Guilherme De Sousa

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian signal processing

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that any feedback rule depending on finitely many past signals can be rewritten exactly as a Markovian update on an enlarged signal vector, yielding a deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian feedback.

desk verdict A useful formal extension of deterministic feedback master equations to finite-memory signal processing; the core rewriting is sound, but the continuum-limit example has a factor-γ inconsistency and the recoveries are asserted. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.22686 v2 pith:UKRNJI2X submitted 2026-03-24 quant-ph

Guilherme de Sousa , Diogo O. Soares-Pinto This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumfeedbackcontrolnon-MarkoviandeterministicmasterequationMarkovianembeddingsignalprocessingmeasurement-basedmemoryeffectstrajectories

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 sets out to close a gap in deterministic quantum feedback theory: ensemble-averaged master equations exist for Markovian feedback, but non-Markovian feedback has generally required stochastic trajectory sampling. Its central claim is that any feedback rule depending on finitely many past signal values can be turned into a Markovian update by promoting the signal to a vector of auxiliary memory variables. In that lifted space, the ensemble-resolved quantum state obeys a closed, deterministic master equation, so memory effects can be modeled without averaging trajectories. Two explicit embeddings are given: a momentum rule that accumulates past feedback, and a shift-register construction that stores T past signal values in T extra components.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Markovian embedding of the feedback signal. The scalar signal s_n is replaced by a vector y_n = (s_n, m_n^{(1)}, ..., m_n^{(T)}) whose components are momentum-like differences m_n^{(k)} = s_{n+1-k} - s_{n-k}; because y_{n+1} is a function only of x_{n+1} and y_n, the feedback loop becomes a one-step Markovian map. The deterministic master equation then sums over measurement outcomes x′ and previous signal states y′, using the instrument M_{x′}(y′) and a delta-function that enforces the deterministic update y = f_{n+1}(x′, y′). This machinery converts non-Markovian signal processing into an enlarged but memoryless state space.

What would settle it

A concrete check: pick a qubit, a two-step memory feedback rule such as s_{n+1} = s_n + s_{n-1} + α x_{n+1}, implement the shift-register embedding, and compute the feedback-resolved state two ways — directly by Monte Carlo sampling of measurement trajectories and by iterating Eq. (2). Any difference in the first or second moments of the signal and the average quantum state at the same finite step n would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Eq. (2): for feedback determined by s_{n+1} = g_{n+1}(x_{n+1}, s_n, ..., s_{n-T}), the feedback-resolved state evolves as ϱ_{n+1}(y) = Σ_{x′,y′} δ_{y, f_{n+1}(x′,y′)} M_{x′}(y′) ϱ_n(y′). This is not an approximation; it is an exact rewrite of the conditional dynamics once the scalar signal is embedded in a vector whose update is one-step Markovian. The practical content is the embedding recipe: momentum variables m_n^{(k)} = s_{n+1-k} - s_{n-k} form a shift register that makes all past values explicitly available. Consequently, the dimension of the signal vector, T+1, directly counts the memory depth needed, and the ensemble-averaged dynamics is deterministic and clo

Load-bearing premise

The feedback rule must be a known deterministic function of at most finitely many past signal values; if the memory is unbounded, or the functional form of the rule is unknown, the finite (T+1)-dimensional embedding breaks and Eq. (2) loses its closed deterministic form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, every finite-memory feedback protocol — delayed feedback, finite-bandwidth electronics, digital filters — can be simulated by a deterministic master equation rather than by averaging stochastic trajectories.
The dimension (T+1) of the signal vector gives an operational measure of a protocol's non-Markovianity: the number of past steps one must keep to make the dynamics closed.
The momentum example implies that a two-dimensional embedding already produces a memory kernel s(t) = γ ∫ ds (1 − e^{-γ(t−s)}) g(x_s) in the continuum limit, connecting discrete feedback rules to physically common exponential filtering.
In the continuum limit with Gaussian measurement operators and linear feedback, the equation reproduces existing quantum Fokker-Planck master equations with general filtering, making the framework a common parent of several earlier results.

Reading between the lines

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

Because Eq. (2) is exact for any known finite-memory deterministic feedback rule, a natural practical diagnostic follows: one can fit experimental feedback data by progressively increasing T until the deterministic master equation closes, thereby measuring the effective memory depth of the electronics.
An extension the authors do not pursue: adaptive or learned feedback rules, in which the feedback function itself changes with data, would break the closure and need a mixture or hierarchy of embeddings; the equation presented here is for fixed, known rules only.
The dimensionality trade-off — memory depth costs one extra signal component per past step — suggests a compression problem: for specific feedback functions, smarter coordinates than the shift register may yield lower-dimensional embeddings, so finding the minimal T for a given kernel becomes a natural optimization target.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this paper does what it says in a narrow sense — it writes down a deterministic master equation for feedback that depends on finitely many past signals, by embedding the signal history into a higher-dimensional vector. The main equation, Eq. (2), is an exact rewriting of the conditionally evolved ensemble state once the signal map is fixed. If you accept that starting point, the result is closed and deterministic. The genuinely new piece compared with Rosal et al. is the explicit embedding recipes: the momentum rule in Eq. (10) and the general T-step shift register in Eq. (13). These are spelled out, checkable, and immediately usable; the (T+1)-dimensionality statement is clearly made. Credit where due: the construction is transparent, the model-dependence is acknowledged in Sec. IV, and the appendix follows the known delta-function derivation cleanly apart from a minor index typo in Eq. (A4).

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, Eq. (12) does not follow from Eq. (11). Integrating m(t) as given gives s(t) = ∫ ds (1 − e^{−γ(t−s)}) g(x_s), without the leading γ. The extra γ changes the DC gain of the equivalent filter, so the advertised quantitative connection to Refs. [22, 29] cannot be verified as written. This looks like a simple error in the text, but because that recovery is the paper's concrete demonstration of practical relevance, it has to be fixed before the claim is usable. Second, the recoveries themselves are asserted rather than derived. The last paragraph of Sec. III.B says Gaussian Kraus operators plus linear f reproduce Refs. [22, 29]; no calculation is shown. Given that one of those references is the first author's own, an independent derivation or at least a sketch is needed. Third, the title's 'general, possibly non-Markovian' overstates the demonstrated scope: the construction requires a known deterministic feedback rule with finite memory T. That is a meaningful but restricted class, and the paper does state this caveat in Sec. IV.

None of this undermines Eq. (2) itself. The paper is a formulation, close to true by construction, and its value is in the explicit embeddings and the dimensionality trade-off. For people doing feedback control with finite-bandwidth electronics, delayed feedback, or digital filtering, this is a handy formal tool.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A referee should ask for the Eq. (12) fix and for the recovery calculation to be made explicit. After those revisions, it's a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper derives a deterministic master equation for quantum feedback with non-Markovian signal processing, Eq. (2). The main idea is to promote the scalar feedback signal to a high-dimensional vector y that stores the relevant past via auxiliary variables, so that a feedback rule depending on T past signals (Eq. (1)) becomes a Markovian update in the enlarged space. The derivation in Appendix A follows the delta-function method of Ref. [23]. The paper then gives two explicit embeddings: a 'momentum' rule (Eqs. (8)-(10)) and a general T-step shift register (Eq. (13)). It claims that, for Gaussian Kraus operators and linear feedback maps, the continuum limit recovers the filtered quantum Fokker-Planck master equations of Refs. [22,29].

Significance. The core formal identity in Eq. (2) is an exact rewriting of the conditioned dynamics once a finite-dimensional signal map is fixed; it is close to a tautology but provides a useful bookkeeping device. The explicit T-step Markovian embedding in Eq. (13) is a concrete and correct construction for finite-memory signal processing, and the momentum example connects to a known optimization heuristic. These are useful contributions. However, the advertised continuum-limit recovery of existing filtered master equations is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the only explicit continuum calculation contains a factor-γ error. If the continuum connections were supplied, the paper would substantiate its main practical claim; as it stands, the contribution is a framework plus embeddings, with an unverified key application.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III.A, Eqs. (11)-(12)] Equation (12) does not follow from Eq. (11). Substituting m(t)=γ∫ds e^{-γ(t-s)}g(x_s) into s(t)=∫ds m(s) gives s(t)=∫ds (1-e^{-γ(t-s)})g(x_s), without the overall prefactor γ. The extra γ changes the low-frequency gain of the kernel and therefore the quantitative behavior of the feedback filter. Since this calculation is the only explicit continuum limit shown, the claimed recovery of Refs. [22,29] is not verifiable as written.
[Sec. III.B, last paragraph] The statement that 'in the limit δt→0, one can use Gaussian Kraus operators... and linear transformation for g_n to recover the results in Refs. [22,29]' is asserted without derivation. No explicit mapping from the finite-dimensional discrete embedding (Eq. (13)) to the continuum filtered master equation is provided, and the only continuum example (Sec. III.A) has the factor-γ error above. This is a load-bearing advertised application; the authors should either supply the derivation or temper the claim.
[Sec. IV, first paragraph] The paper states that Eq. (2) 'can reproduce all previous results in the field for appropriate choices of feedback rule and quantum instruments.' This is broad, but the paper itself acknowledges that the construction is model-dependent (Sec. IV). The claim is acceptable if the intended scope is finite-memory deterministic feedback rules. However, the title's 'non-Markovian signal processing' should be qualified as 'finite-memory deterministic feedback,' since unbounded memory or unknown functional forms cannot be embedded by this construction.

minor comments (3)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A4)] There are notation slips: in the first line after applying E_{n+1|1:n}, the argument of f_{n+1} should be x' rather than x_n, and in the dummy-variable step the second delta should be δ_{y, f_{n+1}(x',y')} (with x' consistent). The derivation is correct in substance, but these typos should be fixed.
[Eq. (10)] The notation m_{n+1}=β m_n + (1-β)g_{n+1}(x_{n+1},s_n) is fine, but the text preceding Eq. (11) says 'we can write Eq. (10) as' and then displays two equations; it may help to label them (11a) and (11b) for clarity.
[Sec. III.B, Eq. (13)] The construction assumes the feedback function g_{n+1} is known and deterministic. This is stated in Eq. (1), but the paper could emphasize that the auxiliary variables are exact bookkeeping only when this assumption holds, not for stochastic or unknown signal processing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core Markovian embedding is self-contained; only minor non-load-bearing self-citation and an asserted, internally inconsistent continuum-limit recovery prevent a 0.

full rationale

The central equation (2) is an exact rewriting of the definition ϱ_n(y)=E[ρ_n δ_{y,y_n}] together with the assumed embedded deterministic update y_{n+1}=f_{n+1}(x_{n+1},y_n); Appendix A is a purely algebraic identity, so it is not a fitted prediction or an input-dependent result. The paper's actual constructive contribution is the explicit finite-T Markovian embedding in Eq. (13), which is a correct and non-circular bookkeeping construction using auxiliary momentum variables. No data or fitted constants appear anywhere, and no quantity is 'predicted' from a fitted parameter. The only self-citation relevant to the advertised external validation is Ref. [29] (same first author), and the claimed recovery of Refs. [22,29] in the continuum limit (Sec. III.B, last paragraph: 'one can use Gaussian Kraus operators in Eq. (6) and linear transformation for g_n to recover the results in Refs. [22,29]') is asserted without derivation. Moreover, the one explicit continuum calculation is internally inconsistent: Eq. (11) implies s(t)=∫ ds (1−e^{-γ(t−s)})g(x_s), while Eq. (12) has an extra factor γ. These are correctness/support gaps in an advertised application, not circular reductions of the central result. Because the central derivation is independent, the score is 2 for the one minor non-load-bearing self-citation and unverified recovery claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central equation (2) rests on no fitted numbers; the only hand-chosen constants (β, γ) appear in illustrative examples and do not enter the main result. The load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about the feedback rule's known, finite-T structure and the validity of the instrument map for every embedded signal value. Auxiliary momentum signals are internal bookkeeping, explicitly constructed rather than postulated from a hat.

free parameters (2)

β (momentum weight)
Hand-chosen weight in the illustrative momentum feedback rule, Eq. (9); not fit to data and does not enter the central equation (2). Its continuum form β ≈ 1 − γδt links to the kernel in Sec. III.A.
γ (memory decay rate)
Introduced in the continuum limit β ≈ 1 − γδt, Eq. (11); sets the e-folding memory of the kernel. Example parameter, not load-bearing for Eq. (2).

assumptions (4)

standard math δ-function identities and the tower property of conditional expectation hold for the feedback-resolved density operator
Used throughout Appendix A (Eqs. A3–A5) to rewrite the ensemble average; valid for the discrete outcome space considered.
domain assumption M_x(y) is a valid quantum instrument for every embedded signal value y
Eq. (6) defines ρ_{n+1} = M_x(y)ρ_n/P(x); complete positivity and trace structure for all y are assumed, and the feedback channel L_{n+1}(y) must be CPTP for each y.
domain assumption The feedback rule g is a known, deterministic function of finitely many past signals (finite T)
Eq. (1) defines the scope; the T-step embedding in Eq. (13) and the (T+1)-dimension claim depend on finite T. Infinite-memory or unknown kernels are outside the construction (admitted in Sec. IV).
domain assumption Continuum limits reproduce prior Markovian/linear-filtering results
Sec. III.B (last paragraph) and Sec. IV assert recovery of Refs. [22,29] from Gaussian Kraus operators and linear f without derivation; assumed here rather than proven.

invented entities (1)

Auxiliary momentum signals m_n^(k) and the embedded signal vector y_n = (s_n, m^(1), ..., m^(T))
purpose: Bookkeeping variables that make a finite-memory non-Markovian feedback rule evolvable under a Markovian update (Eqs. 10, 13); their dimensionality quantifies the memory cost of the embedding.
Mathematical constructs defined inside the paper; no external falsifiable handle by design, but they are explicitly constructed (not pulled from a hat) and their dynamics is fully specified in Eqs. (10) and (13).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian signal processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKRNJI2X

@misc{pith2026260322686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic quantum master equation for non-Markovian signal processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKRNJI2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.22686}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we derive a deterministic master equation to model a general, possibly non-Markovian, feedback. The master equation describes a system with a general evolution and measurement operation, with feedback being applied in terms of signal processing. The feedback signal has an arbitrary structure with dimensionality that indicates the degree of non-Markovianity of the information processing. We present examples to illustrate how such a master equation can be used to model systems with memory feedback and non-trivial frequency dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22686 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[23]

A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Deter- ministic equations for feedback control of open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2507.01934 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[1]

Hopkins, K

A. Hopkins, K. Jacobs, S. Habib, and K. Schwab, Feed- back cooling of a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. B68, 235328 (2003)

2003
[2]

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, Feedback cooling of a single trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043003 (2006)

2006
[3]

J. Guo, R. Norte, and S. Gröblacher, Feedback cooling of a room temperature mechanical oscillator close to its mo- tional ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 223602 (2019)

2019
[4]

S. K. Manikandan and S. Qvarfort, Optimal quantum parametric feedback cooling, Phys. Rev. A107, 023516 (2023)

2023
[5]

De Sousa, P

G. De Sousa, P. Bakhshinezhad, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Samuelsson, P. P. Potts, and C. Jarzynski, Continuous feedback protocols for cooling and trapping a quantum harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. E111, 014152 (2025)

2025
[6]

S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, K. W. Murch, A. Auf- fèves, and A. N. Jordan, Efficiently fueling a quantum engine with incompatible measurements, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044137 (2022)

2022
[7]

J. Koch, K. Menon, E. Cuestas, S. Barbosa, E. Lutz, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and A. Widera, A quantum engine in the bec–bcs crossover, Nature621, 723 (2023)

2023

Show all 32 references

[8]

D. Liu, Y. Hong, S. Luo, X. He, Z. Wu, and J. Wang, Feedback-driven quantum otto-like engines, Phys. Rev. A111, 012203 (2025)

2025
[9]

F. J. Cao and M. Feito, Thermodynamics of feedback controlled systems, Phys. Rev. E79, 041118 (2009)

2009
[10]

Abreu and U

D. Abreu and U. Seifert, Extracting work from a single heat bath through feedback, Europhys. Lett.94, 10001 (2011)

2011
[11]

Brandner, M

K. Brandner, M. Bauer, M. T. Schmid, and U. Seifert, Coherence-enhanced efficiency of feedback-driven quan- tum engines, New J. Phys.17, 065006 (2015)

2015
[12]

P. P. Potts and P. Samuelsson, Thermodynamic uncer- tainty relations including measurement and feedback, Phys. Rev. E100, 052137 (2019)

2019
[13]

Prech and P

K. Prech and P. P. Potts, Quantum fluctuation theorem for arbitrary measurement and feedback schemes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140401 (2024)

2024
[14]

Sarovar, C

M. Sarovar, C. Ahn, K. Jacobs, and G. J. Milburn, Prac- tical scheme for error control using feedback, Phys. Rev. A69, 052324 (2004)

2004
[15]

Porotti, V

R. Porotti, V. Peano, and F. Marquardt, Gradient- ascent pulse engineering with feedback, PRX Quantum 4, 030305 (2023)

2023
[16]

Puviani, S

M. Puviani, S. Borah, R. Zen, J. Olle, and F. Marquardt, Non-markovian feedback for optimized quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 020601 (2025)

2025
[17]

Sagawa and M

T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Second law of thermodynamics with discrete quantum feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 080403 (2008)

2008
[18]

K. Funo, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Integral quantum fluctuation theorems under measurement and feedback control, Phys. Rev. E88, 052121 (2013)

2013
[19]

Lewalle, C

P. Lewalle, C. Elouard, and A. N. Jordan, Entanglement- preservinglimitcyclesfromsequentialquantummeasure- ments and feedback, Phys. Rev. A102, 062219 (2020)

2020
[20]

T. Yada, N. Yoshioka, and T. Sagawa, Quantum fluc- tuation theorem under quantum jumps with continuous measurement and feedback, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170601 (2022)

2022
[21]

Annby-Andersson, F

B. Annby-Andersson, F. Bakhshinezhad, D. Bhat- tacharyya, G. De Sousa, C. Jarzynski, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Quantum fokker-planck master equation for continuous feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050401 (2022)

2022
[22]

Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as mea- surement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

A. Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as mea- surement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

2024
[24]

Jacobs and D

K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward intro- duction to continuous quantum measurement, Contemp. Phys.47, 279 (2006)

2006
[25]

J. M. Horowitz, Quantum-trajectory approach to the stochastic thermodynamics of a forced harmonic oscil- lator, Phys. Rev. E85, 031110 (2012)

2012
[26]

Diósi, Hybrid quantum-classical master equations, Phys

L. Diósi, Hybrid quantum-classical master equations, Phys. Scr.2014, 014004 (2014)

2014
[27]

Diósi, Hybrid completely positive markovian quantum-classical dynamics, Phys

L. Diósi, Hybrid completely positive markovian quantum-classical dynamics, Phys. Rev. A107, 062206 (2023)

2023
[28]

Layton, J

I. Layton, J. Oppenheim, and Z. Weller-Davies, A health- ier semi-classical dynamics, Quantum8, 1565 (2024). 5

2024
[29]

De Sousa, Quantum fokker-planck master equation with general signal filtering, Phys

G. De Sousa, Quantum fokker-planck master equation with general signal filtering, Phys. Rev. A113, 012213 (2026)

2026
[30]

Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

D. Manzano, A short introduction to the lindblad master equation, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

2020
[31]

Milz and K

S. Milz and K. Modi, Quantum stochastic processes and quantum non-markovian phenomena, PRX Quantum2, 030201 (2021)

2021
[32]

Nesterov, A method for solving the convex program- ming problem with convergence rate o(1/k2), Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR269, 543 (1983)

Y. Nesterov, A method for solving the convex program- ming problem with convergence rate o(1/k2), Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR269, 543 (1983). 6 Appendix A: Derivation Derivation follows the steps outlined in the Appendix of Ref. [23]. If we assume that exists a function that evolves ⃗...

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, Deter- ministic equations for feedback control of open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2507.01934 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Hopkins, K

A. Hopkins, K. Jacobs, S. Habib, and K. Schwab, Feed- back cooling of a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. B68, 235328 (2003)

2003

[3] [2]

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, Feedback cooling of a single trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043003 (2006)

2006

[4] [3]

J. Guo, R. Norte, and S. Gröblacher, Feedback cooling of a room temperature mechanical oscillator close to its mo- tional ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 223602 (2019)

2019

[5] [4]

S. K. Manikandan and S. Qvarfort, Optimal quantum parametric feedback cooling, Phys. Rev. A107, 023516 (2023)

2023

[6] [5]

De Sousa, P

G. De Sousa, P. Bakhshinezhad, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Samuelsson, P. P. Potts, and C. Jarzynski, Continuous feedback protocols for cooling and trapping a quantum harmonic oscillator, Phys. Rev. E111, 014152 (2025)

2025

[7] [6]

S. K. Manikandan, C. Elouard, K. W. Murch, A. Auf- fèves, and A. N. Jordan, Efficiently fueling a quantum engine with incompatible measurements, Phys. Rev. E 105, 044137 (2022)

2022

[8] [7]

J. Koch, K. Menon, E. Cuestas, S. Barbosa, E. Lutz, T. Fogarty, T. Busch, and A. Widera, A quantum engine in the bec–bcs crossover, Nature621, 723 (2023)

2023