Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Quantum Simulation of Dynamical Response Functions of Equilibrium States

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · 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 that dynamical response functions of equilibrium states can be reconstructed from measurements on easy-to-prepare states alone, via classical energy-filter post-processing, and demonstrates it on a quasiperiodic model.

desk verdict The reader's accept verdict holds up in spirit, but Eq. (6) is mathematically wrong as written and the MCMC sampling protocol in Appendix B is biased until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05411 v1 pith:MI6CLOL6 submitted 2025-05-08 quant-ph

Esther Cruz , Dominik S. Wild , Mari Carmen Bañuls , J. Ignacio Cirac This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords dynamicalresponsefunctionsenergyfilteringequilibriumstatesquantumsimulationKuboformulamicrocanonicalensembleconductivitylocalization
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

This paper claims that dynamical response functions of equilibrium states — the frequency-dependent conductivity, response to perturbations, and similar quantities — can be reconstructed from measurements on easy-to-prepare non-equilibrium states, by post-processing time-series data with an energy filter. The method never prepares the equilibrium state itself; it only needs states with substantial weight in a target energy window, and it returns microcanonical (and, via Boltzmann weighting, canonical) response functions. This matters because equilibrium states are difficult to prepare on quantum hardware, and because classical methods are limited by entanglement growth and the sign problem when computing real-time dynamics. The claim is demonstrated numerically on a quasiperiodic free-fermion model, where the reconstructed conductivity reveals energy-dependent localization, including the mobility edge.

What carries the argument

The Gaussian energy filter $P_\delta(E)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\delta^2}}e^{-(H_0-E)^2/(2\delta^2)}$, realized through its Fourier representation as a linear combination of time-evolution unitaries $e^{-iH_0 t}$. Its role is to project expectation values onto a narrow energy window of width $\delta$ around $E$, converting measurements taken on a generic initial state into equilibrium response data; the projection is done entirely in classical post-processing from the measured $f_\psi(t)$ and $C^{AB}_\psi(t_1,t_2,t_3)$. The filter can be applied either to individual pure states or to an ensemble, and the ensemble version converges to the microcanonical ensemble as $\delta\to 0$.

What would settle it

Take a small non-integrable spin chain, prepare a filtered pure state of width $\delta$ around a target energy, run the protocol to extract $\chi_{AB}(\omega)$, and compare it with the exact microcanonical response function computed by exact diagonalization; if the two disagree or if the extracted response depends on how the three-time correlator is reduced to a time difference, the stationarity assumption has failed. A sharper variant: check whether $\langle\psi|P_\delta(E)[A(t),B(t')]P_\delta(E)|\psi\rangle$ actually depends only on $t-t'$ by varying $t$ and $t'$ while keeping the difference fixed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the linear response function $\chi_{AB}(\omega)$ of an equilibrium state can be inferred by applying a Gaussian energy filter $P_\delta(E)$ to a readily preparable state $|\psi\rangle$ and measuring two time-domain quantities: the Loschmidt echo $f_\psi(t)=\langle\psi|e^{-iH_0 t}|\psi\rangle$ and the three-time correlator $C^{AB}_\psi(t_1,t_2,t_3)=\langle\psi|e^{iH_0 t_1}A e^{iH_0 t_2}B e^{iH_0 t_3}|\psi\rangle$. Classical post-processing evaluates the filtered expectation values and reconstructs $\chi_{AB}(\omega)$; the filter can be narrowed to select a target energy $E$, so the equilibrium response emerges from the dynamics of a state that was never thermalized. The same machinery yields filter-ensemble (microcanonical) expectation values by averaging over states drawn with probability proportional to $\langle\psi|P_\delta(E)|\psi\rangle$. For the quasiperiodic Anderson-type model considered, this reproduces the energy-dependent Drude weight and current fluctuations, showing the transition from localized to extended behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes that the energy-filtered pure state is effectively stationary on the timescales measured, so that the three-time correlator reduces to a function of time differences only; if the filtered state drifts or fails to equilibrate within the measurement window, the inferred response function mixes distinct time arguments and becomes incorrect, and in practice the paper leans on the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis to guarantee this for generic interacting systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One can compute response functions such as optical conductivity, magnetic susceptibility, and spin transport at finite energy without preparing ground states or Gibbs states, provided easy initial states with overlap in the target window exist.
  • Circuit depth scales polynomially in $1/\delta$ and sampling cost scales with $1/r_\delta(E)$, the overlap of the initial state with the selected energy window, making the method practical when such states are available.
  • The method extends to canonical ensembles by Boltzmann-weighted averaging over filter energies, giving finite-temperature response data from the same set of measurements.
  • For generic non-integrable systems, the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis makes filtered observables state-independent, so a single easy-to-prepare state may suffice to obtain the equilibrium response.
  • The method is presented as applicable to interacting fermionic systems and spin systems, enabling quantum hardware to probe response functions beyond classically simulable regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical diagnostic that follows from, but is not explicitly stated in, the paper: the reconstructed $\chi_{AB}(\omega)$ could be checked for consistency by extracting it from two different choices of time origin in the three-time correlator; if the results differ, the stationarity assumption on the filtered state has failed.
  • Editorial extension: the same measured time series could be used to validate eigenstate thermalization in interacting systems by comparing the filtered-pure-state response against the filter-ensemble response at the same energy and filter width.
  • Editorial extension: for integrable or localized models, individual filtered states can depart strongly from the filter ensemble, so the method would require either ensemble averaging or a carefully chosen family of initial states — a limitation the paper's own numerics illustrate.
  • Editorial extension: connecting this scheme to phase-estimation-based time-series analysis might reduce the required circuit depth or measurement overhead by reusing the same time-evolution data for multiple energy targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm to compute dynamical response functions (e.g., the conductivity) of equilibrium states without preparing the equilibrium state itself. The idea is to apply a Gaussian energy filter to an ensemble of easy-to-prepare states, reconstruct filtered expectation values from time-domain measurements via classically post-processed Fourier transforms, and then average over states sampled from the filter ensemble. Three circuit implementations for the required three-time correlator are given, together with a discretization scheme for the filter. The method is illustrated numerically on a free-fermion Aubry-André model with mobility edges, computing the Drude weight and current fluctuations at different energies.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical bottleneck in quantum simulation: the preparation of equilibrium (especially low-temperature) states. Its strengths are the explicit circuit constructions, the cost statement in terms of the state overlap rδ(E), and the numerical benchmarking of the filter-ensemble sampler against exact Gaussian-state calculations. The localization-dependent Drude weight computed in Fig. 5 provides a convincing proof-of-principle. At the same time, the central sampling identity contains a mathematical error that must be fixed before the protocol can be used as published. Because the error is local and has straightforward corrections, the approach remains promising.

major comments (1)
  1. [Energy filters, Eq. (6), and Appendix B] Equation (6) in the main text and the corresponding estimator in Appendix B are incorrect as written. For the normalized Gaussian filter P_a(E) ∝ exp[-(H-E)^2/(2a^2)], one has P_a(E)^2 ∝ P_{a/√2}(E). Therefore the denominator in Aψ(δ/√2,E) is governed by P_{δ/2}(E), and the right-hand side of Eq. (6) evaluates to Tr[AP_{δ/2}(E)]/Tr[Pδ(E)] rather than Tr[APδ(E)]/Tr[Pδ(E)]. A concrete counterexample is H = diag(0, ε), E = 0, A = |0⟩⟨0|, with the orthonormal set {|+⟩,|-⟩}: the left-hand side is 1/(1+e^{-ε^2/(2δ^2)}) while the right-hand side is 1/(1+e^{-2ε^2/δ^2}). The correct identities are Σψ pψ \tilde Aψ(δ,E) = Tr[APδ(E)]/Tr[Pδ(E)] with \tilde Aψ(δ,E) = ⟨ψ|APδ(E)|ψ⟩/⟨ψ|Pδ(E)|ψ⟩, or equivalently Σψ pψ Aψ(√2δ,E) = Tr[APδ(E)]/Tr[Pδ(E)]. Since Appendix B instructs the estimator to average Aψ_i(δ/√2,E), the protocol as written is biased. The agreement in Fig. 5 suggests the numerical implementation may have used a correct expression, but the text and Appendix B need to be amended; if the code used δ/√2, the validation must be repeated. This is load-bearing because the filter-ensemble sampling route is the basis for the claimed equilibrium response computations.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B] The Metropolis acceptance rule is written as 'accept with probability max{p_{ψn+1}/p_{ψn}, u}'; this is not a valid probability (it can exceed 1). The standard rule is to accept with probability min{1, p_{ψn+1}/p_{ψn}}, i.e., accept if u is less than that value.
  2. [Energy filters, Eq. (6)] The identity in Eq. (6) relies on Σψ ⟨ψ|O|ψ⟩ = Tr[O], which is only valid for an orthonormal basis (or a tight frame with appropriate weights). The text should specify the nature of the complete set {|ψ⟩} used.
  3. [Quantum simulation of response functions, text after Eq. (6)] The stationarity assumption for filtered pure states is introduced qualitatively; since the filter-ensemble route is exact, a brief remark emphasizing that the pure-state route is an approximation used for illustration (and controlled by ETH in generic systems) would help avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the response-function derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against independent exact calculations.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained. The new contribution is the reconstruction of dynamical response functions from the measured quantities f_psi(t) and C_AB^psi(t1,t2,t3): the Fourier representation of the Gaussian filter in Eq. (4) is combined with the definition of the filtered expectation value in Eq. (5) to extract equilibrium response information without preparing the equilibrium state. The filter-ensemble identity in Eq. (6) is an algebraic relation used to estimate microcanonical expectation values from sampled pure states; it is not derived from the target response function, and the numerical results in Fig. 5 explicitly benchmark the sampled mean against the exact filter ensemble computed via Gaussian states. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external data set is used to tune the algorithm. The references to the authors' prior work, notably Ref. [14], concern the efficiency of the energy-filter approach and the Boltzmann-weighted averaging for canonical ensembles; these are background algorithm results, not the target response-function result, and they are not invoked to forbid alternative constructions. The stationarity assumption for filtered pure states is an explicit approximation stated after Eq. (6); if invalid it would degrade accuracy, but it is not a circular reduction. The only issue raised by the skeptic, the width mismatch in Eq. (6) involving A_psi(delta/sqrt(2),E), is a mathematical-correctness concern rather than a circularity concern, and it does not affect the self-containedness of the derivation.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; δ, σ, N, N0 are model or algorithm parameters, not fitted constants. The central claim rests on the standard filter formalism, linear response theory, and two physical assumptions: approximate stationarity of filtered pure states and ETH-based state-independence for generic systems.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kubo formula gives linear response: δA(ω)=g(ω)χAB(ω) for equilibrium states (Eqs. (1)-(2)).
    Paper uses the Kubo formula to define the response function χAB(t−t′) as the commutator of A(t) and B(t′) evaluated in ρ0.
  • domain assumption Filtered pure states are approximately stationary for small δ, so ⟨ψ|Pδ(E)[A(t),B(t')]Pδ(E)|ψ⟩ depends only on t−t'.
    Assumed after Eq. (6); required to reduce the three-time correlator to a time-difference function and to extract χAB(ω).
  • domain assumption Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) holds for generic interacting systems, making filtered observables smooth functions of energy and independent of the initial state for small δ.
    Invoked in the introduction and conclusion to argue the filtered expectation values become state-independent; used to justify sampling states instead of preparing specific equilibrium states.
  • standard math The discretized filter Pδ(E) with Riemann sum and cutoff K converges to the exact filter.
    The paper uses Eq. (9) as an approximation and states truncation error is suppressed by exp[−O(K^2δ^2Δt^2)]; relies on standard Fourier analysis.
  • standard math The trace of products of Gaussian operators can be computed via Pfaffians (Eq. A6).
    Used in Appendix A for the numerical demonstration; standard result for fermionic Gaussian states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Simulation of Dynamical Response Functions of Equilibrium States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MI6CLOL6

@misc{pith2026250505411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Simulation of Dynamical Response Functions of Equilibrium States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MI6CLOL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05411}
}
read the original abstract

The computation of dynamical response functions is central to many problems in condensed matter physics. Owing to the rapid growth of quantum correlations following a quench, classical methods face significant challenges even if an efficient description of the equilibrium state is available. Quantum computing offers a promising alternative. However, existing approaches often assume access to the equilibrium state, which may be difficult to prepare in practice. In this work, we present a method that circumvents this by using energy filter techniques, enabling the computation of response functions and other dynamical properties in both microcanonical and canonical ensembles. Our approach only requires the preparation of states that have significant weight at the desired energy. The dynamical response functions are then reconstructed from measurements after quenches of varying duration by classical postprocessing. We illustrate the algorithm numerically by applying it to compute the dynamical conductivity of a free-fermion model, which unveils the energy-dependent localization properties of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the algorithm. The first step is the data collection. A state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum circuits to measure the quantity in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Single-particle spectrum of the Hamiltonian. The eigenstates in the gray shaded region in the middle of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Filter ensemble expectation value of Re[Ω( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Drude weight for the filter ensemble at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cirac, D

    I. Cirac, D. Perez-Garcia, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States: Concepts, Symmetries, and Theorems, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 045003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    P. H. Acioli, Review of quantum Monte Carlo methods and their applications, J. Mol. Struct. THEOCHEM394, 75 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Ra- jagopal, Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 33 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    A. W. Sandvik, A. Avella, and F. Mancini, Computa- tional Studies of Quantum Spin Systems, in AIP Confer- ence Proceedings (AIP, 2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Cohen, E

    G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Taming the dynamical sign problem in real-time evolu- tion of quantum many-body problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266802 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Roggero and J

    A. Roggero and J. Carlson, Dynamic linear response quantum algorithm, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034610 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    S. Endo, I. Kurata, and Y. O. Nakagawa, Calculation of the Green’s function on near-term quantum computers, Physical Review Research 2, 033281 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Libbi, J

    F. Libbi, J. Rizzo, F. Tacchino, N. Marzari, and I. Taver- nelli, Effective calculation of the Green’s function in the time domain on near-term quantum processors, Physical Review Research 4, 043038 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    K¨ okc¨ u, H

    E. K¨ okc¨ u, H. A. Labib, J. K. Freericks, and A. F. Kem- per, A linear response framework for quantum simulation of bosonic and fermionic correlation functions, Nature Communications 15, 3881 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Maskara, S

    N. Maskara, S. Ostermann, J. Shee, M. Kalinowski, A. McClain Gomez, R. Araiza Bravo, D. S. Wang, A. I. Krylov, N. Y. Yao, M. Head-Gordon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Programmable simulations of molecules and materials with reconfigurable quantum processors, Na- ture Physics ...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Loaiza, D

    I. Loaiza, D. Motlagh, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, A. Delgado, and J. M. Arrazola, Nonlinear Spectroscopy via General- ized Quantum Phase Estimation (2024), arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13885 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y. Ge, J. Tura, and J. I. Cirac, Faster ground state preparation and high-precision ground energy estimation with fewer qubits, Journal of Mathematical Physics 60, 022202 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    R. D. Somma, Quantum eigenvalue estimation via time series analysis, New Journal of Physics21, 123025 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    S. Lu, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and J. I. Cirac, Algorithms for Quantum Simulation at Finite Energies, PRX Quantum 2, 020321 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Lin and Y

    L. Lin and Y. Tong, Heisenberg-limited ground-state en- ergy estimation for early fault-tolerant quantum comput- ers, PRX Quantum 3, 010318 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Morettini, L

    G. Morettini, L. Capizzi, M. Fagotti, and L. Mazza, Energy-filtered quantum states and the emergence of nonlocal correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 240401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    H´ emery, K

    K. H´ emery, K. Ghanem, E. Crane, S. L. Campbell, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, J. Johansen, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, A. Ransford, M. Rowe, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, H. Dreyer, A. Schuckert, and R. Nigmatullin, Measuring the loschmidt amplitud...

    2024

  10. [18]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Physical Review A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  11. [19]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys- ical Review E 50, 888 (1994)

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys- ical Review E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, The Complexity of the Local Hamiltonian Problem (2005), arXiv preprint arXiv:0406180 [quant-ph]

    2005

  14. [22]

    Kubo, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irreversible Processes

    R. Kubo, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irreversible Processes. I. General Theory and Simple Applications to Magnetic and Conduction Problems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  15. [23]

    Schuckert, A

    A. Schuckert, A. Bohrdt, E. Crane, and M. Knap, Prob- ing finite-temperature observables in quantum simulators of spin systems with short-time dynamics, Physical Re- view B 107, L140410 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Morettini, L

    G. Morettini, L. Capizzi, M. Fagotti, and L. Mazza, Energy-Filtered Quantum States and the Emergence of Nonlocal Correlations, Physical Review Letters 133, 240401 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Y. Yang, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Classical algo- rithms for many-body quantum systems at finite ener- gies, Physical Review B 106, 024307 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Y. Yang, A. Christianen, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, D. S. Wild, and J. I. Cirac, Phase-Sensitive Quantum Measurement with- out Controlled Operations, Physical Review Letters 132, 220601 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Clinton, T

    L. Clinton, T. S. Cubitt, R. Garcia-Patron, A. Mon- tanaro, S. Stanisic, and M. Stroeks, Quantum Phase Estimation without Controlled Unitaries (2024), arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21517 [quant-ph]. 8

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh, and B. Koc- zor, Algorithmic Shadow Spectroscopy, PRX Quantum 6, 010352 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Somma, G

    R. Somma, G. Ortiz, J. E. Gubernatis, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, Simulating Physical Phenomena by Quan- tum Networks, Physical Review A 65, 042323 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of Diffusion in Certain Random Lattices, Physical Review 109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  23. [31]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Scaling Theory of Localization: Absence of Quantum Diffusion in Two Dimensions, Phys- ical Review Letters 42, 673 (1979)

    1979

  24. [32]

    Aubry and G

    S. Aubry and G. Andr´ e, Analyticity breaking and Ander- son localization in incommensurate lattices, Proceedings, VIII International Colloquium on Group-Theoretical Methods in Physics 3 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    Y. Wang, X. Xia, L. Zhang, H. Yao, S. Chen, J. You, Q. Zhou, and X.-J. Liu, One dimensional quasiperiodic mosaic lattice with exact mobility edges, Physical Review Letters 125, 196604 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    D. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. Zhang, Insulator, metal, or superconductor: The criteria, Physical Review B 47, 7995 (1993)

    1993

  27. [35]

    Takayoshi and T

    S. Takayoshi and T. Giamarchi, Dynamical conductivity of disordered quantum chains, The European Physical Journal D 76, 213 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Schuckert and M

    A. Schuckert and M. Knap, Probing eigenstate thermal- ization in quantum simulators via fluctuation-dissipation relations, Physical Review Research 2, 043315 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Anshu, Concentration bounds for quantum states with finite correlation length on quantum spin lattice systems, New Journal of Physics 18, 083011 (2016)

    A. Anshu, Concentration bounds for quantum states with finite correlation length on quantum spin lattice systems, New Journal of Physics 18, 083011 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Hartmann, G

    M. Hartmann, G. mahler, and O. Hess, Gaussian Quan- tum Fluctuations in Interacting Many Particle Systems, Letters in Mathematical Physics 68, 103 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    T. Kuwahara, Connecting the probability distributions of different operators and generalization of the Cher- noff–Hoeffding inequality, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 113103 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    C ¸ akan, J

    A. C ¸ akan, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Approximating the long time average of the density operator: Diagonal ensemble, Physical Review B 103, 115113 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    R. J. S´ anchez, V. K. Varma, and V. Oganesyan, Anoma- lous and regular transport in spin- $\frac{1}{2}$ chains: ac conductivity, Physical Review B 98, 054415 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of en- tangled atom arrays, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    T. I. Andersen et al. , Thermalization and criticality on an analogue–digital quantum simulator, Nature 638, 79 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Complexity of quantum impu- rity problems, Communications in Mathematical Physics 356, 451–500 (2017). Appendix A: Numerical details Consider a one-dimensional lattice of N sites. We work in the second quantization formalism, and a† i (resp. ai) denote...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.