Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Quantum many-body mixed phase space revealed by hybrid feedback control

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · 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 to experimentally reveal a many-body mixed phase space—regular and chaotic trajectories coexisting within the same interacting 24-qubit model—and attributes it to nonlinear variational dynamics rather than a classical limi

desk verdict A genuinely useful feedback-control experiment and a clean TDVP derivation, but the headline claim of "first experimental evidence for quantum many-body mixed phase space" overreaches: the mixed phase space lives in the variational projection, and the main-text diagnostic is shown in the SM to misclassify some regular orbits. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14223 v1 pith:HLQMXDRR submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elnlin.CD

Hang Dong , Jie Ren , Andrew Hallam , Han Wang , Zhengyi Cui , Yiren Zou , Junlin Wang , Hekang Li
show 4 more authors
Qiujiang Guo Zhen Wang Lei Ying Zlatko Papic
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elnlin.CD
keywords quantummany-bodyscarsmixedphasespacetime-dependentvariationalprinciplefeedbackcontroleigenstatethermalizationhypothesisPoincarésectionsuperconductingqubitsSSHladder
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

The paper tries to establish that a genuinely quantum many-body system can host a mixed phase space, meaning regular, coherent orbits embedded in a chaotic sea, in direct analogy with KAM theory in classical mechanics. It does so using a three-parameter shallow-circuit ansatz and projecting the exact Schrödinger dynamics onto that manifold via the time-dependent variational principle, yielding nonlinear effective equations for the variational parameters. On a 24-qubit superconducting processor realizing an interacting Su–Schrieffer–Heeger ladder, it measures an experimentally accessible imbalance whose revival peaks reproduce the Poincaré-section structure predicted by the projected dynamics. A hybrid quantum-classical feedback loop that alternates short evolution with projection onto the manifold converges from a chaotic initial state to a stable periodic orbit, and the orbit deforms smoothly as couplings are tuned. If correct, this is the first experimental evidence for a quantum many-body analog of mixed phase space, with consequences for quantum scars, thermalization, and coherent state preparation.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three linked objects. (1) A three-parameter shallow circuit ansatz, |ψ(z)> = U2(phi1,phi2)U1(theta)|0101...>, defines a three-dimensional variational manifold M inside the exponentially large Hilbert space. (2) The time-dependent variational principle projects the exact Schrödinger evolution onto the tangent space of M, producing the nonlinear equations of motion (Eq. 5) for z=(theta,phi1,phi2); these are the effective classical-like dynamics in which regular islands and a chaotic sea appear. (3) The imbalance I_z, a locally measurable proxy for fidelity that equals one exactly when the evolved state lies on M, and the feedback map |ψ(n+1)> = P_M U(Δt)|ψ(n)> together pr

What would settle it

A decisive test: simulate the identical dynamics with a much larger variational manifold (for example, a matrix-product-state ansatz with bond dimension 100 or more) and re-measure the imbalance revival map and the hybrid-feedback convergence. If the regular islands disappear or shift substantially, or if feedback no longer converges to a stable periodic orbit, the claimed mixed phase space is a truncation artifact. Alternatively, use exact diagonalization of the 24-qubit chain to check whether the specific initial states in the regular island exhibit long-lived revivals under full quantum evo

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the interacting SSH ladder of Eq. (1), the low-entanglement sector captured by the shallow circuit |ψ(z)> = U2(phi1,phi2)U1(theta)|0101...> has nonlinear TDVP dynamics (Eq. 5) that exhibit a genuine mixed phase space: invariant tori (regular islands) coexist with a chaotic sea, visible in a many-body analog of a Poincaré section. The revival amplitude of the imbalance I_z, measured on 24 qubits, reproduces the TDVP Poincaré-section features, and the co-moving imbalance confirms that regular trajectories remain confined to the variational manifold while chaotic trajectories leak out. The hybrid feedback iteration |ψ(n+1)> = P_M U(Δt)|ψ(n)>, implemented as an evolution-projection cycle, con

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three-parameter shallow-circuit ansatz, together with the TDVP projection, faithfully represents the relevant low-entanglement dynamics of the full 24-qubit Hamiltonian; if that projected flow is only a truncation artifact, the reported mixed phase space is a property of the ansatz rather than of the quantum system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regular and chaotic trajectories can coexist in a strongly interacting many-body system at the same energy density, signaling a weak breakdown of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis.
  • A local observable—the imbalance—can serve as a scalable proxy for global fidelity and map a many-body Poincaré section without reconstructing the wave function.
  • The hybrid feedback protocol can stabilize long-lived coherent dynamics starting from a chaotic initial state, using only short evolutions and local measurements, and can thereby prepare nonthermal states.
  • The regular islands deform smoothly as the Hamiltonian couplings are varied, matching the KAM picture of structural stability of mixed phase spaces.
  • The method extends to deeper variational circuits and other Hamiltonians, offering a general framework for discovering and controlling coherent sectors of chaotic quantum systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed structure is genuine, quantum many-body scars may be reinterpreted as the most stable periodic orbits of a variational phase space; the feedback protocol would then be an automated way to discover scar-like states without prior model knowledge.
  • Because the mixed phase space is established on a deliberately three-parameter projection, a natural test is to repeat the analysis with a larger variational manifold: islands that persist under increasing ansatz depth would indicate genuine many-body structure, while islands that dissolve would expose truncation artifacts.
  • The finite-time feedback step acts as an effective dissipation that selects a particular orbit; this suggests the protocol could be tuned to prepare states with prescribed revival properties, connecting to measurement-and-feedback-driven entanglement transitions.
  • The exact rainbow-scar point, where the TDVP flow reproduces known oscillatory trajectories, suggests that the mixed-phase-space picture may unify previously separate families of nonthermal states; one could test this by searching for additional island-centered trajectories at special coupling values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a hybrid quantum–classical feedback protocol implemented on a 24-qubit superconducting processor to discover and stabilize coherent, low-entanglement trajectories in an interacting SSH ladder. The central theoretical object is a three-parameter shallow-circuit variational manifold (Eq. 2), on which the authors derive TDVP equations of motion (Eq. 5) that exhibit mixed phase space: regular islands and a chaotic sea in Poincaré sections (Fig. 1d). Experimentally, they map a first-revival imbalance observable I_max^z over parameter space (Fig. 2c,d), measure a co-moving imbalance (Fig. 2e,f), and show that an evolution–projection feedback loop converges to stable periodic orbits whose geometry varies with coupling strength (Fig. 3). The paper concludes that this provides the first experimental evidence for a quantum many-body mixed phase space.

Significance. If the central identification between the TDVP flow and the low-entanglement sector of the 24-qubit Hamiltonian is accepted, the result is significant: it extends scar phenomenology from isolated initial states to a structured coexistence of regular and chaotic regions, and it introduces a practical feedback method for distilling coherent dynamics on noisy hardware. The manuscript is strong in several respects: the TDVP equations are derived in full in the Supplemental Material, the numerical maps are cross-checked with exact diagonalization and iTEBD, and the authors are transparent about the variational nature of the ansatz and about the limited diagnostic power of the first-revival observable. The main open question is whether the observed mixed phase space is a faithful property of the full quantum model or an artifact of the three-parameter truncation; this must be settled before the 'first experimental evidence' claim can stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Eq. (5)] The paper's headline claim that the experiment reveals a mixed phase space of the 24-qubit Hamiltonian (1) is not fully established, because Eq. (5) is a 3-parameter TDVP truncation. The authors acknowledge in Methods that the ansatz is 'the minimal description...' and SM S9 only compares two initial-condition families in the thermodynamic limit; the exact-diagonalization check in Fig. 2c is made through the same first-revival diagnostic. A quantitative comparison of exact dynamics and TDVP for representative regular and chaotic initial conditions—e.g., time-dependent fidelity F(t)=|⟨ψ(0)|ψ(t)⟩|^2 and leakage out of the manifold—is needed to rule out that the mixed phase space is a property of the ansatz rather than of the model. Without this, the phrase 'first experimental evidence for a mixed phase space in a quantum many-body system' overstates the result.
  2. [Fig. 2c,d; SM S8] The primary experimental Poincaré map uses the first-revival peak I_max^z. SM S8 shows that this diagnostic misclassifies regular trajectories such as θ=0, ϕ1=ϕ2=0: the strongest revival occurs at the third peak, so the first-peak criterion labels it irregular. The refined observable max_{t>t1} I_z(t) restores agreement with TDVP. Because Fig. 2d is the central experimental evidence for the coexistence of regular and chaotic regions, presenting the unrefined map as the main result is misleading. Either the refined diagnostic should be used in the main text, or the authors should demonstrate that the first-revival map is faithful in the region used to support the claim.
  3. [Eq. (4), Fig. 3] The hybrid feedback loop is a dissipative map P_M U(Δt), and its convergence to a periodic orbit is governed by the projection onto the variational manifold rather than solely by the original Hamiltonian. The converged orbit satisfying e^{-iHT}|ψ*⟩≈e^{iφ}|ψ*⟩ (SM S6) is a fixed point of the feedback map, not necessarily a periodic orbit of the original Hamiltonian. To support the claim that Fig. 3d probes the stability of the model's mixed phase space, the authors should show that the converged states exhibit low leakage over times comparable to the experiment without feedback, or otherwise clarify that the stabilized orbits are properties of the variational feedback dynamics rather than of H itself.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods (timescales)] The text states 'ℏ/J_o ≈ 200 ns' for J_o/2π = 5 MHz. With this value, ħ/J_o ≈ 31.8 ns, while 1/J_o = 200 ns. The numerical factor of 2π should be checked and the notation made consistent with the units used in Fig. 1.
  2. [SM S8] The refined diagnostic max_{t>t1} I_z(t) is only shown numerically. An experimental refined map, even for a subset of parameters, would substantially strengthen the claim that the improved agreement with TDVP is not a numerical artifact.
  3. [Conclusions] The 'first experimental evidence' claim should be more carefully qualified relative to prior scar experiments on similar platforms [22,28] and the theoretical proposal of Ref. [23]. The distinction between isolated scar states and a full mixed phase space is clear, but it should be stated explicitly in the introduction and conclusion to avoid overclaiming novelty.
  4. [Fig. 3a] The schematic shows the feedback loop with a single 'U(Δt)' block, but the text explains that the reverse circuit U_M†(z') is applied before measurement. Adding the inverse unitary to the schematic would make the protocol easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core TDVP/mixed-phase claim is independently benchmarked by exact diagonalization and iTEBD, with only minor self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim rests on the TDVP equations (5), which are derived in SM S4 from the Hamiltonian (1) and the shallow-circuit ansatz (2) without fitting any parameter to the target mixed phase space. The Poincaré section in Fig. 1d is a direct consequence of those equations. The experimental revival maps in Fig. 2 are obtained from exact Hamiltonian evolution and compared with exact diagonalization of a 16-qubit chain; the iTEBD thermodynamic-limit results in SM S9 independently show different entanglement-growth slopes for states classified as regular vs chaotic by TDVP. Thus the core claim has independent content. The main circularity-adjacent concerns are acknowledged limitations rather than reductions by construction: (i) the variational manifold M defines both the TDVP flow and the imbalance proxy I_z, so the correspondence partly reflects the ansatz's own geometry — the Methods state "With this caveat in mind, our variational ansatz is the minimal description..."; (ii) SM S8 itself shows the main-text first-revival observable misclassifies the regular θ=0 trajectory and that the refined max_{t>t1} I_z diagnostic is needed, which is a correctness caveat, not a circular step; (iii) the hybrid feedback protocol is "inspired by the ScarFinder algorithm [14]" by the same authors, and its converged orbit is by definition a fixed point of the update map, but this serves as a control demonstration, not as the primary evidence for mixed phase space. These issues do not make the derivation circular; the score reflects the minor self-citation and the ansatz-dependent observable design.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free constants are fitted to reproduce the phase-space structure; the Hamiltonian couplings are calibrated device values. The central assumptions are the validity of the three-parameter variational manifold, the TDVP projection, and the fidelity-proxy interpretation of the imbalance. The feedback step Δt is a hand-chosen protocol parameter but not fitted to the target result.

free parameters (1)
  • Feedback step Δt = 80 ns
    Hand-chosen protocol step close to the intrinsic timescale ħ/Jo ≈ 200 ns to ensure rapid convergence. The SM shows the converged orbit deforms with Δt and tends to the TDVP orbit as Δt→0, so the exact value is not load-bearing.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The states generated by Eq. (2) form a manifold M that faithfully represents the low-entanglement dynamics of Hamiltonian (1).
    Main text: 'This ansatz is motivated by first-order Trotterization... making it quantitatively accurate in the regime Je,J3 ≪ Jo' and later 'minimal description that captures the essential dynamical features.'
  • domain assumption Projecting exact Schrödinger dynamics onto the tangent space of M via TDVP yields the correct effective dynamics for the observables studied.
    Used to derive Eq. (5); leakage is discussed only qualitatively via co-moving imbalance, with no rigorous error bound.
  • domain assumption The imbalance Iz, defined through the inverse circuit U_M†, is a valid proxy for global state fidelity and dynamical regularity.
    Eq. (3) and text: Iz(t)=1 iff |⟨ψ(0)|ψ(t)⟩|²=1; used to construct the experimental Poincaré-section maps.
  • domain assumption Chaotic TDVP trajectories correspond to thermalizing quantum dynamics, while regular TDVP trajectories correspond to nonthermalizing coherent dynamics.
    This maps the classical-like variational flow onto quantum thermalization; supported by iTEBD entanglement slopes for two families of states in SM S7, but not by a general proof.
  • standard math The Poincaré–Bendixson theorem: two-dimensional continuous dynamical systems cannot exhibit deterministic chaos.
    Invoked in SM S8 to explain the absence of irregular trajectories on invariant planes. Standard mathematical background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum many-body mixed phase space revealed by hybrid feedback control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLQMXDRR

@misc{pith2026260714223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum many-body mixed phase space revealed by hybrid feedback control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLQMXDRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14223}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how complex systems transition between order and chaos is a central challenge of nonequilibrium physics. While weak perturbations of classical integrable systems give rise to a mixed phase space of coexisting regular and chaotic trajectories, analogous behavior in interacting quantum many-body systems has remained elusive. Here we develop and experimentally implement a hybrid quantum-classical feedback protocol that autonomously discovers and stabilizes long-lived regular trajectories in a superconducting quantum processor. Each iteration combines short-time quantum evolution with classical optimization that projects the dynamics back onto a low-entanglement variational manifold, effectively distilling coherence from chaotic evolution. The stabilized trajectories reveal a quantum many-body mixed phase space emerging from nonlinear variational dynamics, without a direct analogue in classical or few-body quantum systems. Our results establish a versatile framework for algorithmic discovery and control of coherent dynamics previously inaccessible to experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Superconducting circuit with a mixed phase space. a The shallow variational circuit used to approximate the real-time dynamics of an interacting SSH ladder, Eq. (1), on our superconducting qubit processor. The inter-leg coupling Jo is uniform, while the intra-leg couplings alternate between Je and J3, defining an SSH-type dimerization pattern. The calibrated device couplings are Je/2π = 3.0 MHz, J3/2π = 0.25 MHz, an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental mapping of the Poincar´e section. a Quantum circuit implementing the measurement of imbalance Iz(t) in Eq. (3). The system is initialized in a product state parameterized by (θ, ϕ1, ϕ2) by acting with a unitary UˆM in Eq. (2), then evolved by the unitary Uˆ(t) generated by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), and finally acted upon by the inverse circuit Uˆ † M before readout. b Imbalance dynamics Iz(t) for thre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hybrid feedback control of variational dynamics. a Schematic workflow of the iterative feedback loop in Eq. (4). Starting from an initial state |ψ(z)⟩ with parameters (θ, ϕ1, ϕ2), the system evolves under the unitary Uˆ(∆t) generated by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1). An inverse variational circuit Uˆ † M(z ′ ) is then applied, and the measured imbalance Iz′ is maximized through classical optimization, providing updated… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Subsystem fidelity. a Subsystem fidelity Fsub(t) for three choices of subsystem size Lsub = 4, 8, 12 and fixed initial condition (θ, ϕ2) = (0.05π, 0.5π). In all the measurements, the subsystem is taken as the central block of Lsub qubits. b Poincar´e-section–like maps …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Studies in Nonlinearity (Avalon Publishing, 2014)

    S. Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Studies in Nonlinearity (Avalon Publishing, 2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    A. J. Lichtenberg and M. A. Lieberman,Regular and chaotic dynamics, Vol. 38 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, Vol. 60 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, M. Fang, Y. Chen, M. Kolodrubetz, Z. Chen, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeffrey, J. Kelly, J. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. Polkovnikov, and J. M. Martinis, Ergodic dynamics and thermalization in an isolated quantum system, Nature Physics...

    2016

  5. [5]

    G. P. Brandino, J.-S. Caux, and R. M. Konik, Glimmers of a quantum KAM theorem: Insights from quantum quenches in one-dimensional Bose gases, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041043 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Bohigas, S

    O. Bohigas, S. Tomsovic, and D. Ullmo, Manifestations of classical phase space structures in quantum mechanics, Physics Reports223, 43 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

  8. [8]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    1994

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quantum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspective, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 443 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papic, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    J. Ren, A. Hallam, L. Ying, and Z. Papi´ c, Scarfinder: A detector of optimal scar trajectories in quantum many-body dynamics, PRX Quantum6, 040332 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Kramer and M

    P. Kramer and M. Saraceno,Geometry of the Time-Dependent Variational Principle in Quantum Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1981)

    1981

  8. [16]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    W. W. Ho, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Periodic orbits, entanglement, and quantum many-body scars in constrained models: Matrix product state approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 040603 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hallam, J

    A. Hallam, J. G. Morley, and A. G. Green, The Lyapunov spectra of quantum thermalisation, Nature Communications10, 2708 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, Introduction to the Pontryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control, PRX Quantum2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    C. W. Duncan, P. M. Poggi, M. Bukov, N. T. Zinner, and S. Campbell, Taming quantum systems: A tutorial for using shortcuts-to-adiabaticity, quantum optimal control, and reinforcement learning, PRX Quantum6, 040201 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Solitons in polyacetylene, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  14. [22]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. Desaules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu, W. Ren, Y. Yao, X. Zhang, S. Xu, K. Wang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, B. Zhang, H. Li, C. Song, Z. Wang, F. Liu, Z. Papi´ c, L. Ying, H. Wang, and Y.-C. Lai, Many-body Hilbert space scarring on a...

    2022

  15. [23]

    A. A. Michailidis, C. J. Turner, Z. Papi´ c, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, Slow quantum thermalization and many-body revivals from mixed phase space, Phys. Rev. X10, 011055 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    See the Supplemental Material for details of the derivations and further results that support those in the main text

  17. [25]

    Haegeman, M

    J. Haegeman, M. Mari¨ en, T. J. Osborne, and F. Verstraete, Geometry of matrix product states: Metric, parallel transport, and curvature, Journal of Mathematical Physics55, 021902 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    E. J. Heller, Bound-state eigenfunctions of classically chaotic Hamiltonian systems: Scars of periodic orbits, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1515 (1984)

    1984

  19. [27]

    C. M. Langlett, Z.-C. Yang, J. Wildeboer, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Iadecola, and S. Xu, Rainbow scars: From area to volume law, Phys. Rev. B105, L060301 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Dong, J.-Y

    H. Dong, J.-Y. Desaules, Y. Gao, N. Wang, Z. Guo, J. Chen, Y. Zou, F. Jin, X. Zhu, P. Zhang, H. Li, Z. Wang, Q. Guo, J. Zhang, L. Ying, and Z. Papi´ c, Disorder-tunable entanglement at infinite temperature, Science Advances9, eadj3822 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    C. J. Turner, J.-Y. Desaules, K. Bull, and Z. Papi´ c, Correspondence principle for many-body scars in ultracold Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. X11, 021021 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Evrard, A

    B. Evrard, A. Pizzi, S. I. Mistakidis, and C. B. Dag, Quantum many-body scars from unstable periodic orbits, Phys. Rev. B110, 144302 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Pizzi, L.-H

    A. Pizzi, L.-H. Kwan, B. Evrard, C. B. Dag, and J. Knolle, Genuine quantum scars in many-body spin systems, Nature Communications16, 6722 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    E. Ott, C. Grebogi, and J. A. Yorke, Controlling chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 1196 (1990)

    1990

  25. [33]

    Antoniou, V

    I. Antoniou, V. Basios, and F. Bosco, Probabilistic control of chaos: Chaotic maps under control, Computers & Mathematics with Applications34, 373 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Controlling entanglement at absorbing state phase transitions in random circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 120402 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    S. Roy, J. T. Chalker, I. V. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Measurement-induced steering of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033347 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Herasymenko, I

    Y. Herasymenko, I. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Measurement-driven navigation in many-body Hilbert space: Active-decision steering, PRX Quantum4, 020347 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    O’Dea, A

    N. O’Dea, A. Morningstar, S. Gopalakrishnan, and V. Khemani, Entanglement and absorbing-state transitions in interactive quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, L020304 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum Zeno effect and the many-body entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Vasseur, A

    R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter, Y.-Z. You, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Entanglement transitions from holographic random tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B100, 134203 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Roy, B. Skinner, and J. Ruhman, Measurement and entanglement phase transitions in all-to-all quantum circuits, on quantum trees, and in Landau-Ginsburg theory, PRX Quantum2, 010352 (2021). 9

    2021

  33. [41]

    Ippoliti, M

    M. Ippoliti, M. J. Gullans, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and V. Khemani, Entanglement phase transitions in measurement-only dynamics, Phys. Rev. X11, 011030 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Iadecola, S

    T. Iadecola, S. Ganeshan, J. H. Pixley, and J. H. Wilson, Measurement and feedback driven entanglement transition in the probabilistic control of chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 060403 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Iadecola, J

    T. Iadecola, J. H. Wilson, and J. Pixley, Concomitant entanglement and control criticality driven by collective measurements, PRX Quantum6, 010351 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Doria, T

    P. Doria, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero, Optimal control technique for many-body quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 190501 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    J. H. M. Jensen, F. S. Møller, J. J. Sørensen, and J. F. Sherson, Achieving fast high-fidelity optimal control of many-body quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A104, 052210 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Ljubotina, B

    M. Ljubotina, B. Roos, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, Optimal steering of matrix product states and quantum many-body scars, PRX Quantum3, 030343 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Bukov, A

    M. Bukov, A. G. R. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Reinforcement learning in different phases of quantum control, Phys. Rev. X8, 031086 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Metz and M

    F. Metz and M. Bukov, Self-correcting quantum many-body control using reinforcement learning with tensor networks, Nature Machine Intelligence5, 780 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving, Phys

    A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabaticity by counterdiabatic driving, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Minimizing irreversible losses in quantum systems by local counterdiabatic driving, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E3909 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    F. Jin, S. Jiang, X. Zhu, Z. Bao, F. Shen, K. Wang, Z. Zhu, S. Xu, Z. Song, J. Chen, Z. Tan, Y. Wu, C. Zhang, Y. Gao, N. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Zhang, T. Li, J. Zhong, Z. Cui, Y. Han, Y. He, H. Wang, J.-N. Yang, Y. Wang, J. Shen, G. Liu, J. Deng, H. Dong, P. Zhang, W. Li, D. Yuan, Z...

    2025

  44. [52]

    Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys

    G. Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007). METHODS Experimental setup Our experiments are conducted on a 2D flip-chip superconducting quantum processor comprising 125 frequency-tunable t...

    2007

  45. [53]

    Time evolution: Evolve for a short interval ∆t, |ψ⟩= ˆU(∆t)|ψ(z (0))⟩, with the unitary ˆU(∆t) = e−i ˆH∆t/ℏ corresponding to the Hamiltonian ˆH

  46. [54]

    (2)], parameterized by a trial set of variablesz ′, to obtain|ψ ′⟩= ˆU † M(z′)|ψ⟩

    Reverse circuit: Apply the inverse variational circuit ˆU † M(z′) [Eq. (2)], parameterized by a trial set of variablesz ′, to obtain|ψ ′⟩= ˆU † M(z′)|ψ⟩

  47. [55]

    Measurement: Measure the local spin expectations ⟨ˆσz j ⟩and compute the imbalanceI z′ [Eq. (3)]

  48. [56]

    The optimal parameters,z (1) = arg maxz′ Iz′[|ψ⟩], define the best variational approximation|ψ(z (1))⟩to the evolved state|ψ⟩

    Classical optimization: The measured imbalance is processed by a classical optimizer, which updates the parametersz ′ to maximize the overlap with the evolved state. The optimal parameters,z (1) = arg maxz′ Iz′[|ψ⟩], define the best variational approximation|ψ(z (1))⟩to the ev...

  49. [57]

    Quantum many-body mixed phase space revealed by hybrid feedback control

    Reinitialization: Prepare the updated state|ψ⟩= |ψ(z (1))⟩and repeat the loop. Experimentally, each function evaluation in step 4 corresponds to a complete quantum measurement. Typical convergence for the next evolved state requires 50–200 iterations, with total experimental d...

  50. [58]

    To calibrate the resonance condition, we perform swap spectroscopy between each pair of qubits while detuning all other qubits by at least 100 MHz from the interaction band

    We first coarsely adjust all coupling strengths to match the target Hamiltonian parameters. To calibrate the resonance condition, we perform swap spectroscopy between each pair of qubits while detuning all other qubits by at least 100 MHz from the interaction band. This ensure...

  51. [59]

    This configuration enables accurate experimental tracking of phase accumulation induced by reference frame transitions

    For each individual qubit, we perform quantum state tomography after Hamiltonian evolution under the required coupling strength of the couplers, while maintaining all other qubits detuned by approximately±100 MHz from their resonant frequencies. This configuration enables accu...

  52. [60]

    This phase correction is applied via single-qubit Z-rotations both before and after the analog evolution segment

    The additional phase for theith qubit is calculated as (ω i resonance −ω i gates)×t circuit, wheret circuit = 228 ns. This phase correction is applied via single-qubit Z-rotations both before and after the analog evolution segment. Since our gate sequence consists of a layer o...

  53. [61]

    0 0isin(ϕ 1) 0 cos2 ϕ1 2 sin2 ϕ1 2 0 0 # , A [1] ϕ1 =

    Finally, we characterize and compensate for residual relative global phases between all qubit pairs in a sequential chain from the first to the last qubit, by introducing corresponding initial phase offsets in subsequent XY rotation pulses. S3. AL TERNA TIVE OPTIMIZA TION SCHE...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.