Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Simulating Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics on NISQ Computers Using the Hierarchical Equations of Motion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 any non-unitary open-system propagator, in particular the numerically exact HEOM propagator, can be rewritten as a short two-unitary quantum circuit that reproduces exact population dynamics on noisy near-term…

desk verdict A clean, honest NISQ implementation paper: known ingredients combined for HEOM, with real-hardware demos on 2-3 qubits, but no quantum advantage and an unproven scalability claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12049 v2 pith:NTPM4GTQ submitted 2024-11-18 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Xiaohan Dan , Eitan Geva , Victor S. Batista This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords openquantumsystemsnon-MarkoviandynamicshierarchicalequationsofmotionNISQcomputingSVDdilationWalshoperatorsmasterFMOcomplex
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

Open quantum systems coupled to structured environments evolve non-unitarily, which quantum circuits cannot natively implement. This paper claims that such a propagator can be decomposed, via singular value decomposition, into a linear combination of two unitaries and compiled into a compact quantum circuit using Walsh operators. The authors then project the HEOM propagator onto the subspace of physical observables, obtaining 2-qubit circuits whose measured populations closely match converged HEOM results for charge transfer in a molecular triad and energy transfer in the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex, both on a noiseless simulator and on real superconducting hardware. The same comparison shows that the Lindblad master equation fails badly in these strongly coupled, non-Markovian regimes. The paper states explicitly that its purpose is to show how numerically exact HEOM can be embedded in unitary circuits, not to demonstrate quantum advantage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the singular-value decomposition of the non-unitary propagator, written as a linear combination of two unitaries via the diagonal singular-value matrix $\Sigma = (\sigma_0/2)(\Sigma_+ + \Sigma_-)$, where $(\Sigma_\pm)_{jj} = \tilde\sigma_j \pm i\sqrt{1-\tilde\sigma_j^2}$. The circuit then implements $U_\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \oplus \Sigma_-$ as a diagonal unitary using Walsh operators, with Walsh coefficients obtained by a Walsh-Fourier transform, and a single Hadamard-controlled structure yields $G(t)|\Phi(0)\rangle/\sigma_0$ when the ancilla reads 0. The projection operator onto the physical subspace is what reduces the circuit from the full HEOM space to two or three qubits, and this reduction is what makes the hardware results accurate.

What would settle it

Take a model where the HEOM propagator has a singular value exactly or nearly equal to zero, so the construction in eq 4 becomes ill-conditioned, and check whether the circuit output still equals $G(t)|\Phi(0)\rangle/\sigma_0$; a more direct falsifier is to run the 2-qubit circuits at parameter regimes where the exact population approaches zero and show that the measured deviation grows with the largest singular value $\sigma_0$ faster than the sampling-error estimate in eq 50 predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-unitary propagator $G(t)$, here the HEOM propagator in a projected subspace, can be lifted into a unitary circuit through the identity $G(t) = (\sigma_0/2)(U\Sigma_+ V^\dagger + U\Sigma_- V^\dagger)$, where $\Sigma_\pm$ are diagonal unitaries built from the singular values of $G(t)$. The circuit uses one ancilla qubit, and the diagonal unitary $U_\Sigma = \Sigma_+ \oplus \Sigma_-$ is implemented with the Walsh-operator representation, which turns the dominant compilation cost into commuting rotations of tensor products of identity and Pauli-$Z$ operators. Because the projection operator can be chosen freely, the propagator can be restricted to the subspace of the physical quantities of interest, yielding two-qubit circuits for population dynamics. The paper reports that these circuits reproduce numerically exact HEOM population dynamics for the two model systems on both a noiseless circuit simulator and on a real NISQ device, with the largest remaining deviations occurring when the exact population approaches zero.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the premise that the propagator $G(t)$ is already known classically: the quantum circuit only applies a precomputed matrix to a known vector, so the reported agreement is an implementation check, not an independent computation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same SVD-plus-Walsh recipe can convert propagators from any quantum master equation into quantum circuits, not only the HEOM propagator.
  • Choosing a smaller projection subspace cuts circuit depth and two-qubit gate count enough that NISQ results become nearly exact, as demonstrated by the reduction from 3-qubit to 2-qubit circuits.
  • The approach allows independent projection subspaces to be run in parallel, so different physical quantities can be simulated on separate circuits without approximation.
  • In the strongly coupled regimes studied, the Lindblad equation is quantitatively unreliable, while qHEOM reproduces the numerically exact dynamics, providing a benchmark for where Markovian master equations break down.
  • Circuit depth and two-qubit gate counts are reduced by more than a factor of two relative to Sz.-Nagy dilation for the same propagator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the propagator $G(t)$ is precomputed classically by solving HEOM before the circuit runs, the reported device agreement verifies the circuit implementation rather than demonstrating any quantum speedup; a genuine advantage would require the quantum device to construct or apply the propagator more efficiently than a classical solution.
  • The method's practical reach on noisy hardware is tied to finding small projection subspaces, so extending it to large multi-site systems will require either much lower error rates or a systematic way to compress the relevant subspace.
  • The paper's construction implies a general compiler: any classically available propagator, from path integrals, tensor-train methods, or generalized quantum master equations, could be substituted for the HEOM propagator without changing the circuit-building procedure.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same circuits to a low-temperature or structured-reservoir model where HEOM requires many effective modes, and compare hardware fidelity against the classical HEOM cost; this would delimit the noise-limited regime of the method.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents qHEOM, a quantum algorithm for simulating non-Markovian open quantum system dynamics on NISQ devices. The non-unitary propagator G(t) of the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) is precomputed classically (eq 33), decomposed via SVD into a sum of two unitaries (eq 5), and implemented with a one-qubit dilation circuit (Fig. 1). The diagonal unitary in the dilation is compiled using a Walsh-operator representation (Section 2.4). The method is demonstrated for a molecular triad charge-transfer model and the FMO complex, using both a noisy simulator (QasmSimulator) and the IBM Sherbrooke device, with dynamic decoupling and twirling error mitigation. The paper also compares HEOM with a Lindblad-type TCL-Redfield equation for the same models, showing that the Lindblad equation fails in these strongly coupled regimes.

Significance. The SVD dilation and subspace projection are mathematically sound and the derivation is clear. The paper is refreshingly honest in stating that the propagator is precomputed classically and that no quantum advantage is claimed; the code is publicly available. If the efficiency of the Walsh compilation held for larger subspaces, the method would be a valuable generic recipe for turning any classically-computable open-system propagator into a short quantum circuit. However, the demonstrations are limited to two- and three-qubit circuits, the agreement with HEOM is forced by construction, and the hardware results lack error bars. The scalability of the Walsh approach for the phase vectors arising from HEOM propagators is not analyzed, so the central claim of a 'generic recipe' for arbitrary master equations on NISQ remains unsubstantiated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.3, eq 33] The agreement between qHEOM and HEOM in Figures 7–11 is guaranteed by construction, because the circuit is built from the classically computed HEOM propagator G(t) = M P e^{-iHt} P M†. The statement that 'the excellent agreement ... validates the accuracy of our quantum algorithm' is therefore an overstatement; the figures demonstrate that the circuit implements the desired unitary operations under noise, not that the underlying HEOM dynamics are correct. The paper should either remove or qualify this claim and present the demonstration as an implementation check. This is important because the paper's stated purpose is to show how HEOM can be implemented on quantum circuits, and the validation should be framed accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.4] The claim that the Walsh operator representation provides an 'efficient' implementation of the diagonal unitary UΣ is not supported for large subspaces. For a generic n-qubit diagonal unitary, the Walsh decomposition requires N = 2^n terms and O(2^n) CNOT gates (Ref. 79). The paper reports circuit depths for n=2 and n=3 only (Tables 3 and 4) and provides no argument that the phase vector f_k of a projected HEOM propagator has a sparse Walsh spectrum. Without such an argument or scaling data, the claim that the method is a 'generic recipe' for arbitrary quantum master equations on NISQ devices is unsubstantiated.
  3. [Section 5.3, Figures 8–11] The hardware results are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or a quantitative error metric. With 20,000 shots per time point, the statistical sampling error should be reported to support claims such as 'almost perfectly aligned with numerically exact benchmark results'. Without this information, the reader cannot judge the significance of the observed deviations (or lack thereof).
  4. [Section 5.3, Table 3] The comparison of circuit complexity with the Sz.-Nagy method (Ref. 63) is based on a single time point and a single model system. The claim that SVD+Walsh reduces circuit complexity by 'more than a factor of 2' is not justified as a general statement; additional time points or model systems are needed to establish the generality of this comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq 49] The extraction formula Pi = σ0 sqrt(Ni/Nc) should be clarified; it implies a specific normalization of the state |Φ(0)>, and the relation between the measured probability and the population should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Figure 9] The axis label 'Poulation' should be 'Population'.
  3. [Section 3.3] The notation P|Ψ(0)⟩ = |Ψ(0)⟩ is used as a constraint; it would be helpful to state explicitly that this restricts the initial states to those supported on the subspace S, and that this is a limitation of the method for initial states outside S.
  4. [Section 2.4] The definition of the Walsh coefficients in eq 12 uses the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product; for readers not familiar with Walsh analysis, the relation to the standard Walsh-Hadamard transform could be stated more explicitly.
  5. [Section 5.2] The FMO parameters (η = 70 cm^-1, ω_c^-1 = 50 fs) are given in the text but not in a table; a table would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: qHEOM is a transparent, exact compilation of a classically precomputed HEOM propagator into unitaries, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The paper defines the target by Eq. 1, |Φ(t)⟩ = G(t)|Φ(0)⟩, where G(t) is any non-unitary propagator. For HEOM, G(t) is constructed in Eq. 33, G(t) = MPe^{−iHt}PM†, from the classical HEOM effective Hamiltonian. The SVD step, Eq. 5, G(t) = (σ0/2)(UΣ+V† + UΣ−V†), is an exact matrix identity valid for any propagator, and the Walsh representation, Eqs. 8–13, is an exact expansion of any diagonal unitary. Eq. 7 then shows the circuit output equals G(t)|Φ(0)⟩/σ0 exactly. There is no parameter fitted to any target data; the singular values come directly from the given G(t). The agreement between qHEOM and HEOM in Figures 7–11 is therefore an implementation check of the unitary compilation, not an independent verification of HEOM, but the paper does not disguise this: it states, "It should be noted that the construction of quantum circuits is based on the propagator G(t), which, according to eq 33, is precomputed by solving the HEOM on a classical computer," and "the purpose of this work is not to demonstrate quantum advantage but to illustrate how numerically exact HEOM can be implemented using quantum circuits based on unitary gates." The central mathematical content is externally grounded: HEOM, SVD dilation from Schlimgen et al., and Walsh operator compilation from Welch et al. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 13, 14, 18, 24, 63, 76) appear for comparisons and methodological continuity, but none is load-bearing for the derivation. The scalability of the Walsh-compiled diagonal unitary is a genuine open question, but it is an efficiency concern, not a circularity. Thus the paper merits a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard HEOM, SVD dilation, and Walsh synthesis. No new physical entities are postulated. The only hand-chosen inputs are numerical convergence parameters and a post-hoc fit window for rate constants, none of which are fitted to the target quantum-circuit results.

free parameters (3)
  • HEOM effective mode count K = K <= 5
    Chosen by convergence testing (Section 3.2); truncation parameter, not fitted to the target dynamics.
  • Fock-space truncation L per effective mode = not specified numerically in text
    Truncation basis size for effective modes; convergence checked empirically; affects the exactness claim.
  • Rate-constant fit window = t = 3000 to 4000 fs
    Exponential fit window for computing charge transfer rates in Table 2; choice influences reported k_HEOM and k_Lindblad.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption HEOM with the Debye spectral density and exponential decomposition of the bath correlation function provides numerically exact dynamics for the spin-boson and FMO models.
    Section 3.2; the paper's exactness claim rests on this.
  • standard math The twin-space thermo-field purification maps the HEOM density matrices to a state vector with a Hermitian effective Hamiltonian (eq 26).
    Section 3.2; relies on thermo-field theory (Ref 86).
  • standard math Singular value decomposition expresses any matrix G as U Σ V† and decomposes Σ into two diagonal unitaries (eqs 2-5).
    Section 2.2; exact linear algebra.
  • standard math Walsh operators form a complete basis for diagonal unitaries, enabling efficient implementation (eqs 8-13).
    Section 2.4; from Ref 79.
  • domain assumption The projection operator P satisfies P|Ψ(0)⟩=|Ψ(0)⟩ and M†M is identity on the subspace, yielding G(t) = M P e^{-iHt} P M† (eq 33).
    Section 3.3; the initial state must lie in the projected subspace, which restricts which quantities can be simulated.
  • domain assumption Lindblad / TCL-Redfield RWA is the correct Markovian weak-coupling baseline for comparison.
    Section 3.4; standard but approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics on NISQ Computers Using the Hierarchical Equations of Motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTPM4GTQ

@misc{pith2026241112049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating Non-Markovian Quantum Dynamics on NISQ Computers Using the Hierarchical Equations of Motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTPM4GTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12049}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum computing offers promising new avenues for tackling the long-standing challenge of simulating the quantum dynamics of complex chemical systems, particularly open quantum systems coupled to external baths. However, simulating such non-unitary dynamics on quantum computers is challenging since quantum circuits are specifically designed to carry out unitary transformations. Furthermore, chemical systems are often strongly coupled to the surrounding environment, rendering the dynamics non-Markovian and beyond the scope of Markovian quantum master equations like Lindblad or Redfield. In this work, we introduce a quantum algorithm designed to simulate non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems. Our approach enables the implementation of arbitrary quantum master equations on noisy intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) computers. We illustrate the method as applied in conjunction with the numerically exact hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) method. The effectiveness of the resulting quantum HEOM algorithm is demonstrated as applied to simulations of the non-Lindbladian electronic energy and charge transfer dynamics in models of the carotenoid-porphyrin-\ce{C60} molecular triad dissolved in tetrahydrofuran and the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quantum circuit for SVD dilation, 35,62 with H the single qubit Hadamard gate, while V and U are defined according to eq 2. main and ancilla qubits, as follows: UΣ =   Σ+ 0 0 Σ−   . (6) The output of the quantum circuit is the following state: 1 2   U(Σ+ + Σ−)V † |Φ(0)⟩ U(Σ+ − Σ−)V † |Φ(0)⟩   = 1 σ0   G(t)|Φ(0)⟩ |ϕ⟩   . (7) Therefore, when the ancilla is in state |0⟩, we obtain the desired state G(… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the projection and encoding processes. The HEOM computational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of model systems for electron and energy transfer. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Population dynamics P(t) of the donor state in the spin-boson model across various system-bath coupling strengths η, computed using numerically exact HEOM (solid lines) and the Lindblad equation (dashed lines). Simulation parameters: V = 0.5, E0 = 2.5, β = 1, ωc = 1. T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ππ∗ state population dynamics in the ππ∗ → CT1 photoinduced charge transfer process of CPC60 molecular triad dissolved in tetrahydrofuran. Here, the simulation results using the Lindblad equation and the numerically exact HEOM are shown for the two con￾figurations of t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Population dynamics of different sites in the FMO complex at 300 K with Debye [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum circuit simulation of (a) ππ∗ state population dynamics of the CPC60 molecular triad in tetrahydrofuran and (b) population dynamics of different sites in the FMO complex. The solid lines, labeled “Exact”, correspond to HEOM results from Figures 5 and 6. Dotted …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Population dynamics of the CPC60 molecular triad: (a) Bent conformation, (b) Linear conformation. PD represents the population in the ππ∗ (donor) state, and PA represents the population in the CT1 (acceptor) state, with the projection subspace S = {DD, DA, AD, AA}. Sol…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Population dynamics of the FMO complex. Solid lines indicate the exact HEOM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Population dynamics of the CPC60 molecular triad. The projection subspace is defined as S = {DD, AA}, yielding 2-qubit quantum circuits. Solid lines denote the exact HEOM simulation results, while scatter points represent quantum circuit results from the IBM Sherbrook…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Population dynamics of the FMO complex. The solid lines represent the exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    T.; Felts, A

    (6) Pollard, W. T.; Felts, A. K.; Friesner, R. A. The Redfield equation in condensed-phase quantum dynamics. Adv. Chem. Phys.1996, 93,

    work page 1996

  2. [75]

    T.; O’Rourke, M

    (65) Motta, M.; Sun, C.; Tan, A. T.; O’Rourke, M. J.; Ye, E.; Minnich, A. J.; Bran- dao, F. G.; Chan, G. K.-L. Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution. Nat. Phys. 2020, 16, 205–210. 47 (66) Kamakari, H.; Sun, S.-N.; Motta, M.; Minnich, A. J. Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems ...

    arXiv 2020

  3. [183]

    (148) Shor, P. W. Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Phys. Rev. A1995, 52, R2493. (149) Steane, A. M. Active stabilization, quantum computation, and quantum state synthe- sis. Phys. Rev. Lett.1997, 78,

    work page 1997

  4. [221]

    Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas

    (79) Welch, J.; Greenbaum, D.; Mostame, S.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Efficient quantum circuits for diagonal unitaries without ancillas. New. J. Phys.2014, 16, 033040. (80) Walsh, J. L. A closed set of normal orthogonal functions. Am. J. Math. 1923, 45, 5–24. (81) Schipp, F. Walsh series. An introduction to dyadic harmonic analysis; Akad´ emiai Kiad´ o,

    work page 2014

  5. [265]

    (138) Marcus, R. A. Electron Transfer Reactions in Chemistry. Theory and Experiment. Rev. Mod. Phys.1993, 65, 599–610. (139) Javadi-Abhari, A.; Treinish, M.; Krsulich, K.; Wood, C. J.; Lishman, J.; Gacon, J.; 55 Martiel, S.; Nation, P. D.; Bishop, L. S.; Cross, A. W.; Johnson, B. R.; Gambetta, J. M. Quantum computing with Qiskit. arXiv:2405.08810 2024, (1...

    arXiv 1993

  6. [456]

    Efficient energy transfer in light- harvesting systems, III: The influence of the eighth bacteriochlorophyll on the dy- namics and efficiency in FMO

    (126) Moix, J.; Wu, J.; Huo, P.; Coker, D.; Cao, J. Efficient energy transfer in light- harvesting systems, III: The influence of the eighth bacteriochlorophyll on the dy- namics and efficiency in FMO. J. Phys. Chem. Lett.2011, 2, 3045–3052. (127) Sarovar, M.; Cheng, Y. C.; Whaley, K. B. Environmental Correlation Effects on Ex- citation Energy Transfer in...

    work page 2011

  7. [726]

    S.; Dunietz, B

    48 (76) Tong, Z.; Gao, X.; Cheung, M. S.; Dunietz, B. D.; Geva, E.; Sun, X. Charge transfer rate constants for the carotenoid-porphyrin-C60 molecular triad dissolved in tetrahydrofuran: The spin-boson model vs the linearized semiclassical approximation. J. Chem. Phys.2020, 153, 044105. (77) Sweke, R.; Sanz, M.; Sinayskiy, I.; Petruccione, F.; Solano, E. D...

    work page 2020

  8. [728]

    (5) Redfield, A. G. On the theory of relaxation processes. IBM J. Res.1957, 1,

    work page 1957

Show all 18 references
  1. [948]

    Ensemble Method in the Theory of Irreversibility

    (108) Zwanzig, R. Ensemble Method in the Theory of Irreversibility. J. Chem. Phys.1960, 33, 1338–1341. (109) Mori, H. Transport, Collective Motion, and Brownian Motion. Prog. Theor. Phys. 1965, 33, 423–455. (110) Koyanagi, S.; Tanimura, Y. Thermodynamic quantum Fokker–Planck e...

    1960

  2. [1987]

    Kondo Memory in Driven Strongly Correlated Quantum Dots

    (10) Zheng, X.; Yan, Y.; Di Ventra, M. Kondo Memory in Driven Strongly Correlated Quantum Dots. Phys. Rev. Lett.2013, 111, 086601. (11) Breuer, H.-P.; Laine, E.-M.; Piilo, J.; Vacchini, B. Colloquium: Non-Markovian dy- namics in open quantum systems. Rev. Mod. Phys.2016, 88, 0...

    2013

  3. [1990]

    (82) Ishizaki, A.; Fleming, G. R. Unified Treatment of Quantum Coherent and Incoher- ent Hopping Dynamics in Electronic Energy Transfer: Reduced Hierarchy Equation Approach. J. Chem. Phys.2009, 130, 234111. (83) Lambert, N.; Raheja, T.; Cross, S.; Menczel, P.; Ahmed, S.; Pitch...

    2009

  4. [2010]

    D.; Perdomo-Ortiz, A.; Yung, M.-H.; Aspuru-Guzik, A

    (49) Kassal, I.; Whitfield, J. D.; Perdomo-Ortiz, A.; Yung, M.-H.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Sim- 45 ulating Chemistry Using Quantum Computers. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.2011, 62, 185–207. (50) Georgescu, I. M.; Ashhab, S.; Nori, F. Quantum simulation. Rev. Mod. Phys.2014, 86, 153–185. (51...

    2011 arXiv

  5. [2012]

    K.; Bloch, F

    (4) Wangsness, R. K.; Bloch, F. The dynamical theory of nuclear induction. Phys. Rev. 1953, 89,

    1953

  6. [2013]

    A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation

    (8) Manzano, D. A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation. AIP Adv.2020, 10, 025106. (9) Alicki, R.; Lendi, K. Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications; Springer- Verlag: Berlin,

    2020

  7. [2252]

    J.; Munro, W

    56 (150) Devitt, S. J.; Munro, W. J.; Nemoto, K. Quantum error correction for beginners. Rep. Prog. Phys.2013, 76, 076001. (151) Gottesman, D. An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quan- tum computation. Quantum information science and its contribution...

    2013

  8. [3301]

    W.; Head-Marsden, K.; Sager, L

    (58) Schlimgen, A. W.; Head-Marsden, K.; Sager, L. M.; Narang, P.; Mazziotti, D. A. 46 Quantum Simulation of Open Quantum Systems Using a Unitary Decomposition of Operators. Phys. Rev. Lett.2021, 127, 270503. (59) Schlimgen, A. W.; Head-Marsden, K.; Sager, L. M.; Narang, P.; M...

    2021

  9. [3322]

    R.; Pollock, F

    (153) Jørgensen, M. R.; Pollock, F. A. Exploiting the Causal Tensor Network Structure of Quantum Processes to Efficiently Simulate Non-Markovian Path Integrals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 123, 240602. (154) Richter, M.; Hughes, S. Enhanced TEMPO Algorithm for Quantum Path Integral...

    2019 arXiv

  10. [9591]

    D.; Geva, E.; Sun, X

    (120) Brian, D.; Liu, Z.; Dunietz, B. D.; Geva, E.; Sun, X. Three-state harmonic models for photoinduced charge transfer. J. Chem. Phys.2021, 154, 174105. (121) Brian, D.; Sun, X. Charge-Transfer Landscape Manifesting the Structure–Rate Re- lationship in the Condensed Phase Vi...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.