Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Quest for quantum advantage: Monte Carlo wave-function simulations of the Coherent Ising Machine

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that starting a Coherent Ising Machine from quantum superposition states and ramping its couplings can find Ising ground states faster than the standard vacuum-start protocol, as seen in Monte Carlo wave-function…

desk verdict Solid MCWF simulations of small CIMs, but the quantum-advantage claim is untested against an equal-photon control. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02681 v2 pith:AYVDSDOW submitted 2025-01-05 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Manushan Thenabadu , Run Yan Teh , Jia Wang , Simon Kiesewetter , Margaret D Reid , Peter D Drummond This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P6881V80 PACS 42.65.Yj03.67.Lx
keywords coherentIsingmachineMonteCarlowave-functionmethodquantumcomputationaladvantageopticalparametricoscillatorgroundstatemax-cutproblemdecoherencetime-dependentcoupling
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 paper claims that a Coherent Ising Machine (CIM) — an optical network of parametric oscillators that searches for Ising-model ground states — can reach the correct solution faster when it starts from quantum superposition (cat) states and when the oscillator couplings are ramped up over time, rather than starting from the classical vacuum state with fixed couplings. To test this in a regime where Gaussian approximations are invalid, the authors simulate the full quantum master equation with Monte Carlo wave-function (quantum jump) methods, handling Hilbert spaces exceeding $10^7$ dimensions. In their small three- to five-mode simulations, the superposition-initialized machine reaches higher success probabilities sooner, and time-dependent couplings provide a further speed-up, which they interpret as evidence that quantum effects can help overcome trapping in false minima. Their purity analysis shows that decoherence is the main obstacle, so the advantage appears only in a low-dissipation regime with time-varying parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Monte Carlo wave-function (MCWF) method, a quantum-jump algorithm that evolves a stochastic wave function under a non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian and applies Lindblad jump operators at random times, so the computational cost scales with the Hilbert-space dimension rather than its square, as in master-equation methods. The simulations use number-state cutoffs (up to $16$ photons per mode, truncation checked by varying the cutoff) and evaluate the success rate from quadrature probability distributions via Hermite integrals; they also compute the state purity as a decoherence diagnostic. The system is the standard CIM master equation: $M$ degenerate optical parametric oscillators with one- and two-photon damping and coherent coupling, initialized either in vacuum, in a product of cat states, or in an $M$-partite entangled state, with time-dependent coupling coefficient $J_{\mathrm{coef}}(t)$ and time-dependent nonlinear dissipation $g(t)$.

What would settle it

Simulate the same three-, four-, and five-mode problems with each mode initialized in a classical coherent state $\lvert\alpha\rangle$ with $\alpha = 2.582$ (the amplitude used for the cat states) and compare the time to maximum success probability with the paper's Fig. 3; if the coherent-state curves match the cat-state curves, the quantum-advantage claim collapses. A second check is to run a classical (mean-field or positive-P) CIM simulation with the same time-dependent couplings and see whether the same success-rate improvements appear without any non-classical initial state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Coherent Ising Machine can exhibit a quantum advantage in the speed of finding Ising ground states when it is initialized in a non-classical superposition of coherent states (a cat product state) and operated with time-varying couplings in a low-dissipation regime. Using Monte Carlo wave-function simulations that do not assume Gaussianity, the authors compare vacuum, cat-product, and entangled initial states on frustrated three-, four-, and five-spin problems and on a five-node max-cut problem. They find that the cat-product state (coherent amplitude $\alpha = 2.582$, mean photon number $6.667$ per mode) reaches maximum success probability faster than the vacuum state, while the entangled state gives mixed results; increasing the coupling strength fourfold via a linear ramp, or decreasing the two-photon dissipation from $0.9$ to $0.6$, further raises the success rate. The purity analysis shows that the initial quantum state decoheres quickly under strong dissipation, so the advantage survives only in the low-dissipation regime where time-dependent couplings are used.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed quantum advantage is measured against a vacuum initial state, but the cat state that wins also carries many more photons ($\alpha = 2.582$ per mode); without a coherent-state baseline at the same amplitude, the speed-up cannot be pinned to quantum superposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the speed-up persists at larger sizes, initializing a CIM in a cat product state and ramping the coupling could reduce time-to-solution for max-cut and other Ising-type problems compared with vacuum-initialized machines.
  • The finding that a linear ramp of the coupling improves success rates suggests that the control schedule itself is a resource, analogous to annealing schedules in other quantum optimizers.
  • The purity measurements give an operationally measurable correlate: high success rates appear when purity is preserved, so reducing absorption in the coupling path should directly boost solver performance.
  • The MCWF simulations, scaling linearly in Hilbert-space dimension, provide a benchmark method for testing non-Gaussian quantum effects in CIMs of three to five modes, beyond what master equations can reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not compare the cat-product initial state with a classical coherent state of the same amplitude, so the observed speed-up could in principle come from the higher initial photon number rather than from quantum superposition; a coherent-state baseline would separate these.
  • The time-dependent coupling strategies resemble quantum-annealing schedules, suggesting a testable connection: if the CIM speed-up mirrors transverse-field annealing on the same small instances, the effect may be generic to ramped interactions rather than specific to optical parametric oscillators.
  • The success-rate measure uses only the sign of the quadrature, discarding amplitude information; a threshold-based readout using the full joint distribution might change the apparent advantage and is worth testing.
  • Because the paper's own caveat limits conclusions to small systems, a natural extension is to simulate larger $M$ with sparse or tensor-network wave-function methods to see whether the advantage grows, saturates, or reverses with system size.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Monte Carlo wave-function simulations of a coherent Ising machine (CIM) with up to five modes, using both xSPDE4 and QuTiP implementations. The authors compare initial vacuum states with quantum superposition states (cat product and entangled states) and study time-dependent coupling and dissipation schedules. They report improved success rates and faster time-to-solution for non-classical initial states in a low-dissipation regime, and interpret the results as evidence for potential quantum computational advantage. They also compute purity to analyze decoherence.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would provide indicative evidence that quantum coherence in the initial state can improve small-scale CIM optimization. The manuscript has clear strengths: the MCWF method is standard and implemented with two independent codes, the photon-number cutoff is checked (Fig. 2), and sampling and time-step errors are reported for the 4-mode case. However, the significance is currently limited because the claimed quantum advantage rests on a comparison that confounds quantum superpositions with initial photon number, and the abstract promises classical CIM comparisons that are not actually presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A, Eq. (29), Fig. 3] The central comparison conflates quantum superposition with initial photon number. The cat product state ψ_sup uses α = 2.582, giving mean photon number 6.667 per mode, whereas the vacuum state ψ_vac has zero photons. A coherent state with the same amplitude, or the classical mixture (|α⟩⟨α| + |-α⟩⟨-α|)/2, would have the same photon number without inter-component coherence. If either control reproduces the observed speed-up, the claim that quantum superpositions are responsible collapses into an amplitude or photon-number effect. This control is essential to the abstract's claim of quantum computational advantage and is presently missing.
  2. [Abstract and Section II, Eq. (8)] The abstract states that 'comparisons with classical CIM models give evidence that quantum tunneling effects in this strong coupling limit can overcome trapping in false minima,' but the manuscript never simulates the classical mean-field equation Eq. (8) or any other classical CIM model. The only benchmark used is the vacuum initial state, which is a quantum state, not a classical CIM model. Without these simulations, the claim about overcoming trapping in false minima is unsupported.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 5] The success-rate differences between initial states are reported without error bars or statistical significance tests. For the M = 5 case the improvement is described as marginal, and for the low-dissipation case the advantage is short-lived. Since the success rates in Fig. 4 are only about 0.13-0.16 and the sampling error is ~4e-3, the reader cannot assess whether the differences in Figs. 3 and 5 are statistically meaningful. Confidence intervals or a statistical test should be provided for the main comparisons.
  4. [Section IV, Fig. 7(a)] The time-dependent coupling speed-up in Fig. 7(a) is presented without sampling error or statistical significance analysis. The claim that a linear increase of J_coef(t) improves the maximum success rate is a central part of the paper's message, and the absence of error estimates weakens the reliability of this conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II B, Eqs. (21)-(25)] The notation for the Hermite integrals is inconsistent: Eqs. (21)-(22) write Λ(m_i, m_i') as the integral of Hermite polynomials without the Gaussian weight or normalization, while Eq. (25) gives a formula that apparently includes the e^{-x^2} weight. The text should clarify that the Hermite functions (including the Gaussian factor) are used in the quadrature probability, or define the integrals consistently.
  2. [Section II C, Eq. (28)] The purity estimator in Eq. (28) includes the i = j terms in the double sum, which contribute unity and can bias the sample purity upward, especially for small trajectory numbers. Excluding self-terms or using a standard unbiased estimator would be more appropriate.
  3. [Introduction and Section III B] The claim that the simulations involve Hilbert spaces exceeding 10^7 dimensions is not demonstrated for the presented cases: with M = 5 and N = 16 the dimension is 17^5 ≈ 1.4 × 10^6. If an M = 6 case was simulated, it should be shown; otherwise the statement is misleading.
  4. [Section IV A, Fig. 9] The success-rate curves for the max-cut problem with different g(t) schedules are shown without error estimates, and the text does not report the number of trajectories or time steps used. This information is needed to judge the significance of the observed improvement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: simulation results are measured directly from trajectories with independent cross-checked codes; no fitted parameter is renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper is an unravelling simulation study, not a derivation of a predicted quantity from first principles. All claimed outputs (success rates, purities, time-to-maximum-success) are computed directly from Monte Carlo wave-function trajectories via quadrature probabilities (Eqs. 17-25). No parameter is fitted to the reported success data; the initial states, coupling strengths, and time-dependent schedules are chosen by hand and their outcomes are measured. The central comparison (cat product state vs. vacuum) is confounded by photon number, since the cat state has mean photon number 6.667 per mode while vacuum has zero, and no equal-amplitude coherent-state control is provided. This is a genuine experimental-design weakness that undermines the quantum-advantage inference, but it is not circularity: the success rate is not defined in terms of the initial state, and the improvement is not forced by construction. The cited master equation (Eq. 7), steady-state solution, and MCWF algorithm are standard background results; the numerical evidence is cross-checked with two independent codes (xSPDE4 and QuTiP), so self-citations are not load-bearing. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by definition.

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

The central claim rests on the validity of the dissipative master equation description, the sufficiency of number-state truncation, the adequacy of the vacuum baseline, and the choice of hand-picked schedules. The most consequential entry is the baseline assumption: without an equal-amplitude coherent-state simulation, the speed-up cannot be assigned to quantum superposition.

free parameters (5)
  • Coherent amplitude alpha for initial cat states = 2.582
    Sets mean photon number 6.667 per mode; chosen by hand, not derived from the problem. The success-rate comparison to vacuum confounds quantumness with photon number.
  • Photon number cutoff N = 16 (main cases), 5 (4-mode case)
    Chosen for memory limits; truncation convergence shown only for vacuum state in Fig. 2, not for cat or entangled initial states.
  • J12 coupling values = 0.295 and -0.295
    Selected close to degeneracy points to create hard test cases; the observed improvements are sensitive to this choice.
  • Time-dependent coupling coefficient Jcoef(t) schedules = constant 1; linear 3t/tmax+1; tanh forms
    Hand-picked schedules in Fig. 7; speed-up claim depends on these specific forms rather than a systematic optimization.
  • Time-dependent nonlinear dissipation g(t) schedules = 0.6; -0.22tanh(t)+0.9; -0.22t/16+0.9; -0.6tanh(t)+1; -1.7tanh(t)+2
    Hand-picked schedules in Fig. 9; improvement is shown for selected forms only.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Master equation Eq. (7) with Lindblad coupling operators Lij = ai - sgn(Jij)aj describes the CIM
    The couplings are modeled as dissipative, not unitary, which the authors acknowledge causes decoherence; actual CIM coupling may be more coherent.
  • ad hoc to paper Photon-number truncation N is sufficient for accurate success probabilities
    Figure 2 checks truncation only for the vacuum state, not for the cat or entangled initial states; no truncation-error analysis for the reported improvements.
  • standard math Sampled MCWF trajectories reproduce the master equation
    MCWF is a standard unravelling; per-trajectory quadrature probabilities averaged over trajectories give the unconditional probability.
  • domain assumption Quadrature sign readout corresponds to Ising spin
    The paper assumes xi >= 0 maps to spin up and xi < 0 to spin down; with low photon numbers quantum noise can make this readout unreliable, which the authors note.
  • ad hoc to paper A vacuum initial state is an adequate classical benchmark
    Vacuum has zero photons, while cat states have 6.667 mean photons per mode; this confounds quantum superposition with initial signal strength.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quest for quantum advantage: Monte Carlo wave-function simulations of the Coherent Ising Machine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AYVDSDOW

@misc{pith2026250102681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quest for quantum advantage: Monte Carlo wave-function simulations of the Coherent Ising Machine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AYVDSDOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02681}
}
abstract

The Coherent Ising Machine (CIM) is a quantum network of optical parametric oscillators (OPOs) intended to find ground states of the Ising model. This is an NP-hard problem, related to several important minimization problems, including the max-cut graph problem. In order to enhance its potential performance, we analyze the coherent coupling strategy for the CIM in a highly quantum regime. To explore this limit, without assuming gaussianity, we employ accurate numerical simulations. Due to the inherent complexity of the system, the maximum network size is limited. While master equation methods can be used, their scalability diminishes rapidly for larger systems. Instead, we use Monte Carlo wave-function methods, which scale as the wave-function dimension, and use large numbers of samples. These simulations involve Hilbert spaces exceeding $10^{7}$ dimensions. To evaluate success probabilities, we use quadrature probabilities. We demonstrate the potential for quantum computational advantage by reducing the time required to reach maximum success probability in a low-dissipation regime enabled by initial quantum superpositions and entanglement. Furthermore, we demonstrate that tailored time-dependent couplings can amplify these quantum effects. Comparisons with classical CIM models give evidence that quantum tunneling effects in this strong coupling limit can overcome trapping in false minima. This can greatly increase success rates, indicating a potential for quantum advantage. Finally, we perform a coherence analysis based on the state purity to examine the role of quantum coherence in CIM performance and to determine how state purity correlates with improved optimization outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ising spin diagram of M = 3, M = 4 and M = 5 spin arrangements with nearest neighbor interactions only, with uniform interaction strength (Jij = −1, where i and j are nearest neighbor modes), with the sign of the J12 interaction flipped (J12 = J21 = 1). . spin configuration, the success rate would be ∼ 1 2M . An important issue is the cut-off Nc > nc, which largely determines how many modes can be treated. For good … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The time evolution of the success probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the success rate for the anti-ferromagnetic spin problem for three cases, M = 3, M = 4 and M = 5 . Three initial states are compared: the vacuum state ψvac (Black), the coherent superposition state ψsup (Blue) and the M-partite entangled state ψent (red). Simulation parameters are set to λ = 2.4 and g = 0.6, with a total simulation time of t = 8 and Nsteps = 1200 time steps, averaged over 104 realizatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a: Ferromagnetic spin problem with specialized weights.b: Maximum Success rate for different J12 in (a). Ising machine (CIM). For the M = 5 case, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a: Time evolution of the success rate for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Success rate measurement for the 5 mode Max-cut problem, where we consider differing strategies for non-linear dissipation g. Here α = 2.582. pushing it into the non-classical regime. We observe an improvement in the simulation, specifically an increase in the maximum …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (19) ⊗ Λ(σM )(mM , m′ M )

    ⊗ Λ(σ2)(m2, m′ 2)... (19) ⊗ Λ(σM )(mM , m′ M ). (20) In this expression„ Λ(mi, m′ i) are the Hermite inte- grals for theith mode, evaluated analytically as: Λ(mi, m′ i) = ˆ Hmi (x)Hm′ i (x)dxi, (21) where σi represents the spin for the ith mode. On binning the quadrature measurements for two possible spins, we have σi = {+, −} depending on the spin of eac...

    work page

  2. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, International Journal of International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 476 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

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

    2010

  4. [4]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell, et al., Nature 574, 505 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Zhong, H

    H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu,et al., Science 370, 1460 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan,et al., Physical review letters127, 180501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.- H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong,et al., Science bulletin 67, 240 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins,et al., Nature 606, 75 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    P. D. Drummond, B. Opanchuk, A. Dellios, and M. D. Reid, Physical Review A105, 012427 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pear- son, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    G. F. Newell and E. W. Montroll, Rev. Mod. Phys.25, 353 (1953)

    1953

  4. [12]

    M. G. Teodor Gabriel Crainic and A. Frangioni, eds., Combinatorial Optimization and Applications, Vol. 358 (Springer nature Switzerland, 2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Crescenzi and V

    P. Crescenzi and V. Kann, A compendium of np opti- mization problems

  6. [14]

    Sankar, A

    K. Sankar, A. Scherer, S. Kako, S. Reifenstein, N. Ghadermarzy, W. B. Krayenhoff, Y. Inui, E. Ng, T. Onodera, P. Ronagh, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03528 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lucas, Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    F. W. Glover and G. A. Kochenberger, ArXiv abs/1811.11538 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Yamamoto, K

    Y. Yamamoto, K. Aihara, T. Leleu, K. I. Kawarabayashi, S. Kako, M. Fejer, K. Inoue, and H. Takesue, Coherent ising machines - optical neural networks operating at the quantum limit (2017)

    2017

  10. [19]

    P. L. McMahon, A. Marandi, Y. Haribara, R. Hamerly, C. Langrock, S. Tamate, T. In- agaki, H. Takesue, S. Utsunomiya, K. Ai- hara, R. L. Byer, M. M. Fejer, H. Mabuchi, and Y. Yamamoto, Science 354, 614 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aah5178

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    Inagaki, K

    T. Inagaki, K. Inaba, R. Hamerly, K. Inoue, Y. Ya- mamoto, and H. Takesue, Nature Photonics 10, 415 (2016)

    2016

  12. [21]

    Honjo, T

    T. Honjo, T. Sonobe, K. Inaba, T. Inagaki, T. Ikuta, Y. Yamada, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, T. Umeki, R. Kasahara, et al., Science advances 7, eabh0952 (2021)

    2021

  13. [22]

    R. Y. Teh, P. D. Drummond, and M. D. Reid, Physical Review Research 2, 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.2.043387 (2020)

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    Kiesewetter and P

    S. Kiesewetter and P. D. Drummond, Physical Review A 106, 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.022409 (2022)

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    P. D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General13, 2353 (1980). 10

    1980

  16. [25]

    E. Ng, T. Onodera, S. Kako, P. L. McMahon, H. Mabuchi, and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review Re- search 4, 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013009 (2022)

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    Mølmer, Y

    K. Mølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, JOSA B10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  18. [27]

    Drummond, K

    P. Drummond, K. McNeil, and D. Walls, Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics27, 321 (1980)

    1980

  19. [28]

    Drummond, K

    P. Drummond, K. McNeil, and D. Walls, Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics28, 211 (1981)

    1981

  20. [29]

    Kinsler and P

    P. Kinsler and P. D. Drummond, Quantum dynamics of the parametric oscillator (1991)

    1991

  21. [30]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical methods in quantum optics 2: Non-classical fields(Springer Science & Business Me- dia, 2009)

    2009

  22. [31]

    Krippner, W

    L. Krippner, W. J. Munro, and M. D. Reid, Physical Review A 50, 4330 (1994)

    1994

  23. [32]

    Wolinsky and H

    M. Wolinsky and H. J. Carmichael, Physical Review Letters 60, 1836 (1988)

    1988

  24. [33]

    Gilles, B

    L. Gilles, B. M. Garraway, and P. L. Knight, Physical Review A 49, 2785 (1994)

    1994

  25. [34]

    Marandi, Z

    A. Marandi, Z. Wang, K. Takata, R. L. Byer, and Y. Ya- mamoto, Nature Photonics8, 937 (2014)

    2014

  26. [35]

    H. Goto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Inui and Y

    Y. Inui and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review A 102, 062419 (2020)

    2020

  28. [37]

    Goto, Quantum computation based on quantum adi- abatic bifurcations of kerr-nonlinear parametric oscilla- tors (2019)

    H. Goto, Quantum computation based on quantum adi- abatic bifurcations of kerr-nonlinear parametric oscilla- tors (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    K. T. Hayato Goto and A. R. Dixon, Sci Adv.5 (2019)

    2019

  30. [39]

    C. H. Mingrui Jiang, Keyi Shan and C. Li, Nature Com- munications 14 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    Haribara, S

    Y. Haribara, S. Utsunomiya, and Y. Yamamoto, En- tropy 18, 10.3390/e18040151 (2016)

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General25, 5677 (1992)

    1992

  33. [42]

    F. M.-F. M. Rigo and P. O’Mahony, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General30, 7557 (1997)

    1997

  34. [43]

    Y. C. K. Mølmer and J. Dalibard, Journal of the Optical Society of America B10, 524 (1993)

    1993

  35. [44]

    e. a. Peter D. Drummond, The quantum and stochastic toolbox: xspde4.2

  36. [45]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  37. [46]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  38. [47]

    T. A. B. Kennedy and D. F. Walls, Physical Review A 37, 152 (1988)

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.