pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01568 · v1 · pith:GW4J7ND3new · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

A Validation Framework for Quantum Simulation of Spin Dynamics against Inelastic Neutron Scattering and Classical Simulation

Gilles Buchs , Elaine Wong , Anshumitra Baul , Kathleen E. Hamilton , Arnab Banerjee , Stephan Eidenbenz , G\'abor B. Hal\'asz , Keerthi Kumaran
show 10 more authors
Thomas Maier Thomas Naughton III Elijah Pelofske Vincent Russo Allen Scheie Yigit Subasi D. Alan Tennant Akram Touil Travis S. Humble Andrew T. Sornborger
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 13:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum simulationspin dynamicsinelastic neutron scatteringvalidation frameworkobservable mappinguncertainty propagationclassical simulationrobustness tests
0
0 comments X

The pith

A cross-pipeline framework validates quantum simulations of spin dynamics by mapping observables to inelastic neutron scattering and classical many-body results while propagating uncertainties explicitly.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a validation framework that connects quantum simulations of dynamical spin response to experimental inelastic neutron scattering data and classical simulations. These three sources produce different native observables, so the framework defines explicit forward and inverse maps between them. It carries uncertainty through covariance or resampling methods and tests for structured distortion using robustness checks and multiple metric families. This setup supports validation at the levels of entire pipelines, individual solvers, and underlying models while keeping stochastic noise separate from distortion effects. Actuator-aware feedback is included to refine agreement without hiding the source of any mismatch.

Core claim

The central claim is that quantitative validation of quantum simulations of dynamical spin response is achievable through a cross-pipeline framework anchored by inelastic neutron scattering and classical many-body simulation. The framework rests on explicit forward and inverse observable maps, covariance- or resampling-based uncertainty propagation, robustness tests for structured distortion, and a hierarchy of complementary metric families. It distinguishes stochastic uncertainty from robustness-induced distortion, propagates both through the comparison chain, and uses the resulting information for layered validation at pipeline, solver, and model levels, supplemented by actuator-aware feed

What carries the argument

The cross-pipeline validation framework that employs forward and inverse observable maps, covariance- or resampling-based uncertainty propagation, and robustness tests for structured distortion to enable layered comparisons across experimental, classical, and quantum data sources.

If this is right

  • Layered validation becomes possible at pipeline, solver, and model levels with explicit uncertainty and distortion information attached to each metric.
  • Stochastic uncertainty can be separated from robustness-induced distortion in every comparison step.
  • Actuator-aware feedback can be applied to improve agreement while preserving the physical origin of remaining mismatches.
  • The same structure supports future extensions to upstream uncertainty modeling, adaptive feedback, asymmetric validation, and fault-tolerant workflows.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be tested on systems where classical simulation remains feasible but quantum hardware runs are limited, to check whether the maps preserve enough information for useful validation.
  • Extensions to other dynamical observables beyond spin response would require new forward and inverse maps but could reuse the uncertainty and distortion propagation machinery.
  • Community infrastructure for sharing mapped datasets and metric hierarchies might allow independent groups to reproduce the layered validation steps on the same physical model.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen forward and inverse observable maps together with the covariance or resampling uncertainty propagation faithfully transmit the physical content of each data source without introducing unaccounted systematic bias.

What would settle it

Observation of a persistent mismatch between mapped quantum simulation results and the neutron-scattering or classical data after all propagated uncertainties and accounted distortions are included would falsify the claim of valid layered validation at the model level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01568 by Akram Touil, Allen Scheie, Andrew T. Sornborger, Anshumitra Baul, Arnab Banerjee, D. Alan Tennant, Elaine Wong, Elijah Pelofske, G\'abor B. Hal\'asz, Gilles Buchs, Kathleen E. Hamilton, Keerthi Kumaran, Stephan Eidenbenz, Thomas Maier, Thomas Naughton III, Travis S. Humble, Vincent Russo, Yigit Subasi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: High-level workflow of the proposed validation framework across experiment, quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observable architecture and comparison levels across inelastic neutron scattering (INS), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantitative validation of quantum simulations of dynamical spin response remains challenging because experiment, classical simulation, and quantum simulation do not produce the same native observables. This problem has become increasingly important as quantum simulation protocols for dynamical response have progressed from theory to hardware-level benchmarking against neutron-scattering data, while the longer term goal is validation in regimes that may eventually become classically intractable, including in future fault-tolerant implementations. Here, we develop a cross-pipeline validation framework for quantum simulation, using inelastic neutron scattering and classical many-body simulation as complementary experimental and computational anchors, based on explicit forward and inverse observable maps, covariance- or resampling-based uncertainty propagation, robustness tests for structured distortion, and a hierarchy of complementary metric families. The framework distinguishes stochastic uncertainty from robustness-induced distortion, carries both explicitly through the comparison chain, and uses the resulting metric-level uncertainty and distortion information to support layered validation at the pipeline, solver, and model levels. We also introduce actuator-aware feedback logic aimed at improving agreement without obscuring the physical origin of any remaining mismatch. We close by outlining future extensions of this methodology, including upstream uncertainty and distortion modeling, adaptive feedback, asymmetric validation beyond full classical benchmarking, fault-tolerant workflows, and community infrastructure for reproducible validation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims to develop a cross-pipeline validation framework for quantum simulations of dynamical spin response. It uses inelastic neutron scattering and classical many-body simulation as anchors, relying on explicit forward and inverse observable maps, covariance- or resampling-based uncertainty propagation, robustness tests for structured distortion, a hierarchy of complementary metric families, actuator-aware feedback logic, and layered validation at pipeline/solver/model levels, while outlining future extensions including upstream modeling and fault-tolerant workflows.

Significance. If the proposed framework can be shown to work as described, it would address a genuine methodological gap in validating quantum simulations of spin dynamics against experiment when native observables differ and when regimes exceed classical reach. The explicit treatment of both uncertainty and distortion through the comparison chain, together with the metric hierarchy and feedback logic, represents a structured approach that could support reproducible benchmarking if the underlying maps prove bias-free in practice.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and framework description sections] The manuscript describes the framework architecture, metric families, and actuator-aware feedback but supplies no concrete implementation, worked numerical example, or test case demonstrating that the forward/inverse observable maps plus covariance/resampling propagation distinguish stochastic uncertainty from robustness-induced distortion or support the claimed layered validation. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the abstract and framework sections assert these capabilities without evidence that the maps transmit physical content without unaccounted systematic bias.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for highlighting the importance of concrete demonstrations to support the framework's claims. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and framework description sections] The manuscript describes the framework architecture, metric families, and actuator-aware feedback but supplies no concrete implementation, worked numerical example, or test case demonstrating that the forward/inverse observable maps plus covariance/resampling propagation distinguish stochastic uncertainty from robustness-induced distortion or support the claimed layered validation. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the abstract and framework sections assert these capabilities without evidence that the maps transmit physical content without unaccounted systematic bias.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript presents the validation framework at an architectural and methodological level without including a specific numerical test case or implementation example. This leaves the central claims about distinguishing stochastic uncertainty from distortion, the behavior of the observable maps, and the layered validation without direct empirical illustration in the text. In revision we will add a compact worked example based on a small spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain. The example will apply the forward and inverse maps, propagate uncertainties via both covariance and resampling routes, run structured-distortion robustness tests, and show how the metric hierarchy plus actuator-aware feedback separate uncertainty from bias. The added section will also explicitly check for unaccounted systematic bias in the maps. We view this addition as necessary to make the load-bearing claims verifiable while preserving the paper's primary contribution as a framework description. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The manuscript is a methods proposal that describes a cross-pipeline validation framework using forward/inverse observable maps, uncertainty propagation, and metric hierarchies. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce any claimed result to quantities defined by the authors' own prior choices or self-citations. The central claims rest on architectural descriptions and stated assumptions rather than any self-referential construction, making the derivation self-contained as a methodological outline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5829 in / 1171 out tokens · 38295 ms · 2026-07-03T13:13:15.145057+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum magnetism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum magnetism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    S. B. Roy,Experimental techniques in magnetism and magnetic materials(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2023). 38

    2023

  4. [4]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Nature 607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Fauseweh, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano,et al., Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Demler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriksson, K.-M. C. Fu,et al., PRX Quantum2, 017003 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of neutron scattering from condensed matter(Oxford University Press, 2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Fannes, B

    M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Communications in Mathematical Physics 144, 443 (1992)

    1992

  12. [12]

    Verstraete, T

    F. Verstraete, T. Nishino, U. Schollw¨ ock, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, G. K. Chan, and M. E. Stoudenmire, Nature Reviews Physics5, 273 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    S. R. White, Physical Review Letters69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  14. [14]

    S. R. White, Physical Review B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  15. [15]

    Verstraete, V

    F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Advances in Physics57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  16. [16]

    M. B. Hastings, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2007, P08024 (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    Chiesa, F

    A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. Santini, I. Tavernelli, D. Gerace, and S. Carretta, Nature Physics15, 455 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    N. M. Eassa, J. Gibbs, Z. Holmes, A. Sornborger, L. Cincio, G. Hester, P. Kairys, M. Motta, J. Cohn, and A. Banerjee, Physical Review B110, 184414 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    M. L. Baez, M. Goihl, J. Haferkamp, J. Bermejo-Vega, M. Gluza, and J. Eisert, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 26123 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Bauer, V

    N. Bauer, V. Ale, P. Laurell, S. Huang, S. Watabe, D. A. Tennant, and G. Siopsis, Physical Review A111, 022442 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Benchmarking quantum simulation with neutron-scattering experiments

    Y.-T. Lee, K. Kumaran, B. Pokharel, A. Scheie, C. L. Sarkis, D. A. Tennant, T. Humble, A. Schleife, A. Kandala, and A. Banerjee, “Benchmarking quantum simulation with neutron- scattering experiments,” (2026), arXiv:2603.15608 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Y.-T. Lee, B. Pokharel, J. Cohn, A. Schleife, and A. Banerjee, Physical Review Letters136, 050603 (2026)

    2026

  23. [23]

    Fomichev, K

    S. Fomichev, K. Hejazi, I. Loaiza, M. S. Zini, A. Delgado, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11015 (2024). 39

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Fomichev, P

    S. Fomichev, P. A. Casares, J. Soni, U. Azad, A. Kunitsa, A.-C. Voigt, J. E. Mueller, and J. M. Arrazola, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15784 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Kunitsa, D

    A. Kunitsa, D. Dhawan, S. Fomichev, J. M. Arrazola, M. Zhang, and T. F. Stetina, The Journal of Chemical Physics163(2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Eisert, D

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, Nature Reviews Physics2, 382 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Proctor, K

    T. Proctor, K. Young, A. D. Baczewski, and R. Blume-Kohout, Nature Reviews Physics7, 105 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Acuaviva, D

    A. Acuaviva, D. Aguirre, R. Pe˜ na, and M. Sanz, Quantum Science and Technology11, 025004 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Hashim, L

    A. Hashim, L. B. Nguyen, N. Goss, B. Marinelli, R. K. Naik, T. Chistolini, J. Hines, J. P. Marceaux, Y. Kim, P. Gokhale,et al., PRX Quantum6, 030202 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Zhang, G

    H. Zhang, G. B. Hal´ asz, S. Ghosh, S. Jesse, T. Z. Ward, D. A. Tennant, M. A. McGuire, and J. Yan, Physical Review Letters136, 226301 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    G. L. Squires,Introduction to the Theory of Thermal Neutron Scattering, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    S. W. Lovesey,Theory of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter. Volume 2: Polariza- tion Effects and Magnetic Scattering, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol. 2 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986)

    1986

  33. [33]

    M. Knap, A. Kantian, T. Giamarchi, I. Bloch, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Physical Review Letters111, 147205 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Mitarai and K

    K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Physical Review Research1, 013006 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    A. Ali, J. Gibbs, K. Kumaran, V. Muruganandam, B. Xiao, P. Kairys, G. Hal´ asz, A. Banerjee, and P. C. Lotshaw, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08939 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    S. R. White and A. E. Feiguin, Physical Review Letters93, 076401 (2004)

    2004

  37. [37]

    A. E. Feiguin and S. R. White, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 72, 020404 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, and G. Vidal, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P04005 (2004)

    2004

  39. [39]

    S. R. White and I. Affleck, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics77, 134437 (2008)

    2008

  40. [40]

    T. D. K¨ uhner and S. R. White, Physical Review B60, 335 (1999)

    1999

  41. [41]

    Jeckelmann, Physical Review B66, 045114 (2002)

    E. Jeckelmann, Physical Review B66, 045114 (2002)

    2002

  42. [42]

    Jeckelmann, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement176, 143 (2008)

    E. Jeckelmann, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement176, 143 (2008)

    2008

  43. [43]

    Nocera and G

    A. Nocera and G. Alvarez, Physical Review E94, 053308 (2016). 40

    2016

  44. [44]

    K. A. Hallberg, Physical Review B52, R9827 (1995)

    1995

  45. [45]

    P. E. Dargel, A. Honecker, R. Peters, R. Noack, and T. Pruschke, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 161104 (2011)

    2011

  46. [46]

    P. E. Dargel, A. Woellert, A. Honecker, I. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and T. Pruschke, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 205119 (2012)

    2012

  47. [47]

    Holzner, A

    A. Holzner, A. Weichselbaum, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and J. von Delft, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 195115 (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    F. A. Wolf, J. A. Justiniano, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Physical Review B91, 115144 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    R. G. Pereira, S. R. White, and I. Affleck, Physical Review Letters100, 027206 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    Barthel, U

    T. Barthel, U. Schollw¨ ock, and S. R. White, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics79, 245101 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, B. Lake, S. E. Nagler, M. B. Stone, J.-S. Caux, and D. A. Tennant, Nature Communications13, 5796 (2022)

    2022

  52. [52]

    Nonlinear light cone spreading of correlations in a triangular quantum magnet: a hard quantum simulation target,

    A. Scheie, J. Willsher, E. A. Ghioldi, K. Wang, P. Laurell, J. E. Moore, C. D. Batista, J. Knolle, and D. A. Tennant, “Nonlinear light cone spreading of correlations in a triangular quantum magnet: a hard quantum simulation target,” (2026), arXiv:2602.02433

    work page arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM),Evaluation of Measurement Data — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1st ed., JCGM 100:2008 (BIPM, 2008)

    2008

  54. [54]

    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM),Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement — Part 6: Developing and Using Measurement Models, JCGM GUM-6:2020 (BIPM, 2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Saltelli, M

    A. Saltelli, M. Ratto, T. Andres, F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, D. Gatelli, M. Saisana, and S. Tarantola,Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer(Wiley, Chichester, 2008)

    2008

  56. [56]

    Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM),Evaluation of Measurement Data — Sup- plement 1 to the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” — Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method, 1st ed., JCGM 101:2008 (BIPM, 2008)

    2008

  57. [57]

    Eurachem guide: The fitness for purpose of analytical methods – a laboratory guide to method validation and related topics,

    H. Cantwell, “Eurachem guide: The fitness for purpose of analytical methods – a laboratory guide to method validation and related topics,” Eurachem Guide (2025), 3rd ed

    2025

  58. [58]

    J. R. Taylor,An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Mea- surements, 3rd ed. (University Science Books, 2022)

    2022

  59. [59]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    Chang, E

    Y. Chang, E. G. van Loon, B. Eskridge, B. Busemeyer, M. A. Morales, C. E. Dreyer, A. J. Millis, S. Zhang, T. O. Wehling, L. K. Wagner,et al., npj Computational Materials10, 129 (2024). 41

    2024

  61. [61]

    Y. Gal, P. Koumoutsakos, F. Lanusse, G. Louppe, and C. Papadimitriou, Nature Reviews Physics4, 573 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Robert, E

    J. Robert, E. Lhotel, G. Remenyi, S. Sahling, I. Mirebeau, C. Decorse, B. Canals, and S. Petit, Physical Review B92, 064425 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    Quasiparticle Breakdown and Spin Hamiltonian of the Frustrated Quantum Pyrochlore Yb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ in Magnetic Field

    J. Thompson, P. A. McClarty, D. Prabhakaran, I. Cabrera, T. Guidi, and R. Coldea, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.04506 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Scheie, J

    A. Scheie, J. Kindervater, S. Zhang, H. J. Changlani, G. Sala, G. Ehlers, A. Heinemann, G. S. Tucker, S. M. Koohpayeh, and C. Broholm, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 27245 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Magnetic order, magnons, and crystal fields in van der Waals CeSiI

    W. Simeth, C. A. Occhialini, M. E. Ziebel, N. W. Hewage, S. J. Li, D. Pajerowski, T. Kim, B. Zager, J. Pelliciari, K. Barros,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28698 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)

    G. Cowan,Statistical Data Analysis(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)

    1998

  67. [67]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani,An introduction to the bootstrap(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994)

    1994

  68. [68]

    A. C. Davison and D. V. Hinkley,Bootstrap methods and their application(Cambridge uni- versity press, 2013)

    2013

  69. [69]

    Saltelli, K

    A. Saltelli, K. Chan, and E. M. Scott,Sensitivity Analysis(Wiley, Chichester, 2000)

    2000

  70. [70]

    J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey, Mathematics of computation19, 297 (1965)

    1965

  71. [71]

    Ehler, K

    M. Ehler, K. Gr¨ ochenig, and A. Klotz, SIAM Review68, 93 (2026)

    2026

  72. [72]

    W. L. Briggs and V. E. Henson,The DFT: an owner’s manual for the discrete Fourier trans- form(SIAM, 1995)

    1995

  73. [73]

    Plonka, D

    G. Plonka, D. Potts, G. Steidl, and M. Tasche,Numerical fourier analysis(Springer, 2018)

    2018

  74. [74]

    J. O. Smith,Mathematics of the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), with Audio Applications, 2nd ed. (W3K Publishing, Stanford, CA, 2007) online book, Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA), Stanford University

    2007

  75. [75]

    Slepian, Bell System Technical Journal57, 1371 (1978)

    D. Slepian, Bell System Technical Journal57, 1371 (1978)

    1978

  76. [76]

    D. J. Thomson, Proceedings of the IEEE70, 1055 (1982)

    1982

  77. [77]

    C. E. Shannon, Proceedings of the IRE37, 10 (1949)

    1949

  78. [78]

    Patel, S

    D. Patel, S. J. S. Tan, Y. Suba¸ sı, and A. T. Sornborger, PRX Quantum7, 020302 (2026)

    2026

  79. [79]

    Kim and M

    C. Kim and M. Mourigal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10190 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Rubner, C

    Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, and L. J. Guibas, inSixth international conference on computer vision (IEEE Cat. No. 98CH36271)(IEEE, 1998) pp. 59–66

    1998

Showing first 80 references.