Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Speeding up thermalization and quantum state preparation through engineered quantum collisions

T0 review · 4 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 By choosing each colliding ancilla's initial state with a genetic algorithm, a fixed cavity Hamiltonian can be steered to thermal, coherent, squeezed, and highly non-Gaussian states substantially faster than the standard…

desk verdict A useful numerical demonstration of GA-optimized ancilla sequences for fast cavity state preparation, but the 'proof' language and the resource claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20625 v1 pith:ULKYO742 submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Sofia Sgroi , Salvatore Lorenzo , Luca Innocenti , Paolo A. Erdman , G. Massimo Palma , Mauro Paternostro This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumstatepreparationcollisionmodelsgeneticalgorithmscavityelectrodynamicsthermalizationsqueezedstatesnon-Gaussianreservoirengineering
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 asks whether speeding up cavity state preparation can be done by engineering only the environment, leaving the system Hamiltonian untouched. It answers by numerical optimization: for a single-mode cavity that interacts one at a time with small ancillae, a genetic algorithm that chooses the initial state of every ancilla drives the field to target states much faster than the corresponding repeated-interaction (collision) model. Thermal states at $\beta=1$ are reached to trace distance $\approx 0.023$ in about six collisions, and diagonal qubit ancillae, described only by an effective temperature, already suffice; coherences in the ancillae do not help thermalization. Coherent states require coherent ancillae, squeezed states require a two-photon coupling, and non-Gaussian states can be produced by using non-Gaussianity itself as the fitness. The proposal sits between optimal Hamiltonian control and reservoir engineering, using a fixed Hamiltonian but a designed environment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the engineered collision model: a single-mode cavity updated by the iterated map $\rho^{i+1}_S=\mathrm{tr}_A\{U(\rho^i_S\otimes \rho^i_A)U^\dagger\}$ with a fixed propagator $U=e^{-iHt_c/\hbar}$; the resource being optimized is the sequence of ancilla states $\{\rho^i_A\}$, together with constant parameters such as collision time, couplings, and frequencies. The search is carried by a genetic algorithm with fitness $J=-||\rho^n_S-\rho_{\mathrm{target}}||/2$, or the relative entropy $S(\rho||\rho_G)$ for non-Gaussian targets, using crossover by linear combination and mutation; in the variable-length variant the number of collisions is part of the chromosome, so the total time $T=nt_c$ is fixed while $n$ and $t_c$ are optimized. Ancilla states are parametrized in three ways: diagonal qubits by a generalized inverse temperature, generic qubits by a Bloch vector, and qutrits by SU(3) Euler angles. The linear coupling is $H_l=\hbar g_l(a\sigma_+ + a^\dagger\sigma_-)$, with a two-photon term $H_{nl}=\hbar g_{nl}(a^2\sigma_+ + a^{\dagger 2}\sigma_-)$ added when squeezing is the target.

What would settle it

Repeat the $\beta=1$ heating optimization from dozens of independent genetic-algorithm restarts while varying population size, mutation rate, and iteration count; if the best trace distance at total time $T=3$ is not reproducibly far below the unengineered collision-model baseline (the paper reports $J\approx-0.023$ for six collisions with $t_c=0.5$), the claimed speedup is an artifact of the search rather than of the engineered collision dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a fixed cavity Hamiltonian can be steered to a target state by the sequence of ancilla states alone, and that the best sequences found by a genetic algorithm yield a substantial speedup over the unengineered collision model. The cavity update is the iterated map $\rho^{i+1}_S = \mathrm{tr}_A\{U(\rho^i_S\otimes\rho^i_A)U^\dagger\}$ with $U=e^{-iHt_c/\hbar}$, where $H$ contains the cavity and ancilla free Hamiltonians plus a Jaynes-Cummings (linear) and optionally a two-photon (nonlinear) coupling. The optimizer maximizes the negative trace distance $-||\rho^n_S-\rho_{\mathrm{target}}||/2$, or the relative entropy with the Gaussian state of same covariance for non-Gaussian targets, over the ancilla states and over constant parameters such as collision time, coupling strengths, and frequencies. The main results are that the thermalization speedup is non-monotonic in collision time, that diagonal ancillae are sufficient for it, and that the optimal collision time depends on target temperature; that coherent states need ancilla coherence, with qutrit ancillae improving on qubits; that squeezed states are prepared only when a two-photon coupling is added; and that the most non-Gaussian states reachable with qubit ancillae have relative entropy $\approx 2.42$ with the two-photon coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the genetic algorithm's returned sequences are effectively optimal within the allowed search space, with the cavity truncated to 20 or 30 photon levels; if the optimizer is trapped in unrepresentative local optima, the reported speedups, optimal collision times, and resource requirements could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A cavity initialized in vacuum reaches a thermal state at $\beta=1$ to trace distance $\approx 0.023$ after six collisions at $t_c=0.5$, while the standard thermal-ancilla collision model at the same total time has barely moved.
  • Ancilla coherence is not a resource for speeding up thermalization: optimizing only over diagonal qubit states matches or slightly beats optimization over generic Bloch-vector states.
  • The optimal collision time is finite and depends on the target temperature, so fixing total time $T$ and letting the algorithm vary both $n$ and $t_c$ improves performance beyond fixed-collision-time optimization.
  • Coherent states require coherent ancillae: for $\alpha=1$, $t_c=0.5$, and $n=10$, generic qubit states give $J\approx -0.033$ while diagonal ancillae give $J\approx -0.69$.
  • Squeezed vacuum states require a two-photon coupling; with qubit ancillae and $H_{nl}$, the $\zeta=0.5$ target is reached to $J\approx -0.0083$, whereas linear-only coupling stops at $J\approx -0.34$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An experimental consequence the paper does not spell out is that the thermalization speedup requires only preparing qubits in, possibly negative-temperature, thermal states, which is much simpler than preparing coherent superpositions.
  • Because the paper reports no statistics over random seeds or hyperparameters, the quoted trace distances are best read as what the search actually found; more exhaustive optimization could only improve them.
  • A closed-loop version that selects each ancilla state based on a measurement would turn the engineered sequence into feedback control; the paper names reinforcement learning as future work, and such a scheme could adapt to unknown initial states.
  • The two-photon requirement for squeezing suggests a general resource hierarchy: single-photon interactions cannot squeeze the field for any ancilla sequence, which would sharpen the paper's numerical observation into a structural no-go.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies fast state preparation of a single-mode cavity in a collision-model setting. The system evolves by sequential unitary interactions with qubit or qutrit ancillae, and the ancilla states (plus some fixed parameters) are optimized with genetic algorithms. The authors report numerical results for thermal, coherent, squeezed, and non-Gaussian targets, claiming speedups over repeated-interaction baselines, and they draw resource conclusions: diagonal qubit ancillae suffice for thermalization, ancilla coherences do not help thermalization, and a nonlinear coupling is required for squeezing. The abstract states that the speedup is 'proved'.

Significance. If the results were fully established, the proposed engineered-collision approach would be a useful middle ground between optimal control and reservoir engineering, with potential applications in quantum thermodynamics and cavity QED. The paper's strengths are its straightforward repeated-interaction equations, the comparison with physically motivated baselines (thermal ancillae and coherent-thermal ancillae), and the statement that the code is openly available. However, the central quantitative and qualitative claims rest on single best-of-run genetic-algorithm outputs; without convergence statistics or analytical guarantees, the resource conclusions (coherences not needed, linear coupling insufficient) are not established. As it stands, the work is best read as a numerical demonstration, not a proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract and Sec. V state 'We prove a significant speed up in thermalization ... and in the preparation of coherent states.' The manuscript contains no proof in the mathematical sense: the speedup is demonstrated by genetic-algorithm solutions whose optimality is not guaranteed. I recommend replacing 'prove' with 'demonstrate' and stating the numerical nature of the claims explicitly.
  2. [Sec. IV A and Table I] The conclusion that ancilla coherences are not required and do not help thermalization rests on comparing the best solutions found with generic (3-parameter) and diagonal (1-parameter) ancilla states. The authors themselves attribute any difference to the simpler optimization (Table I caption), which means the comparison cannot certify that coherences are useless. To support this resource claim, the paper needs multi-seed statistics, a convergence check, or an analytical argument (e.g., that the achievable set with diagonal ancillae coincides with the full set for this target).
  3. [Sec. IV C] The statement 'a linear interaction is not sufficient to allow for the preparation of squeezed states' is a universal negative inferred from two failed searches (J≈−0.34 for both qubit and three-level ancillae). Since the genetic algorithm is stochastic and no convergence guarantee is provided, this is not established. The claim should be softened to 'no linear-interaction solution was found' or supported by exhaustive search or a no-go argument.
  4. [Appendix B] The Fock-space truncation to 20 (or 30) levels is asserted without convergence checks. For long sequences (e.g., n=50 at t_c=0.1 in Fig. 4), the excitation can climb to the cutoff, so the identified optimal sequences may exploit the boundary. Please provide convergence checks with respect to the truncation dimension, and report statistics over random seeds and hyperparameter variations for the main claims (Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement says the code is 'openly available at the following github repository' but no URL is provided.
  2. [Sec. IV B] The expression for coherent thermal states is referenced as Eq. (15) but is not numbered in the text; please add the equation number.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'wether' (Secs. III and IV A), 'whith' (Sec. IV C), 'anclilla' (Fig. 5 caption), 'Boch' (Fig. 2 caption), 'the the' (Fig. 7 caption), and 'Flowchat' (Appendix C title).
  4. [Table I caption] The caption says 'Maximum difference in the trace distance ... for T=1,2,3,4,5' but does not define what is maximized over; please specify the range of collision times or other variables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: optimized trace distances are objectives, not predictions; speedups are benchmarked against independent collision-model baselines, and self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's central results are constructive numerical demonstrations. Equation (11) defines the genetic-algorithm fitness as minus the trace distance to the target, and the reported J values are the optimized objective values, not independent predictions of the same quantity. The speed-up claims compare these optimized values against unoptimized collision-model baselines: thermal ancillae for thermalization, optimal-χ coherent thermal ancillae for coherent states, and the master equation of Ref. [26] for squeezing. The improvement is therefore not forced by the fitness definition. The resource claims are also not coded into the objective: the conclusion that diagonal ancillae suffice for thermalization compares two GA parameterizations, and the claim that linear coupling cannot prepare squeezed states is a negative result inferred from failed searches. These may be under-supported because the paper reports no GA convergence statistics or random-seed variation, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity. The self-citations present ([34], [37], [45]) are used for context or to motivate a hypothesis that the paper's numerics actually challenge; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the load-bearing justification for a result. The abstract's word 'prove' overstates a numerical optimization, but overclaiming is not circularity. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard collision-model quantum dynamics plus a heuristic optimization. The many search variables (ancilla state parameters, frequencies, couplings, t_c, n) are free parameters fitted to the target states. The truncation cutoff and GA hyperparameters are hand-chosen. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (9)
  • Per-collision ancilla state parameters (inverse temperatures for diagonal qubits) = Sequences over beta_A in [-5,5], e.g. optimized sequences in Fig. 5
    Optimized by GA to minimize trace distance to target; the central performance results depend on these values.
  • Per-collision Bloch vector components for generic qubit ancillae = Three components per collision within the unit sphere
    GA search variables; coherence content of ancillae is a key reported resource.
  • Per-collision SU(3) Euler angles for qutrit ancillae = Eight angles per qutrit state
    Optimization variables for three-level ancilla cases.
  • Ancilla frequency omega_A = Optimized e.g. 3.3, 1.81 omega_C
    Free parameter optimized in variable-length runs; affects detuning and speedup.
  • Coupling constants g_l, g_nl = g_l=0.83 for coherent; g_l~1e-5 and g_nl=-0.45/-0.53 for squeezed
    Optimized coupling strengths; the nonlinearity requirement conclusion rests on these searches.
  • Collision time t_c and number of collisions n = e.g. t_c=0.2 with n=25; t_c=0.06 with n=79; t_c=0.07 with n=73
    Optimized via variable-length GA; optimal t_c is a reported non-trivial result.
  • Baseline coherent-state ancilla coherence chi = Optimal chi in [-0.08,0.08] for beta=5
    Fitted to minimize trace distance for the comparison baseline in Fig. 9; the comparison may benefit from this tuning.
  • Hilbert space truncation cutoff = 20 or 30 Fock levels
    Chosen for numerical tractability; no convergence error bounds provided.
  • GA hyperparameters (N, M, mu, K, nmax, iterations) = N=200, M=100 or 50, mu=1, K=4, nmax=100, steps <=3000
    Hand-picked; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard unitary evolution and partial-trace rule for collision dynamics (Eq. 3)
    Background of all simulations; standard quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Each ancilla is initially uncorrelated with the system and independently prepared
    Collision model assumption; physical in micromaser-like setups but not guaranteed in all implementations.
  • domain assumption Allowed interaction Hamiltonians are Jaynes-Cummings and two-photon couplings with fixed coupling strengths during each collision
    Physical model choice; restricts reachable dynamics.
  • domain assumption Trace distance is the relevant figure of merit for state preparation
    Used as both fitness and evaluation metric; other metrics could alter rankings.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation of the cavity Hilbert space to 20 or 30 Fock states is sufficient for the targets considered
    Numerical cutoff without error estimates; could affect high-energy tails of squeezed and non-Gaussian states.
  • ad hoc to paper The genetic algorithm converges to a near-global optimum of the fitness landscape
    Heuristic search with no proof or convergence diagnostics; local optima could change the conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Speeding up thermalization and quantum state preparation through engineered quantum collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULKYO742

@misc{pith2026250620625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Speeding up thermalization and quantum state preparation through engineered quantum collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULKYO742}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20625}
}
read the original abstract

We realize fast thermalization and state preparation of a single mode cavity field using a collision model-like approach, where a sequence of qubits or three level system ancillae, sequentially interacting with the field, is engineered with a genetic algorithm approach. In contrast to optimal control techniques, there is no time-dependent system Hamiltonian control deployed and, in contrast to reservoir engineering, the engineered full system-environment dynamics is optimized, and the target is not a steady state. We prove a significant speed up in thermalization - for which we show that diagonal qubit ancilla states are sufficient - and in the preparation of coherent states. We demonstrate the preparation of squeezed states and of highly non-Gaussian states. Our work offers a new alternative for fast preparation of cavity states that lays in between optimal Hamiltonian control and reservoir engineering, and gives further insights on the resources needed to realize or speed up the preparation of such states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the maser-like physical process described in Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Example of candidate solution as described in Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Sketch of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Trace distance between the state of the system at a time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Optimal ancilla inverse temperature sequence for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Minimum trace distance between the final system state and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between the trace distance between the final [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Percentual final state-target trace distance reduction in us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Minimum trace distance between a coherent target state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Flowchart of the generic Genetic Algorithm described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Noise-Induced Thermalization in Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interleaving random or phase-flip noise with Hamiltonian evolution accelerates—and for integrable chains enables—local convergence to Gibbs states in small spin-chain simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Plesch and ˇC

    M. Plesch and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum-state preparation with uni- versal gate decompositions, Phys. Rev. A83, 032302 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    M. V . Berry, Transitionless quantum driving, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 365303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Gu ´ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart´ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    S. J. Glaser, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, C. P. Koch, W. K¨ockenberger, R. Kosloff, I. Kuprov, B. Luy, S. Schirmer, T. Schulte-Herbr¨uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Train- ing schr¨odinger’s cat: quantum optimal control, The European Physical Journal D69, 279 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, Introduction to the pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control, PRX Quantum2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    F. K. Wilhelm, S. Kirchhoff, S. Machnes, N. Wittler, and D. Sugny, An introduction into optimal control for quantum technologies (2020), arXiv:2003.10132 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Bukov, A

    M. Bukov, A. G. R. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control, Phys. Rev. X8, 031086 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Z

    X.-M. Zhang, Z. Wei, R. Asad, X.-C. Yang, and X. Wang, When does reinforcement learning stand out in quantum control? a comparative study on state preparation, npj Quantum Informa- tion5, 85 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Brown, S

    J. Brown, S. Sgroi, L. Giannelli, G. S. Paraoanu, E. Paladino, G. Falci, M. Paternostro, and A. Ferraro, Reinforcement learning- enhanced protocols for coherent population-transfer in three- level quantum systems, New Journal of Physics23, 093035 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Preparation of entangled states by quantum markov processes, Phys. Rev. A78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    A. R. R. Carvalho, P. Milman, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davi- dovich, Decoherence, pointer engineering, and quantum state protection, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 4988 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Sarlette, J

    A. Sarlette, J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and P. Rouchon, Stabi- lization of nonclassical states of the radiation field in a cavity by reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 010402 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Sarlette, Z

    A. Sarlette, Z. Leghtas, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and P. Rou- chon, Stabilization of nonclassical states of one- and two-mode radiation fields by reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. A86, 012114 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Mukherjee, A

    V . Mukherjee, A. Carlini, A. Mari, T. Caneva, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, R. Fazio, and V . Giovannetti, Speeding up and slow- ing down the relaxation of a qubit by optimal control, Phys. Rev. A88, 062326 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    R. Dann, A. Tobalina, and R. Kosloff, Shortcut to equilibration of an open quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250402 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    R. Dann, A. Tobalina, and R. Kosloff, Fast route to equilibration, Phys. Rev. A101, 052102 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Kallush, R

    S. Kallush, R. Dann, and R. Kosloff, Controlling the uncontrollable: Quantum control of open-system dynamics, Science Advances8, eadd0828 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.add0828

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Pedram, S

    A. Pedram, S. C. Kadıo ˘glu, A. Kabak c ¸ıo˘glu, and ¨O. E. M¨ustecaplıo˘glu, A quantum Otto engine with shortcuts to ther- malization and adiabaticity, New Journal of Physics25, 113014 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V . Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Quantum collision models: Open system dynamics from re- peated interactions, Physics Reports954, 1 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Ciccarello, Collision models in quantum optics, Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology4, 53 (2017)

    F. Ciccarello, Collision models in quantum optics, Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology4, 53 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applications, V ol. 717 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Scarani, M

    V . Scarani, M. Ziman, P.ˇStelmachoviˇc, N. Gisin, and V . Buˇzek, Thermalizing quantum machines: Dissipation and entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 097905 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Ziman, P

    M. Ziman, P. ˇStelmachoviˇc, V . Buzek, M. Hillery, V . Scarani, and N. Gisin, Quantum homogenization (2001), arXiv:quant- ph/0110164 [quant-ph]

    2001

  16. [24]

    Rempe, F

    G. Rempe, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and H. Walther, Observation of sub-Poissonian photon statistics in a micromaser, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2783 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Pielawa, G

    S. Pielawa, G. Morigi, D. Vitali, and L. Davidovich, Genera- tion of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-entangled radiation through an atomic reservoir, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 240401 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Miao and A

    Z. Miao and A. Sarlette, Discrete-time reservoir engineering with entangled bath and stabilising squeezed states, Quantum Science and Technology2, 034013 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    D. E. Goldberg and J. H. Holland, Genetic algorithms and ma- chine learning, Machine Learning3, 95 (1988)

    1988

  20. [28]

    J. H. Holland,Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (University of Michigan Press, 1975)

    1975

  21. [29]

    A. E. Eiben and M. Schoenauer, Evolutionary computing (2005), arXiv:cs/0511004 [cs.AI]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lukac and M

    M. Lukac and M. Perkowski, Evolving quantum circuits using genetic algorithm, inProceedings 2002 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware(IEEE, 2002) pp. 177–185

    2002

  23. [31]

    B. I. Rubinstein, Evolving quantum circuits using genetic pro- gramming, inProceedings of the 2001 congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE Cat. No. 01TH8546), V ol. 1 (IEEE, 2001) pp. 144–151

    2001

  24. [32]

    C. P. Williams and A. G. Gray, Automated design of quantum cir- cuits, inNASA International Conference on Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications(Springer, 1998) pp. 113–125

    1998

  25. [33]

    S¨unkel, D

    L. S¨unkel, D. Martyniuk, D. Mattern, J. Jung, and A. Paschke, Ga4qco: Genetic algorithm for quantum circuit optimization (2023), arXiv:2302.01303 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brown, M

    J. Brown, M. Paternostro, and A. Ferraro, Optimal quantum control via genetic algorithms for quantum state engineering in driven-resonator mediated networks, Quantum Science and Technology8, 025004 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Palittapongarnpim, P

    P. Palittapongarnpim, P. Wittek, E. Zahedinejad, S. Vedaie, and B. C. Sanders, Learning in quantum control: High-dimensional global optimization for noisy quantum dynamics, Neurocomput- 10 ing268, 116 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Zahedinejad, S

    E. Zahedinejad, S. Schirmer, and B. C. Sanders, Evolutionary algorithms for hard quantum control, Phys. Rev. A90, 032310 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    D. A. Chisholm, G. Garc´ıa-P´erez, M. A. C. Rossi, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, Stochastic collision model approach to trans- port phenomena in quantum networks, New Journal of Physics 23, 033031 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Raimond and S

    J.-M. Raimond and S. Haroche, Exploring the quantum, Oxford University Press82, 17 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Konak, D

    A. Konak, D. W. Coit, and A. E. Smith, Multi-objective optimiza- tion using genetic algorithms: A tutorial, Reliability Engineering & System Safety91, 992 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Tilma and E

    T. Tilma and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Generalized Euler angle parametrization for SU(N), Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General35, 10467 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Tilma, M

    T. Tilma, M. Byrd, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, A parametrization of bipartite systems based on SU(4) Euler angles, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General35, 10445 (2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    Byrd, The geometry of su(3) (1997), arXiv:physics/9708015 [math-ph]

    M. Byrd, The geometry of su(3) (1997), arXiv:physics/9708015 [math-ph]

    1997 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. L. Haupt and S. E. Haupt,Practical genetic algorithms(John Wiley & Sons, 2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    F. L. S. Rodrigues, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and G. T. Landi, Thermodynamics of weakly coherent collisional models, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140601 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Loudon,The quantum theory of light(OUP Oxford, 2000)

    R. Loudon,The quantum theory of light(OUP Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature306, 141 (1983)

    1983

  40. [48]

    Eisert, S

    J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Distilling Gaussian states with Gaussian operations is impossible, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 137903 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Niset, J

    J. Niset, J. Fiur´aˇsek, and N. J. Cerf, No-go theorem for Gaussian quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 120501 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Ferraro and M

    A. Ferraro and M. G. A. Paris, Nonlocality of two- and three- mode continuous variable systems, Journal of Optics B: Quan- tum and Semiclassical Optics7, 174–182 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    M. G. Genoni and M. G. A. Paris, Quantifying non-Gaussianity for quantum information, Phys. Rev. A82, 052341 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´erard-Marchant, K. Sheppard,...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Polat, Y . F...

    2020

Pith tools

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