pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19848 · v1 · pith:547KORAAnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🪐 quant-ph

QMCtwin: Master-Equation Simulation of Syndrome Statistics Beyond Pauli Noise

Tong Shen , Huo Chen , Benchen Huang , Tyler Takeshita , Arian Vezvaee , Izhar Medalsy , Daniel A. Lidar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum error correctionsurface codemaster equationquantum Monte Carlosyndrome extractionPauli twirlingopen quantum systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Master-equation simulation of a distance-7 surface code produces syndrome biases and syndrome-logical-parity correlations absent from Pauli-twirled models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces QMCtwin, a quantum Monte Carlo method that simulates the full open-system master equation for syndrome extraction on a 97-qubit distance-7 rotated surface code. It incorporates relaxation, pure dephasing, gate miscalibration, ZZ crosstalk, and detuning, then directly extracts syndrome observables from the generated density-matrix estimators. These observables are compared to those from the corresponding Pauli-twirled Clifford circuit. The comparison shows that the master-equation dynamics generate extraction biases and cross-correlations with logical-string-parity proxies that the stochastic Pauli description suppresses or eliminates. A reader would care because large-scale decoder accuracy depends on faithful mapping of hardware dynamics to syndrome statistics.

Core claim

QMCtwin predicts syndrome-extraction biases and correlations between syndromes and proxies of logical-string-parity that are absent or strongly suppressed in the stochastic Pauli description. Information-theoretic diagnostics further quantify how the information content of syndromes versus string-parity proxies differs between the realistic master-equation simulation and the Pauli-twirled model.

What carries the argument

QMCtwin, a sign-problem-suppressed quantum Monte Carlo framework that evolves an open-system master equation for full QEC circuits and estimates syndrome observables from stochastic density-matrix samples.

If this is right

  • Syndrome statistics extracted from the master-equation trajectory contain biases that Pauli models omit.
  • Correlations appear between measured syndromes and proxies for logical string parity that are strongly suppressed under Pauli twirling.
  • Information-theoretic measures of mutual information between syndromes and string-parity proxies take different values in the two descriptions.
  • Decoder-facing noise models derived from master-equation simulation can retain features discarded by Clifford approximation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Decoders trained on Pauli-generated data may underperform when deployed on hardware whose noise includes the coherent and continuous-time channels retained by QMCtwin.
  • The same framework could be used to test whether adding a small number of extra syndrome observables to the decoder input recovers the missing correlations.
  • If the master-equation biases persist at larger code distances, they would set a lower bound on the logical error rate improvement achievable by any decoder that assumes independent Pauli noise.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen master equation, containing relaxation, pure dephasing, coherent miscalibration, residual ZZ crosstalk, and drive detuning, accurately captures the device dynamics during syndrome extraction.

What would settle it

An experiment on the same distance-7 hardware that measures no extraction biases or syndrome-logical-parity correlations beyond those already present in a Pauli-twirled model would falsify the claim that the master-equation dynamics differ in these observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19848 by Arian Vezvaee, Benchen Huang, Daniel A. Lidar, Huo Chen, Izhar Medalsy, Tong Shen, Tyler Takeshita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Surface-code layout and syndrome-extraction circuits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representative two-plaquette schedule used to con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial distribution of (a),(b) syndrome-extraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Conditional string-parity uncertainty for ME simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Distribution of coupler crosstalk strengths (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Heatmaps of single-qubit parameters. Left: qubit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As quantum error correction moves toward large-scale experimental implementations, decoder performance increasingly depends on how faithfully hardware noise is translated into syndrome statistics. Standard stabilizer workflows achieve scalability by replacing device dynamics with stochastic Pauli or detector-error models, but this compression can discard coherent phase information, nonunital drift, continuous-time effects of always-on couplings, and correlations generated by simultaneous Hamiltonian and dissipative evolution. Here we present QMCtwin, a sign-problem-suppressed quantum Monte Carlo framework for master-equation simulation of QEC circuits, and apply it to a full syndrome-extraction round of a distance-$7$ rotated surface code with $97$ physical qubits. The open-system model includes realistic superconducting-device noise mechanisms such as relaxation, pure dephasing, coherent gate miscalibration, residual $ZZ$ crosstalk, and drive-qubit detuning. By directly estimating syndrome observables from the QMC-generated stochastic density matrix estimator, we compare the master-equation dynamics with their Pauli-twirled Clifford simulation counterparts. QMCtwin predicts syndrome-extraction biases and correlations between syndromes and proxies of logical-string-parity that are absent or strongly suppressed in the stochastic Pauli description. We introduce information-theoretic diagnostics that further quantify how information concerning syndromes versus string-parity proxies differs between the realistic master-equation simulation and the corresponding Pauli-twirled model. These results show that QMC-based master-equation digital twins can expose noise features hidden by conventional Pauli/Clifford noise models and provide a practical path toward more accurate decoder-facing syndrome models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces QMCtwin, a sign-problem-suppressed quantum Monte Carlo framework for direct master-equation simulation of QEC circuits. It applies the method to a complete syndrome-extraction round on a distance-7 rotated surface code (97 qubits) whose open-system dynamics include relaxation, pure dephasing, coherent gate miscalibration, residual ZZ crosstalk, and drive-qubit detuning. The central claim is that the resulting syndrome statistics exhibit extraction biases and correlations with logical-string-parity proxies that are absent or strongly suppressed when the identical master equation is replaced by its Pauli-twirled Clifford counterpart; information-theoretic diagnostics are introduced to quantify the difference in accessible information between the two models.

Significance. If the numerical comparison holds, the work supplies a concrete computational route to syndrome models that retain coherent-phase and continuous-time information discarded by conventional Pauli or detector-error models. The internal, parameter-free contrast between the master-equation evolution and its own Pauli-twirled version is a methodological strength, as is the use of QMC to reach a 97-qubit code without sign-problem collapse. The information-theoretic diagnostics offer a new, falsifiable way to assess when non-Pauli features become decoder-relevant.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (numerical results): the reported syndrome biases and syndrome–string-parity correlations are presented without Monte Carlo error bars or convergence diagnostics versus sample number; without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed differences from the Pauli-twirled model exceed statistical fluctuations of the QMC estimator.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (QMCtwin algorithm): the claim of sign-problem suppression for the combined coherent-plus-dissipative evolution is stated but the explicit importance-sampling weight or decomposition that achieves it is not given; without this, the scalability assertion for 97 qubits cannot be verified and the comparison to the Pauli-twirled case rests on an unexamined numerical foundation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the logical-string-parity proxy is introduced without an explicit equation; a short definition would remove ambiguity when the information-theoretic diagnostics are later applied.
  2. Figure captions for the information-theoretic plots do not state the number of QMC trajectories or the binning used for the syndrome observables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The two major comments identify genuine gaps in the presentation of statistical validation and algorithmic details. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested information.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (numerical results): the reported syndrome biases and syndrome–string-parity correlations are presented without Monte Carlo error bars or convergence diagnostics versus sample number; without these, it is impossible to determine whether the claimed differences from the Pauli-twirled model exceed statistical fluctuations of the QMC estimator.

    Authors: We agree that Monte Carlo error bars and convergence diagnostics are required to establish that the reported differences are statistically significant rather than sampling artifacts. In the revised manuscript we will add bootstrap or jackknife error bars to all syndrome-bias and correlation plots in §4. We will also include a new supplementary section (or expanded methods subsection) that shows the running averages and standard errors of the key observables as functions of sample number, confirming convergence well before the final sample counts used in the figures. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (QMCtwin algorithm): the claim of sign-problem suppression for the combined coherent-plus-dissipative evolution is stated but the explicit importance-sampling weight or decomposition that achieves it is not given; without this, the scalability assertion for 97 qubits cannot be verified and the comparison to the Pauli-twirled case rests on an unexamined numerical foundation.

    Authors: We accept that the explicit importance-sampling weights and the precise decomposition of the Liouvillian that suppresses the sign problem must be stated for reproducibility. The revised §3.2 will contain the full analytic form of the importance-sampling weight (including the coherent-phase and dissipative contributions) together with the Trotterized decomposition used to keep the estimator sign-problem free. This addition will make the 97-qubit scaling claim verifiable and will clarify why the same master equation can be compared directly with its Pauli-twirled counterpart. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is a direct numerical comparison, via sign-problem-suppressed QMC simulation of an open-system master equation, between syndrome statistics generated by the full dynamics (including relaxation, dephasing, coherent miscalibration, ZZ crosstalk, and detuning) and those generated by the Pauli-twirled Clifford version of the identical noise model. This contrast is internal to the chosen dynamical model and does not reduce any reported bias or correlation to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or definitional equivalence. No load-bearing uniqueness theorems, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results are invoked in the abstract or described workflow. The simulation is constructed independently of the Pauli-twirled baseline, making the reported differences a genuine model distinction rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Ledger extracted from abstract only; no explicit fitted parameters or new physical entities are described.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The quantum master equation with the listed noise channels governs the open-system evolution of the superconducting device.
    Invoked when defining the realistic noise model for the surface-code simulation.
  • domain assumption The QMC algorithm remains sign-problem-suppressed for the 97-qubit distance-7 code under the chosen noise model.
    Stated as the enabling property of the QMCtwin framework.
invented entities (1)
  • QMCtwin framework no independent evidence
    purpose: Sign-problem-suppressed quantum Monte Carlo method for master-equation simulation of QEC syndrome statistics.
    Newly presented simulation tool.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5826 in / 1533 out tokens · 35172 ms · 2026-06-26T17:33:09.907037+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Syndrome-extraction biasδ k The first diagnostic measures the first-moment mis- match between each ancilla readout and the correspond- ing data stabilizer. In an ideal syndrome-extraction cir- cuit, the ancilla outcome reports the eigenvalue of the corresponding data-qubit stabilizer, so the ancilla read- out value and the data stabilizer have exactly the...

  2. [2]

    To define this probability, letA k :=Z a(k)

    Disagreement probabilityp ̸= k The second diagnostic is the total probability that the ancilla readout disagrees with the corresponding data stabilizer. To define this probability, letA k :=Z a(k). Us- ing the syndrome-label convention of Eq. (15), the noise- less ideal circuit makes the outcome ofA k agree with the eigenvalue ofS k. Since bothA k andS k ...

  3. [3]

    As our third diagnostic, we introduce a more decoder-facing information-theoretic measure

    Mutual information The diagnostics in the previous subsections quantify local check-extraction behavior. As our third diagnostic, we introduce a more decoder-facing information-theoretic measure. Rather than asking whether a single ancilla faithfully reports a single stabilizer, we ask how much information a local measured syndrome pattern carries about a...

    2026

  4. [4]

    P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  5. [5]

    A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 793 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun,Quantum error correction (Cambridge university press, 2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172 EP (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Aharonov and M

    D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, SIAM Journal on Comput- ing38, 1207 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    Gottesman, arXiv:1310.2984 (2013)

    D. Gottesman, arXiv:1310.2984 (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski,et al., Nature649, 39 (2026)

    2026

  12. [12]

    B. W. Reichardt, D. Aasen, R. Chao, A. Chernogu- zov, W. van Dam, J. P. Gaebler, D. Gresh, D. Luc- chetti, M. Mills, S. A. Moses,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04628 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Vezvaee, C

    A. Vezvaee, C. Benito, M. Morford-Oberst, A. Bermudez, and D. A. Lidar, Surface code scaling on heavy-hex super- conducting quantum processors (2025), arXiv:2510.18847 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Paetznick, M

    A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatter- man, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. He- witt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Luc- chetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyen- huis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegf...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, M. B. Healy, M. Hillenbrand, T. Jochym- O’Connor, J. R. Wootton, T. J. Yoder,et al., Nature 625, 259 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    W. C. Chung, D. C. Cole, P. Gokhale, E. B. Jones, K. W. Kuper, D. Mason, V. Omole, A. G. Radnaev, R. Rines, M. H. Teo,et al., npj Quantum Information (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Vezvaee, V

    A. Vezvaee, V. Tripathi, M. Morford-Oberst, F. Butt, V. Kasatkin, and D. A. Lidar, Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  18. [18]

    Rosenfeld, C

    E. Rosenfeld, C. Gidney, G. Roberts, A. Morvan, N. Lacroix, D. Kafri, J. Marshall, M. Li, V. Sivak, D. Abanin,et al., Magic state cultivation on a super- conducting quantum processor (2025), arXiv:2512.13908 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Sales Rodriguez, J

    P. Sales Rodriguez, J. M. Robinson, P. N. Jepsen, Z. He, C. Duckering, C. Zhao, K.-H. Wu, J. Campo, K. Bagnall, M. Kwon,et al., Nature645, 620 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    T. He, W. Lin, R. Wang, Y. Li, J. Bei, J. Cai, S. Cao, D. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen,et al., Physical Review Let- ters135, 260601 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Dennis, A

    E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

    2002

  22. [22]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, PRX quantum 2, 040101 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    D. K. Tuckett, S. D. Bartlett, S. T. Flammia, and B. J. Brown, Physical review letters124, 130501 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Higgott, T

    O. Higgott, T. C. Bohdanowicz, A. Kubica, S. T. Flam- mia, and E. T. Campbell, Physical Review X13, 031007 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    C. Gidney, Quantum5, 497 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Higgott and C

    O. Higgott and C. Gidney, Quantum7, 1141 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    P.-J. H. Derks, A. Townsend-Teague, A. G. Burchards, and J. Eisert, Quantum9, 1905 (2025)

    1905

  29. [29]

    D¨ ur, M

    W. D¨ ur, M. Hein, J. I. Cirac, and H.-J. Briegel, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics72, 052326 (2005)

    2005

  30. [30]

    M. R. Geller and Z. Zhou, Efficient error models for fault- tolerant architectures and the pauli twirling approxima- tion (2013), arXiv:1305.2021 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  32. [32]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  33. [33]

    Schwartzman-Nowik, L

    Z. Schwartzman-Nowik, L. Shirizly, and H. Landa, Phys- ical Review A111, 022613 (2025), arXiv:2402.16727 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Katsuda, K

    M. Katsuda, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Physical Review Research6, 013024 (2024), arXiv:2204.11404 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    X. Ni, Z. Wang, R. Chao, and J. Chen, Superconducting processor design optimization for quantum error correc- tion performance (2024), arXiv:2312.04186 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Miller, C

    A. Miller, C. Ostrove, J. Hines, R. Blume-Kohout, K. Young, and T. Proctor, Efficient simulation of Clifford circuits with small Markovian errors (2025), arXiv:2504.15128 [quant-ph]. 20

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Myers, II, M

    M. Myers, II, M. H. Teo, R. Mishra, J. H. Chai, and H. K. Ng, Simulating general noise nearly as cheaply as Pauli noise (2025), arXiv:2512.07304 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Tuloup and T

    T. Tuloup and T. Ayral, Computing logical error thresh- olds with the Pauli Frame Sparse Representation (2026), arXiv:2603.14670 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    LeBlond, P

    T. LeBlond, P. Groszkowski, J. G. Lietz, C. M. Seck, and R. S. Bennink, Physical Review Research7, 043184 (2025), arXiv:2508.14227 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Harper, A

    B. Harper, A. C. Nakhl, M. Sevior, and M. Us- man, Non-Clifford crosstalk noise in surface codes us- ing hybrid stabilizer-tensor network methods (2026), arXiv:2605.29514 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    F. P. Barone, D. Jaschke, I. Siloi, and S. Montangero, Color code thresholds under circuit-level noise beyond the Pauli framework (2025), arXiv:2511.05719 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Hines, C

    J. Hines, C. Ostrove, K. Rudinger, S. Seritan, K. Young, R. Blume-Kohout, and T. Proctor, Simulating Quantum Error Correction beyond Pauli stochastic errors (2026), arXiv:2603.18457 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Takou and K

    E. Takou and K. R. Brown, Estimating and decoding coherent errors of QEC experiments with detector error models (2025), arXiv:2510.23797 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Physical review letters68, 580 (1992)

    1992

  45. [45]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Chen and D

    H. Chen and D. A. Lidar, Communications Physics5, 112 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Rivas, S

    ´A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Reports on Progress in Physics77, 094001 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Becker, C

    T. Becker, C. Netzer, and A. Eckardt, Physical Review Letters131, 160401 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    Vidal, Physical review letters91, 147902 (2003)

    G. Vidal, Physical review letters91, 147902 (2003)

    2003

  50. [50]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Phys- ical review letters93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  51. [51]

    Zwolak and G

    M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Physical review letters93, 207205 (2004)

    2004

  52. [52]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Or´ us, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015008 (2021)

    2021

  53. [53]

    Shen and D

    T. Shen and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 230601 (2026)

    2026

  54. [54]

    Blume-Kohout and K

    R. Blume-Kohout and K. Young, Estimating detector er- ror models from syndrome data (2025), arXiv:2504.14643 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    A. Remm, N. Lacroix, L. B¨ odeker, E. Genois, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, G. J. Norris, C. Eichler, A. Blais, M. M¨ uller, S. Krinner, and A. Wallraff, Experimentally informed de- coding of stabilizer codes based on syndrome correlations (2025), arXiv:2502.17722 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Takou and K

    E. Takou and K. R. Brown, Estimating decoding graphs and hypergraphs of memory QEC experiments (2025), arXiv:2504.20212 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  58. [58]

    Lindblad, Comm

    G. Lindblad, Comm. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  59. [59]

    Breuer and F

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

    2002

  60. [60]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, Re- views of Modern Physics88, 021002 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    P. D. Nation, H. Kang, N. Sundaresan, and J. M. Gam- betta, PRX Quantum2, 040326 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  63. [63]

    J. A. Schreier, A. A. Houck, J. Koch, D. I. Schuster, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, J. Ma- jer, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review B77, 180502 (2008)

    2008

  64. [64]

    H. Paik, D. I. Schuster, L. S. Bishop, G. Kirchmair, G. Catelani, A. P. Sears, B. R. Johnson, M. J. Reagor, L. Frunzio, L. I. Glazman, S. M. Girvin, M. H. De- voret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Physical Review Letters108, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  65. [65]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Tripathi, H

    V. Tripathi, H. Chen, E. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, PRX Quantum5, 010320 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Physical Review A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  68. [68]

    Vezvaee, V

    A. Vezvaee, V. Tripathi, D. Kowsari, E. Levenson-Falk, and D. A. Lidar, PRX Quantum6, 020348 (2025)

    2025

  69. [69]

    E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Physical Review B41, 9301 (1990)

    1990

  70. [70]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Physical Review Letters94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  71. [71]

    C. H. Mak and R. Egger, Journal of Chemical Physics 110, 12 (1999)

    1999

  72. [72]

    Cohen, E

    G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Physical Review Letters115, 266802 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    Marvian, D

    M. Marvian, D. A. Lidar, and I. Hen, Nature Communi- cations10, 1571 (2019)

    2019

  74. [74]

    Hashim, L

    A. Hashim, L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, R. K. Naik, T. Chistolini, J. Hines, J. P. Marceaux, Y. Kim, P. Gokhale,et al., PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Bausch, A

    J. Bausch, A. W. Senior, F. J. Heras, T. Edlich, A. Davies, M. Newman, C. Jones, K. Satzinger, M. Y. Niu, S. Blackwell,et al., Nature635, 834 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, M. D. Grace, T.-S. Ho, R. L. Kosut, J. R. McClean, H. A. Rabitz, and M. Sarovar, PRX Quantum2, 010101 (2021)

    2021

  77. [77]

    W. Dong, F. Zhuang, S. E. Economou, and E. Barnes, PRX Quantum2, 030333 (2021)

    2021

  78. [78]

    R. L. Kosut, D. A. Lidar, and H. Rabitz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01215 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Tripathi, N

    V. Tripathi, N. Goss, A. Vezvaee, L. B. Nguyen, I. Sid- diqi, and D. A. Lidar, Physical Review Letters134, 050601 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    Mathews, L

    M. Mathews, L. Pahl, D. Pahl, V. L. Addala, C. Tang, W. D. Oliver, and J. A. Grover, npj Quantum Informa- tion (2026)

    2026

Showing first 80 references.