Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Variational Quantum Algorithm for Non-equilibrium Steady States

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A variational algorithm obtains non-equilibrium steady states of open quantum systems by minimizing the squared Liouvillian on doubled qubits.

desk verdict dVQE is a real new method for NESS on near-term devices, but the cost-to-observable guarantee is unproven and footnote 56 states a reversed bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09836 v5 pith:5SVD3JO3 submitted 2019-08-26 quant-ph

Nobuyuki Yoshioka , Yuya O. Nakagawa , Kosuke Mitarai , Keisuke Fujii This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6881S22
keywords openquantumsystemsnon-equilibriumsteadystatevariationaleigensolvermasterequationLiouvillianquantum-classicalhybridalgorithmdissipativeIsingmodelpersistentcurrent
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 proposes a quantum-classical hybrid algorithm, called dVQE, to compute the non-equilibrium steady state (NESS) of an open quantum system. It maps the density matrix to a pure state on twice as many qubits via the Choi–Jamiołkowski isomorphism, then minimizes the expectation value of $\hat L^\dagger \hat L$, where $\hat L$ is the Liouvillian in this doubled space. Because $\hat L^\dagger \hat L$ is Hermitian and non-negative, its zero eigenstates are exactly the steady states. The authors demonstrate on the dissipative quantum Ising model and a reservoir-engineered persistent-current model that the optimized state reproduces physical observables with infidelity of order $10^{-2}$, both in noisy numerical simulation and on actual quantum hardware. The method matters because it extends variational eigensolving from closed to open systems, potentially reaching steady states of dissipative many-body models that are hard to simulate classically.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cost function $\langle \hat L^\dagger \hat L\rangle$ evaluated on the vectorized density matrix. Here $\hat L$ is the Choi–Jamiołkowski image of the GKSL Liouvillian, a non-Hermitian operator whose kernel is the steady state; squaring with its adjoint turns the fixed-point problem into a Hermitian ground-state problem. The ansatz is the tensor-product structure $V(\theta_v)\otimes V^*(\theta_v)$ applied after entangling physical and ancillary qubits through CNOT gates, with a diagonal circuit $\vec D(\theta_d)$ controlling the eigenvalue distribution. This structure guarantees that the resulting matrix is a valid density matrix while keeping the circuit compatible with near-term hardware. Around this core, the paper adds a measurement scheme that returns to the $N$-qubit representation for observables and a sequential-minimal-optimization update loop for the parameters.

What would settle it

On a small exactly solvable dissipative model, such as the two-site Ising chain with damping and dephasing, optimize dVQE to a very small cost and then compare a sensitive two-body observable such as the persistent current against exact diagonalization; if the observable error remains large while the cost is tiny, the assumed cost-to-observable bound fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the NESS of a Markovian open quantum system can be obtained variationally by searching for the ground state of the non-negative Hermitian operator $\hat L^\dagger \hat L$ in the vectorized (doubled-qubit) representation, instead of simulating the dissipative dynamics. The paper establishes the mapping $\hat L|\rho_{SS}\rangle=0 \Leftrightarrow \hat L^\dagger \hat L|\rho_{SS}\rangle=0$, so the steady state is the zero-energy ground state of the cost operator. To keep the state physical, the ansatz decomposes $\rho$ as $V D V^\dagger$ and realizes $|\rho_\theta\rangle=[V(\theta_v)\otimes V^*(\theta_v)]\prod_n \mathrm{CNOT}_{n,n+N}\vec D(\theta_d)|0\rangle$, which enforces Hermiticity and positive semidefiniteness by construction. Observables are then evaluated on $N$ qubits by sampling computational basis states $|q\rangle$ with weights $\lambda_q$ and measuring $V|q\rangle$. The demonstrations target the dissipative Ising model and the persistent-current model, reaching state infidelities of order $10^{-2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm relies on the unproven premise that a small cost value $\langle \hat L^\dagger \hat L\rangle$ forces small errors in every physical observable; the paper gives numerical evidence on random states but leaves the mathematical proof open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any open quantum system whose Liouvillian is a sum of local terms inherits a local cost operator $\hat L^\dagger \hat L$, so the algorithm has the same per-iteration resource scaling as ordinary VQE.
  • Reaching cost $\langle \hat L^\dagger \hat L\rangle<\epsilon$ gives the optimized state a guaranteed overlap with the true steady state through the gap bound $1-f^2\ge \langle \hat L^\dagger \hat L\rangle/\delta$, so the optimization quality is directly quantifiable.
  • The same scheme applies to models with multiple steady states by borrowing excited-state VQE methods, as noted in the paper.
  • The measurement protocol keeps observable estimation at $O(1/\epsilon^2)$ shots for a target precision $\epsilon$, so the added cost of open-system simulation is the doubled-qubit ansatz rather than an exponential number of measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a rigorous version of the $f(\epsilon)$ bound exists, dVQE would certify observable errors directly from the measured cost, giving open-system simulation the same kind of guarantee that ground-state VQE has for energies.
  • The decoupled $\tilde D$ ansatz makes the eigenvalue distribution $\lambda_q$ explicit, so the algorithm could be extended to estimate entropic quantities such as the von Neumann entropy with the same sampling procedure, which the paper does not discuss.
  • Because the cost is a local Pauli sum when the Liouvillian is local, Pauli grouping and measurement-shot weighting should transfer from closed-system VQE; the paper leaves this as a future question.
  • The ansatz structure suggests a testable extension: for fixed circuit depth, compare entangled versus decoupled eigenvalue-distribution circuits on highly entropic steady states to identify where expressive power limits fidelity.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes dVQE, a variational quantum-classical algorithm for the non-equilibrium steady state (NESS) of a Markovian open quantum system. The authors map the density matrix to a pure state on a doubled Hilbert space through the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism, formulate the NESS condition as L†L|ρSS⟩ = 0, and use C(θ) = ⟨0|U†(θ)L†LU(θ)|0⟩ as a lower-bounded cost function. The ansatz U(θ) = [V(θv)⊗V*(θv)] CNOT D(θd) is designed to produce Hermitian operators, and observables are evaluated by sampling the diagonal distribution λ_q with an N-qubit circuit. Demonstrations include the dissipative Ising model on a Rigetti device (N = 1), noisy numerical simulations of N = 2 for the Ising and persistent-current models, and noiseless simulation for N = 8, with infidelities of order 10^-2. The authors state that a rigorous error bound between a small cost and accurate observables is an open problem.

Significance. The work extends VQE methodology to stationary states of open systems, an experimentally relevant and theoretically nontrivial task; the cost function is constructed directly from the Liouvillian without fitted constants, so the optimization is not circular. The inclusion of a real-device demonstration and a noiseless N = 8 simulation is a strength, as is the explicit discussion of the vector/matrix normalization difference. The main limitation is the unproven and, as written, incorrectly stated relation between cost and observable error, which affects the reliability of the algorithm's predictions in the regimes the paper targets.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A (footnote 56)] The bound stated in footnote 56, 1−f² ≥ ⟨L†L⟩/δ, has the inequality reversed. Decomposing the normalized ansatz as |ψ⟩ = f|ρSS⟩ + √(1−f²)|φ⟩ with ⟨φ|ρSS⟩ = 0 gives ⟨L†L⟩ = (1−f²)⟨φ|L†L|φ⟩ ≥ δ(1−f²), hence 1−f² ≤ ⟨L†L⟩/δ. As printed, the footnote provides no upper bound on the state error, and even after correction the bound depends on δ, the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of L†L. Consequently the f(ε) assertion in the main text remains unsupported when δ is small; the authors should correct the footnote and either prove a δ-dependent bound or qualify the claim accordingly.
  2. [III C, Eq. (20)] Equation (20), ⟨O⟩ = ∑_q λ_q ⟨q|V†OV|q⟩, omits the trace renormalization required by the vector representation. In Eq. (4) the vector |ρ⟩ carries coefficients ρ_ij/C with C² = ∑|ρ_ij|², so the operator reconstructed from the ansatz is ρ ∝ V D V† with D = diag(λ_q), and physical expectation values require division by Tr ρ = ∑_q λ_q (assuming real λ_q). The ansatz of Eq. (18) only fixes the L2 norm ∑|λ_q|² = 1, not the trace. The authors should specify the normalization used in the simulations and amend Eq. (20) (or state explicitly that λ_q have been renormalized).
  3. [III B and III C] The entangled-type circuit for D(θd) in Fig. 2(a) can produce negative real amplitudes (or complex ones) for λ_q, so the state |ρθ⟩ is not guaranteed to correspond to a positive semidefinite operator; the text's statement that condition (II) is satisfied by restricting 'θv' appears to be a typo for θd, and no explicit restriction or penalty is given. Because Sec. III C uses λ_q as a probability distribution for sampling q, the optimizer may explore nonphysical states with negative 'probabilities' and reach low cost while remaining far from the NESS. The authors should impose or verify PSD conditions in the ansatz (e.g., angle ranges or a positivity penalty) and report whether the optimized states in the demonstrations satisfy them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III B] In Sec. III B, the sentence 'condition (II) can be satisfied by imposing appropriate restriction on the parameters θv' should refer to θd; positivity of ρ = V D V† depends on D, not on the basis V.
  2. [Appendix A] Appendix A compares the vector 2-norm and trace distance only for diagonal density matrices with diagonal perturbations; this is a narrow class and does not directly probe the cost-to-observable relation discussed in Sec. III A. A sentence acknowledging this limitation would avoid overgeneralization.
  3. [Figs. 4 and 5] The captions of Figs. 4 and 5 could state more explicitly that filled circles are dVQE data and dotted/dashed lines are exact diagonalization, and the infidelity axis scale should be consistent between the two figures.
  4. [III A] Reference [56] as used in the main text might be better replaced with an explicit derivation in an appendix, since the corrected bound is central to the error discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dVQE cost function is derived exactly from the Liouvillian kernel and the demonstrations are benchmarked against exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: the NESS is defined by the kernel of the Liouvillian, the vectorized Liouvillian has the same kernel, and therefore minimizing the expectation value of L†L is an exact reformulation of the steady-state condition (Secs. II B and III A, Eqs. (8)-(10)). No fitted constants enter the cost function, and the variational ansatz only restricts the search space rather than encoding the solution. The demonstrations compare the optimized state against exact diagonalization in Figs. 4, 5, and 9, so the success criterion is external. The acknowledged open problem in Sec. III A, namely the unproven relation between low cost and observable error f(epsilon), is a correctness gap rather than a circularity; Appendix A offers numerical evidence, and the claim is explicitly stated as open. The self-citations that appear, such as the sequential minimal optimization method [49] and the gate-error mitigation scheme [68], are auxiliary implementation tools; the central claim does not reduce to them. Footnote 56's inequality appears reversed, but this is a mathematical-error risk, not a definitional circularity. Overall, no step in the derivation is equivalent to its input by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the GKSL model, the uniqueness of the NESS, the expressiveness of the chosen ansatz, the unproven cost-to-observable error bound, and the optimizer's ability to find the global minimum. No free parameters are fitted to data beyond the variational angles, which are the algorithm's internal degrees of freedom.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The GKSL master equation (Eq. 1) correctly models the open quantum system's dynamics.
    The paper assumes the standard Markovian, Lindblad-type master equation as the description of the open system; this is standard in the field but still a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption The system has a unique NESS, i.e., the kernel of L is one-dimensional.
    The paper restricts to models with a unique NESS, citing Ref. [55]; the optimization targets the ground state of L†L and would need modification for multiple steady states.
  • domain assumption The variational ansatz [V⊗V*] CNOT D can express the NESS of the target system with sufficient accuracy.
    The hardware-efficient ansatz and the diagonal circuit may not capture all NESS; the paper demonstrates only N=1,2,8 examples, with no general guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper A small value of ⟨L†L⟩ implies a small error in physical observables, i.e., the function f(ε) exists.
    The paper states this connection but explicitly leaves the proof as an open problem (Sec. III A, Appendix A); the numerical evidence covers random states, not the optimized ansatz.
  • domain assumption The classical optimizer (SMO) can find the global minimum of the nonconvex cost landscape.
    Standard VQE relies on this heuristic; no guarantee is given, and the paper does not analyze the optimization landscape beyond small examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Quantum Algorithm for Non-equilibrium Steady States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SVD3JO3

@misc{pith2026190809836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Quantum Algorithm for Non-equilibrium Steady States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SVD3JO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09836}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a quantum-classical hybrid algorithm to simulate the non-equilibrium steady state of an open quantum many-body system, named the dissipative-system Variational Quantum Eigensolver (dVQE). To employ the variational optimization technique for a unitary quantum circuit, we map a mixed state into a pure state with a doubled number of qubits and design the unitary quantum circuit to fulfill the requirements for a density matrix. This allows us to define a cost function that consists of the time evolution generator of the quantum master equation. Evaluation of physical observables is, in turn, carried out by a quantum circuit with the original number of qubits. We demonstrate our dVQE scheme by both numerical simulation on a classical computer and actual quantum simulation that makes use of the device provided in Rigetti Quantum Cloud Service.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color Online) Variational quantum circuit as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color Online) Examples for the quantum circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (Color Online) (a) Quantum simulation and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color Online) Numerical simulation of the persistent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Deviation between trace distance in the matrix repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color Online) Numerical simulation for the landscape of the cost function with respect to single rotational angle for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color Online) Quantum simulation of the cost func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color Online) Noiseless numerical simulation of mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Let q be an array of N bits with nonzero probabil- ityλq and initialize the state of N qubits to|q⟩

    work page

  2. [2]

    Measure the observable O using the quantum state with transformed basis|ψq⟩ =V|q⟩

    work page

  3. [3]

    5xmvkpepEZyrf1DW4o8nac0f30Y=

    Repeat 1 and 2 until the weighed sum ⟨O⟩ =∑ qλq⟨ψq|O|ψq⟩ converges. whereλq is replaced with the approximated distribution if necessary. IV. RESUL TS In the following, we give demonstration of our dVQE scheme by both quantum and numerical simulations of the quantum circuit with depolarizing error. The cost function⟨ ˆL† ˆL⟩ is evaluated via sampling each ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Initialize the variational parameters as θn=0 where n is the number of the update steps already per- formed

    work page

  5. [5]

    This is done in a sequential manner

    Choose the index rn∈{ 1,...,R} for the parame- ter to be optimized. This is done in a sequential manner

    work page

  6. [6]

    Here, Ns is the number of function evaluation per parameter

    With the QPU, estimate the s-th point of the land- scape, Cn(θn,s), whose parameters are given as θn,s ={θ(1) n ,...,θ (r−1) n , s ( θ(r) max−θ(r) min ) /Ns, θ(r+1) n ,...,θ (R) n }, (B3) where θ(r) max and θ(r) min are the maximum and mini- mum of the variational parameter determined from the periodicity and restriction. Here, Ns is the number of functio...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Replace the previous θ(r) n with the optimal value to define the updated parameters θn+1

    With the CPU, perform the curve fitting and de- termine the optimal value θ(r) that the minimizes the cost function. Replace the previous θ(r) n with the optimal value to define the updated parameters θn+1

    work page

  8. [8]

    v2NhGacKRxSJu6JDCr5kq8J39po=

    Repeat 2-4 until the optimization converges. The periodicity plays important role during the step 4 in the above algorithm. Shown in Fig. 7 is the comparison between the cost function landscapes calculated exactly and the one estimated from sampled points. While the parameters for usual rotational gates exhibit period 2 π, as in the panel (a), parameters ...

    work page

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, and W. D. Oliver, “A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits,” Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021318 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges,

    Colin D Bruzewicz, John Chiaverini, Robert McConnell, and Jeremy M Sage, “Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges,” Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Photonic quan- tum simulators,

    Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik and Philip Walther, “Photonic quan- tum simulators,” Nature Physics 8, 285 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    John Preskill, “Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond,” Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Quantum computational supremacy,

    Aram W. Harrow and Ashley Montanaro, “Quantum computational supremacy,” Nature 549, 203 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Char- acterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,

    Sergio Boixo, Sergei V. Isakov, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, Nan Ding, Zhang Jiang, Michael J. Bremner, John M. Martinis, and Hartmut Neven, “Char- acterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices,” Nature Physics 14, 595–600 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Classi- cal simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits,

    Jianxin Chen, Fang Zhang, Mingcheng Chen, Cupjin Huang, Michael Newman, and Yaoyun Shi, “Classi- cal simulation of intermediate-size quantum circuits,” arXiv:1805.01450 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Quantum supremacy and the com- plexity of random circuit sampling,

    Adam Bouland, Bill Fefferman, Chinmay Nirkhe, and Umesh Vazirani, “Quantum supremacy and the com- plexity of random circuit sampling,” arXiv:1803.04402 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quantum advantage with shallow circuits,

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, and Robert Koenig, “Quantum advantage with shallow circuits,” Science 362, 308–311 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    +H9ckQTcPlj6lz+266RNnOqRePw=

    Benjamin Villalonga, Dmitry Lyakh, Sergio Boixo, Hart- mut Neven, Travis S Humble, Rupak Biswas, Eleanor G 11 Cost function Angle & & & Cost function Angle E =1 <latexit sha1_base64="+H9ckQTcPlj6lz+266RNnOqRePw=">AAACcHichVHLSgMxFD0d3/XRqhvBhY+iiIuSqYIiCEURXLbVqmBLmRmjHTovZ9KC...

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits in 3d,

    Sergey Bravyi, David Gosset, Robert Koenig, and Marco Tomamichel, “Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits in 3d,” arXiv:1904.01502 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Quantum simulation,

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori, “Quantum simulation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153–185 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Quantum computational chemistry,

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, Simon Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Quantum computational chemistry,” arXiv:1808.10402 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E Farhi, J Goldstone, and S Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” arXiv:1411.4028 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man- Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,” Nat. Commun. 5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states,

    Jarrod R. McClean, Mollie E. Kimchi-Schwartz, Jonathan Carter, and Wibe A. de Jong, “Hybrid quantum-classical hierarchy for mitigation of decoherence and determination of excited states,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 042308 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver for excited states,

    Ken M. Nakanishi, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fu- jii, “Subspace-search variational quantum eigensolver for excited states,” Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033062 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm,

    J. I. Colless, V. V. Ramasesh, D. Dahlen, M. S. Blok, M. E. Kimchi-Schwartz, J. R. McClean, J. Carter, W. A. de Jong, and I. Siddiqi, “Computation of molecular spec- tra on a quantum processor with an error-resilient algo- rithm,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 011021 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Variational quantum algo- rithms for discovering hamiltonian spectra,

    Tyson Jones, Suguru Endo, Sam McArdle, Xiao Yuan, and Simon C. Benjamin, “Variational quantum algo- rithms for discovering hamiltonian spectra,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 062304 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Variational Quantum Computation of Excited States,

    Oscar Higgott, Daochen Wang, and Stephen Brierley, “Variational Quantum Computation of Excited States,” Quantum 3, 156 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Quantum computa- tion of electronic transitions using a variational quantum eigensolver,

    Robert M. Parrish, Edward G. Hohenstein, Peter L. McMahon, and Todd J. Mart´ anez, “Quantum computa- tion of electronic transitions using a variational quantum eigensolver,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Simulated quantum compu- tation of molecular energies,

    Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Anthony D. Dutoi, Peter J. Love, and Martin Head-Gordon, “Simulated quantum compu- tation of molecular energies,” Science 309, 1704–1707 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Scalable quan- tum simulation of molecular energies,

    P. J. J. O’Malley, R. Babbush, I. D. Kivlichan, J. Romero, J. R. McClean, R. Barends, J. Kelly, P. Roushan, A. Tranter, N. Ding, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, A. G. Fowler, E. Jef- frey, E. Lucero, A. Megrant, J. Y. Mutus, M. Neeley, C. Neill, C. Quin...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,

    Abhinav Kandala, Antonio Mezzacapo, Kristan Temme, Maika Takita, Markus Brink, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Hardware-efficient variational quan- tum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum mag- nets,” Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quan- tum simulator,

    Cornelius Hempel, Christine Maier, Jonathan Romero, Jarrod McClean, Thomas Monz, Heng Shen, Petar Ju- rcevic, Ben P. Lanyon, Peter Love, Ryan Babbush, Al´ an Aspuru-Guzik, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F. Roos, “Quantum chemistry calculations on a trapped-ion quan- tum simulator...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Algebraic versus exponen- tial decoherence in dissipative many-particle systems,

    Zi Cai and Thomas Barthel, “Algebraic versus exponen- tial decoherence in dissipative many-particle systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 150403 (2013). 12

    2013

  27. [35]

    Variational Matrix Product Operators for the Steady State of Dissipative Quantum Systems,

    Jian Cui, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls, “Variational Matrix Product Operators for the Steady State of Dissipative Quantum Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 220601 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quantum many-body systems,

    A. H. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, “Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quantum many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 237201 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    A simple tensor network algorithm for two- dimensional steady states,

    Augustine Kshetrimayum, Hendrik Weimer, and Rom´ an Or´ us, “A simple tensor network algorithm for two- dimensional steady states,” Nat. Commun. 8, 1291 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Construct- ing neural stationary states for open quantum many- body systems,

    Nobuyuki Yoshioka and Ryusuke Hamazaki, “Construct- ing neural stationary states for open quantum many- body systems,” Phys. Rev. B 99, 214306 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Neural- network approach to dissipative quantum many-body dy- namics,

    Michael J. Hartmann and Giuseppe Carleo, “Neural- network approach to dissipative quantum many-body dy- namics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250502 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Variational quantum monte carlo method with a neural-network ansatz for open quantum systems,

    Alexandra Nagy and Vincenzo Savona, “Variational quantum monte carlo method with a neural-network ansatz for open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250501 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Variational neural-network ansatz for steady states in open quantum systems,

    Filippo Vicentini, Alberto Biella, Nicolas Regnault, and Cristiano Ciuti, “Variational neural-network ansatz for steady states in open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 250503 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Variational principle for steady states of dissipative quantum many-body systems,

    Hendrik Weimer, “Variational principle for steady states of dissipative quantum many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 040402 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Cluster mean-field approach to the steady-state phase diagram of dissipative spin systems,

    Jiasen Jin, Alberto Biella, Oscar Viyuela, Leonardo Mazza, Jonathan Keeling, Rosario Fazio, and Davide Rossini, “Cluster mean-field approach to the steady-state phase diagram of dissipative spin systems,” Phys. Rev. X 6, 031011 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Phase dia- gram of the dissipative quantum ising model on a square lattice,

    Jiasen Jin, Alberto Biella, Oscar Viyuela, Cristiano Ciuti, Rosario Fazio, and Davide Rossini, “Phase dia- gram of the dissipative quantum ising model on a square lattice,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 241108 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Simulation methods for open quantum many- body systems,

    Hendrik Weimer, Augustine Kshetrimayum, and Rom´ an Or´ us, “Simulation methods for open quantum many- body systems,” arXiv:1907.07079 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Topology by dissipation in atomic quantum wires,

    Sebastian Diehl, Enrique Rico, Mikhail A Baranov, and Peter Zoller, “Topology by dissipation in atomic quantum wires,” Nature Physics 7, 971 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Preparation of entangled states by quan- tum markov processes,

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, “Preparation of entangled states by quan- tum markov processes,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  41. [49]

    Thermo- electric effects in nanoscale junctions,

    Yonatan Dubi and Massimiliano Di Ventra, “Thermo- electric effects in nanoscale junctions,” Nano letters 9, 97–101 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems,

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Mixed-state dy- namics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algo- rithm,

    Michael Zwolak and Guifr´ e Vidal, “Mixed-state dy- namics in one-dimensional quantum lattice systems: A time-dependent superoperator renormalization algo- rithm,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    Theory of variational quantum simula- tion,

    Xiao Yuan, Suguru Endo, Qi Zhao, Simon Benjamin, and Ying Li, “Theory of variational quantum simula- tion,” arXiv:1812.08767 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Variational quantum simulation of general processes,

    Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Simon Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Variational quantum simulation of general processes,” arXiv:1812.08778 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quan- tum computing devices,

    Zixuan Hu, Rongxin Xia, and Sabre Kais, “A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quan- tum computing devices,” arXiv:1904.00910 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Qulacs, https://github.com/qulacs/qulacs

  48. [56]

    A practical quantum instruction set architecture,

    Robert S Smith, Michael J Curtis, and William J Zeng, “A practical quantum instruction set architecture,” arXiv:1608.03355 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Se- quential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hy- brid algorithms,

    Ken M Nakanishi, Keisuke Fujii, and Synge Todo, “Se- quential minimal optimization for quantum-classical hy- brid algorithms,” arXiv:1903.12166 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,

    G. Lindblad, “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,” Comm. Math. Phys. 48, 119–130 (1976)

    1976

  51. [59]

    Completely positive dynam- ical semigroups of n-level systems,

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and Ennackal Chandy George Sudarshan, “Completely positive dynam- ical semigroups of n-level systems,” Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 17, 821–825 (1976)

    1976

  52. [60]

    Rivas and S.F

    ´A. Rivas and S.F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction, Springer- Briefs in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Dissipative quantum church-turing theorem,

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, “Dissipative quantum church-turing theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 120501 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Making sense of non-hermitian hamil- tonians,

    Carl M Bender, “Making sense of non-hermitian hamil- tonians,” Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    Stabilizing open quantum systems by markovian reservoir engineering,

    S. G. Schirmer and Xiaoting Wang, “Stabilizing open quantum systems by markovian reservoir engineering,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 062306 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    It can be shown that the overlap in the vector represen- tation, f, between the exact NESS and the optimized ansatz can be bounded as 1 −f 2≥⟨L†L⟩/δ where δ is the lowest non-zero eigenvalue of ˆL† ˆL

  57. [65]

    Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets,

    Andrew Jena, Scott Genin, and Michele Mosca, “Pauli partitioning with respect to gate sets,” arXiv:1907.07859 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Measuring all compatible operators in one series of a single-qubit measurements using unitary transforma- tions,

    Tzu-Ching Yen, Vladyslav Verteletskyi, and Artur F. Iz- maylov, “Measuring all compatible operators in one series of a single-qubit measurements using unitary transforma- tions,” arXiv:1907.09386 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method,

    Artur F. Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, Robert A. Lang, and Vladyslav Verteletskyi, “Unitary partitioning approach to the measurement problem in the variational quantum eigensolver method,” arXiv:1907.09040 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Revising the measurement process in the variational quantum eigensolver: is it possible to reduce the number of separately measured operators?

    Artur F. Izmaylov, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Ilya G. Ryabinkin, “Revising the measurement process in the variational quantum eigensolver: is it possible to reduce the number of separately measured operators?” Chem. Sci. 10, 3746–3755 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Application of fermionic marginal constraints to hybrid quantum algorithms,

    Nicholas C Rubin, Ryan Babbush, and Jarrod McClean, “Application of fermionic marginal constraints to hybrid quantum algorithms,” New Journal of Physics20, 053020 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Measurement optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover,

    Vladyslav Verteletskyi, Tzu-Ching Yen, and Artur F. Izmaylov, “Measurement optimization in the variational quantum eigensolver using a minimum clique cover,” arXiv:1907.03358 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Efficient quantum measurement of pauli op- erators,

    Ophelia Crawford, Barnaby van Straaten, Daochen Wang, Thomas Parks, Earl Campbell, and Stephen Brierley, “Efficient quantum measurement of pauli op- erators,” arXiv:1908.06942 (2019). 13

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Note that it is a NP-hard problem to check whether the condition (II) is satisfied in tensor network methods [70]

  65. [73]

    Persistent currents by reservoir engineering,

    Maximilian Keck, Davide Rossini, and Rosario Fazio, “Persistent currents by reservoir engineering,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 053812 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms,

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, “Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms,” Nature Physics 4, 878–883 (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    With K control qubits for the rotational gate, the cost function with respect to its parameter includes terms with period 2π, 22π,..., 2K+1π

  68. [76]

    Subspace variational quantum simula- tor,

    Kentaro Heya, Ken M Nakanishi, Kosuke Mitarai, and Keisuke Fujii, “Subspace variational quantum simula- tor,” arXiv:1904.08566 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Error mitigation for short-depth quantum cir- cuits,

    Kristan Temme, Sergey Bravyi, and Jay M. Gam- betta, “Error mitigation for short-depth quantum cir- cuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    Matrix-product operators and states: Np-hardness and undecidability,

    M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, “Matrix-product operators and states: Np-hardness and undecidability,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 160503 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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