Paired Quantum Trajectories: Common Random Numbers for Protocol Selection in Continuously Monitored Quantum Systems
Jean-Jacques Dubray
Abstract
A quantum jump trajectory is a discrete-event process in the literal sense: coherent evolution between jumps, a waiting time drawn from the decay of the no-jump norm, a channel selection at the jump. We take this correspondence in both directions. First, we build a monitored quantum laboratory (a driven emitter, detectors with efficiency and dead time, a click-driven feedback controller) inside a verification-first discrete-event engine that machine-checks the event structure and the bookkeeping on every transition, validated against exact finite-horizon renewal expectations and against QuTiP. Second, we import a comparison discipline that is standard in discrete-event simulation and that we did not find in the quantum trajectory literature: common random numbers. Addressing the randomness by event ordinal keeps two protocol arms on identical draws until their event histories diverge, and a mechanical audit verifies the pairing rather than assuming it. Pairing pays in proportion to trajectory alignment: for close protocol variants, where the selection decision is hard, the variance of the estimated protocol gap falls by a factor of 40 or more (replicated across five seeds), and the paired design resolves a 0.7% rate difference at $n = 400$ trajectories that the unpaired analysis of the same data cannot. Against the Fisher information of the click record, that paired design recovers about a tenth of the achievable precision at the count endpoint and the unpaired design under two percent, with the remaining gap attributable to the endpoint rather than the pairing. Two physics results follow. Dead-time losses for antibunched light sit well below the textbook Poisson correction, an effect reaching 21% that we compute exactly for resonance fluorescence and reproduce within the measurement intervals. And the rate-optimal feedback pulse after a click is not a $\pi$ pulse, and not because of latency: the mean wait is exactly $a_0 + a_1\cos\theta + a_2\sin\theta$ for every drive, detuning and latency, which puts the zero-latency optimum at our drive at exactly $3\pi/4$ and the deficit of the $\pi$ pulse at exactly $\sqrt{2} - 1$, both confirmed by measurement at the shortest latency we can represent. Latency lowers the optimum further, and $\pi$ is recovered only as the drive weakens. The optimum does not maximize post-pulse excitation, because the waiting time depends on coherence with the drive, not population alone.