Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 65 references

The paper claims that continuous quantum measurement collapse can be written exactly as stochastic single- and double-bracket Hamiltonian dynamics, and equivalently as a gradient flow that minimizes the variance of the measured observable.

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

2026-08-03 15:51 UTC pith:VUZTRXGS

load-bearing objection Solid core theorems on stochastic Hamiltonian/double-bracket formulations of monitored dynamics, but the abstract oversells and the feedback stability analysis has a real gap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.15412 v2 pith:VUZTRXGS submitted 2025-12-17 quant-ph

Hamiltonian and double-bracket flow formulations of quantum measurements

Aar\'on Villanueva , Luis Pedro Garc\'ia-Pintos This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords continuous quantum measurementstochastic master equationdouble-bracket flowgradient flowunitary orbitwavefunction collapsequantum feedback controlground-state preparation
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 tries to dissolve the sharp line between unitary Hamiltonian evolution and quantum measurement collapse. It claims that for any pure state undergoing continuous monitoring, the stochastic measurement dynamics is exactly equivalent to a stochastic Hamiltonian evolution made of single- and double-bracket terms, and that this evolution is a Riemannian gradient flow on the state's unitary orbit. The drift of this flow minimizes the variance of the measured observable, so the long-time attractors are eigenstates of that observable, with the correct Born-rule statistics. If correct, this gives a unified mathematical picture in which measurement, Hamiltonian dynamics, and double-bracket flows are the same kind of process, and it offers a concrete design principle for feedback protocols that prepare and stabilize quantum states.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an explicit stochastic Hamiltonian representation of continuous quantum measurement. For a monitored pure state with arbitrary jump operator C, split into Hermitian part A=(C+C^†)/2 and anti-Hermitian part B=(C-C^†)/2, the Stratonovich dynamics is dρ = -i[H^SB, ρ] + [[H^DB, ρ], ρ], with H^SB = H0 dt - i(γ/2){A,B}dt + iB dy and H^DB = -γA²dt - (γ/2)[A,B]dt + A dy. The single-bracket term carries the coherent Hamiltonian and the anti-Hermitian back-action, while the double-bracket term encodes the measurement back-action and, in the pure-measurement case, is the negative gradient of the variance of A. In the long-time limit this gradient flow

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the purity identity dρ = [[dρ, ρ], ρ], which holds for any pure-state dynamics and reduces every purity-preserving infinitesimal increment to a single-bracket commutator and a double-bracket commutator. The bracket [·, ρ] generates tangent vectors on the unitary orbit of the state, and the double bracket [[·, ρ], ρ] is exactly the Riemannian gradient of a scalar potential on that orbit under the Hilbert-Schmidt metric. Theorem 1 supplies the explicit stochastic generators H^SB and H^DB; Proposition 1 turns any double-bracket stochastic equation into a gradient flow with potential F_t(σ)=Tr(Ȯ_t σ); Theorem 2 applies this to the monitored dynamics, making the varianc

Load-bearing premise

The monitored state must remain pure at every instant, because the identity dρ = [[dρ, ρ], ρ] and the resulting Hamiltonian and gradient-flow formulation fail for mixed states, as the paper itself acknowledges.

What would settle it

Take a continuous monitoring setup with detection efficiency below unity (or add an unobserved decoherence channel) so that the conditional state becomes mixed, and check whether its stochastic trajectory can still be written in the single/double-bracket Hamiltonian form of Eq. (10). The paper predicts it cannot, so observing a counterexample trajectory would falsify the claim that measurement dynamics is universally Hamiltonian.

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

If this is right

  • Continuous measurement collapse can be simulated as a stochastic unitary evolution, so the distinction between unitary dynamics and measurement is mathematically removable on the pure-state sector.
  • The long-time statistics of a monitored system follow from a gradient flow that minimizes the variance of the measured observable, with eigenstates of that observable as the only stable attractors.
  • A coherent feedback protocol that cancels the measurement noise converts the dynamics into a deterministic double-bracket flow that prepares the ground state of a target Hamiltonian, converging exponentially fast provided the initial state has nonzero ground-state overlap.
  • State-agnostic feedback, depending only on measurement outcomes and the target state, can stabilize arbitrary pure states in regions where a Lyapunov condition holds, including entanglement stabilization in imperfect setups.
  • Feedback-modified dynamics are themselves gradient flows with a tilted potential landscape, so the design of feedback protocols reduces to shaping the fixed points of a gradient flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the pure-state Hamiltonian representation is taken as a postulate rather than a derived theorem, it would amount to a 'measurement Hamiltonian postulate' that replaces the collapse postulate; the paper itself notes this would inherit the usual measurement problem of specifying when a measurement occurs.
  • The same double-bracket machinery that underlies imaginary-time evolution algorithms for ground-state preparation is here generated by real-time measurement dynamics, suggesting that measurement-based feedback could serve as a resource for quantum algorithms that do not require imaginary-time circuits.
  • Because the Hamiltonian formulation depends on purity, realistic monitoring with detection inefficiency, thermal noise, or extra decoherence channels falls outside the exact representation; an approximate or mixed-state extension would be needed to apply the framework to most laboratory experiments.
  • The variance-minimization view may generalize to engineered non-commuting pairs A and B, where the flow saturates a Robertson bound rather than fully localizing; the paper's harmonic-oscillator example suggests steering toward coherent states as a controllable endpoint.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a mathematical reformulation of continuous quantum measurement dynamics for pure states. Theorem 1 gives explicit Stratonovich stochastic Hamiltonian generators dH^SB_t and dH^DB_t such that the monitored dynamics equals a single/double-bracket quantum Liouville equation. Proposition 1 and Theorem 2 interpret these dynamics as gradient flows on the unitary orbit, with the pure-measurement drift descending a variance-related potential. The paper then uses the formalism to design feedback protocols: a measurement-canceling feedback yielding deterministic double-bracket flow (Eq. 19) for ground-state preparation (Theorem 3), and a state-agnostic feedback (Eq. 20) for stabilizing an arbitrary target state, illustrated on a single-qubit example. Appendices contain the derivations, including Itô-to-Stratonovich conversion and the algebraic identities.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper offers a useful unification: continuous measurement collapse is represented as stochastic Hamiltonian/double-bracket flow, with explicit formulas applicable to arbitrary non-Hermitian jump operators, and it connects measurement backaction to known double-bracket gradient-flow algorithms. The derivations are largely self-contained and independently checkable; the algebra behind Theorem 1 is correct, and the deterministic feedback-induced double-bracket flow for ground-state preparation is a clean and well-supported application. However, the advertised two-qubit entanglement-stabilization application is absent from the main text, and the linearized stability analysis for state-agnostic feedback omits a first-order drift from the measurement record, so the claimed stability regions in Sec. V B are not established. These issues are localized to the applications and do not invalidate Theorems 1–3, but they do require substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix G, Eq. (G6)] The linearized equation treats dy_t as a pure Wiener increment, but the measurement record (Eq. (4)) is dy_t = 2γ⟨A⟩_t dt + dW_t. Substituting this drift into the last term of (G6) adds a first-order-in-ε drift −4γ ε (⟨A⟩_q − ⟨A⟩_q⊥)⟨A⟩_q dt. The stability condition therefore becomes Σ_Z(⟨Z⟩_q−⟨Z⟩_q⊥) − 2⟨A⟩_q(⟨A⟩_q−⟨A⟩_q⊥) < 0, not simply Σ_Z(...)<0. For the single-qubit σ± example, this changes the boundary from Δγ cosθ > 0 to a materially different condition (including terms such as 2(γ_+ + γ_−) sin²θ cos²ϕ), and amplitude damping alone can stabilize upper-hemisphere states near the equator. Thus the stability regions claimed in Sec. V B and Eq. (G10) are not established.
  2. [Abstract vs. main text] The abstract states: 'We apply the latter for entanglement stabilization of a two-qubit system considering a setup with imperfect measurements and feedback delay.' The main text contains no two-qubit application and no treatment of imperfect measurement efficiency or feedback delay; Sec. V B and App. G treat only a single qubit with ideal efficiency and no delay. This advertised application is missing and must either be added or removed from the abstract.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section II] The Hamiltonian formulation is restricted to pure states, as stated just before Eq. (3), but the abstract presents the equivalence without this qualification. Please add an explicit pure-state qualifier to the abstract.
  2. [Theorem 3] The statement 'unique stable fixed point is the ground state' should be qualified to a nondegenerate ground state, or replaced by 'the ground-state eigenspace.' If the ground state of H_0 is degenerate, every state in the ground subspace is a fixed point of Eq. (19), as follows from Eq. (F1).
  3. [Section V B / Eq. (25)] The description of the second feedback as dH_fb2 = −dH^DB_t(ρ→Q) is confusing because dH^DB_t in Eq. (12) does not depend on ρ. The actual feedback Hamiltonian is given only later in Eq. (25) as dH^fb = −dH^SB − i C_Q(dH^DB). Please align the two presentations.
  4. [Eq. (18)] The statement that the variance 'tends to decrease' should be clarified: the drift of V is negative, but the diffusion term can locally increase V. The decrease is guaranteed only in expectation or in the long-time average.
  5. [Abstract / Section IV] For general B ≠ 0, the drift minimizes the potential V_t = Tr(∆A² σ) + (1/2)Tr([A,B]σ), not the variance alone. The abstract's phrase 'minimize the variance of the monitored observable' should be qualified.
  6. [General / Section I, Eq. (D11)] There are several typos: 'dobule-bracket' in Section I; Eq. (D11) contains a bracket mismatch in '−γ[A²,ρ_t],ρ_t]' (missing opening bracket); and the notation for the Stratonovich product is not consistently defined across the main text and appendices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 starts from the standard Itô SME (1) and the pure-state SSE (A1), converts to Stratonovich via (C3), and rearranges the Stratonovich SME (B7) into the single-/double-bracket Liouville form (10); the generator expressions (11)-(12) are algebraic outputs of this rearrangement, not fitted or assumed. App. D supplies the explicit reduction, and App. B checks the Hermitian limit against Ref. [14]. Prop. 1 and Thm. 2 use the standard Hilbert-Schmidt gradient identity ∇F(σ)=[[O,σ],σ] (E2), proven in App. E; the stochastic potentials are read off from the generators rather than imposed to enforce the dynamics. Thm. 3 is proved either from external Brockett/Helmke double-bracket-flow theory or from the independent population calculation (F1), and it is benchmarked against exact diagonalization in Fig. 4. The only self-citation, Ref. [14], is cited as an antecedent and comparison for the Hermitian special case, not as the proof of the non-Hermitian generalization, so it is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly limits its scope by the purity assumption ('We assume from now on that ρ_t describes a pure quantum state', Section II) and by the state-dependence of the stochastic propagator ('is not a valid unitary operator for arbitrary states', Section III/App. D), so the acknowledged limitations do not hide a definitional equivalence. The App. G stability issue is a possible correctness concern in a feedback application, not a circular reduction. No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation adds no free physical parameters: the SME input (C, γ), the pure-state condition, and standard stochastic/geometric mathematics produce the generators (11)-(12) and the gradient-flow theorems. Free parameters appear only in the numerical demonstrations (γ values, the +18 spectral offset, initial states, discretization). The stochastic Hamiltonian processes dH^SB_t and dH^DB_t are mathematical objects composed of existing quantities (C, ρ_t, dy_t); the 'measurement Hamiltonian postulate' is an interpretive re-labeling of (10)-(12), not a new physical entity. The framework therefore contributes structure, not new fitting degrees of freedom.

free parameters (4)
  • γ (monitoring/damping rate) = γ = 0.4 (Fig. 4); γ₋ = 1, γ₊ = 4 (Fig. 5)
    Physical measurement rate; hand-chosen simulation parameter. Not fitted to data; sets convergence speed in the demonstrations, not the derived results.
  • spectral offset added to H_0 in Fig. 4 = +18 for all n
    Disclosed hand-chosen constant 'to ensure a positive spectrum' (Fig. 4 caption). It enlarges the gaps of H_0², accelerating the demonstrated exponential convergence; the fixed point is unchanged.
  • initial state for Heisenberg numerics = 2^(−n/4)(|10⟩−|01⟩)^{⊗n/2}
    Hand-picked physically motivated tensor product state; guarantees non-zero ground-state overlap required by Thm 3's convergence condition.
  • trajectory count and time stepping = 50 trajectories, T=8, 800 steps (Fig. 5); T=2, 300 steps (Fig. 4)
    Discretization/trajectory-count choices; reported but no integration scheme or seed given.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The SME (1) with single Lindblad channel and rate γ, together with the measurement record (4), correctly describes continuously monitored quantum systems.
    Starting point of the derivation (Section II); standard continuous-measurement theory, experimentally supported (Refs [6-8]). The paper assumes it and derives everything from it.
  • domain assumption State purity ρ_t = ψ_tψ_t† is preserved by the monitored dynamics.
    'We assume from now on that ρ_t describes a pure quantum state' (Section II); needed for Eq. (6) and the Hamiltonian formulation. Explicitly fails for mixed states.
  • standard math Itô-Stratonovich conversion formula (C3) with dW_t² = γdt and midpoint evaluation.
    Appendix C; standard stochastic calculus (Refs [13,17]).
  • standard math Pure-state algebraic identities: [[Ω,ρ],ρ] = {Ω,ρ} − 2⟨Ω⟩ρ (D3) and C_ρ^{2k+1} = C_ρ (Eqs. 7-8).
    Derived in-text from ρ² = ρ; used to reduce general multi-bracket expansions to single+double bracket form.
  • standard math Riemannian gradient on the unitary orbit satisfies ∇Tr(Oσ) = [[O,σ],σ] under the Hilbert-Schmidt metric.
    Proven in App. E via the action-map compatibility condition; classical result (Refs [22,25,62]). Load-bearing for Thm 2 and Prop. 1.
  • standard math Brockett/Helmke theorem: dX/dt = [[N,X],X] converges to the diagonal matrix with eigenvalues sorted as N's, exponentially for non-degenerate N.
    External theorem (Refs [15,22]) invoked for Theorem 3 (ground-state preparation).
  • domain assumption Asymptotic collapse of continuously monitored dynamics to eigenstates with Born-rule probabilities.
    Used in Section IV to interpret the gradient-flow endpoints; external results (Refs [39-43]). Not re-derived except via the Lyapunov argument.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22540 in / 35838 out tokens · 318199 ms · 2026-08-03T15:51:52.308215+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce a framework that unifies quantum measurement dynamics, Hamiltonian dynamics, and double-bracket gradient flows. We do so by providing explicit expressions for stochastic Hamiltonians that produce state dynamics identical to those that happen during continuous quantum measurements. When such dynamical processes are integrated over sufficiently long time intervals, they yield the same results and statistics as during wavefunction collapse. That is, wavefunction collapse can be interpreted as coarse-grained (stochastic) Hamiltonian dynamics. Alternatively, wavefunction collapse can be interpreted as double-bracket gradient flows determined by derivatives of (stochastic) potentials defined in terms of observables with direct physical interpretations. The gradient flows minimize the variance of the monitored observable. Our derivations hold for general monitoring described by non-Hermitian jump processes. We show that such reinterpretations of measurement dynamics facilitate the design of feedback processes. In particular, we introduce feedback processes that yield deterministic double-bracket flow equations that prepare ground states of a target Hamiltonian, and state-agnostic feedback processes for state preparation. We apply the latter for entanglement stabilization of a two-qubit system considering a setup with imperfect measurements and feedback delay. We conclude by re-interpreting feedback processes as gradient flows with tilted fixed points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15412 by Aar\'on Villanueva, Luis Pedro Garc\'ia-Pintos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of the Hamiltonian evolution given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the gradient flow for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Energy errors for the 1-D Heisenberg model. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measurement-based feedback state preparation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The derivative of the action map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.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

65 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to quan- tum mechanics(Cambridge university press, 2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Barchielli and M

    A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti,Quantum Trajectories and Measurements in Continuous Time: The Diffusive Case, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 782 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level sys- tems, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  6. [6]

    K. W. Murch, K. L. Moore, S. Gupta, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Observation of quantum-measurement backaction with an ultracold atomic gas, Nat. Phys.4, 561 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    K. W. Murch, S. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, Ob- serving single quantum trajectories of a superconducting quantum bit, Nature502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Campagne-Ibarcq, P

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Six, L. Bretheau, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, Observing quantum state diffusion by heterodyne detection of fluo- rescence, Phys. Rev. X6, 011002 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Carlini, A

    A. Carlini, A. Hosoya, T. Koike, and Y. Okudaira, Time- optimal quantum evolution, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 060503 (2006)

    2006

  10. [10]

    Hu and A

    L. Hu and A. N. Jordan, Quantum state driving along arbitrary trajectories, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033045 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Alipour, A

    S. Alipour, A. Chenu, A. T. Rezakhani, and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity in driven open quan- tum systems: Balanced gain and loss and non-markovian evolution, Quantum4, 336 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Jacobs,Stochastic Processes for Physicists: Under- standing Noisy Systems(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    K. Jacobs,Stochastic Processes for Physicists: Under- standing Noisy Systems(Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    P. E. Kloeden, E. Platen, and H. Schurz,Numerical so- lution of SDE through computer experiments(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, Y.-K. Liu, and A. Gorshkov, Reshaping the Quantum Arrow of Time (2025), arXiv:2503.13615 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    R. W. Brockett, Dynamical systems that sort lists, diago- nalize matrices, and solve linear programming problems, Linear Algebra Appl.146, 79 (1991)

    1991

  16. [16]

    Teufel,Adiabatic Perturbation Theory in Quantum Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

    S. Teufel,Adiabatic Perturbation Theory in Quantum Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1821 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003)

    2003

  17. [17]

    Øksendal, Stochastic differential equations, inStochas- tic differential equations: an introduction with applica- tions(Springer, 2003) pp

    B. Øksendal, Stochastic differential equations, inStochas- tic differential equations: an introduction with applica- tions(Springer, 2003) pp. 38–50

    2003

  18. [18]

    A. M. Bloch, R. W. Brockett, and T. S. Ratiu, Com- pletely integrable gradient flows, Commun. Math. Phys. 147, 57 (1992)

    1992

  19. [19]

    A. W. Knapp,Lie Groups beyond an Introduction, Progress in Mathematics No. 140 (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1996)

    1996

  20. [20]

    Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, Second Edition(Taylor &amp; Francis, 2003)

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, Second Edition(Taylor &amp; Francis, 2003)

    2003

  21. [21]

    Rossmann,Lie Groups: An Introduction Through Linear Groups(Oxford University Press, 2006)

    W. Rossmann,Lie Groups: An Introduction Through Linear Groups(Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  22. [22]

    Helmke and J

    U. Helmke and J. B. Moore,Optimization and Dynamical Systems(Springer, 1994)

    1994

  23. [23]

    Bloch,Hamiltonian and Gradient Flows, Algorithms and Control(American Mathematical Soc., 1994)

    A. Bloch,Hamiltonian and Gradient Flows, Algorithms and Control(American Mathematical Soc., 1994)

    1994

  24. [24]

    Dirr and U

    G. Dirr and U. Helmke, Lie theory for quantum control, GAMM-Mitteilungen31, 59 (2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, S

    T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, S. J. Glaser, G. Dirr, and U. Helmke, Gradient flows for optimization in quantum information and quantum dynamics: Foundations and applications, Rev. Math. Phys.22, 597 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Wiersema and N

    R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, Optimizing quantum cir- cuits with Riemannian gradient flow, Phys. Rev. A107, 062421 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Wiersema, D

    R. Wiersema, D. Lewis, D. Wierichs, J. Carrasquilla, and N. Killoran, Here comes the SU(N): Multivariate quan- tum gates and gradients, Quantum8, 1275 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Xiaoyue, M

    L. Xiaoyue, M. Robbiati, A. Pasquale, E. Pedicillo, A. Wright, S. Carrazza, and M. Gluza, Strategies for 11 optimizing double-bracket quantum algorithms (2024), arXiv:2408.07431 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Gluza, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for diag- onalization, Quantum8, 1316 (2024), arXiv:2206.11772 [quant-ph]

    M. Gluza, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for diag- onalization, Quantum8, 1316 (2024), arXiv:2206.11772 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Gluza, J

    M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, R. Zander, R. Seidel, Y. Suzuki, Z. Holmes, and N. H. Y. Ng, Double-bracket quantum algorithms for quantum imaginary-time evolu- tion (2025), arXiv:2412.04554 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Tam, Gradient flows and double bracket equations, Differential geometry and its Applications20, 209 (2004)

    T.-Y. Tam, Gradient flows and double bracket equations, Differential geometry and its Applications20, 209 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, Equating quantum imaginary time evolution, Riemannian gradi- ent flows, and stochastic implementations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06123 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06123 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06123 2025

  33. [33]

    Goldberg and J

    A. Goldberg and J. L. Schwartz, Integration of the schr¨ odinger equation in imaginary time, J. Comput. Phys.1, 433 (1967)

    1967

  34. [34]

    H. P. Robertson, The Uncertainty Principle, Physical Re- view34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  35. [35]

    S. L. Adler, D. C. Brody, T. A. Brun, and L. P. Hughston, Martingale models for quantum state reduction, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.34, 8795 (2001)

    2001

  36. [36]

    D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Efficient simulation of quantum state reduction, J. Math. Phys.43, 5254 (2002)

    2002

  37. [37]

    D. C. Brody and L. P. Hughston, Quantum noise and stochastic reduction, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.39, 833 (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    S. L. Adler and A. Bassi, Collapse models with non-white noises, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40, 15083 (2007)

    2007

  39. [39]

    V. P. Belavkin, A new wave equation for a continu- ous nondemolition measurement, Phys. Lett. A140, 355 (1989)

    1989

  40. [40]

    Barchielli and V

    A. Barchielli and V. P. Belavkin, Measurements continu- ous in time and a posteriori states in quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.24, 1495 (1991), preprint 1990

    1991

  41. [41]

    Jacobs and D

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

    2006

  42. [42]

    Bauer, T

    M. Bauer, T. Benoist, and D. Bernard, Repeated quan- tum non-demolition measurements: Convergence and continuous-time limit, Annales Henri Poincar´ e14, 639 (2013), arXiv:1206.6045 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Schmolke, Asymptotic Fate of Continuously Mon- itored Quantum Systems (2025), arXiv:2506.10873 [quant-ph]

    F. Schmolke, Asymptotic Fate of Continuously Mon- itored Quantum Systems (2025), arXiv:2506.10873 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Karmakar, P

    T. Karmakar, P. Lewalle, Y. Zhang, and K. B. Wha- ley, Noise-Canceling Quantum Feedback: Non-Hermitian Dynamics with Applications to State Preparation and Magic State Distillation (2025), arXiv:2507.05611 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    E. H. Lieb and D. C. Mattis, Ordering energy levels of in- teracting spin systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 749 (1962)

    1962

  46. [46]

    Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  47. [47]

    A. C. Doherty and K. Jacobs, Feedback-control of quan- tum systems using continuous state-estimation, Phys. Rev. A60, 2700 (1999)

    1999

  48. [48]

    Ruskov and A

    R. Ruskov and A. N. Korotkov, Quantum feedback con- trol of a solid-state qubit, Phys. Rev. B66, 041401 (2002)

    2002

  49. [49]

    Combes, H

    J. Combes, H. M. Wiseman, and K. Jacobs, Rapid mea- surement of quantum systems using feedback control, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 160503 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    Shankar, M

    S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, Z. Leghtas, K. Sliwa, A. Narla, U. Vool, S. M. Girvin, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Autonomously stabilized entanglement between two superconducting quantum bits, Nature504, 419 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Greenfield, L

    S. Greenfield, L. Martin, F. Motzoi, K. B. Whaley, J. Dressel, and E. M. Levenson-Falk, Stabilizing two- qubit entanglement with dynamically decoupled active feedback, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024022 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Sayrin, I

    C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune,et al., Real-time quantum feed- back prepares and stabilizes photon number states, Na- ture477, 73 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    Ticozzi and L

    F. Ticozzi and L. Viola, Analysis and synthesis of attrac- tive quantum markovian dynamics, Automatica45, 2002 (2009)

    2002

  54. [54]

    Y. Pan, V. Ugrinovskii, and M. R. James, Ground-state stabilization of quantum finite-level systems by dissipa- tion, Automatica65, 147 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Z. Li, T. Roy, Y. Lu, E. Kapit, and D. I. Schuster, Autonomous stabilization with programmable stabilized state, Nat. Commun.15, 6978 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    J. Guo, O. Hart, C.-F. Chen, A. J. Friedman, and A. Lu- cas, Designing open quantum systems with known steady states: Davies generators and beyond, Quantum9, 1612 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Aydo˘ gan, A

    K. Aydo˘ gan, A. W. Schlimgen, and K. Head-Marsden, Stabilizing steady-state properties of open quantum sys- tems with parameter engineering, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023057 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    K. R. Swain, R. K. Malla, and A. del Campo, Noise- assisted feedback control of open quantum systems for ground state properties (2025), arXiv:2510.18984 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Wang and H

    J. Wang and H. M. Wiseman, Feedback-stabilization of an arbitrary pure state of a two-level atom, Phys. Rev. A64, 063810 (2001)

    2001

  60. [60]

    Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

    J. Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

    1990

  61. [61]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement prob- lem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  62. [62]

    R. W. Brockett, Differential geometry and the design of gradient algorithms. differential geometry, Partial Differ- ential Equations on Manifolds , 69 (1993). 12 Appendix A: Monitored dynamics in the Itˆ o picture We provide a self-contained derivation of the SME (3) when the density operator corresponds to pure states. The non-linear stochastic Schr¨ odi...

    1993

  63. [63]

    Mathematical background It is well known that double-bracket flows can be interpreted as Riemannian gradient flows in the unitary orbit [22, 25, 62]. In order to prove Theorem 2 in the main text, we provide here a simplified derivation based on [25], invoking minimal concepts from differential geometry [20] and Lie group theory [19, 21]. The Lie groupu(N)...

  64. [64]

    Suppose a general double-bracket dynamics of the form dρt =C 2 ρ(dOt) = [[dOt, ρt], ρt],(E3) whereC ρ is the commutator with the state, anddO t is some Hermitian generator process

    Gradient flow formulations The relation between double-brackets and gradient flows derived in the previous section implies the following. Suppose a general double-bracket dynamics of the form dρt =C 2 ρ(dOt) = [[dOt, ρt], ρt],(E3) whereC ρ is the commutator with the state, anddO t is some Hermitian generator process. We write its gradient flow formulation...

  65. [65]

    The evolution equation of the varianceV(t) We derive Eq. (18). ConsiderV(t) = Tr ∆A2 t ρt as defined in the text and compute dV(t) = Tr d∆A2 t ρt + ∆A2 t dρt = Tr ∆A2 t dρt ,(E8) where we used that Tr d∆A2 t ρt = 0. The incrementdρ t is a tangent vector on the state’s orbit. Then, we can equivalently write the r.h.s. of (E8) as the differential map ofV t(...