4.8 Article

Collision Models Can Efficiently Simulate Any Multipartite Markovian Quantum Dynamics

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 126, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.130403

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAIB through QUAREC project [PRD2018/47]
  2. Spanish State Research Agency [PID2019-109094 GBC21]
  3. Maria de Maeztu Program for Centers and Units of Excellence in RD [MDM-2017-0711]
  4. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Formacion Profesional/Ministerio de Universidades
  5. University of the Balearic Islands [BG20/00085]
  6. UK EPSRC [EP/S02994X/1, EP/T026715/1]
  7. Academy of Finland [336814]
  8. Academy of Finland (AKA) [336814] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)
  9. EPSRC [EP/S02994X/1, EP/T026715/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper introduces the multipartite collision model to simulate the Markovian dynamics of any multipartite open quantum system, demonstrates an analytical error bound estimation method for repeated interactions models, and proves the optimal scaling of the error in the scheme. It also provides a simple decomposition of the multipartite collision model into elementary quantum gates, showing its efficient simulation on a quantum computer with a polynomial number of resources according to the dissipative quantum Church-Turing theorem.
We introduce the multipartite collision model, defined in terms of elementary interactions between subsystems and ancillas, and show that it can simulate the Markovian dynamics of any multipartite open quantum system. We develop a method to estimate an analytical error bound for any repeated interactions model, and we use it to prove that the error of our scheme displays an optimal scaling. Finally, we provide a simple decomposition of the multipartite collision model into elementary quantum gates, and show that it is efficiently simulable on a quantum computer according to the dissipative quantum Church-Turing theorem, i.e., it requires a polynomial number of resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据