The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Quantum computers and dissipation
Open accessAbstract
We analyse dissipation in quantum computation and its destructive impact on efficiency of quantum algorithms. Using a general model of decoherence, we study the time evolution of a quantum register of arbitrary length coupled with an environment of arbitrary coherence length. We discuss relations between decoherence and computational complexity and show that the quantum factorization algorithm must be modified in order to be regarded as efficient and realistic.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper analyzes how dissipation/decoherence in quantum computers destroys quantum interference and entanglement, causing the probability of successful computation to decrease exponentially with input size \(L\). It argues that Shor’s factoring algorithm must be modified, e.g. supplemented with exponentially efficient quantum error correction, to be regarded as efficient and realistic.
Key findings
- If environmental coupling makes the error rate grow as \(\epsilon(L)=1-A\exp(-\alpha L)\), then the required number of repetitions grows as \(k(L)\approx \exp(\alpha L)\), so the randomized factoring algorithm is no longer efficient.
- In the independent-reservoir limit, the worst-case density-matrix elements decay as \(\exp\{-L\Gamma(t)\}\); for reservoirs with large coherence length, some off-diagonal elements decay as \(\exp\{-\mathrm{poly}(L)\Gamma(t)\}\), which can be more of a hindrance than a help unless selected coherences can be supported.
- Single-qubit decoherence has three regimes: a “quiet” regime for \(t<\omega_c^{-1}\), a quantum regime for \(\omega_c^{-1}<t<T^{-1}\), and a thermal regime for \(t>T^{-1}\). In one dimension at low temperature, \(\Gamma(t)\sim \omega_c^2 t^2\), then \(\sim 2\ln \omega_c t\), then \(\sim Tt\); in three dimensions the decoherence saturates to a value determined by \(\eta=\omega_c/T\).
- For two qubits, collective effects produce “subdecoherent” and “superdecoherent” states, with collective decay constants \(\Gamma_\pm(R,t)\); the paper distinguishes superdecoherence from superradiance and notes that some superradiant states are subdecoherent.
Methods
- Theoretical study of an \(L\)-qubit quantum register coupled to a thermal reservoir, using a decoherence model with Hamiltonian \(H\) containing free qubit, free environment, and qubit-environment interaction terms.
- Single-qubit decoherence is treated semiclassically via stochastic fluctuating fields and numerically simulated, then fully quantized using field modes, displacement operators, and exact expressions for the reduced density-matrix coherence.
- The analysis is extended to two qubits and then to \(L\) qubits, comparing independent reservoirs with shared reservoirs and position-dependent couplings; complexity consequences are assessed through randomized-algorithm error amplification.
Limitations
- The paper states that its model does not describe \(T_1\) processes: populations are unaffected and there is no energy exchange between qubit and environment; it notes that at longer timescales \(T_1\) processes would remove residual coherence in the three-dimensional case.
- The paper states that the semiclassical approach excludes quantum features, most notably qubit-environment entanglement, and that a fully quantum approach is needed for thermal and vacuum fluctuations.
- Evident from the text: the conclusion that any thermal-reservoir decoherence model leads to the same complexity conclusion is presented as a plausibility argument, not a proof; the analysis assumes specific coupling/density-of-states forms and does not include direct two-qubit interactions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own interpretation · 22 No basis given · 10 Not checked yet · 5 Own result · 2 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is because the error rate, which is due to the interaction with the environment (a thermal reservoir), grows as an exponential function of L regardless the type and the strength of the computer - environment coupling.”
- Also stated in: § 2 Errors in Randomized Algorithms · p. 3 · boosted
“Indeed, our results show that the computer-environment interaction leads to this unwelcome exponential increase of the error rate.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The environment or reservoir is modeled as a thermal reservoir.
- Also stated in: § 2 Errors in Randomized Algorithms · p. 3 · boosted
In the paper
“In the limit of a short correlation length (i.e. coupling to the independent reservoirs) our results coincide with those by Unruh (1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Unruh 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Let us first note that thermal fluctuations can affect the qubit dynamics only for times longer than the characteristic thermal frequency T .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expression (23) reduces to Γ( t ) ∼ ω 2 c t 2 for t < ω -1 c , Γ( t ) ∼ 2 ln ω c t for ω -1 c < t < T -1 , and Γ( t ) ∼ Tt for t > T -1 .”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the independent reservoir case therefore in the worst case the density matrix elements decay as exp {-L Γ( t ) } .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As η decreases, the decay onset moves towards larger t .”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix of the qubit decay due to the fact that the overlap between the different field states with which the qubit becomes entangled diminishes in time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that in the time evolution of a single member of the ensemble the amplitude for the oscillations in s x and s y remains constant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for large η there is an intermediate region where the vacuum fluctuations dominate and the decay is roughly linear before the thermal regime takes over.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Expression (23) reduces to Γ( t ) ∼ ω 2 c t 2 for t < ω -1 c , Γ( t ) ∼ 2 ln ω c t for ω -1 c < t < T -1 , and Γ( t ) ∼ Tt for t > T -1 .”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since [ σ z , H ] = 0 the populations of the qubit density matrix, ρ ( t ) = Tr R ̺ ( t ) are not affected by the environment and the coupling with the environment in our model simply erodes quantum coherence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is obvious that states for which i a = j a and i b = j b do not get entangled with the reservoir and therefore they mantain their coherence.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Matrix elements of the form ρ i a i a ,i b j b show no collective decay, in fact”
- Also stated in: § 5 Decoherence of Quantum Registers · p. 14 · plain
“which for i b = j b reduces to ρ i a i a ,i b i b ( t ) = ρ i a i a ,i b i b (0) while for i b = j b we have ρ i a i a ,i b j b ( t ) = ρ i a i a ,i b j b (0) e -Γ( t ) .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5 Decoherence of Quantum Registers · p. 14 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that also in our fully quantised model there is no exchange of energy between qubit and environment and consequently no T 1 type of decay takes place.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collective decay is instead apparent in the matrix elements of the form ρ i a j a ,i b j b ( t ) with i a = j a , i b = j b :”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These three regimes can be easily identified in Fig.(4), which shows the decoherence of a single qubit induced by a one-dimensional field for the particular choice ω c /T = 100.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any technological progress in suppressing dissipation will, of course, help to factor bigger and bigger numbers but will not change an exponential increase of the error rate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis is quite general and covers cases where qubits interact with a single reservoir and the distance between the qubits is comparable with the correlation length of the reservoir.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast Shor (1994) has shown that quantum computers require an execution time that grows only as a polynomial function of L ( ≈ L 2 ).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shor 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equation (19) is exact , i.e. no approximation has been made to obtain it.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is not a limitation of the model since, as will became clear in the following, it describes adequately the decoherence mechanism which usually takes place on a shorter timescale than the energy dissipation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore this model is exactly soluble and allows a clear analysis of the mechanism of entanglement between qubit and environment which is believed to be at the core of most decoherence processes.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a reservoir is in a thermal state the coherences change on a much shorter time scale than populations and it is decoherence which is responsible for destroying quantum parallelism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The environment or reservoir is modeled as a thermal reservoir.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, in the limit r a ≈ r b we have ξ a k ∼ ξ b k and therefore in the 'subdecoherent' state | Φ ( -) 〉 the qubits are not entangled with the field, while in the 'superdecoherent' state | Φ (+) 〉 the qubits are collectively entangled with a coherent state with an amplitude which is twice that of the single qubit case.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed the conditions for the two processes to occur are quite different: superdecoherence requires the qubit to be in a region of space smaller than the coherence length of the environment, which is a much more stringent condition that the one needed for superradiance to take place, i.e. that the atoms are at a distance smaller than the wavelength of the resonant field modes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the ratio t/τ , which depends on the technology employed, determines the limits of the algorithm and it is unrealistic to assume that this ratio can be made infinite.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For reservoirs with a large coherent length the fastest decoherence will be proportional to exp( -poly ( L )Γ ′ ( t )) leading to the same unwelcome exponential increase of the error rate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, Shor's quantum factoring algorithm is of this type; in a single run it provides factors of N with probability 1 -ǫ ( L ) and the probability of error ǫ ( L ) grows only as a polynomial function of L .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shor 1994
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While superdecoherence is due to collective entanglement between qubits and environment with no exchange of energy, superradiance is a process of collective radiation by a group of closely spaced atoms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis shows that decoherence destroys quantum interference and entanglement in quantum computers, thus decreasing the probability of successful computation exponentially with the input size L .”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, it must be noted that some superradiant states are subdecoherent.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the independent reservoirs limit the fastest decoherence is proportional to exp( -L Γ( t )) whereas for the reservoirs with a large coherence length there are off-diagonal elements which decay as exp( -poly ( L )Γ( t )).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a quantum computer is in contact with an environment, here modeled as a thermal reservoir, the resulting dissipation destroys the coherences and changes the populations (the diagonal elements).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The environment or reservoir is modeled as a thermal reservoir.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the interaction with the environment causes an exponential increase of the error rate i.e. ǫ ( L ) = 1 -A exp( -αL ), where A and α are positive constants, then k ( L ) ≈ exp( αL ) and the randomized algorithm cannot be regarded as efficient any more!”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the amplification argument, the error rate ǫ is independent of the input.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, errors in Shor's algorithm are of purely 'mathematical' origin and correspond to the random decisions which rely on the prime number theorem (i.e. on the distribution of prime numbers).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shor's algorithm, as it stands at the moment, is not robust to the environmental noise and requires modifications.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This difference in behaviour is reminiscent of the dimensional differences observed in various models of phase transitions (Ma 1976) and is due to the suppressed influence of low frequency fluctuations in three dimensions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ma 1976
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case while some coherences are not affected by the decoherence some others are destroyed more rapidly.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also we provide a plausibility argument that any model of dissipation will lead to errors that grow exponentially with L .”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The environment or reservoir is modeled as a thermal reservoir.
“When a quantum computer is in contact with an environment, here modeled as a thermal reservoir, the resulting dissipation destroys the coherences and changes the populations (the diagonal elements).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The quantised environment is modeled as a continuum of field modes.
“The quantised environment is modeled as a continuum of field modes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
At time t = 0 the combined qubit-environment state is assumed to have a specified product form involving the thermal density matrix of each field mode.
“The state of the combined system i.e. qubit + environment is described by a density operator ̺ ( t ) which at time t = 0 is assumed to be in the form”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dynamics of a single qubit plus environment is described by Hamiltonian (12).
“We assume that the dynamics of a single qubit + environment is described by the following Hamiltonian”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the amplification argument, the error rate ǫ is independent of the input.
“Assuming that ǫ is independent of the input the success probability of the algorithm can be amplified (boosted) arbitrarily close to 1 by repeating the computation several times.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The frequency dependence of the density of states and coupling is assumed to be (dk/dω)G(ω)|g(ω)|^2 ∝ ω^n e^{-ω/ωc}, with n depending on the number of dimensions.
“Therefore we assume ( dk/dω ) G ( ω ) | g ( ω ) | 2 ∝ ω n e -ω/ω c .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All coherences are equally important.
“Assuming that all coherences are equally important and that for the complexity analysis we choose the worst case (i.e. the off-diagonal element which decays at the fastest rate)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For the complexity analysis, the worst case is chosen, i.e. the off-diagonal element which decays at the fastest rate.
“Assuming that all coherences are equally important and that for the complexity analysis we choose the worst case (i.e. the off-diagonal element which decays at the fastest rate)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
All modes of the field are in thermal equilibrium.
“We can formulate in more rigorous terms the analysis we have just sketched above by taking into account all the modes of the field in thermal equilibrium.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The position-dependent couplings have the form g_a k = g_k e^{i k·r_a} and g_b k = g_k e^{i k·r_b}.
“If we suppose g a k = g k e i k · r a and g b k = g k e i k · r b , then, in the continuum limit, the collective decay rates are”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no direct interaction between the two qubits.
“In (25) we are not considering any direct interaction between the two qubits which would be necessary for the conditional dynamics (Barenco et al 1995).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Noise, decoherence, and manufacturing problems make constructing large-scale quantum computers difficult 9-13 .”
From Experimental realization of a quantum algorithm (1998) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1 Introduction · p. 1
“(Deutsch 1985, Deutsch and Jozsa 1992, Bernstein and Vazirani 1993, Simon 1994, Shor 1994)”
§ References · p. 19
“Deutsch, D. & Jozsa, R. 1989 Proc. Roy. Soc. A439 , pp. 553-558.”
Citations
Cites
Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system
Leggett, A. J., Chakravarty, S., Dorsey, A. T., Fisher, M. P. A., Garg, A., & Zwerger, W. (1987) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.59.1 · Cited by 5,109 · cited 1×
“Hamiltonian (12) is equivalent to the one introduced in connection with the tunnelling problem (Leggett et al. 1987, Gardiner 1991) and used to model decoherence in quantum computers (Unruh 1995).”
MethodQuantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer
Deutsch, D. (1985) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.1985.0070 · Cited by 4,597
Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals
Hillery, M. S., O’Connell, R. F., Scully, M. O., & Wigner, E. P. (1984) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90160-1 · Cited by 2,932
Rapid solution of problems by quantum computation
Deutsch, D., & Jozsa, R. (1992) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.1992.0167 · Cited by 2,700
Optical resonance and two-level atoms
Allen, L., & Eberly, J. H. (1975) · Cited by 2,549
Optical Resonance and Two-level Atoms
Garside, B. K. (1975) · Optica Acta International Journal of Optics · doi:10.1080/713819009 · Cited by 2,364
Modern Theory Of Critical Phenomena
Ma, S.-K. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429498886 · Cited by 2,089
Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena
Osborn, H. (1977) · Physics Bulletin · doi:10.1088/0031-9112/28/4/035 · Cited by 1,934
Cohen-Tannoudji, C. N., & Laloë, F. (1977) · Cited by 1,886
Distribution Functions in Physics: Fundamentals
Hillery, M. S., O’Connell, R. F., Scully, M. O., & Wigner, E. P. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-59033-7_28 · Cited by 1,803
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Lenstra A. K. Lenstra H. W. Jr Manasse M. S. & Pollard J. M. 1990 Proc. 22th ACM Symp. j on the Theory of
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer
Shor, P. W. (1997) · SIAM Journal on Computing · doi:10.1137/s0097539795293172 · Cited by 8,472
Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer
Shor, P. W. (1999) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/s0036144598347011 · Cited by 3,904
Lloyd, S. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.273.5278.1073 · Cited by 3,088
Good quantum error-correcting codes exist
Calderbank, A. R., & Shor, P. W. (1996) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.54.1098 · Cited by 2,516
Decoherence-Free Subspaces for Quantum Computation
Lidar, D. A., Chuang, I. L., & Whaley, K. B. (1998) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.2594 · Cited by 1,818
Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems
Viola, L., & Lloyd, S. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.58.2733 · Cited by 1,617
Bernstein, E., & Vazirani, U. (1997) · SIAM Journal on Computing · doi:10.1137/s0097539796300921 · Cited by 1,503
Steane, A. (1998) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/61/2/002 · Cited by 1,391
Quantum computation and Shor's factoring algorithm
Ekert, A., & Jozsa, R. (1996) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.68.733 · Cited by 1,354
Self-citationZanardi, P., & Rasetti, M. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.3306 · Cited by 1,315
Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction
(1996) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.1996.0136 · Cited by 1,284
Bernstein, E., & Vazirani, U. (1993) · Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '93 · doi:10.1145/167088.167097 · Cited by 1,284
14-Qubit Entanglement: Creation and Coherence
Monz, T., Schindler, P., Barreiro, J. T., Chwalla, M., Nigg, D., Coish, W. A., Harlander, M., Hänsel, W., Hennrich, M., & Blatt, R. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.130506 · Cited by 1,110
Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction
DiVincenzo, D. P., Bacon, D., Kempe, J., Burkard, G., & Whaley, K. B. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35042541 · Cited by 924
Quantum error correction for beginners
Devitt, S. J., Munro, W. J., & Nemoto, K. (2013) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/7/076001 · Cited by 842
Simulation of Many-Body Fermi Systems on a Universal Quantum Computer
Abrams, D. S., & Lloyd, S. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.2586 · Cited by 745
Experimental Implementation of Fast Quantum Searching
Chuang, I. L., Gershenfeld, N., & Kubinec, M. (1998) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.3408 · Cited by 707
Fault-tolerant quantum computation with constant error
Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (1997) · Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '97 · doi:10.1145/258533.258579 · Cited by 631
1 / f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information
Paladino, E., Galperin, Y. M., Falci, G., & Altshuler, B. L. (2014) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.361 · Cited by 649
Experimental realization of a quantum algorithm
Chuang, I. L., Vandersypen, L. M. K., Zhou, X., Leung, D. W., & Lloyd, S. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/30181 · Cited by 604
Information and computation: Classical and quantum aspects
Galindo, A., & Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2002) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.347 · Cited by 563
Preserving Coherence in Quantum Computation by Pairing Quantum Bits
Duan, L.-M., & Guo, G. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.1953 · Cited by 545
Paolo Facchi, A., & Pascazio, S. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.080401 · Cited by 538
Theory of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computation
Kempe, J., Bacon, D., Lidar, D. A., & Whaley, K. B. (2001) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.63.042307 · Cited by 550
Schlosshauer, M. (2019) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001 · Cited by 603
Experimental Verification of Decoherence-Free Subspaces
Kwiat, P. G., Berglund, A. J., Altepeter, J. B., & White, A. G. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5491.498 · Cited by 519
Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Error Rate
Aharonov, D., & Ben-Or, M. (2008) · SIAM Journal on Computing · doi:10.1137/s0097539799359385 · Cited by 513
From Quantum Cellular Automata To Quantum Lattice GasesPreprint
Meyer, D., Qca, F., David, Q., & Meyer, A. (1996) · Cited by 502
Protecting Entanglement via the Quantum Zeno Effect
Maniscalco, S., Francica, F., Zaffino, R. L., Gullo, N. L., & Plastina, F. (2008) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.090503 · Cited by 500
Quantum Computing Using Dissipation to Remain in a Decoherence-Free Subspace
Beige, A., Braun, D., Tregenna, B., & Knight, P. L. (2000) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1762 · Cited by 502
A Decoherence-Free Quantum Memory Using Trapped Ions
Kielpinski, D., Meyer, V., Rowe, M. A., Sackett, C. A., Itano, W. M., Monroe, C. R., & Wineland, D. J. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1057357 · Cited by 452
Coherent and collective quantum optical effects in mesoscopic systems
Brandes, T. (2005) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.12.002 · Cited by 435
Universal Quantum Computation with Spin- 1 / 2 Pairs and Heisenberg Exchange
Levy, J. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.147902 · Cited by 400
Quantum Zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects
Facchi, P., & Pascazio, S. (2008) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/493001 · Cited by 423
Codes for the quantum erasure channel
Grassl, M., Beth, T., & Pellizzari, T. (1997) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.56.33 · Cited by 374
Quantum Zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspectsPreprint
Paolo Facchi, A., & Pascazio, S. (2012) · Cited by 365
Non-Markovianity and reservoir memory of quantum channels: a quantum information theory perspective
Bylicka, B., Chruściński, D., & Maniscalco, S. (2014) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep05720 · Cited by 366
Entangled Light from White Noise
Plenio, M. B., & Huelga, S. F. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.197901 · Cited by 334
Complete experimental toolbox for alignment-free quantum communication
D'Ambrosio, V., Nagali, E., Walborn, S. P., Aolita, L., Slussarenko, S., Marrucci, L., & Sciarrino, F. (2012) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1951 · Cited by 315
Quantum channels and memory effects
Caruso, F., Giovannetti, V., Lupo, C., & Mancini, S. (2014) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.1203 · Cited by 349
Decoherence and 1/f Noise in Josephson Qubits
Paladino, E., Faoro, L., Falci, G., & Fazio, R. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.228304 · Cited by 324
The ion trap quantum information processor
Steane, A. M. (1997) · Applied Physics B · doi:10.1007/s003400050225 · Cited by 331
Decoherence-Free Subspaces and Subsystems
Lidar, D. A., & Whaley, K. B. (2003) · Lecture notes in physics · doi:10.1007/3-540-44874-8_5 · Cited by 362
Quantum Error Correction for Communication
EKERT, A. K., & Macchiavello, C. (1996) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.2585 · Cited by 293
Self-citationCoherent and collective quantum optical effects in mesoscopic systemsPreprint
Brandes, T. (2005) · Cited by 286
Entanglement-enhanced information transmission over a quantum channel with correlated noise
Macchiavello, C., & Palma, G. M. (2002) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.65.050301 · Cited by 277
Self-citationConcatenating Decoherence-Free Subspaces with Quantum Error Correcting Codes
Lidar, D. A., Bacon, D., & Whaley, K. B. (1999) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.82.4556 · Cited by 271
Qubit disentanglement and decoherence via dephasing
Yu, T., & Eberly, J. H. (2003) · Physical review. B, Condensed matter · doi:10.1103/physrevb.68.165322 · Cited by 261
Duan, L.-M., & Guo, G.-C. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.57.737 · Cited by 257
Nonequilibrium physics in biology
Fang, X., Kruse, K., Lu, T., & Wang, J. (2019) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.045004 · Cited by 268
Anders, F. B., & Schiller, A. (2006) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.74.245113 · Cited by 264
Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization
Barenco, A., Berthiaume, A., Deutsch, D., EKERT, A. K., Jozsa, R., & Macchiavello, C. (1997) · SIAM Journal on Computing · doi:10.1137/s0097539796302452 · Cited by 290
Self-citationConclusive and arbitrarily perfect quantum-state transfer using parallel spin-chain channels
Burgarth, D. K., & Bose, S. (2005) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.71.052315 · Cited by 245
Non-Markovian decoherence theory for a double-dot charge qubit
Tu, M. W.-Y., & Zhang, W.-M. (2008) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.78.235311 · Cited by 237
Non-classicality of the molecular vibrations assisting exciton energy transfer at room temperature
O’Reilly, E. J., & Olaya-Castro, A. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4012 · Cited by 230
Landscape and flux theory of non-equilibrium dynamical systems with application to biology
Wang, J. (2015) · Advances In Physics · doi:10.1080/00018732.2015.1037068 · Cited by 239
Quantum memories at finite temperature
Brown, B. J., Loss, D., Pachos, J. K., Self, C. N., & Wootton, J. R. (2016) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.045005 · Cited by 261
Information Retrieval and Criticality in Parity-Time-Symmetric Systems
Kawabata, K., Ashida, Y., & Ueda, M. (2017) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.190401 · Cited by 220
Maximally entangled mixed states under nonlocal unitary operations in two qubits
Ishizaka, S., & Hiroshima, T. (2000) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.62.022310 · Cited by 216
Coherent control of molecular dynamics
Shapiro, M., & Brumer, P. W. (2003) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/6/201 · Cited by 212
Control of decoherence: Analysis and comparison of three different strategies
Paolo Facchi, A., Tasaki, S., Pascazio, S., Nakazato, H., Tokuse, A., & Lidar, D. A. (2005) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.71.022302 · Cited by 212
Decoherence of quantum registers
Reina, J. H., Quiroga, L., & Johnson, N. F. (2002) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.65.032326 · Cited by 215
Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence
Matsuzaki, Y., Benjamin, S. C., & Fitzsimons, J. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.84.012103 · Cited by 208
Quantum Computation with Trapped Ions in an Optical Cavity
Pachos, J. K., & WALTHER, H. (2002) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.187903 · Cited by 208
Decoherence-Free Quantum Information Processing with Four-Photon Entangled States
Bourennane, M., Eibl, M., Gaertner, S., Kurtsiefer, C., Cabello, A., & Weinfurter, H. (2004) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.107901 · Cited by 214
Decoherence-Free Subspaces in Quantum Key Distribution
Walton, Z., Abouraddy, A. F., Sergienko, A. V., Saleh, B. E. A., & Teich, M. C. (2003) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.087901 · Cited by 201
Decoherence induced by interacting quantum spin baths
Rossini, D., Calarco, T., Giovannetti, V., Montangero, S., & Fazio, R. (2007) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.75.032333 · Cited by 205
Dynamical decoupling sequence construction as a filter-design problem
Biercuk, M. J., Doherty, A. C., & Uys, H. (2011) · Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics · doi:10.1088/0953-4075/44/15/154002 · Cited by 197
Open Quantum Dynamics Calculations with the Hierarchy Equations of Motion on Parallel Computers
Strümpfer, J., & Schulten, K. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct3003833 · Cited by 188
Phonon decoherence of quantum entanglement: Robust and fragile states
Yu, T., & Eberly, J. H. (2002) · Physical review. B, Condensed matter · doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.193306 · Cited by 186
Approximate quantum Fourier transform and decoherence
Barenco, A., EKERT, A. K., Suominen, K., & Törmä, P. (1996) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.54.139 · Cited by 175
Self-citationNon-Markovianity of local dephasing channels and time-invariant discord
Haikka, P., Johnson, T. H., & Maniscalco, S. (2013) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.87.010103 · Cited by 172
Dynamical decoupling sequence construction as a filterdesign problemPreprint
Biercuk, M. J., Doherty, A. C., & Uys, H. (2011) · Cited by 170
Controlled Dicke Subradiance from a Large Cloud of Two-Level Systems
Bienaimé, T., Piovella, N., & Kaiser, R. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.123602 · Cited by 169
Analog Quantum Error Correction
Lloyd, S., & Slotine, J.-J. E. (1998) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.4088 · Cited by 176
OPEN QUANTUM DYNAMICS: COMPLETE POSITIVITY AND ENTANGLEMENT
Benatti, F., & Roberto Floreanini, B. (2005) · International Journal of Modern Physics B · doi:10.1142/s0217979205032097 · Cited by 166
Comparative study of non-Markovianity measures in exactly solvable one- and two-qubit models
Addis, C., Bylicka, B., Chruściński, D., & Maniscalco, S. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.90.052103 · Cited by 157
Experimental detection of entanglement via witness operators and local measurements
Gühne, O., Ekert, A., Hyllus, P., Bruss, D., Lewenstein, M., Macchiavello, C., & Sanpera, A. (2003) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500340308234554 · Cited by 156
Self-citationCoherence-assisted single-shot cooling by quantum absorption refrigerators
Mitchison, M. T., Woods, M. P., Prior, J., & Huber, M. (2015) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/11/115013 · Cited by 150
Initial Decoherence in Solid State Qubits
Falci, G., D’Arrigo, A., Mastellone, A., & Paladino, E. (2005) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.167002 · Cited by 147
Quantifying, characterizing, and controlling information flow in ultracold atomic gases
Haikka, P., McEndoo, S., De Chiara, G., Palma, G. M., & Maniscalco, S. (2011) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.84.031602 · Cited by 141
Self-citationQuantum Analog of the MacWilliams Identities for Classical Coding Theory
Shor, P. W., & Laflamme, R. (1997) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.1600 · Cited by 138
Inhibition of Decoherence due to Decay in a Continuum
Agarwal, G. S., Scully, M. O., & WALTHER, H. (2001) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.4271 · Cited by 131
Introduction to Decoherence Theory
Hornberger, K. (2008) · Lecture notes in physics · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88169-8_5 · Cited by 149
Scaling of Decoherence in Wide NMR Quantum Registers
Krojanski, H. G., & Suter, D. (2004) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.090501 · Cited by 130
From completely positive maps to the quantum Markovian semigroup master equation
Lidar, D. A., Bihary, Z., & Whaley, K. B. (2001) · Chemical Physics · doi:10.1016/s0301-0104(01)00330-5 · Cited by 129
Error rate of a charge qubit coupled to an acoustic phonon reservoir
Fedichkin, L. E., & Fedorov, A. (2004) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.69.032311 · Cited by 129
Quantum key distribution without a shared reference frame
Souza, C. E. R., Borges, C. V. S., Khoury, A. Z., Huguenin, J. A. O., Aolita, L., & Walborn, S. P. (2008) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.77.032345 · Cited by 127
Protecting quantum states from decoherence of finite temperature using weak measurement
Wang, S., Yu, Z., Zou, W., & Wang, X. (2014) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.89.022318 · Cited by 123
Dissipation and decoherence in a quantum register
Zanardi, P. (1998) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.57.3276 · Cited by 123
Collective spontaneous emission from a line of atoms
Clemens, J., Horvath, L., Sanders, B. C., & Carmichael, H. J. (2003) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.68.023809 · Cited by 118
Decoherence and dissipation during a quantum XOR gate operation
Thorwart, M., & Peter Hänggi, A. (2001) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.65.012309 · Cited by 116
Quantum Communication without Alignment using Multiple-Qubit Single-Photon States
Aolita, L., & Walborn, S. P. (2007) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.100501 · Cited by 114
Aharonov, D. (1999) · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks · doi:10.1142/9789812815569_0007 · Cited by 131
Open quantum system dynamics and the mean force Gibbs state
Trushechkin, A. S., Merkli, M., Cresser, J. D., & Anders, J. (2022) · AVS Quantum Science · doi:10.1116/5.0073853 · Cited by 125
Information-preserving structures: A general framework for quantum zero-error information
Blume-Kohout, R., Ng, H. K., Poulin, D., & Viola, L. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.82.062306 · Cited by 121
Entangled-state preparation via dissipation-assisted adiabatic passages
Marr, C., Beige, A., & Rempe, G. (2003) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.68.033817 · Cited by 112
Control of decoherence and relaxation by frequency modulation of a heat bath
Agarwal, G. S. (1999) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.61.013809 · Cited by 111
Saito, S., Zhu, X., Amsüss, R., Matsuzaki, Y., Kakuyanagi, K., Shimo-Oka, T., Mizuochi, N., Nemoto, K., Munro, W. J., & Semba, K. (2013) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.107008 · Cited by 110
Dynamical maps beyond Markovian regime
Chruściński, D. (2022) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.003 · Cited by 136
Metadata
- Authors
- Palma, G. M., Suominen, K., & EKERT, A. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1996-12-31
- Volume
- 452
- Issue
- 1946
- Pages
- 567-584
- ISSN
- 1364-5021 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2946
- OpenAlex
- W2157754228
- Cited by
- 899
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 26.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Keywords
- quantum computing, energy dissipation, decoherence, quantum registers, environment coupling, computational complexity, quantum factoring, Shor's algorithm, algorithm efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
