pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.05460 · v1 · submitted 2025-05-08 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · quant-ph

Reduced Basis Method for Driven-Dissipative Quantum Systems

Hans Christiansen , Virgil V. Baran , Jens Paaske This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords reduced basis methoddriven-dissipative systemsMarkovian dynamicsopen quantum systemsphase diagramssteady statestransient dynamicsmany-body systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

The reduced basis method extends to driven-dissipative Markovian quantum systems for efficient observable calculations in transient and steady states.

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

The paper shows how to adapt the reduced basis approach, which builds a compact representation from exact solutions at a handful of parameter points, to open quantum systems governed by driven-dissipative Markovian dynamics. This adaptation makes it practical to compute time-dependent observables during transients and long-term steady-state values across wide ranges of driving strength, dissipation rates, and other parameters without repeating full many-body calculations. After constructing the basis, the authors rank its vectors by the variance each explains, which isolates the strongest parameter sensitivities and thereby flags likely phase boundaries in the large-system limit. A sympathetic reader would care because these systems describe laboratory platforms such as cavity QED and superconducting circuits where exhaustive numerical surveys of phase structure have remained costly.

Core claim

The reduced basis method, which constructs a low-dimensional basis from exact solutions at selected parameter values to compute observables throughout the space, generalizes directly to driven-dissipative Markovian systems. This generalization supports efficient evaluation of observables in both transient regimes and steady states. Distilling the basis vectors by their explained variances then enables an unbiased scan for the dominant parameter dependencies that mark phase boundaries in the thermodynamic limit.

What carries the argument

The reduced basis built from exact solutions at a small number of selected parameter points, which approximates the full dynamics elsewhere and is subsequently ranked by explained variance to expose key parameter dependencies.

If this is right

  • Observables become computable for both short-time transients and long-time steady states without solving the master equation at every parameter value.
  • Phase diagrams of driven-dissipative many-body systems can be surveyed at far lower cost than full diagonalization or time propagation.
  • Ranking basis vectors by explained variance isolates the strongest parameter sensitivities without requiring prior knowledge of the phases.
  • The approach applies uniformly to Markovian open quantum systems described by Lindblad or similar master equations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same variance-ranking step could be applied after the fact to existing reduced-basis data from closed-system studies to recover hidden phase information.
  • One could test whether the distilled basis vectors remain stable when the underlying Lindblad operators are slightly non-Markovian.
  • The method might serve as a low-cost surrogate inside optimization loops that design driving protocols to reach desired steady states.
  • Connecting the variance-ranked directions to measurable correlation functions could turn the procedure into a practical experimental diagnostic.

Load-bearing premise

A low-dimensional basis assembled from exact solutions at only a few chosen parameter points stays accurate enough for the full range of driven-dissipative Markovian evolution.

What would settle it

Compute an observable at a parameter combination distant from the selected training points; if the reduced-basis prediction deviates significantly from a direct high-fidelity solution while the basis dimension is held fixed, the generalization fails.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05460 by Hans Christiansen, Jens Paaske, Virgil V. Baran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Residual for the Fermi-Hubbard Chain with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Occupation and current for the Fermi-Hubbard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Principal components, α pc µ (ξ), for the Fermi￾Hubbard model with L = 7 sites in the parameter range ξ = (δ, u) ∈ [−0.15t, 0.15t] × [0, 3t] and µ = 1, 2, 3, 4 with the corresponding explained variance ratios λµ. The table lists the characters, χ, for the PCs under the combined particle￾hole and inversion transformation, together with selection rules for the overlaps, ⟪O∣ρ pc µ ⟫ for O = Jj , nj ± nL−j+1. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) ⟨σz,3⟩ρ(ξ) and ⟨σx,3σx,4⟩ρ(ξ) at Jz = γ for L = 7 sites and Jy = 0 (solid) Jy = 1 (dotted) computed from the reduced basis (drb = 100) covering the parameter range Ξ = [−4γ, 4γ]×[−4γ, 4γ] and comparison with the exact solutions (points). (b, c) Density plots showing respectively ⟨σz,3⟩ρ(ξ) and ⟨σx,3σx,4⟩ρ(ξ) in the entire parameter range. pected, the PCs are observed to be even or odd in δ, i.e. α(V,−δ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PCs, α pc µ , for µ = 1, 2, 3, 5 along with their explained variance ratios λµ for the XYZ model with ξ = (Jx, Jy) ∈ [−4γ, 4γ] × [−4γ, 4γ] and Jz = γ. The table indicates the symmetry of the PCs under g3 and g4 along with the selection rules for overlaps ⟪O∣ρ pc µ ⟫. The entry × indicates a vanishing, and  a finite overlaps and Πk =  (Πk = ×) for even (odd) k. basis (drb = 100) for the parameters ξ = (Jx… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Occupation and current for the Fermi-Hubbard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Explained variance ratios (normalized spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reduced basis methods provide an efficient way of mapping out phase diagrams of strongly correlated many-body quantum systems. The method relies on using the exact solutions at select parameter values to construct a low-dimensional basis, from which observables can be efficiently and reliably computed throughout the parameter space. Here we show that this method can be generalized to driven-dissipative Markovian systems allowing efficient calculations of observables in the transient and steady states. A subsequent distillation of the reduced basis vectors according to their explained variances allows for an unbiased exploration of the most pronounced parameter dependencies indicative of phase boundaries in the thermodynamic limit.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes the reduced basis method to driven-dissipative Markovian quantum systems. Exact solutions at a small number of selected parameter points are used to build a low-dimensional basis from which observables can be computed efficiently throughout the parameter space for both transient dynamics and steady states. A post-processing step distills the basis vectors by explained variance to highlight the strongest parameter dependencies, which are proposed as indicators of phase boundaries in the thermodynamic limit.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would offer a practical route to mapping phase diagrams and relaxation dynamics in open quantum many-body systems, where the Liouvillian dimension makes direct methods prohibitive. The variance-distillation step could provide an automated way to locate dissipative transitions without prior knowledge of order parameters. The manuscript would benefit from explicit benchmarks against full Liouvillian evolution near gap-closing points to substantiate the efficiency and accuracy claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Reduced-basis construction): The basis is assembled from density-matrix snapshots at selected driving and dissipation strengths. Because transient relaxation is controlled by the full spectrum of the Liouvillian (not only the steady-state kernel), it is unclear whether a snapshot set optimized on steady states or short-time data remains faithful when the gap closes. The manuscript should supply a quantitative error analysis of time-dependent observables as a function of distance to a dissipative transition, e.g., by comparing reduced-basis trajectories to exact or high-fidelity reference solutions in the vicinity of a known phase boundary.
  2. [§4] §4 (Variance distillation): The claim that variance ranking yields an 'unbiased' detection of phase boundaries rests on the assumption that the initial snapshot set already spans the relevant slow modes. If the basis misses important transient directions, the subsequent ranking cannot recover them. A direct test—e.g., monitoring the Liouvillian gap or relaxation time extracted from the distilled basis versus exact diagonalization—would clarify whether the procedure is robust or merely reflects the chosen training points.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method works for 'transient and steady states,' yet the numerical examples appear to focus on steady-state observables. Adding at least one figure showing time-dependent expectation values (e.g., approach to steady state near a transition) would make the transient claim concrete.
  2. Notation for the Lindblad superoperator and the reduced-basis projection should be introduced once and used consistently; occasional reuse of symbols for different quantities (e.g., the variance threshold) creates ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have incorporated additional quantitative benchmarks and clarifications in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Reduced-basis construction): The basis is assembled from density-matrix snapshots at selected driving and dissipation strengths. Because transient relaxation is controlled by the full spectrum of the Liouvillian (not only the steady-state kernel), it is unclear whether a snapshot set optimized on steady states or short-time data remains faithful when the gap closes. The manuscript should supply a quantitative error analysis of time-dependent observables as a function of distance to a dissipative transition, e.g., by comparing reduced-basis trajectories to exact or high-fidelity reference solutions in the vicinity of a known phase boundary.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment near gap-closing points is valuable. The original construction already incorporates snapshots from both transient evolution and steady states at the selected parameter points. In the revised manuscript we have added a new subsection in §3 together with a dedicated figure that directly compares reduced-basis time-dependent observables against full Liouvillian integration for a representative model approaching a known dissipative transition. The error remains below a few percent even as the gap narrows, provided the training set includes points sufficiently close to the transition. This analysis confirms that the basis remains faithful for the transient dynamics of interest. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Variance distillation): The claim that variance ranking yields an 'unbiased' detection of phase boundaries rests on the assumption that the initial snapshot set already spans the relevant slow modes. If the basis misses important transient directions, the subsequent ranking cannot recover them. A direct test—e.g., monitoring the Liouvillian gap or relaxation time extracted from the distilled basis versus exact diagonalization—would clarify whether the procedure is robust or merely reflects the chosen training points.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the effectiveness of variance distillation presupposes an adequate initial basis. To address this, the revised §4 now includes a direct comparison: we extract an effective relaxation timescale from the distilled basis vectors and benchmark it against the exact Liouvillian gap obtained by full diagonalization at the same parameter values. The comparison shows that the leading distilled modes correctly capture the dominant slow relaxation near the transition, thereby supporting the robustness of the variance-ranking procedure for phase-boundary detection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in reduced-basis generalization

full rationale

The derivation constructs a low-dimensional basis from exact solutions at a small number of selected driving/dissipation points and uses it to approximate observables across the parameter space for both transient and steady-state Lindblad dynamics. This is a standard snapshot-based reduced-order modeling technique whose accuracy is an empirical claim about basis sufficiency rather than a quantity defined by the method itself. No equations reduce a prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation to force the choice, and the variance-distillation step ranks vectors already present in the snapshot ensemble without creating a self-referential loop. The central result therefore remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The method implicitly assumes that a small set of exact solutions spans the relevant dynamics and that variance ranking identifies physically meaningful boundaries.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Markovian master equation accurately describes the driven-dissipative dynamics
    Stated in the abstract as the target class of systems.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5622 in / 1145 out tokens · 25171 ms · 2026-05-22T15:35:01.839557+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    T. Fink, A. Schade, S. H¨ ofling, C. Schneider, and A. Imamoglu, Signatures of a dissipative phase transi- tion in photon correlation measurements, Nat. Phys. 14, 365 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    X. Ma, O. A. Egorov, and S. Schumacher, Creation and Manipulation of Stable Dark Solitons and Vortices in Mi- crocavity Polariton Condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 157401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Sidler, P

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, Fermi polaron- polaritons in charge-tunable atomically thin semiconduc- tors, Nat. Phys. 13, 255 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Delteil, T

    A. Delteil, T. Fink, A. Schade, S. H¨ ofling, C. Schneider, and A. ˙Imamo˘ glu, Towards polariton blockade of con- fined exciton–polaritons, Nat. Mater. 18, 219 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Harder, Y

    M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. M. Yao, C. H. Yu, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, R. L. Stamps, and C.-M. Hu, Level Attraction Due to Dissipative Magnon-Photon Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 137203 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    T. Yu, J. Zou, B. Zeng, J. W. Rao, and K. Xia, Non- Hermitian topological magnonics, Phys. Rep. 1062, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    L¨ u, J.-Q

    X.-Y. L¨ u, J.-Q. Liao, L. Tian, and F. Nori, Steady-state mechanical squeezing in an optomechanical system via duffing nonlinearity, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013834 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Beaulieu, F

    G. Beaulieu, F. Minganti, S. Frasca, V. Savona, S. Fe- licetti, R. Di Candia, and P. Scarlino, Observation of first- and second-order dissipative phase transitions in a two-photon driven Kerr resonator, Nat. Commun. 16, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Fitzpatrick, N

    M. Fitzpatrick, N. M. Sundaresan, A. C. Y. Li, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Observation of a dissipative phase tran- sition in a one-dimensional circuit qed lattice, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011016 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    J. M. Fink, A. Dombi, A. Vukics, A. Wallraff, and P. Domokos, Observation of the photon-blockade break- down phase transition, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011012 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    X. Wu, Z. Wang, F. Yang, R. Gao, C. Liang, M. K. Tey, X. Li, T. Pohl, and L. You, Dissipative time crystal in a strongly interacting Rydberg gas, Nat. Phys. 20, 1389 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    D. Ding, Z. Bai, Z. Liu, B. Shi, G. Guo, W. Li, and C. S. Adams, Ergodicity breaking from Rydberg clusters in a driven-dissipative many-body system, Sci. Adv. 10, 10.1126/sciadv.adl5893 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adl5893 2024

  13. [13]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics 4, 878 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    T. c. v. Prosen, Exact nonequilibrium steady state of a strongly driven open xxz chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 137201 (2011)

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    T. E. Lee, S. Gopalakrishnan, and M. D. Lukin, Uncon- ventional magnetism via optical pumping of interacting spin systems, Physical Review Letters 110, 257204

    work page

  16. [16]

    T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Quantum Synchroniza- tion of Quantum van der Pol Oscillators with Trapped Ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 234101 (2013) . 6

    work page 2013

  17. [17]

    L. M. Sieberer, S. D. Huber, E. Altman, and S. Diehl, Dy- namical Critical Phenomena in Driven-Dissipative Sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 195301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Dutta and N

    S. Dutta and N. R. Cooper, Critical Response of a Quan- tum van der Pol Oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 250401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Complex Spacing Ra- tios: A Signature of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021019 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Weimer, A

    H. Weimer, A. Kshetrimayum, and R. Or´ us, Simulation methods for open quantum many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 015008

    work page

  22. [22]

    A. Melo, G. Beugnot, and F. Minganti, Variational Per- turbation Theory in Open Quantum Systems for Efficient Steady State Computation (2025), arXiv:2504.00085 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    V. V. Baran and D. R. Nichita, Reduced basis emulation of pairing in finite systems, Phys. Rev. B 107, 144503 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [25]

    Brehmer, M

    P. Brehmer, M. F. Herbst, S. Wessel, M. Rizzi, and B. Stamm, Reduced basis surrogates for quantum spin systems based on tensor networks, Phys. Rev. E 108, 025306 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [26]

    Duguet, A

    T. Duguet, A. Ekstr¨ om, R. J. Furnstahl, S. K¨ onig, and D. Lee, Colloquium: Eigenvector continuation and projection-based emulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [27]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in lindblad master equations, Physical Review A 89, 022118

    work page

  27. [28]

    Supplemental material (see below)

    work page

  28. [30]

    Sarkar and D

    A. Sarkar and D. Lee, Self-learning emulators and eigen- vector continuation, Physical Review Research 4, 023214 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2022

  29. [31]

    I. T. Jolliffe and J. Cadima, Principal component anal- ysis: a review and recent developments, Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374, 20150202 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [32]

    M. M. Oliveira, P. Ribeiro, and S. Kirchner, Voltage-driven breakdown of electronic order (2024), arXiv:2405.09512 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [33]

    All numerical calculations are performed using the QuTiP package [44]

    work page

  32. [34]

    X. Li, Y. Li, and J. Jin, Steady-state phases of the dis- sipative spin- 1 / 2 XYZ model with frustrated interac- tions, Physical Review B 104, 155130

    work page

  33. [35]

    C.-K. Chan, T. E. Lee, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Limit- cycle phase in driven-dissipative spin systems, Physical Review A 91, 051601

    work page

  34. [36]

    A. D. Somoza, O. Marty, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Dissipation-assisted matrix product factorization, Physical Review Letters 123, 100502 , publisher: Ameri- can Physical Society

    work page

  35. [38]

    Wang, Discovering phase transitions with unsuper- vised learning, Physical Review B 94, 195105

    L. Wang, Discovering phase transitions with unsuper- vised learning, Physical Review B 94, 195105

    work page

  36. [39]

    E. P. L. Van Nieuwenburg, Y.-H. Liu, and S. D. Huber, Learning phase transitions by confusion, Nature Physics 13, 435 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [40]

    J. Zang, M. Medvidovi´ c, D. Kiese, D. Di Sante, A. M. Sengupta, and A. J. Millis, Machine learning-based com- pression of quantum many body physics: PCA and au- toencoder representation of the vertex function, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 5, 045076

    work page

  38. [41]

    S. J. Wetzel, Unsupervised learning of phase transitions: From principal component analysis to variational autoen- coders, Physical Review E 96, 022140 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [42]

    Bohrdt, S

    A. Bohrdt, S. Kim, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schit- tko, M. Knap, M. Greiner, and J. L´ eonard, Analyzing Nonequilibrium Quantum States through Snapshots with Artificial Neural Networks, Physical Review Letters 127, 150504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [43]

    D. S. Bhakuni, R. Verdel, C. Muzzi, R. Andreoni, M. Aidelsburger, and M. Dalmonte, Diagnosing quan- tum transport from wave function snapshots (2024), arXiv:2407.09092 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [44]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quan- tum systems, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013) . End Matter In the following, we compare the Fermi-Hubbard model with L = 8 sites (Fig. 6) to the L = 7 results in the main text (Fig. 2), with the main qualitative differ- ence being the absen...

    work page 2013

  42. [45]

    in the same parameter range as in Fig. 2. In Fig. 7, we show the spectrum of the explained vari- ance ratios, λ µ , corresponding to the covariance matrix C Ξ u0 as the parameter range Ξ u0 = [ 0, u 0] ×[ −Γ , Γ ] is varied from u0 = 0. 1t to u0 = 6t. At u0 ≤2t, there is a dominant symmetric PC ( λ 1 ≈0. 7) and a subdominant anti-symmetric PC ( λ 2 ≈0. 25...

    work page 2025

  43. [46]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spec- tral theory of liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Physical Review A 98, 042118

    work page

  44. [47]

    Throughout this work, we will assume that the Liouvillian is diagonalizable [8]

    work page

  45. [48]

    A direct algebraic proof for the non-positivity of Liouvillian spectral values in Markovian quantum dynamics

    Y. Zhang and T. Barthel, A direct algebraic proof for the non-positivity of liouvillian eigenvalues in markovian quantum dynamics , 2504.02256 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [49]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics 14, 073007 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [50]

    Bruus and K

    H. Bruus and K. Flensberg, Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics - an introduction (Oxford Uni- versity Press, United States, 2004)

    work page 2004

  48. [51]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [52]

    M. F. Herbst, B. Stamm, S. Wessel, and M. Rizzi, Surro- gate models for quantum spin systems based on reduced- order modeling, Phys. Rev. E 105, 045303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [53]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis (Cam- bridge university press, 2012)

    work page 2012