Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 130 references

Measuring Fluorescence to Track a Quantum Emitter's State: A Theory Review

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every fluorescence monitoring scheme follows from one short-time quantum state update.

desk verdict A careful, transparent tutorial review that unifies fluorescence monitoring through a single Kraus operator; no new results, but the pedagogy is sound and it deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04720 v3 pith:CDXVYDIQ submitted 2019-08-13 quant-ph

Philippe Lewalle , Sreenath K. Manikandan , Cyril Elouard , Andrew N. Jordan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumtrajectoriescontinuousmeasurementspontaneousemissionqubitfluorescenceKrausoperatorsstochasticmasterequationhomodynedetectionoptimalpaths
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

This review paper claims that one short-time object—the family of Kraus operators obtained by projecting the qubit–field state after an infinitesimal decay interval onto any field measurement basis—is enough to describe every standard way of continuously tracking a decaying qubit by its fluorescence. The authors show that the same operator produces photodetection jump trajectories, heterodyne and homodyne diffusive trajectories, and the corresponding stochastic master equations, provided the readout noise is treated with the correct stochastic calculus. The claim matters because it turns a collection of apparently separate monitoring schemes into choices of projection basis on one entangled state, which then feeds a common treatment of measurement inefficiency, time reversal, and most-likely trajectories. If the claim is right, introductory quantum measurement theory can be taught and extended from a single derivation rather than from separate models for each detector.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kraus operator of Eq. (15), $\hat M_r = \langle \psi_r | \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{1-\epsilon} & 0 \\ \sqrt{\epsilon}\, \hat a^\dagger & 1 \end{pmatrix} |0\rangle$, formed by taking the short-time entangled qubit–field state and projecting its field part onto the measured outcome $|\psi_r\rangle$. It carries the whole argument because it stores both possible branches in one matrix: the no-emission branch damps the excited state by $\sqrt{1-\epsilon}$, and the emission branch moves population to the ground state and creates a photon. Choosing $|\psi_r\rangle$ as a Fock state yields photodetection jumps, as a coherent state yields heterodyne diffusion, and as a quadrature eigenstate yields homodyne diffusion; tracing out lost modes adds inefficiency, and the outcome-probability logarithm defines the action whose extremization produces optimal paths.

What would settle it

Take the detector integration time $dt$ comparable to the decay time $T_1$, or drive the qubit hard enough that its emission spectrum splits into resolved sidebands; in either regime the update built from Eq. (15)—which assumes, respectively, at most one photon per step and a weak drive—will disagree with a full master-equation calculation, exposing the boundary of the unified description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a qubit state $\zeta|e\rangle + \varphi|g\rangle$ and a field mode initially in vacuum, the paper writes the joint state after one short interval $dt$ as $\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\,\zeta|e,0\rangle + \varphi|g,0\rangle + \sqrt{\epsilon}\,\zeta|g,1\rangle$ with $\epsilon = \gamma dt$. It then obtains the qubit Kraus operator $\hat M_r = \langle \psi_r | \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{1-\epsilon} & 0 \\ \sqrt{\epsilon}\,\hat a^\dagger & 1\end{pmatrix} |0\rangle$ by projecting the field factor onto an outcome state $|\psi_r\rangle$. The central claim is that every continuous monitoring scenario treated in the paper—photodetection, heterodyne, homodyne, imperfect detection, time-reversed records, and optimal paths—follows from this single operator by choosing the projection basis appropriate to the detector. The paper verifies the claim by expanding the update to $O(dt)$ and recovering the stochastic master equation for each scheme, and by reproducing the measured trajectory ellipses for inefficient homodyne detection.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on a single presumption: in each tiny time step the emitted field starts in vacuum, at most one photon is emitted, the environment has no memory, and any drive is weak enough not to reshape the emission spectrum; if any of these fails, updates built from Eq. (15) no longer describe the measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photodetection, heterodyne, and homodyne monitoring can be taught as one Bayesian update with different field projections rather than as separate formalisms.
  • Every Kraus-derived equation of motion agrees with the stochastic master equation after the Itô-to-Stratonovich conversion, so simulations can use the positive Kraus map while analyses use the SME language.
  • Imperfect detection is captured by a beam-splitter loss channel inside the same Kraus operator, giving mixed-state trajectories confined to the ellipses observed in homodyne experiments.
  • The forward homodyne dynamics are time-reversal invariant, so individual trajectories can appear to uncollapse or re-excite; the arrow of time shows up only in the relative probabilities of forward and backward records.
  • Most-likely paths between boundary states obey Hamiltonian equations from a stochastic action, and the manifold of such paths coincides with the analytic ellipse constraint for inefficient homodyne monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension: the same recipe—prescribe a short-time system–field state, then project onto any field POVM—should generate valid unravelings for detectors not treated here, such as photon-number-resolving or squeezed-readout schemes, provided the POVM completeness condition still holds.
  • As an extension: because the framework is built from a single vacuum, Markovian field mode, replacing that mode with a multi-mode or time-delayed field is a natural next step toward monitoring non-Markovian emission; the present paper stays within the single-mode assumption.
  • As an extension: the optimal-path Hamiltonian for homodyne fluorescence gives a direct route to fluctuation theorems and thermodynamic arrow-of-time statements for this measurement, a link the paper mentions but does not derive.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an introductory review of continuous monitoring of a qubit through its spontaneous emission. The authors introduce a short-time Kraus operator constructed from the entangled qubit–field state after a decay interval, and use it to derive photodetection jumps, heterodyne and homodyne diffusion, the corresponding stochastic master equations, inefficient-measurement updates, and time-reversal and optimal-path extensions. The central claim is that Eq. (15) provides a unified starting point for these standard unravelings, with explicit POVM normalizations and equivalence checks throughout. The review is explicitly scoped to the Markovian, weak-drive, ideal-detector regime, with limitations stated at the points where they enter.

Significance. If the derivations are taken as a pedagogical consolidation, the paper succeeds: the Kraus-to-SME equivalence is shown in text rather than assumed, the Stratonovich/Itô conversion is made explicit, and the simulations reproduce known analytic results such as the homodyne ellipse law. The explicit normalization checks and the reproducible numerical procedures are concrete strengths. The advanced sections are clearly labeled as introductions to the authors' prior work, and the open limitation about formal convergence in Appendix B is acknowledged. The finite-bandwidth/non-Markovian concern does not land as a defect because the paper explicitly restricts itself to the ideal Markovian limit.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (31b)] The noise labels in the heterodyne SME y-equation appear interchanged: the term (1+z−y²) should multiply ξ_P and the term −xy should multiply ξ_X, i.e. ẏ = −(γ/2)y + √(γ/2)[(1+z−y²)ξ_P − xy ξ_X]. This is needed to match the Kraus-derived Eq. (42b) and the X↔P symmetry of Eqs. (31a) and (31c).
  2. [Sec. VI B 1, Eq. (65)] The boundary term after integration by parts should be −p·δq|₀ᵀ (or equivalently p·δq|ᵀ₀ with the opposite convention), not +p·δq|₀ᵀ. The fixed-endpoint Hamilton equations are unaffected, but the sign as printed is inconsistent.
  3. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (39)] The notation “M̂α e^{|r|²dt/4}” is easy to misread; it should be written as e^{|r|²dt/4} M̂α to indicate that the Gaussian prefactor is being stripped from the operator.
  4. [Throughout] There are several small typos: “Weiner” should be “Wiener” (Sec. III C), “recieving” should be “receiving” (Sec. V B), “discreet” should be “discrete” (Appendix B), “analoguous” should be “analogous” (Sec. I), and “subsituting” should be “substituting” (Sec. VI B 2).
  5. [Sec. IV B] The claim that the Kraus-derived equations are “identical to the Stratonovich equations” would be easier to verify if the Stratonovich form were displayed explicitly for at least the heterodyne case; currently the reader must perform the conversion by hand.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Kraus-operator framework is derived in-text, and advanced-section self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is conditional and self-contained. Equation (15) is constructed in Sec. III A from the joint state (13) and the Bayesian update rule (11), with the photodetection POVMs (16)-(17), heterodyne operators (34)-(37), homodyne operators (47)-(49), and inefficiency operators (56)-(59) all derived explicitly in the text. The equivalence to the stochastic master equation is shown by direct O(dt) expansion of the Kraus update in Eqs. (40)-(41) and by the Stratonovich conversion rule (29), rather than imported from prior work as an unverified premise. Self-citations to Refs. [66], [49], and [32] attribute or motivate methods, but the load-bearing equations are re-derived in the manuscript; no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is invoked to force the framework. Appendix B explicitly disclaims a formal convergence proof for the numerical MLP extraction, and the agreement in Fig. 8 is an internal consistency check between simulations and optimal-path theory sharing the same F and G dynamics, not an independent empirical prediction. The stated limitations (Markovian reservoir, weak drive, ideal detection bandwidth, epsilon = gamma dt << 1) are declared by the authors in Secs. II B and III A, and while they bound the applicability of the review, they do not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on the standard quantum measurement postulates, the Markovian single-channel decay model, the weak-measurement condition, ideal detector models, and the saddle-point treatment of the trajectory path integral. No free parameters are fitted in the paper; the efficiency eta is an experimental input used in the simulations, not a parameter introduced to force agreement. No new physical entities are introduced; the conjugate momenta in the optimal-path formalism are mathematical auxiliary variables.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard quantum measurement postulates: Born rule and Kraus-operator state update.
    The framework starts from Eq. (11), the Kraus update rule, which is taken as given from Refs. [12, 55, 57].
  • domain assumption Markovian single-channel spontaneous emission with Lindblad operator L = sqrt(gamma) sigma_minus.
    Sec. II A derives Weisskopf-Wigner decay using a flat reservoir density of states; Sec. II B writes the Lindblad equation (8) with a single channel. The review states this requires weak drive and no nearby resonances (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption Weak-measurement condition dt << T1, equivalently epsilon = gamma dt << 1.
    Stated in Sec. III A: 'We will always assume that the measurement time ... is much faster than the characteristic decay time of the qubit, i.e. dt << T1, or epsilon << 1.' This justifies expanding Kraus operators to O(dt) and the diffusive trajectory picture.
  • domain assumption Ideal detector models: coherent-state projection for heterodyne, quadrature-eigenstate projection for homodyne.
    Used in Eqs. (34) and (47) to derive the heterodyne and homodyne Kraus operators. These projections idealize quantum-limited amplifiers or squeezed local oscillators; they are standard in quantum optics but not derived from a detector Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Saddle-point evaluation of the CDJ path integral yields most-likely optimal paths.
    Sec. VI B 1 expresses trajectory probability as a path integral and extremizes the action via Hamilton's equations (66). This is the standard CDJ method of Ref. [32]; the review notes in Appendix B that convergence of the numerical MLP extraction lacks a formal proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring Fluorescence to Track a Quantum Emitter's State: A Theory Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDXVYDIQ

@misc{pith2026190804720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring Fluorescence to Track a Quantum Emitter's State: A Theory Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDXVYDIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04720}
}
read the original abstract

We review the continuous monitoring of a qubit through its spontaneous emission, at an introductory level. Contemporary experiments have been able to collect the fluorescence of an artificial atom in a cavity and transmission line, and then make measurements of that emission to obtain diffusive quantum trajectories in the qubit's state. We give a straightforward theoretical overview of such scenarios, using a framework based on Kraus operators derived from a Bayesian update concept; we apply this flexible framework across common types of measurements including photodetection, homodyne, and heterodyne monitoring, and illustrate its equivalence to the stochastic master equation formalism throughout. Special emphasis is given to homodyne (phase-sensitive) monitoring of fluorescence. The examples we develop are used to illustrate basic methods in quantum trajectories, but also to introduce some more advanced topics of contemporary interest, including the arrow of time in quantum measurement, and trajectories following optimal measurement records derived from a variational principle. The derivations we perform lead directly from the development of a simple model to an understanding of recent experimental results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. We show schematics representing the possible ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We show the Bloch sphere (a), with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. We plot the evolution of the qubit state under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. We illustrate some of the concepts implicit in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. We show simulations of the decay from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , along with the time–derivative of the stochastic action S which is extremized by the OP dynamics (ef￾fectively, S˙ gives an approximate representation of the 9 Note that we have derived both F and G using regular calcu￾lus, and are thereby effectively using the Strat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. We show the evolution of the qubit state from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. We compare ideal (pure–state) simulations against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    stochastic action

    Derivation of Optimal Paths OPs can be understood as the path extremizing the probability to get from one given quantum stateqi to an- other qf in a particular time interval, under the dynam- ics due to backaction from the continuous weak quantum measurement. The vector q parameterizes the quantum state, and here denotes coordinates on the Bloch sphere. T...

  2. [2]

    stochastic energy

    Optimal Paths for Homodyne Fluorescence Trajectories Notice that the system of equations (54) can be simpli- fied straightforwardly; ˙y = 0 ify = 0 andθ = 0, and then all the dynamics are in the xz–plane of the Bloch sphere. 8 The LM in question has primarily been used in the context of multipath dynamics [47, 50, 70]; there the main concern is whether the...

  3. [3]

    experimental MLP

    We begin by imposing the final boundary condi- tion, i.e. we post–select on the desired ρT , at a later time T . This means that we must pick a dis- tance measure D(ρ1,ρ 2) between quantum states (e.g. fidelity, Bures distance, or similar), and keep 22 (a) ϑ –|e⟩ –|g⟩ (b) ϑ –|e⟩ –|g⟩ –|g⟩ FIG. 8. We compare ideal (pure–state) simulations against OPs generat...

  4. [4]

    densest cluster

    A simple intuition about the meaning of the MLP is that it should follow a densest cluster of trajectories in{ρ(t)}ps; in order to approximate this concept of a “densest cluster” numerically, we must rank each SQT in{ρ(t)}ps according to its distance to all other SQTs in {ρ(t)}ps. It is useful to construct a matrix of elements Dnm, wheren andm are indices...

  5. [5]

    experimental MLP

    The final step in the procedure is a simple average; we take the the closest–clustered 5%-10% of trajec- tories in{ρ(t)}ps, (those with the smallest 5%-10% of ¯Dn), and average them. The idea is that this ap- proximates the smooth curve following the densest cluster of SQTs in {ρ(t)}ps. We apply this procedure, and compare with the analytic solutions to (7...

  6. [6]

    Strahlungs-Emission und Absorp- tion nach der Quantentheorie,

    Albert Einstein, “Strahlungs-Emission und Absorp- tion nach der Quantentheorie,” Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft 18 (1916)

    1916

  7. [7]

    The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation,

    Paul A. M. Dirac, “The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 114 (1927)

    1927

  8. [8]

    Berechnung der nat¨ urlichen linienbreite auf grund der diracschen licht- theorie,

    V. Weisskopf and E. Wigner, “Berechnung der nat¨ urlichen linienbreite auf grund der diracschen licht- theorie,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik63, 54–73 (1930)

    1930

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Power spectrum of light scattered by two-level systems,

    B. R. Mollow, “Power spectrum of light scattered by two-level systems,” Phys. Rev. 188, 1969–1975 (1969)

    1969

  2. [10]

    Radiation reaction and radiative frequency shifts,

    Jay R. Ackerhalt, Peter L. Knight, and Joseph H. Eberly, “Radiation reaction and radiative frequency shifts,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 456–460 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    Theory of resonance flu- orescence,

    H. J. Kimble and L. Mandel, “Theory of resonance flu- orescence,” Phys. Rev. A 13, 2123–2144 (1976)

    1976

  4. [12]

    Why spontaneous emission?

    P. W. Milonni, “Why spontaneous emission?” American Journal of Physics 52, 340–343 (1984)

    1984

  5. [13]

    Cavity quantum electrodynamics,

    Serge Haroche and Daniel Kleppner, “Cavity quantum electrodynamics,” Physics Today 42, 24 (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    H. J. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quan- tum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Op- tics (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    I. C. Percival, Quantum State Diffusion (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    1998

  9. [17]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measure- ment and control (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Barchielli and M

    A. Barchielli and M. Gregoratti, Quantum trajectories and measurements in continuous time (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

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

    2014

  12. [20]

    Quantum measurements and stochastic pro- cesses,

    N. Gisin, “Quantum measurements and stochastic pro- cesses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1657–1660 (1984)

    1984

  13. [21]

    Measurement theory and stochas- tic differential equations in quantum mechanics,

    Alberto Barchielli, “Measurement theory and stochas- tic differential equations in quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev. A 34, 1642–1649 (1986)

    1986

  14. [22]

    Quantum- mechanical model for continuous position measure- ments,

    Carlton M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, “Quantum- mechanical model for continuous position measure- ments,” Phys. Rev. A 36, 5543–5555 (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    Continuous quantum measurement and Itˆ o formalism,

    L. Di´ osi, “Continuous quantum measurement and Itˆ o formalism,” Physics Letters A 129, 419 – 423 (1988)

    1988

  16. [24]

    Quantum diffusions, quan- tum dissipation and spin relaxation,

    N. Gisin and M. B. Cibils, “Quantum diffusions, quan- tum dissipation and spin relaxation,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 25, 5165–5176 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    The quantum-state diffu- sion model applied to open systems,

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, “The quantum-state diffu- sion model applied to open systems,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 25, 5677–5691 (1992)

    1992

  18. [26]

    Quantum theory of optical feedback via homodyne detection,

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, “Quantum theory of optical feedback via homodyne detection,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 548–551 (1993)

    1993

  19. [27]

    Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements,

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, “Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 47, 642–662 (1993)

    1993

  20. [28]

    Interpretation of quantum jump and diffusion processes illustrated on the bloch sphere,

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, “Interpretation of quantum jump and diffusion processes illustrated on the bloch sphere,” Phys. Rev. A 47, 1652–1666 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory,

    H. M. Wiseman, “Quantum trajectories and quantum measurement theory,” Quantum and Semiclassical Op- tics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B 8, 205–222 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    A simple model of quantum trajecto- ries,

    Todd A. Brun, “A simple model of quantum trajecto- ries,” American Journal of Physics 70, 719 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Continuous mea- surement of canonical observables and limit stochas- tic Schr¨ odinger equations,

    John Gough and Andrei Sobolev, “Continuous mea- surement of canonical observables and limit stochas- tic Schr¨ odinger equations,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 032107 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    A straightforward in- troduction to continuous quantum measurement,

    Kurt Jacobs and Daniel A. Steck, “A straightforward in- troduction to continuous quantum measurement,” Con- temporary Physics 47, 279–303 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Introduction to quan- tum noise, measurement, and amplification,

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, Florian Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Introduction to quan- tum noise, measurement, and amplification,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155–1208 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Observing differ- ent quantum trajectories in cavity QED,

    M. F. Santos and A. R. R. Carvalho, “Observing differ- ent quantum trajectories in cavity QED,” EPL (Euro- physics Letters) 94, 64003 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Quantum filtering for systems driven by fields in single-photon states or superposition of coherent states,

    John E. Gough, Matthew R. James, Hendra I. Nurdin, and Joshua Combes, “Quantum filtering for systems driven by fields in single-photon states or superposition of coherent states,” Phys. Rev. A 86, 043819 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Quantum physics: Watching the wavefunction collapse,

    Andrew N. Jordan, “Quantum physics: Watching the wavefunction collapse,” Nature 502, 177–178 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Action principle for continuous quantum measurement,

    A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, and A. N. Jordan, “Action principle for continuous quantum measurement,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 042110 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Stochastic excita- tion during the decay of a two-level emitter subject to homodyne and heterodyne detection,

    Anders Bolund and Klaus Mølmer, “Stochastic excita- tion during the decay of a two-level emitter subject to homodyne and heterodyne detection,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 023827 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Stochastic 24 path-integral formalism for continuous quantum mea- surement,

    Areeya Chantasri and Andrew N. Jordan, “Stochastic 24 path-integral formalism for continuous quantum mea- surement,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 032125 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Quantum Bayesian approach to circuit QED measurement with moderate band- width,

    Alexander N. Korotkov, “Quantum Bayesian approach to circuit QED measurement with moderate band- width,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 042326 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Qubit models of weak continuous measurements: Markovian conditional and open-system dynamics,

    Jonathan A. Gross, Carlton M. Caves, Gerard J. Mil- burn, and Joshua Combes, “Qubit models of weak continuous measurements: Markovian conditional and open-system dynamics,” Quantum Science and Technol- ogy 3, 024005 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    An introduction to quantum filtering,

    John E. Gough, “An introduction to quantum filtering,” arXiv:1804.09086 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The Gisin-Percival stochastic Schr¨ odinger equation from standard quantum filtering theory,

    John E. Gough, “The Gisin-Percival stochastic Schr¨ odinger equation from standard quantum filtering theory,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 59, 043509 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    How to estimate past measurement interventions on a quantum system undergoing contin- uous monitoring,

    John E. Gough, “How to estimate past measurement interventions on a quantum system undergoing contin- uous monitoring,” arXiv:1904.06364 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The collapse before a quantum jump transition,

    John E. Gough, “The collapse before a quantum jump transition,” Reports on Mathematical Physics 85, 69 – 76 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Quantum trajectory theory of few-photon cavity-qed systems with a time-delayed coherent feed- back,

    Gavin Crowder, Howard Carmichael, and Stephen Hughes, “Quantum trajectory theory of few-photon cavity-qed systems with a time-delayed coherent feed- back,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 023807 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Quantum state diffusion theory and a quantum jump experiment,

    N. Gisin, P. L. Knight, I. C. Percival, R. C. Thompson, and D. C. Wilson, “Quantum state diffusion theory and a quantum jump experiment,” 40, 1663–1671 (1993)

    1993

  40. [48]

    Quan- tum trajectory approach to circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect,

    Jay Gambetta, Alexandre Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, “Quan- tum trajectory approach to circuit QED: Quantum jumps and the Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 012112 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Observing single quantum trajectories of a supercon- ducting quantum bit,

    K. W. Murch, S. J. Weber, C. Macklin, and I. Siddiqi, “Observing single quantum trajectories of a supercon- ducting quantum bit,” Nature 502, 211 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states,

    S. J. Weber, A. Chantasri, J. Dressel, A. N. Jordan, K. W. Murch, and I. Siddiqi, “Mapping the optimal route between two quantum states,” Nature 511, 570 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables,

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, E. Flurin, V. V. Ra- masesh, K. B. Whaley, and I. Siddiqi, “Dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables,” Nature 538, 491 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Prediction and characterization of multiple ex- tremal paths in continuously monitored qubits,

    Philippe Lewalle, Areeya Chantasri, and Andrew N. Jordan, “Prediction and characterization of multiple ex- tremal paths in continuously monitored qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 042126 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Arrow of time for con- tinuous quantum measurement,

    Justin Dressel, Areeya Chantasri, Andrew N. Jordan, and Alexander N. Korotkov, “Arrow of time for con- tinuous quantum measurement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 220507 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Time reversal symmetry of generalized quantum measure- ments with past and future boundary conditions,

    Sreenath K. Manikandan and Andrew N. Jordan, “Time reversal symmetry of generalized quantum measure- ments with past and future boundary conditions,” Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations6, 241 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Chaos in continuously monitored quantum sys- tems: An optimal-path approach,

    Philippe Lewalle, John Steinmetz, and Andrew N. Jor- dan, “Chaos in continuously monitored quantum sys- tems: An optimal-path approach,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 012141 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Fluctuation theorems for continu- ous quantum measurements and absolute irreversibil- ity,

    Sreenath K. Manikandan, Cyril Elouard, and An- drew N. Jordan, “Fluctuation theorems for continu- ous quantum measurements and absolute irreversibil- ity,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 022117 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Lin- ear feedback stabilization of a dispersively monitored qubit,

    Taylor Lee Patti, Areeya Chantasri, Luis Pedro Garc´ ıa- Pintos, Andrew N. Jordan, and Justin Dressel, “Lin- ear feedback stabilization of a dispersively monitored qubit,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 022311 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Incoherent qubit control using the quantum Zeno effect,

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. P. Garc´ ıa-Pintos, L. S. Martin, J. Dressel, and I. Siddiqi, “Incoherent qubit control using the quantum Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 020505 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight,

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Gutierrez-Jauregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, “To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight,” Nature 570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics (Springer, 1932)

    J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quan- tum Mechanics (Springer, 1932)

    1932

  54. [62]

    Serge Haroche and Jean-Michel Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons (Oxford Grad- uate Texts) (Oxford University Press, 2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100,

    Yakir Aharonov, David Z. Albert, and Lev Vaidman, “How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351–1354 (1988)

    1988

  56. [64]

    Introduction to weak measurements and weak values,

    Boaz Tamir and Eliahu Cohen, “Introduction to weak measurements and weak values,” Quanta2, 7–17 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    Quantum-state disturbance versus information gain: Uncertainty rela- tions for quantum information,

    Christopher A. Fuchs and Asher Peres, “Quantum-state disturbance versus information gain: Uncertainty rela- tions for quantum information,” Phys. Rev. A53, 2038– 2045 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    Information- tradeoff relations for finite-strength quantum measure- ments,

    Christopher A. Fuchs and Kurt Jacobs, “Information- tradeoff relations for finite-strength quantum measure- ments,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 062305 (2001)

    2001

  59. [67]

    Weak mea- surements are universal,

    Ognyan Oreshkov and Todd A. Brun, “Weak mea- surements are universal,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110409 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Squeezing the quantum fluctuations of light,

    Gerd Leuchs, “Squeezing the quantum fluctuations of light,” Contemporary Physics 29, 299–314 (1988)

    1988

  61. [69]

    Detecting quantum light,

    Christine Silberhorn, “Detecting quantum light,” Con- temporary Physics 48, 143–156 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    Observ- ing interferences between past and future quantum states in resonance fluorescence,

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, L. Bretheau, E. Flurin, A. Auff` eves, F. Mallet, and B. Huard, “Observ- ing interferences between past and future quantum states in resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180402 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Anatomy of fluorescence: Quan- tum trajectory statistics from continuously measuring spontaneous emission,

    Andrew N. Jordan, Areeya Chantasri, Pierre Rouchon, and Benjamin Huard, “Anatomy of fluorescence: Quan- tum trajectory statistics from continuously measuring spontaneous emission,” Quantum Studies: Math. and Found. 3, 237 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Observ- ing quantum state diffusion by heterodyne detection of fluorescence,

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Six, L. Bretheau, A. Sarlette, M. Mirrahimi, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, “Observ- ing quantum state diffusion by heterodyne detection of fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 011002 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    Using spontaneous emission of a qubit as a resource for feedback control,

    P. Campagne-Ibarcq, S. Jezouin, N. Cottet, P. Six, L. Bretheau, F. Mallet, A. Sarlette, P. Rouchon, and B. Huard, “Using spontaneous emission of a qubit as a resource for feedback control,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 060502 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    Mapping quantum state dynam- 25 ics in spontaneous emission,

    M. Naghiloo, N. Foroozani, D. Tan, A. Jadbabaie, and K. W. Murch, “Mapping quantum state dynam- 25 ics in spontaneous emission,” Nature Communications 7, 11527 (2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    Quantum caustics in resonance-fluorescence trajectories,

    M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. M. Harrington, P. Lewalle, A. N. Jordan, and K. W. Murch, “Quantum caustics in resonance-fluorescence trajectories,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 053807 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    Homodyne monitoring of postselected decay,

    D. Tan, N. Foroozani, M. Naghiloo, A. H. Kiilerich, K. Mølmer, and K. W. Murch, “Homodyne monitoring of postselected decay,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 022104 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Heat and work along individual trajectories of a quantum bit,

    M. Naghiloo, D. Tan, P. M. Harrington, J. J. Alonso, E. Lutz, A. Romito, and K. W. Murch, “Heat and work along individual trajectories of a quantum bit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110604 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Dy- namics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing,

    Q. Ficheux, S. Jezouin, Z. Leghtas, and B. Huard, “Dy- namics of a qubit while simultaneously monitoring its relaxation and dephasing,” Nat. Comm. 9, 1926 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Quantum trajectories with incom- patible decoherence channels,

    Quentin Ficheux, “Quantum trajectories with incom- patible decoherence channels,” Dissertation, ´Ecole nor- male sup´ erieure—Paris (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Introduction to experimental quan- tum measurement with superconducting qubits,

    Mahdi Naghiloo, “Introduction to experimental quan- tum measurement with superconducting qubits,” arXiv 1904.09291 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Stochastic path integral formalism for continuous quantum measurement,

    Areeya Chantasri, “Stochastic path integral formalism for continuous quantum measurement,” PhD Disserta- tion, University of Rochester (2016)

    2016

  74. [82]

    Phase- preserving amplification near the quantum limit with a Josephson ring modulator,

    N. Bergeal, F. Schackert, M. Metcalfe, R. Vijay, V. E. Manucharyan, L. Frunzio, D. E. Prober, R. J. Schoelkopf, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, “Phase- preserving amplification near the quantum limit with a Josephson ring modulator,” Nature 465, 6 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    The Josephson Mixer: A Swiss army knife for microwave quantum optics,

    Emmanuel Flurin, “The Josephson Mixer: A Swiss army knife for microwave quantum optics,” PhD Dis- sertation, Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure, Paris (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Introduction to para- metric amplification of quantum signals with Joseph- son circuits,

    Ananda Roy and Michel Devoret, “Introduction to para- metric amplification of quantum signals with Joseph- son circuits,” Comptes Rendus Physique 17, 740 – 755 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Stochastic wave-function approach to the calculation of multitime correlation functions of open quantum systems,

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Bernd Kappler, and Francesco Petruccione, “Stochastic wave-function approach to the calculation of multitime correlation functions of open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 56, 2334 (1997)

    1997

  78. [86]

    Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc, and Gilbert Grynberg, Atom—Photon Interactions (1998)

    1998

  79. [87]

    Breuer and F

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

    2002

  80. [88]

    Cavity-Assisted Quantum Bath Engineering,

    K. W. Murch, U. Vool, D. Zhou, S. J. Weber, S. M. Girvin, and I. Siddiqi, “Cavity-Assisted Quantum Bath Engineering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183602 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics I: Master Equations and Fokker–Planck Equa- tions (Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1999)

    Howard J. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics I: Master Equations and Fokker–Planck Equa- tions (Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1999)

    1999

  82. [90]

    The Brownian Movement,

    R. P. Feynman, “The Brownian Movement,” in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I (CalTech) Chap. 41

  83. [91]

    C. W. Gardiner, Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  84. [92]

    Kloeden and Eckhard Platen, Numerical So- lution of Stochastic Differential Equations (Springer, 1992)

    Peter E. Kloeden and Eckhard Platen, Numerical So- lution of Stochastic Differential Equations (Springer, 1992)

    1992

  85. [93]

    Press, Brian P

    William H. Press, Brian P. Flannery, Saul A. Teukol- sky, and William T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge University Press, 1988)

    1988

  86. [94]

    Efficient quantum filtering for quantum feedback control,

    Pierre Rouchon and Jason F. Ralph, “Efficient quantum filtering for quantum feedback control,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 012118 (2015)

    2015

  87. [95]

    Steady-State Generation of Wigner- Negative States in One-Dimensional Resonance Fluo- rescence,

    Fernando Quijandr´ ıa, Ingrid Strandberg, and G¨ oran Johansson, “Steady-State Generation of Wigner- Negative States in One-Dimensional Resonance Fluo- rescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 263603 (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    Operational formu- lation of homodyne detection,

    Tom´ aˇ s Tyc and Barry C. Sanders, “Operational formu- lation of homodyne detection,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, 7341 (2004)

    2004

  89. [97]

    Conditional quantum dynamics with several ob- servers,

    Jacek Dziarmaga, Diego A. R. Dalvit, and Wojciech H. Zurek, “Conditional quantum dynamics with several ob- servers,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 022109 (2004)

    2004

  90. [98]

    Characterizing a statistical arrow of time in quantum measurement dynamics,

    P. M. Harrington, D. Tan, M. Naghiloo, and K. W. Murch, “Characterizing a statistical arrow of time in quantum measurement dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 020502 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    Entanglement of a pair of quantum emitters under continuous fluorescence measurements,

    Philippe Lewalle, Cyril Elouard, Sreenath K. Manikan- dan, Xiao-Feng Qian, Joseph H. Eberly, and Andrew N. Jordan, “Entanglement of a pair of quantum emitters under continuous fluorescence measurements,” arXiv: 1910.01206 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Simultaneous continuous measurement of photon- counting and homodyne detection on a free photon field: dynamics of state reduction and the mutual influence of measurement backaction,

    Yui Kuramochi, Yu Watanabe, and Masahito Ueda, “Simultaneous continuous measurement of photon- counting and homodyne detection on a free photon field: dynamics of state reduction and the mutual influence of measurement backaction,” Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theore...

    2013

  93. [101]

    Quantum state smoothing,

    Ivonne Guevara and Howard Wiseman, “Quantum state smoothing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180407 (2015)

    2015

  94. [102]

    Quantum state smoothing: why the types of observed and unobserved measurements matter,

    Areeya Chantasri, Ivonne Guevara, and Howard M Wiseman, “Quantum state smoothing: why the types of observed and unobserved measurements matter,” New Journal of Physics 21, 083039 (2019)

    2019

  95. [103]

    Completely positive quantum trajectories with applications to quan- tum state smoothing,

    Ivonne Guevara and Howard M. Wiseman, “Completely positive quantum trajectories with applications to quan- tum state smoothing,” arXiv:1909.12455

    1909 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Arrow of time in cosmology,

    S. W. Hawking, “Arrow of time in cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 32, 2489–2495 (1985)

    1985

  97. [105]

    Quantum solution to the arrow-of- time dilemma,

    Lorenzo Maccone, “Quantum solution to the arrow-of- time dilemma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080401 (2009)

    2009

  98. [106]

    Boltzmann’s entropy and time’s ar- row,

    Joel L. Lebowitz, “Boltzmann’s entropy and time’s ar- row,” Physics Today 46, 32 (1993)

    1993

  99. [107]

    Un- collapsing the wavefunction by undoing quantum mea- surements,

    Andrew N. Jordan and Alexander N. Korotkov, “Un- collapsing the wavefunction by undoing quantum mea- surements,” Contemporary Physics 51, 125–147 (2010)

    2010

  100. [108]

    Un- doing a weak quantum measurement of a solid-state qubit,

    Alexander N. Korotkov and Andrew N. Jordan, “Un- doing a weak quantum measurement of a solid-state qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 166805 (2006)

    2006

  101. [109]

    Path-integral analysis of fluctuation theorems for general Langevin processes,

    Vladimir Y. Chernyak, Michael Chertkov, and Christo- pher Jarzynski, “Path-integral analysis of fluctuation theorems for general Langevin processes,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2006, P08001 (2006)

    2006

  102. [110]

    Prediction and retrodiction for a continuously monitored superconducting qubit,

    D. Tan, S. J. Weber, I. Siddiqi, K. Mølmer, and K. W. Murch, “Prediction and retrodiction for a continuously monitored superconducting qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 090403 (2015)

    2015

  103. [111]

    Observing a quantum Maxwell demon at work,

    Nathana¨ el Cottet, S´ ebastien Jezouin, Landry Bretheau, Philippe Campagne-Ibarcq, Quentin Ficheux, Janet An- ders, Alexia Auff` eves, R´ emi Azouit, Pierre Rouchon, and Benjamin Huard, “Observing a quantum Maxwell demon at work,” PNAS 114, 7561–7564 (2017)

    2017

  104. [112]

    The role of quantum measure- ment in stochastic thermodynamics,

    Cyril Elouard, David A. Herrera-Mart´ ı, Maxime Clusel, 26 and Alexia Auff` eves, “The role of quantum measure- ment in stochastic thermodynamics,” NPJ Quantum In- formation 3, 9 (2017)

    2017

  105. [113]

    Extracting Work from Quantum Measurement in Maxwell’s Demon Engines,

    Cyril Elouard, David Herrera-Mart´ ı, Benjamin Huard, and Alexia Auff` eves, “Extracting Work from Quantum Measurement in Maxwell’s Demon Engines,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 260603 (2017)

    2017

  106. [114]

    Efficient quan- tum measurement engines,

    Cyril Elouard and Andrew N. Jordan, “Efficient quan- tum measurement engines,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 260601 (2018)

    2018

  107. [115]

    Information-to-work conversion by Maxwells demon in a superconducting circuit quantum electrodynamical system,

    Y. Masuyama, K. Funo, Y. Murashita, A. Noguchi, S. Kono, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, M. Ueda, and Y. Nakamura, “Information-to-work conversion by Maxwells demon in a superconducting circuit quantum electrodynamical system,” Nature Communications 9, 1291 (2018)

    2018

  108. [116]

    An autonomous quantum machine to measure the ther- modynamic arrow of time,

    Juliette Monsel, Cyril Elouard, and Alexia Auff` eves, “An autonomous quantum machine to measure the ther- modynamic arrow of time,” npj Quantum Information 4, 59 (2018)

    2018

  109. [117]

    A coherent quan- tum engine based on bath and battery engineering,

    Juliette Monsel, Marco Fellous-Asiani, Benjamin Huard, and Alexia Auff` eves, “A coherent quan- tum engine based on bath and battery engineering,” arXiv:1907.00812 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Energetic footprints of irreversibility in the quantum regime,

    M. H. Mohammady, A. Auff` eves, and J. Anders, “Energetic footprints of irreversibility in the quantum regime,” arXiv:1907.06559 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Feedback-stabilization of an arbitrary pure state of a two-level atom,

    Jin Wang and H. M. Wiseman, “Feedback-stabilization of an arbitrary pure state of a two-level atom,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 063810 (2001)

    2001

  112. [120]

    Weak measurement and feedback in superconducting quantum circuits,

    Kater W. Murch, Rajamani Vijay, and Irfan Siddiqi, “Weak measurement and feedback in superconducting quantum circuits,” arXiv:1507.04617v2 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Multitime correlators in continuous measurement of qubit observ- ables,

    Juan Atalaya, Shay Hacohen-Gourgy, Leigh S. Martin, Irfan Siddiqi, and Alexander N. Korotkov, “Multitime correlators in continuous measurement of qubit observ- ables,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 020104 (2018)

    2018

  114. [122]

    Physically realiz- able entanglement by local continuous measurements,

    Eduardo Mascarenhas, Daniel Cavalcanti, Vlatko Ve- dral, and Marcelo Fran¸ ca Santos, “Physically realiz- able entanglement by local continuous measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 022311 (2011)

    2011

  115. [123]

    Quantum computing with incoherent re- sources and quantum jumps,

    M. F. Santos, M. Terra Cunha, R. Chaves, and A. R. R. Carvalho, “Quantum computing with incoherent re- sources and quantum jumps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 170501 (2012)

    2012

  116. [124]

    Diffusive entanglement generation by contin- uous homodyne monitoring of spontaneous emission,

    Philippe Lewalle, Cyril Elouard, Sreenath K. Manikan- dan, Xiao-Feng Qian, Joseph H. Eberly, and Andrew N. Jordan, “Diffusive entanglement generation by contin- uous homodyne monitoring of spontaneous emission,” arXiv: 1910.01204 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Finite-time disentanglement via spontaneous emission,

    Ting Yu and J. H. Eberly, “Finite-time disentanglement via spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140404 (2004)

    2004

  118. [126]

    Measures and dynamics of entangled states,

    Florian Mintert, Andr´ e R. R. Carvalho, Marek Ku´ s, and Andreas Buchleitner, “Measures and dynamics of entangled states,” Physics Reports 415, 207 – 259 (2005)

    2005

  119. [127]

    En- tanglement dynamics in open two-qubit systems via diffusive quantum trajectories,

    Carlos Viviescas, Ivonne Guevara, Andr´ e R. R. Car- valho, Marc Busse, and Andreas Buchleitner, “En- tanglement dynamics in open two-qubit systems via diffusive quantum trajectories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 210502 (2010)

    2010

  120. [128]

    Continuous quan- tum error correction through local operations,

    Eduardo Mascarenhas, Breno Marques, Marcelo Terra Cunha, and Marcelo Fran¸ ca Santos, “Continuous quan- tum error correction through local operations,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 032327 (2010)

    2010

  121. [129]

    Distant entanglement protected through artificially in- creased local temperature,

    Andr´ e R. R. Carvalho and Marcelo Fran¸ ca Santos, “Distant entanglement protected through artificially in- creased local temperature,” New Journal of Physics 13, 013010 (2011)

    2011

  122. [130]

    Death by experiment for local realism,

    Howard M. Wiseman, “Death by experiment for local realism,” Nature 526, 649 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.