Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Method for simulating open-system dynamics using mid-circuit measurements on a quantum computer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum computer can simulate open-system electron transport using mid-circuit measurements and resets instead of bath qubits.

desk verdict A practical reset-based method for simulating open-system contacts on quantum hardware, but the unquantified dephasing channels undermine the central claim as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15187 v2 pith:B2CDOEIT submitted 2025-04-21 quant-ph

John P. T. Stenger , Gloria Bazargan , Nicholas T. Bronn , Daniel Gunlycke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Lx03.65.Yz
keywords openquantumsystemsmid-circuitmeasurementresetLindbladmasterequationtransportelectrondynamicssimulationnon-unitaryoperations
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 the non-unitary dynamics of an open electronic system can be simulated on a quantum computer using only mid-circuit measurements and resets, without allocating any qubits to a bath. At each Trotter step, the boundary qubits are probabilistically measured and reset to $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$ to remove or inject an electron, with probabilities set by Fermi-Dirac occupations and tunneling rates. In the $N_t \to \infty$ limit, the procedure reproduces the Lindblad master equation for a system in contact with two conductors. The authors demonstrate electron-density dynamics for 7-, 12-, and 20-site chains on a superconducting quantum processor, with qualitative agreement with classical simulations. The payoff is that nonequilibrium transport simulations no longer require an explicit bath register, widening the range of open systems addressable on current hardware.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the measurement-and-reset operation at the boundary qubits. A mid-circuit measurement of a qubit, followed by a conditional $X$ gate, is equivalent to resetting that qubit to a chosen state; the paper uses this to inject an electron (reset to $|1\rangle$) or remove one (reset to $|0\rangle$) with probabilities $P^{\mathrm{in}}_{q\alpha}=\eta_{q\alpha} f(\mu_\alpha)$ and $P^{\mathrm{out}}_{q\alpha}=\eta_{q\alpha}[1-f(\mu_\alpha)]$, where $\eta_{q\alpha}=\Gamma_{q\alpha} t/N_t$. Iterating unitary Trotter steps and these boundary resets produces, in the $N_t\to\infty$ limit, a Lindblad master equation for the open system. The same machinery also produces the extra depolarizing channels, so the Appendix A comparison to the Lindblad equation is the load-bearing derivation.

What would settle it

Simulate the full master equation that includes the unavoidable extra channels $\hat L_2=\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\,\hat n$ and $\hat L_3=\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\,\bar n$ for the seven-site chain at $\gamma=3.0$ meV, $v=10.0$ meV, and $\eta_{qc}=0.5$ meV, and compare the time-dependent densities with the ideal Lindblad equation that omits them; if the difference is not small relative to the hardware noise in the paper's Fig. 3, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a reversible quantum circuit can implement non-reversible electron injection and removal by using the backaction of a mid-circuit measurement: measuring a boundary qubit and conditionally flipping it to $|1\rangle$ (injection) or $|0\rangle$ (removal) realizes the contact Lindblad operators $\hat L_0=\sqrt{\Gamma f(\mu)}\,\hat c^\dagger$ and $\hat L_1=\sqrt{\Gamma[1-f(\mu)]}\,\hat c$ in the limit of many small steps. The Appendix A derivation shows that the same operation unavoidably generates two additional depolarizing channels, $\hat L_2=\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{in}}}\,\hat n$ and $\hat L_3=\sqrt{r_{\mathrm{out}}}\,\bar n$, which the paper asserts do not significantly alter the dynamics. A numerical comparison against Lindblad evolution for a seven-site interacting chain matches the group velocity and long-time average density. The claimed generality is that any open system whose openness consists of electron exchange with contacts can be treated this way, with no bath qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement and reset steps unavoidably add extra decoherence at the contact, and the paper assumes this extra decoherence is too small to change the electron dynamics; if that assumption fails, the method simulates a noisy lead rather than a clean one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-system transport simulation on a quantum computer requires only as many qubits as the system itself, because the bath is represented by the measurement-reset boundary rather than by extra registers.
  • The same boundary procedure should work for any open electronic system whose coupling to contacts is captured by tunneling rates and Fermi-Dirac occupations, which the authors state as the method's general applicability.
  • Finite-step discretization effects, such as injecting a whole electron rather than a continuous fractional density, shrink as $N_t$ grows, so accuracy is controlled by step size rather than bath size.
  • The 20-site demonstration on a real processor indicates that the method's resource cost is compatible with current hardware error rates for transport-scale simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The same measurement-reset primitive could implement other non-unitary channels, such as spontaneous emission or dephasing, by resetting a qubit to a chosen single-qubit state rather than only to $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$.
  • Inference: A quantitative error bound on the two unavoidable depolarizing channels would turn the paper's qualitative agreement into a validity criterion; without one, the method's useful range is tied to the specific parameters tested.
  • Inference: Because the algorithm is a trajectory-level unravelling of the Lindblad equation, retaining only runs in which no reset fired would isolate purely unitary dynamics, which could serve as a built-in hardware error check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a method for simulating the dynamics of open quantum systems on a quantum computer using mid-circuit measurements and resets, avoiding the need for auxiliary bath qubits. The idea is to alternate Trotterized unitary evolution with probabilistic electron injection and removal at boundary qubits, with the probabilities set by the Fermi function and a tunneling rate. The authors implement the algorithm on IBM's 133-qubit Heron processor (ibm_torino) for a one-dimensional interacting fermion chain coupled to source and drain contacts, and compare the resulting electron densities with classical simulations and with Lindblad master-equation evolution. In Appendix A, they derive the effective master equation in the continuous-time limit and show that the algorithm converges to a Lindblad equation with four jump operators: the intended injection and removal channels, plus two additional dephasing channels that arise unavoidably from the measurement/reset procedure. The paper asserts that these extra channels do not significantly alter the dynamics, and on that basis claims that the method simulates an open electronic system in contact with two conductors.

Significance. The method is conceptually interesting and resource-efficient: it avoids explicit bath degrees of freedom and relies on mid-circuit reset capabilities that exist on current hardware. The derivation in Appendix A is explicit and algebraically sound, and the paper reports a hardware demonstration on a 30-qubit simulation. The method has no fitted parameters, and the comparison between classical and quantum executions is a useful sanity check. However, the central theoretical claim rests on the unquantified assertion that the spurious dephasing channels are negligible. If that can be established with a bound or a targeted numerical comparison, the method would be a practical option for open-system simulations on near-term devices. In its current form, the claim that the method simulates the standard two-conductor Lindblad dynamics is not fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A (Eq. (A5))] The continuous-time limit derived in Eq. (A5) contains, in addition to the intended source and drain channels L0=√rin c† and L1=√rout c, two unavoidable dephasing channels L2=√rin n and L3=√rout n̄ with rates of order rin and rout. The sentence following Eq. (A5) that these 'extra depolarising channels' (dephasing channels) 'do not significantly alter the dynamics' is the load-bearing step in the paper's central claim, but it is not substantiated: no error bound is given, and the numerical comparison in Fig. 5 and Table 3 compares the finite-δt discrete-injection method against the two-channel Lindblad equation, which cannot separate discretization/Trotter error from the dephasing error. In fact, Table 3 shows a factor-of-two discrepancy in the time-averaged density at the drain site (0.20 for the method versus 0.09 for Lindblad). To support the claim, the authors should derive a bound on the dephasing-induced error in the observables of interest (e.g., as a function of Γ/γ, Γ/v, or δt) or add a numerical comparison against the four-channel Lindblad equation (L0–L3) with the same parameters.
  2. [Section II.B (limit statement)] The statement in Section II.B that 'In the limit Nt→∞, this method simulates the dynamics of a system in contact with two conductors' is not what Eq. (A5) establishes; the limit actually yields a Lindblad equation with four jump operators, including the two spurious dephasing channels. The appendix itself softens this to 'a quantum system in contact with a noisy quantum lead', but the abstract and main text retain the stronger claim. This mismatch should be resolved either by weakening the claim to describe the method as an approximate simulator with controlled accuracy, or by providing the missing analysis that justifies neglecting L2 and L3 for the target observables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The sentence 'The operators L3 and L4 represent depolarizing channels' contains a typo: the extra channels are L2 and L3 in Eq. (A5), and they are dephasing, not depolarizing, channels.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states 'with Pin = Pout = 0.5', which is inconsistent with the parameters used in Section III.C, where the tunneling probability per step is η = 0.5 meV and the injection/removal probabilities are determined by the Fermi functions. Please clarify which quantity is 0.5.
  3. [Appendix B] The device name is spelled 'imb_torino' in Appendix B, while the main text uses 'ibm_torino'; the misspelling should be corrected.
  4. [Section III.C] In the sentence 'we set v=10.0 meV, ηqc = 0.5 meV', the subscript in 'ηqc' is unclear and the units are inconsistent with the dimensionless definition of η in Eq. (3); please specify the actual values of Γ, t, and Nt, and use consistent notation.
  5. [References [49,50]] The definition of Γqα as the tunneling rate is attributed to Refs. [49,50], but neither of the cited papers appears to define a tunneling rate between a quantum dot and a metallic contact; a more standard reference for this quantity would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the algorithm's master equation is derived algebraically from the stated measurement/reset map, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the algorithm in Table 1 to the claimed open-system dynamics. The central limit statement, "In the limit Nt→∞, this method simulates the dynamics of a system in contact with two conductors," is supported by Appendix A, which algebraically derives Eq. (A5) from the explicitly defined mid-circuit measurement/reset procedure. The rates rin and rout are set equal to the physical tunneling rates Γ f(μ) and Γ[1−f(μ)]; they are not fitted after the fact. The resulting Lindblad operators L0=√rin c† and L1=√rout c are the intended injection/removal channels, and the paper explicitly identifies the unavoidable additional depolarizing channels L2=√rin n and L3=√rout n̄. The assertion that these extra channels "do not significantly alter the dynamics" is an accuracy approximation, not a circular reduction: it is not used to define the method's output as the target dynamics, and it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The numerical comparison in Fig. 5/Table 3 is a cross-check of the algorithm against a Lindblad evolution, not an input to the derivation. The paper cites prior work by the same authors on mid-circuit measurements for context, but that work is not used as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or as the source of an ansatz. No self-citation chain forces the central result, and no known result is merely renamed in new coordinates. Therefore, even though the negligibility of the extra depolarizing channels is an unquantified approximation that could be questioned on correctness grounds, that is outside the circularity taxonomy and does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no fitted constants. The demonstration uses fixed model parameters (γ, v, Γ, Nt/t). The main load-bearing assumption is that the extra dephasing channels in Eq. (A5) are dynamically negligible; this is acknowledged but not quantified. The Lindblad weak-coupling and Markovian assumptions are inherited from open-quantum-system theory.

free parameters (4)
  • Hopping integral γ = 3.0 meV and 5.0 meV
    Model parameter for the demonstration; chosen by hand, not fitted to data. Central method does not depend on it.
  • Electron interaction strength v = 10.0 meV
    Model parameter for the demonstration; chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • Tunneling rate Γ = 0.5 meV
    Contact coupling rate used to set reset probabilities in the demonstration; chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • Trotter resolution Nt/t = 2 meV/ℏ
    Time discretization in the demonstration; the algorithm requires Nt large enough that η=Γt/Nt does not exceed one.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The open system is weakly coupled to Markovian contacts, so dynamics are described by the Lindblad master equation.
    Invoked in Appendix A as the target dynamics; standard for weak coupling to wide-band leads, but not derived in the paper.
  • standard math The Lie-Trotter product formula approximates unitary evolution, and Nt is chosen so that reset probabilities are valid.
    Used in Eq. (2) and Section II.B; requires sufficiently small time steps.
  • ad hoc to paper The extra dephasing channels L2=√rin n and L3=√rout nbar do not significantly alter the electron-density dynamics.
    Asserted after Eq. (A5) with only qualitative numerical support; this is the main faithfulness assumption.
  • domain assumption The Fermi-Dirac distribution f(μ) determines the occupancy of the leads, with f(μS)=1 and f(μD)=0 in the demonstration.
    Used in Eq. (3); standard for metallic contacts at zero temperature or strong bias.
  • domain assumption The two spin sectors are identical and decoupled, so spin can be dropped.
    Stated in Section III.A; valid for the chosen model but not for general open systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Method for simulating open-system dynamics using mid-circuit measurements on a quantum computer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2CDOEIT

@misc{pith2026250415187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Method for simulating open-system dynamics using mid-circuit measurements on a quantum computer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2CDOEIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15187}
}
abstract

We present a method for simulating the dynamics of an open electronic system on a quantum computer. This approach entails mid-circuit measurements and resets to simulate the addition or removal of electrons from the system. Our method provides a way to apply non-reversible operations to a quantum computer without the need for additional qubits. Using this method, we simulate the dynamics of an open electronic system consisting of a chain of electrons positioned between two conductive leads on the $ibm\_torino$ quantum computer. We expect the method to be generally applicable to open systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the open electronic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a, the initial electron density at the left end is n1(0) = 1. The time evolution of this localized electron is described by Eq. (2). We calculate ni(t) for each site and discrete time-point t. As shown in Fig. 2a, n1(t) de￾creases, while the density at neighboring sites increases. At t = 15¯h meV−1 , there is accumulation of density at end site i = L. Now let us consider the dynamics of the same single￾electron syst… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulations of open-system dynamics with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulations on a quantum computer with varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulations of open-system dynamics using Lind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Readout sweet spots for spin qubits with strong spin-orbit interaction

    quant-ph 2025-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Readout back-action in spin qubits from g-tensor modulation is minimized when the magnetic field is oriented so the static Zeeman field is parallel to the sensor-induced Zeeman fluctuation (gB parallel to g'B), a cond...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum proces- sor,

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod R. McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man-Hong Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Qi Zhou, Peter J. Love, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, and Jeremy L. O’Brien, “A varia- tional eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum proces- sor,” Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,

    Jarrod R McClean, Jonathan Romero, Ryan Babbush, and Alá n Aspuru-Guzik, “The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms,” New Journal of Physics 18, 023023 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    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. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wen- ner, T. C. White, P. V. Coveney, P. J. Lo...

    2016

  4. [4]

    Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,

    Abhinav Kandala, Kristan Temme, Antonio D. Córcoles, Antonio Mezzacapo, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gam- betta, “Error mitigation extends the computational reach of a noisy quantum processor,” Nature 567, 491–495 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver,

    Daochen Wang, Oscar Higgott, and Stephen Brierley, “Accelerated variational quantum eigensolver,” Physical Review Letters122 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Quantum computing methods for electronic states of the water molecule,

    Teng Bian, Daniel Murphy, Rongxin Xia, Ammar Daskin, and Sabre Kais, “Quantum computing methods for electronic states of the water molecule,” Molecular Physics 117, 2069–2082 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Hartree- fock on a superconducting qubit quantum computer,

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Ba- con, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Sergio Boixo, Michael Broughton, Bob B. Buckley, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Nicholas Bushnell, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Benjamin Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, SeanDemura, AndrewDunsworth, EdwardFarhi, Austin Fowler, Brooks Foxen, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustin...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Quantum computa- tional chemistry,

    Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alá n Aspuru-Guzik, Si- mon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan, “Quantum computa- tional chemistry,” Reviews of Modern Physics92 (2020), 10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.015003 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Information and Algorithms for Correlated Quantum Matter,

    Kade Head-Marsden, Johannes Flick, Christopher J Cic- carino, and Prineha Narang, “Quantum Information and Algorithms for Correlated Quantum Matter,” Chemical Reviews 121, 3061–3120 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout van den Berg, Sami Rosenblatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, and Abhinav Kandala, “Evidence for the util- ity of quantum computing before fault tolerance,” Nature 618, 500–505 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Im- proving the full quantum eigensolver with exponentiated operators,

    Bozhi Wang, Jingwei Wen, Jiawei Wu, Haonan Xie, Fan Yang, Dong Ruan, Shijie Wei, and Gui-lu Long, “Im- proving the full quantum eigensolver with exponentiated operators,” Phys. Rev. B109, 245117 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Efficient uni- versal quantum channel simulation in ibm’s cloud quan- tum computer,

    Shi-Jie Wei, Tao Xin, and Gui-Lu Long, “Efficient uni- versal quantum channel simulation in ibm’s cloud quan- tum computer,” Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy 61, 70311 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Universal simulation of marko- vian open quantum systems,

    Ryan Sweke, Ilya Sinayskiy, Denis Bernard, and Francesco Petruccione, “Universal simulation of marko- vian open quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A91, 062308 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Quantumsimulationofdissipativepro- cesses without reservoir engineering,

    R. Di Candia, J. S. Pedernales, A. del Campo, E. Solano, andJ.Casanova,“Quantumsimulationofdissipativepro- cesses without reservoir engineering,” Scientific Reports 5, 9981 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Duality quantum algorithm efficiently simulates open quantum systems,

    Shi-Jie Wei, Dong Ruan, and Gui-Lu Long, “Duality quantum algorithm efficiently simulates open quantum systems,” Scientific Reports6, 30727 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Solovay-kitaev de- composition strategy for single-qubit channels,

    Dong-Sheng Wang, Dominic W. Berry, Marcos C. de Oliveira, and Barry C. Sanders, “Solovay-kitaev de- composition strategy for single-qubit channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 130504 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating the dynamics of an open quan- tum system,

    Hefeng Wang, S. Ashhab, and Franco Nori, “Quantum algorithm for simulating the dynamics of an open quan- tum system,” Phys. Rev. A83, 062317 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

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

    Zixuan Hu, Rongxin Xia, and Sabre Kais, “A quan- tum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quantum computing devices,” Scientific Reports10, 3301 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Quantum simulation of a general anti- symmetric hamiltonian with a trapped ion qubit,

    Ji Bian, Pengfei Lu, Teng Liu, Hao Wu, Xinxin Rao, Kunxu Wang, Qifeng Lao, Yang Liu, Feng Zhu, and Le Luo, “Quantum simulation of a general anti- symmetric hamiltonian with a trapped ion qubit,” Fun- damental Research3, 904–908 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    En- hanced parameter estimation by measurement of non- hermitian operators,

    Jianning Li, Haodi Liu, Zhihai Wang, and X. X. Yi, “En- hanced parameter estimation by measurement of non- hermitian operators,” AAPPS Bulletin33, 22 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Nonequilibrium phase transition in a periodically drivenxy spin chain,

    Toma ž Prosen and Enej Ilievski, “Nonequilibrium phase transition in a periodically drivenxy spin chain,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 060403 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Vibrations, quanta and biology,

    S.F. Huelga and M.B. Plenio, “Vibrations, quanta and biology,” Contemporary Physics54, 181–207 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Quantum simulator of an open quantum system using superconducting qubits: exciton transport in photosynthetic complexes,

    Sarah Mostame, Patrick Rebentrost, Alexander Eisfeld, Andrew J Kerman, Dimitris I Tsomokos, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik, “Quantum simulator of an open quantum system using superconducting qubits: exciton transport in photosynthetic complexes,” New Journal of Physics 14, 105013 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Terhal and David P

    Barbara M. Terhal and David P. DiVincenzo, “Problem of equilibration and the computation of correlation func- Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited. B DEVICE SPECIFICATIONS tions on a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. A61, 022301 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Preparing quantum statistical ensembles us- ing mid-circuit measurements,

    John P. T. Stenger, C. Stephen Hellberg, and Daniel Gunlycke, “Preparing quantum statistical ensembles us- ing mid-circuit measurements,” Quantum Information Processing 23, 219 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Quantum heat engine power can be in- creased by noise-induced coherence,

    Marlan O. Scully, Kimberly R. Chapin, Konstantin E. Dorfman, Moochan Barnabas Kim, and Anatoly Svidzinsky, “Quantum heat engine power can be in- creased by noise-induced coherence,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 15097–15100 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Efficient biologically inspired photocell enhanced by de- localized quantum states,

    C. Creatore, M. A. Parker, S. Emmott, and A. W. Chin, “Efficient biologically inspired photocell enhanced by de- localized quantum states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 253601 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Simulating spectroscopy ex- periments with a superconducting quantum computer,

    John P. T. Stenger, Gilad Ben-Shach, David Pekker, and Nicholas T. Bronn, “Simulating spectroscopy ex- periments with a superconducting quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043106 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,

    Wojciech Hubert Zurek, “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical,” Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 715–775 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems,

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Elsi-Mari Laine, and Jyrki Piilo, “Measure for the degree of non-markovian behavior of quantum processes in open systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolu- tions,

    Ángel Rivas, Susana F. Huelga, and Martin B. Plenio, “Entanglement and non-markovianity of quantum evolu- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 050403 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Sampling from the thermal quantum gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer,

    David Poulin and Pawel Wocjan, “Sampling from the thermal quantum gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 220502 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Realizing quantum boltzmann machines through eigenstate thermalization,

    Eric R. Anschuetz and Yudong Cao, “Realizing quantum boltzmann machines through eigenstate thermalization,” (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Variational ther- mal quantum simulation via thermofield double states,

    Jingxiang Wu and Timothy H. Hsieh, “Variational ther- mal quantum simulation via thermofield double states,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 220502 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Theory of variational quantum sim- ulation,

    Xiao Yuan, Suguru Endo, Qi Zhao, Ying Li, and Si- mon C. Benjamin, “Theory of variational quantum sim- ulation,” Quantum3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Quantum algorithm for the simulationofopen-systemdynamicsandthermalization,

    Hong-Yi Su and Ying Li, “Quantum algorithm for the simulationofopen-systemdynamicsandthermalization,” Phys. Rev. A101, 012328 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Variational quantum gibbs state preparation with a truncated taylor series,

    Youle Wang, Guangxi Li, and Xin Wang, “Variational quantum gibbs state preparation with a truncated taylor series,” Physical Review Applied16 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Variational quantum boltzmann machines,

    Christa Zoufal, Aurélien Lucchi, and Stefan Woerner, “Variational quantum boltzmann machines,” Quantum Machine Intelligence3 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Minimal effective gibbs ansatz: A simple proto- col for extracting an accurate thermal representation for quantum simulation,

    J. Cohn, F. Yang, K. Najafi, B. Jones, and J. K. Fre- ericks, “Minimal effective gibbs ansatz: A simple proto- col for extracting an accurate thermal representation for quantum simulation,” Physical Review A102 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    On nonlinear transformations in quantum computation,

    Zoë Holmes, Nolan Coble, Andrew T. Sornborger, and Yiğit Subaşı, “On nonlinear transformations in quantum computation,” (2023), arXiv:2112.12307 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Adaptive variational simulation for open quantum systems,

    Huo Chen, Niladri Gomes, Siyuan Niu, and Wibe Al- bert de Jong, “Adaptive variational simulation for open quantum systems,” Quantum8, 1252 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Determin- ing eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum com- puter using quantum imaginary time evolution,

    Mario Motta, Chong Sun, Adrian T. K. Tan, Matthew J. O’Rourke, Erika Ye, Austin J. Minnich, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, “Determin- ing eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum com- puter using quantum imaginary time evolution,” Nature Physics 16, 205...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Quantum simulation of open quantum systems using a unitary decomposition of operators,

    Anthony W. Schlimgen, Kade Head-Marsden, LeeAnn M. Sager, Prineha Narang, and David A. Mazziotti, “Quantum simulation of open quantum systems using a unitary decomposition of operators,” Physical Review Letters127 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Über das paulische äquivalenzverbot,

    Pascual Jordan and Eugene Paul Wigner, “Über das paulische äquivalenzverbot,” Zeitschrift für Physik 47, 631–651 (1928)

    1928

  37. [45]

    Decomposition algorithm of an arbitrary pauli exponential through a quantum circuit,

    Maximilian Balthasar Mansky, Victor Ramos Puigvert, Santiago Londoño Castillo, and Claudia Linnhoff- Popien, “Decomposition algorithm of an arbitrary pauli exponential through a quantum circuit,” (2023), arXiv:2305.04807 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,

    Daniel S. Abrams and Seth Lloyd, “Simulation of many- body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer,” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 2586–2589 (1997)

    1997

  39. [47]

    Simulation of electronic structure hamiltoni- ans using quantum computers,

    James D. Whitfield, Jacob Biamonte, and Alán Aspuru- Guzik and, “Simulation of electronic structure hamiltoni- ans using quantum computers,” Molecular Physics109, 735–750 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Implementing jastrow-gutzwiller operators on a quantum computer using the cascaded variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,

    John P. T. Stenger, C. Stephen Hellberg, and Daniel Gunlycke, “Implementing jastrow-gutzwiller operators on a quantum computer using the cascaded variational quantum eigensolver algorithm,” Physical Review A107 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Tunneling current and noise of entangled electrons in correlated double quantum dot,

    N. S. Maslova, P. I. Arseyev, and V. N. Mantsevich, “Tunneling current and noise of entangled electrons in correlated double quantum dot,” Scientific Reports11, 9336 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Macroscopic quantum tunnelling of a bose-einstein con- densate in a cubic-plus-quadratic well,

    Rui-Bin Liu, Mingyang Liu, and Shizhong Zhang, “Macroscopic quantum tunnelling of a bose-einstein con- densate in a cubic-plus-quadratic well,” AAPPS Bulletin 35, 5 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    A simple derivation of the lindblad equation,

    Carlos Alexandre Brasil, Felipe Fernandes Fanchini, and Reginaldo de Jesus Napolitano, “A simple derivation of the lindblad equation,” Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física 35, 01–09 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,

    Gerardo Ortiz, James E Gubernatis, Emanuel Knill, and Raymond Laflamme, “Quantum algorithms for fermionic simulations,” Physical Review A64, 022319 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Efficient gates for quantum computing,

    David C. McKay, Christopher J. Wood, Sarah Sheldon, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Efficient gates for quantum computing,” Physical Review A96 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    https://quantum.ibm.com/,

    IBM, “https://quantum.ibm.com/,” . Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.