Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Dynamically Optimal Unraveling Schemes for Simulating Lindblad Equations

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · 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 among all norm-preserving diffusion-type stochastic unravelings of a Lindblad equation, a closed-form, state-dependent phase choice minimizes the local growth rate of the variance of any chosen observable, and the opt

desk verdict A genuinely useful unraveling optimization, but the headline optimality theorem has a regularity gap at zeros of the phase. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.19887 v2 pith:Y5VZJ6MZ submitted 2025-09-24 quant-ph cs.NAmath.NA

Yu Cao , Mingfeng He , Xiantao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NAmath.NA MSC 81S2281S25
keywords LindbladequationstochasticunravelingquantumstatediffusionjumpprocessvariancereductionopensystemsdynamicallyoptimalMonteCarlosimulation
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

To simulate an open quantum system, one often represents the density matrix as an average over random pure-state trajectories. Different unravelings produce different statistical noise even though the ensemble average is identical, and picking the least noisy one matters for computing observables. This paper characterizes, for a single Lindblad operator, essentially every diffusion and jump unraveling that preserves the norm along each path. It then solves the greedy optimization problem of minimizing the instantaneous growth of E|⟨ψ,Oψ⟩|², obtaining an explicit optimal diffusion scheme (DO-QSD) whose phase factor e^{iθ}=ie^{-iP} cancels the variance-driving term. Because the same optimization can be performed for jump processes, the paper proves that optimized diffusion's local variance growth is never larger than that of any jump ansatz, and the closed-form scheme needs no training.

What carries the argument

The key object is the parametric family (10) of diffusion unravelings, with free complex coefficients η_k(ψ) and real phase functions θ_k, γ_k, and the norm-preservation constraint η_k=ih_k-e^{iθ_k}⟨L_k⟩_ψ. The optimization is driven by a loss function L1=E[Re{η⟨ψ,Oψ⟩+e^{iθ}⟨Oψ,Lψ⟩}²] that appears in the decomposition of (d/dt)E|⟨ψ,Oψ⟩|²; the scheme-independent terms depend only on L and O, so minimizing the loss is sufficient. The theorem pins down the phase e^{iθ⋆} so that the complex combination becomes purely imaginary, killing L1, and a comparison with the jump family shows that the extra term in the jump variance is nonnegative. The central identity behind the comparison is the formula

What would settle it

Take a two-level system with L=√γ σ_- and O=σ_x, start from a state that crosses the zero set of R(ψ), and simulate the DO-QSD SDE with a fine time step. If the empirical local growth of the variance exceeds the predicted optimal value or the state norm drifts, the pointwise minimizer is not admissible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the earlier neglect of a state-dependent phase factor in the diffusion coefficient was not harmless: it is the phase that converts the stochastic unraveling from a fixed-noise ansatz into an adaptive, variance-minimizing one. For one Lindblad operator L and observable O, the paper proves that any norm-preserving diffusion can be written with drift and diffusion containing η(ψ)=ih(ψ)-e^{iθ(ψ)}⟨L⟩_ψ; the variance growth separates into a scheme-independent part plus the squared real part of a complex quantity. Minimizing pointwise yields η⋆=-e^{iθ⋆}⟨L⟩_ψ with e^{iθ⋆}=± i e^{-iP}, where P is the phase of ⟨Oψ,Lψ⟩-⟨L⟩_ψ⟨O⟩_ψ, making the loss identically zero at each s

Load-bearing premise

The pointwise optimal phase e^{iθ⋆}=ie^{-iP} is chosen from the phase of R(ψ)=⟨Oψ,Lψ⟩-⟨L⟩_ψ⟨O⟩_ψ, and the paper assumes this selection is continuous enough for the stochastic differential equation to be well-posed; no regularity proof is given at states where R(ψ)=0.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single-observable simulation, DO-QSD gives the smallest possible local variance growth among all norm-preserving diffusion unravelings in family (10), so no neural-network training or parameter search is needed to reach that level.
  • Locally in time, DO-QSD's variance growth is no larger than that of any jump-process unraveling, including DO-QJP; thus diffusion is at least as sample-efficient in the small-time-step regime.
  • The optimal phase is invariant under adding a constant to the observable, so the estimator for tr(Oρ) inherits the same variance benefit for O+cI.
  • For multiple observables, an explicit multi-observable version (multi-DO-QSD) minimizes the total variance, though with a more constrained choice of phase.
  • The scheme is complementary to control-variate and multilevel Monte Carlo techniques, so it can be combined with other variance-reduction strategies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the regularity issue around R(ψ)=0 is resolved (for example, by a consistent phase convention), the pointwise local optimality could plausibly be lifted to finite-time variance bounds for a large class of Hamiltonians; this is not proved in the paper.
  • Because the optimal phase depends only on current expectations, the same greedy construction applies to time-dependent Lindbladians, which the authors note, and suggests adaptive 'online' unravelings for non-Markovian embeddings where the noise process can be tuned as the simulation evolves.
  • The paper skips the proof of Lemma 1 and does not prove continuity or measurability of the optimal phase; these are gaps rather than contradictions, but they mean the well-posedness of the DO-QSD SDE is established only away from the zero set of R. A concrete robustness test is to replace the singular phase at R=0 by its principal value and measure the finite-time variance penalty.
  • The comparison ignores discretization bias; for coarse time steps, jump processes may win in practice even though the continuous-time local variance is worse, so the 'diffusion-wins' conclusion is an ideal-solver statement.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies stochastic unravelings of Lindblad master equations. For one Lindblad operator and one noise term, it gives a parametric characterization of diffusion and jump unravelings (Theorems 2 and 6), and then derives dynamically optimal unravelings by minimizing the local growth rate of E|⟨ψ,Oψ⟩|² (Theorems 4 and 8). The principal advertised results are an explicit formula for the optimal diffusion coefficient/phase and a proof that optimized diffusion is locally no worse than any jump process. Numerical experiments on a two-level system and a cavity-QED model compare DO-QSD with rQSD, cQSD, and a machine-learned unraveling.

Significance. The paper contains a genuinely useful observation: a state-dependent phase freedom in the unraveling family, previously neglected, can be chosen in closed form to reduce the local second-moment growth of a target observable. The Itô calculus derivation is clean, the DO-QSD formula is explicit and free of fitted parameters, and the diffusion-vs-jump dominance inequality is a strong, falsifiable statement. If the regularity gap identified below is repaired, the paper would be a solid contribution to trajectory methods for Lindblad simulation. The numerical evidence is suggestive but limited to two small models, and no code or data are provided.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.3 / Theorem 4 / Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.7)] The pointwise optimizer e^{iθ*}=i e^{-iP(ψ)} is defined only where R(ψ)=⟨Oψ,Lψ⟩-⟨L⟩_ψ⟨ψ,Oψ⟩≠0, and no continuous selection across zeros of R is established. This is not a pedantic edge case: for L=σ_y, O=σ_x, R=-r_x r_y+i r_z in Bloch coordinates, and near r=(1,0,0) the required phase behaves like (r_z-i r_y)/√(r_y²+r_z²), which has no continuous limit at the zero; no continuous unit field can achieve Re{e^{iθ}R}=0 in a neighborhood. Since the admissible family (10) and Theorem 2 require continuous η,θ,γ, the claimed 'global minimizer' may fall outside the class in which the optimization is posed. The theorem should be restated as an infimum over continuous admissible coefficients, or the class should be enlarged to measurable bounded coefficients with a proof of SDE well-posedness. The comparison inequality in Theorem 8(i) survives as an infimum comparison, but Theorem 4's attainment cl
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text says the atom 'starts in the maximally entangled state' when the initial state is |+⟩⟨+|⊗|0⟩⟨0|. A single-qubit superposition is not maximally entangled; the wording should be corrected (e.g., 'maximally coherent state' or 'equal superposition').
  2. [Appendix B.3, Lemma 10] Lemma 10 is used to produce the explicit minimizer in Theorem 8(ii), but its proof is omitted as 'elementary'. Given that the theorem is an advertised explicit result, a short derivation of (B.8)-(B.9) should be included.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (24)] The parameter Λ is introduced as a uniform upper bound on the jump rate, but the paper does not discuss how Λ should be chosen in practice or how sensitive the DO-QJP formulas are to it. Since DO-QJP is not implemented numerically, a brief comment on the role of Λ would improve interpretability.
  4. [Appendix D / Section 4] No code or data availability statement is provided. For a numerical methods paper, releasing the simulation scripts would significantly aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DO-QSD is the closed-form solution of a well-posed local variance-minimization problem, not a fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 4 solves the optimization problem (13) over the explicit parametric family (10); the proof in Appendix A.2 computes the time derivative of E|⟨ψ,Oψ⟩|², isolates the terms that depend on the unraveling parameters, and then minimizes the resulting nonnegative loss L2 pointwise by choosing e^{iθ⋆}=±i e^{-iP(ψ)}. This is a mathematical minimization with a closed-form argmin, not a parameter fitted to data. No external data, fitted constants, or empirical inputs enter the derivation; the ML-trained scheme is only a numerical benchmark, and the hand-chosen parameter Λ in DO-QJP is a constraint in a separate optimization and does not feed into DO-QSD. Self-citations in the paper, such as [17] for dynamical low-rank analogy or [10] for structure-preserving schemes, are contextual and not load-bearing: the completeness characterization in Theorem 2 is proved in Appendix A.1 rather than imported from the authors' prior work. The only substantive concern is a technical regularity issue: the optimized phase e^{iθ⋆} may be discontinuous at zeros of R(ψ) (Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.7)), so the minimizer may fall outside the continuous coefficient class assumed in Theorem 2. This is a correctness/well-posedness gap, not a circularity: it does not make the claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical derivation of DO-QSD involves no free parameters and no invented entities. The only listed free parameter is the user-chosen cap Λ for DO-QJP. The main implicit assumptions are the regularity of coefficients used in the characterization theorems and the validity of condition (3) as the unraveling criterion.

free parameters (1)
  • jump-rate upper bound Λ = user-chosen; λ⋆=Λ in (B.14)
    DO-QJP's optimal jump rate is the chosen cap Λ. The paper does not prescribe how to select it, so the explicit DO-QJP depends on a hand-picked constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lindblad generator (1) is the standard CPTP master equation for finite-dimensional open quantum systems.
    Stated at the start of Section 1 and used throughout; taken from prior literature [1,2].
  • domain assumption Condition (3) is sufficient (and on the unit sphere equivalent) for E[ψψ†] to solve the Lindblad equation.
    Lemma 1 underpins the characterization theorems; the equivalence is asserted with a sketch rather than a full proof.
  • domain assumption Drift and diffusion coefficients are continuous (diffusion), and a, λ, √λ b are continuous with b bounded (jump).
    Assumed in Theorems 2 and 6 and Lemma 5. The pointwise optimal phase in DO-QSD may violate this regularity.
  • standard math Itô calculus applies to the state-dependent SDEs and jump processes considered.
    Used in Lemma 9 and Appendix B; standard for SDEs with sufficiently regular coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamically Optimal Unraveling Schemes for Simulating Lindblad Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5VZJ6MZ

@misc{pith2026250919887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamically Optimal Unraveling Schemes for Simulating Lindblad Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5VZJ6MZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.19887}
}
read the original abstract

Stochastic unraveling schemes are powerful computational tools for simulating Lindblad equations, offering significant reductions in memory requirements. However, this advantage is accompanied by increased stochastic uncertainty, and the question of optimal unraveling remains open. In this work, we investigate unraveling schemes driven by Brownian motion or Poisson processes and present a comprehensive parametric characterization of these approaches. For the case of a single Lindblad operator and one noise term, this parametric family provides a complete description for unraveling scheme with pathwise norm-preservation. We further analytically derive dynamically optimal quantum state diffusion (DO-QSD) and dynamically optimal quantum jump process (DO-QJP) that minimize the growth rate of the variance of an observable locally in time. Compared to jump process ansatz, DO-QSD offers two notable advantages: firstly, the variance for DO-QSD can be rigorously shown not to exceed that of any jump-process ansatz locally in time; secondly, it has very simple expressions. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed DO-QSD scheme may achieve substantial reductions in the variance of observables and the resulting simulation error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trajectory errors for various unraveling schemes applied to the 2D decaying model (27). The rQSD (5) and cQSD (6) methods serve as standard baselines. The trained method denotes the scheme obtained by training hk and θk in (10) with the neural-network parameterization. DO-QSD (ours) corresponds to (14). Results are based on a sample size of Ns = 2 × 103 , and the boxplot summarizes 10 independent runs. rQSD cQSD tra… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Averaged variance for various unraveling schemes applied to the 2D decaying model (27). The rQSD (5) and cQSD (6) methods serve as standard baselines. The trained method denotes the scheme obtained by training hk and θk in (10) with the neural-network parameterization. DO-QSD (ours) corresponds to (14). Results are based on a sample size of Ns = 2 × 103 , and the boxplot summarizes 10 independent runs. The Lindbladi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trajectory errors for various unraveling schemes applied to the atom-cavity model (28), (29), (30). The rQSD (5) and cQSD (6) methods serve as standard baselines. DO-QSD (ours) corresponds to (14). Results are based on a sample size of Ns = 500, and the boxplot summarizes 10 independent runs. which models the dynamics of the atomic subsystem. For the simulations, we choose the parameters ν = κ = 1/2 and µ1 = µ2 = µ3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Averaged variance for various unraveling schemes applied to the atom-cavity model (28), (29), (30). The rQSD (5) and cQSD (6) methods serve as standard baselines. DO-QSD (ours) corresponds to (14). Results are based on a sample size of Ns = 500, and the boxplot summari…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Calculus of Robinet: completely positive reconstruction of time-averaged diffusive quantum trajectories

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A completely-positive numerical method computes the optimal time-averaged (Robinet) quantum trajectory from a system–transmission-line dilation to arbitrarily high order, plus a proof that finitely many extra binned r...

  2. Improved sample complexity bound for sample-based Lindbladian simulation

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Derives explicit sample complexity bound O(d t²/ε) for WML-based Lindbladian simulation, with typical-case O(t²/ε) when ||L||_∞² = O(1/d) and worst-case Ω(d t²/ε).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48 (2) (1976) 119–130.doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48 (2) (1976) 119–130.doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    doi:10.1007/bf01608499 1976

  2. [2]

    Gorini, A

    V . Gorini, A. Kossakowski, E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17 (5) (1976) 821–825.doi:10.1063/1.522979

    doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  3. [3]

    Alicki, R

    R. Alicki, R. Kosloff, Introduction to Quantum Thermodynamics: History and Prospects, in: F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, G. Adesso (Eds.), Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental As- pects and New Directions, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, pp. 1–33.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99046-0_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99046-0_1 2018

  4. [4]

    Spohn, Entropy production for quantum dynamical semigroups, Journal of Mathematical Physics 19 (5) (1978) 1227–1230.doi:10.1063/1.523789

    H. Spohn, Entropy production for quantum dynamical semigroups, Journal of Mathematical Physics 19 (5) (1978) 1227–1230.doi:10.1063/1.523789

    doi:10.1063/1.523789 1978

  5. [5]

    M. J. Kastoryano, K. Temme, Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics 54 (5) (2013) 052202.doi:10.1063/1.4804995

    doi:10.1063/1.4804995 2013

  6. [6]

    Briegel, B.-G

    H.-J. Briegel, B.-G. Englert, Quantum optical master equations: The use of damping bases, Physical Review A 47 (4) (1993) 3311–3329.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.3311

    doi:10.1103/physreva.47.3311 1993

  7. [7]

    Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics, V ol

    H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics, V ol. 18 of Lecture Notes in Physics Mono- graphs, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-47620-7

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-47620-7 1993

  8. [8]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford University Press, 2007.doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    arXiv 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics 5 (9) (2009) 633–636.doi:10.1038/nphys1342

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    Y . Cao, J. Lu, Structure-preserving numerical schemes for Lindblad equations, Journal of Scientific Computing 102 (27) (2025) .doi:10.1007/s10915-024-02707-x

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    O. Koch, C. Lubich, Dynamical low-rank approximation, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 29 (2) (2007) 434–454.doi:10.1137/050639703. 13

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Le Bris, P

    C. Le Bris, P. Rouchon, Low-rank numerical approximations for high-dimensional Lindblad equations, Physical Review A 87 (2) (2013) 022125.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.022125

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Appelö, Y

    D. Appelö, Y . Cheng, Kraus is king: High-order completely positive and trace preserving (CPTP) low rank method for the Lindblad master equation, Journal of Computational Physics 534 (2025) 114036.doi:10.1016/ j.jcp.2025.114036

    2025

  6. [14]

    Gisin, I

    N. Gisin, I. C. Percival, The quantum-state diffusion model applied to open systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 25 (21) (1992) 5677–5691.doi:10.1088/0305-4470/25/21/023

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    Dalibard, Y

    J. Dalibard, Y . Castin, K. Mølmer, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics, Physical Review Letters 68 (5) (1992) 580–583.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.580

    1992 doi

  8. [16]

    Le Bris, P

    C. Le Bris, P. Rouchon, J. Roussel, Adaptive low-rank approximation and denoised Monte Carlo approach for high-dimensional Lindblad equations, Physical Review A 92 (6) (2015) 062126.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92. 062126

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Y . Cao, J. Lu, Stochastic dynamical low-rank approximation method, Journal of Computational Physics 372 (2018) 564–586.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.06.058

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Vicentini, F

    F. Vicentini, F. Minganti, A. Biella, G. Orso, C. Ciuti, Optimal stochastic unraveling of disordered open quantum systems: Application to driven-dissipative photonic lattices, Physical Review A 99 (3) (2019) 032115.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.032115

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Cleve, C

    R. Cleve, C. Wang, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution, in: 44th International Col- loquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017), V ol. 80, 2017, pp. 17:1–17:14.doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2017.17

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Z. Hu, R. Xia, S. Kais, A quantum algorithm for evolving open quantum dynamics on quantum computing devices, Scientific Reports 10 (2020) 3301.doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60321-x

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of open quantum systems using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (27) (2021) 270503.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.270503

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of the Lindblad equation using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 (2) (2022) 023216.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023216

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    X. Li, C. Wang, Simulating Markovian open quantum systems using higher-order series expansion, in: K. Etes- sami, U. Feige, G. Puppis (Eds.), 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2023, V ol. 261, 2023, p. 87:1–87:20.doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.IC...

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Z. Ding, X. Li, L. Lin, Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations, PRX Quantum 5 (2) (2024) 020332.doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.020332

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    H. Chen, B. Li, J. Lu, L. Ying, A randomized method for simulating Lindblad equations and thermal state preparation, arXiv:2407.06594 (2024).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.06594

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Di Bartolomeo, M

    G. Di Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, T. Feri, A. Bassi, S. Donadi, Efficient quantum algorithm to simulate open sys- tems through a single environmental qubit, Physical Review Research 6 (4) (2024) 043321.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.6.043321

    2024

  19. [27]

    Borras, M

    E. Borras, M. Marvian, Quantum algorithms based on quantum trajectories, arXiv:2509.10425 (2025).doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.10425

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Percival, Quantum State Diffusion, Cambridge University Press, 1998

    I. Percival, Quantum State Diffusion, Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  21. [29]

    Breuer, F

    H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, A stochastic wave function approach to quantum measurement, Physics Letters A 220 (6) (1996) 315–319.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(96)00557-9. 14

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    P. E. Kloeden, E. Platen, H. Schurz, Numerical solution of SDE through computer experiments, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57913-4

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    M. B. Giles, Multilevel Monte Carlo methods, Acta Numerica 24 (2015) 259–328.doi:10.1017/ S096249291500001X

    2015

  24. [32]

    Steinbach, B

    J. Steinbach, B. M. Garraway, P. L. Knight, High-order unraveling of master equations for dissipative evolution, Physical Review A 51 (4) (1995) 3302–3308.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.3302

    1995 doi

  25. [33]

    J. Li, X. Li, Exponential integrators for stochastic Schrödinger equations, Physical Review E 101 (1) (2020) 013312.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.101.013312

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Gaspard, M

    P. Gaspard, M. Nagaoka, Non-Markovian stochastic Schrödinger equation, The Journal of Chemical Physics 111 (13) (1999) 5676–5690.doi:10.1063/1.479868

    1999 doi

  27. [35]

    W. T. Strunz, L. Diósi, N. Gisin, Open system dynamics with non-Markovian quantum trajectories, Physical Review Letters 82 (9) (1999) 1801–1805.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1801

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    Li, Markovian embedding procedures for non-Markovian stochastic Schrödinger equations, Physics Letters A 387 (2021) 127036.doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2020.127036

    X. Li, Markovian embedding procedures for non-Markovian stochastic Schrödinger equations, Physics Letters A 387 (2021) 127036.doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2020.127036. Appendix A. Proofs for Section 2 Appendix A.1. Proof of Theorem 2 Proof of part (i): The main approach is to calcul...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.