Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 132 references

Dynamical learning and quantum memory with non-Hermitian many-body systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a non-Hermitian spin reservoir becomes able to learn exactly at the first exceptional point, where its spectrum turns complex, making dissipation a tunable resource for quantum reservoir computing.

desk verdict Plausible and clean idea, but the headline coincidence between the exceptional point and the memory jump is not yet separated from a training-window artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07676 v1 pith:ZIY6LVOJ submitted 2025-06-09 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el

Moein N. Ivaki , Austin J. Szuminsky , Achilleas Lazarides , Alexandre Zagoskin , Gerard McCaul , Tapio Ala-Nissila This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el MSC 81Q1281P68
keywords non-Hermitianmany-bodysystemsexceptionalpointsPTsymmetrybreakingquantumreservoircomputingmemorycapacityrandomregulargraphsdisorder-tunedlearnabilitydissipativedynamics
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 tries to establish that a single spectral event - the first exceptional point of a non-Hermitian many-body spin Hamiltonian - also marks a transition in the system's capacity to learn and recall temporal inputs. In the language of quantum reservoir computing, the real-to-complex spectral transition is a 'learnability transition': below the critical dissipation rate the reservoir has no fading memory, while above it memory capacity and prediction accuracy jump sharply. The authors show this in a small spin network on a random regular graph, with postselected nonunitary evolution, using linear delayed-recall tasks and the nonlinear NARMA benchmark. The significance, if the claim is right, is that dissipation is not merely noise to be suppressed but a tunable computational resource, with the learning threshold set by local disorder and interaction strength.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the first exceptional point of the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with the single-particle estimate $\gamma_c \approx 2(h_x - \Delta_x)$ used as the predicted position of the real-to-complex transition. The mechanism that converts spectral structure into computational capacity is the biorthogonal evolution formula of Eq. (6): once eigenvalues acquire imaginary parts, any initial state is projected onto the fastest-growing eigenspace at long times, making the normalized map contractive and endowing it with fading memory. The rate of this projection is set by $\Lambda_{\rm Im}$, the maximum imaginary part of the eigenenergies, and both disorder and the interaction term $J_x$ control $\Lambda_{\rm Im}$ and therefore the learning threshold; a hard-core boson mapping in Appendix B attributes the $J_x$ sensitivity to pairing terms that break particle-number symmetry and generate complex energy corrections at arbitrarily small $\gamma$.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to measure total memory capacity $C_T$ versus $\gamma$ for the same model with a fixed, non-optimized evolution time $J_z t_{\rm res}$ and with larger system sizes $N$. If the sharp rise in $C_T$ does not track the first exceptional point, or disappears when $N$ grows, the claimed learnability transition would be an artifact of the chosen observation window and finite size rather than a genuine spectral transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the threshold at which the Hamiltonian's spectrum becomes complex, located at the first exceptional point, also separates a learning phase from a non-learning phase in the reservoir. For $J_x=0$ the critical rate is approximately $\gamma_c = 2(h_x - \Delta_x)$, and the reported memory capacity $C_T$ rises abruptly when $\gamma$ crosses this value, matching the point where averaged state distinguishability begins to decay exponentially. In the presence of interactions $J_x$, complex eigenvalues appear at arbitrarily small $\gamma$, and the learning threshold moves accordingly, while disorder suppresses the maximal imaginary part $\Lambda_{\rm Im}$, slows purification, and improves memory retention. The paper further shows that the reservoir passes the nonlinear NARMA test in the learning phase and that the same spectral transition governs the dynamics of entanglement, which acts as a memory resource.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the single-particle formula $\gamma_c \approx 2(h_x - \Delta_x)$ for the first exceptional point continues to hold in the interacting many-body model, and that the measured learning threshold, evaluated at a hand-optimized evolution time $J_z t_{\rm res}$, tracks this same $\gamma_c$; the paper asserts that 'this simple picture remains valid in our many-body model too' without deriving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identification is correct, the analytically known threshold $\gamma_c \approx 2(h_x - \Delta_x)$ gives a predictive design rule: tune disorder to place the exceptional point where you want learning to turn on.
  • Operating near the first exceptional point is the efficiency sweet spot: memory turns on while postselection cost, which grows exponentially in $NT$, stays small.
  • Interactions turn the reservoir into a sensor of arbitrarily weak dissipation, so non-Hermitian dynamics can be emulated with unitary circuits at much lower cost.
  • Disorder acts as a memory-preserving knob: it lowers the threshold in the $J_x=0$ regime and suppresses $\Lambda_{\rm Im}$ in the $J_x=1$ regime, both of which improve retention.
  • The NARMA results show the learning transition is not restricted to linear recall; nonlinear temporal tasks also benefit from the same spectral phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable corollary left implicit by the paper: if memory capacity really tracks the first exceptional point, then $C_T$ itself could serve as a practical probe for locating exceptional points in engineered dissipative devices, without full spectral tomography.
  • Because the reported capacities are evaluated at a hand-optimized learning time $J_z t_{\rm res}$, an open question is whether the sharp transition survives when $J_z t_{\rm res}$ is fixed; a protocol-independent version of the claim would be a stronger result than the present evidence.
  • The Quantum Dynamical Emulation construction sketched in Appendix E suggests an immediate experimental route: the same learning transition could be reproduced on a superconducting processor by ensemble-averaging unitary evolutions, with no need for physical gain or loss.
  • The dichotomy between the quasi-Hermitian phase (constant distinguishability, no learning) and the PT-broken phase (decaying distinguishability, learning) may generalize to other dissipative quantum reservoirs, implying that any nonunital, contractive map with tunable decay rate can host a similar transition.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a non-Hermitian many-body spin Hamiltonian on random regular graphs as a quantum reservoir for temporal machine learning. The authors show that, in the absence of interactions and disorder, the model exhibits a real-to-complex spectral transition at a critical non-Hermiticity strength γc ≈ 2. They then report that the total memory capacity of the reservoir, evaluated through linear and nonlinear temporal tasks, rises sharply at the same γc, and that this threshold can be tuned by local disorder and spin interactions. The central claim is that the onset of the first exceptional point marks a 'learnability transition' for the reservoir, supported by spectral plots, trace-distance dynamics, memory-capacity curves, and entanglement dynamics. Appendices provide a hard-core boson mapping, a two-level analysis of distinguishability, and a unitary-emulation scheme for non-Hermitian dynamics.

Significance. If the claimed coincidence were firmly established, the result would give a concrete and useful design principle for quantum reservoir computing: operating a non-Hermitian reservoir near its first exceptional point yields a tunable, sharply enhanced memory capacity. The manuscript contains several genuine strengths: the analytic single-particle threshold γc = 2(hx − Δx) is clearly derived, the hard-core boson mapping in Appendix B transparently explains the role of pairing terms, the two-level derivations in Appendices C and D are explicit, and the paper proposes a physically motivated emulation strategy (Appendix E). However, the central 'abrupt learning transition' is presently supported only by finite-size numerics at N = 8, with a single hand-optimized learning time and no error bars or protocol scans. The significance is therefore conditional: the idea is interesting and publishable if the coincidence can be shown to be robust against protocol and finite-size effects.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4; Appendix A] The memory-capacity transition is demonstrated at a single learning time Jztres = 0.4 and a fixed washout length of 2×10^3 steps, with no scan over these protocol parameters. Since the contraction rate ΛIm vanishes continuously as γ → γc+ (Fig. 2(d) and Fig. 3(a)), whether the reservoir forgets its initial condition over the training protocol is controlled by ΛIm × t_washout and by the observation window, not by the spectrum alone. At fixed Jztres, CT could rise at a protocol-dependent value γ* > γc where 1/ΛIm becomes comparable to the finite observation time, mimicking a learnability transition without marking the exceptional point. The authors should vary Jztres, washout length, and τmax and show that the location and sharpness of the CT rise converge to γc, or provide a scaling collapse, before claiming a spectral transition induces a learning transition.
  2. [Sec. II A] The statement 'This simple picture remains valid in our many-body model too' is asserted without derivation for the interacting case. The analytic threshold γc_first = 2(hx − Δx) is derived (or made plausible) in the single-particle and Jx = 0 limits, but the headline claim concerns the many-body interacting model where Jx, Jz ≠ 0. Because the learning threshold is central to the paper, a derivation for the many-body threshold or a systematic numerical demonstration—including finite-size scaling—that the spectral threshold and the learning threshold coincide is required. Currently the coincidence is shown only for N = 8, and only for the spectral threshold versus disorder, not for the learning threshold as a function of disorder.
  3. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4] No error bars or statistical measures are reported for the memory capacity CT, despite the stated averaging over 100–200 independent realizations in Appendix A. The term 'abrupt' is not quantified; without error bars, a continuous crossover cannot be excluded. The authors should report the mean and variance (or confidence intervals) of CT and, if the claim is a genuine transition, show that the rise sharpens with increasing system size N. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion emphasize an 'abrupt change' and a 'critical point' shared by spectral and learning transitions.
  4. [Sec. III B and Fig. 4(c)] The text states that 'the learning threshold is a linear function of the disorder strength, matching the critical value of symmetry breaking,' but no figure directly shows the learning threshold as a function of Δx. Figure 2(b) shows the spectral γc versus Δx, and Fig. 4(c) shows CT versus Jztres for a single γ and Δx. The claimed linearity of the learning threshold with disorder is therefore not explicitly demonstrated. A plot of the inferred learning threshold (e.g., the γ at which CT crosses a fixed value) versus Δx, alongside the spectral line, would directly test the core claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'abrupt change' should be qualified to reflect the finite-size and finite-time nature of the numerical evidence, unless the authors provide finite-size scaling or a quantified sharpness measure.
  2. [Introduction] The sentence containing 'where show that' appears to be missing a word; it should read 'where we show that'.
  3. [Introduction] The word 'eiegnstate' is a typo for 'eigenstate' in the discussion of thermalization.
  4. [Eq. (9)] The formula for NRMSE appears to have a formatting artifact ('s PNθ n'); it should display a square root over the summed term.
  5. [Appendix A] The statement '100-200 independent combinations of disorder realizations, random graphs, and input sequences' is vague; the authors should specify the exact number of realizations used for each plotted point so the statistical weight is clear.
  6. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4(c)] The caption refers to 'an optimal time Jztres' in the text, but the criterion for optimality is not defined; the authors should state whether the optimal time is the maximizer of CT over the scanned range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the exceptional-point threshold and the learning-capacity rise are established by independent numerical measurements, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the reservoir's total memory capacity CT(γ) rises sharply where the spectrum of Hres becomes complex. The two quantities are computed independently: the spectral threshold γc is obtained by exact diagonalization (Fig. 2) and, in the Jx=0, Δx=0 limit, from the analytic two-level condition |γc|≈2hx; the learning capacity is obtained from the reservoir-computing protocol (Eqs. 7-9) with ridge regression, washout, and fixed learning times. No parameter of the reservoir protocol is fitted to the spectral curve: the learning time Jz·tres is chosen once per parameter set rather than tuned per γ, so the CT(γ) curve is a genuine measurement rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The link between the spectral transition and learnability is mediated by the trace-distance decay D(t)∼exp(-t/ζ) with ζ∝1/ΛIm, which is itself an independent dynamical quantity (Fig. 3). The hand-optimized observation window and the continuous vanishing of ΛIm at γc raise a legitimate robustness concern: whether the CT rise occurs exactly at γc or at a shifted γ* set by the finite window and washout is not established by a scan over Jz·tres. That concern is a correctness or protocol sensitivity issue, not circularity, because no equation is defined in terms of the other and no fitted value is relabeled as a predicted critical point. Self-citations, including [40] for the random-graph geometry, [111,131] for the emulation method, and [37] for background on the impossibility of fading memory under unitary dynamics, are model or implementation details; none of them is the load-bearing step that forces the exceptional-point/learning-capacity coincidence. The apparent coincidence is presented with independent numerical evidence and is therefore self-contained in the relevant derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the single-particle spectral picture in a many-body setting, on the postselection interpretation of NH dynamics, and on the use of trace-distance decay as an echo-state proxy. The hand-optimized learning time and regularization strength are free hyperparameters that affect the reported threshold. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Learning time Jztres = 0.4 (Jx=0), 0.25 (Jx=1), 0.3 (NARMA)
    The reservoir observation window per input step is varied to maximize memory; the reported learning threshold is evaluated at this optimized time, so the transition location is partly a function of this hyperparameter.
  • Ridge regularization lambda = 10^{-2} to 10^{-4}
    Chosen per parameter set to stabilize the linear readout; exact values for each figure are not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The random regular graph with N=8, k=4 is representative of a generic chaotic many-body system.
    The model is introduced following the authors' prior work [40]; the small size is used for exact diagonalization.
  • domain assumption The postselected no-click evolution under the NH Hamiltonian is a valid physical model of a continuously measured system.
    Standard in NH literature (Sec. II B); the normalized map in Eq. (5) is a nonunital CPTP channel.
  • ad hoc to paper The analytic single-particle threshold γc ≈ 2(hx-Δx) determines the first exceptional point of the many-body interacting system.
    Stated in Sec. II A without derivation for Jx≠0: 'This simple picture remains valid in our many-body model too'.
  • domain assumption Decay of trace distance (D˙<0) is a sufficient proxy for the echo-state property required for reservoir computing.
    Sec. III A; the paper uses D(t) decay to argue for fading memory, a necessary but not sufficient condition.
  • domain assumption Independent local disorder ε_l is drawn from a bounded distribution, implicitly uniform, with exact distribution unspecified.
    The model states ε_l ∈ [-Δ,Δ] but does not specify the distribution; the learning results may depend on this detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical learning and quantum memory with non-Hermitian many-body systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIY6LVOJ

@misc{pith2026250607676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical learning and quantum memory with non-Hermitian many-body systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIY6LVOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07676}
}
read the original abstract

Non-Hermitian (NH) systems provide a fertile platform for quantum technologies, owing in part to their distinct dynamical phases. These systems can be characterized by the preservation or spontaneous breaking of parity-time reversal symmetry, significantly impacting the dynamical behavior of quantum resources such as entanglement and purity; resources which in turn govern the system's information processing and memory capacity. Here we investigate this relationship using the example of an interacting NH spin system defined on random graphs. We show that the onset of the first exceptional point - marking the real-to-complex spectral transition - also corresponds to an abrupt change in the system's learning capacity. We further demonstrate that this transition is controllable via local disorder and spin interactions strength, thereby defining a tunable learnability threshold. Within the learning phase, the system exhibits the key features required for memory-dependent reservoir computing. This makes explicit a direct link between spectral structure and computational capacity, further establishing non-Hermiticity, and more broadly engineered dissipation, as a dynamic resource for temporal quantum machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lloyd, Phys

    S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 4 (2002), arXiv:0110141 [quant-ph]

    2002

  2. [2]

    learnabil- ity transition

    Remarkably, following the behavior of distinguisha- bility discussed in the previous section, this transition corresponds to an abrupt learning transition, as seen in Figs. 4(a)-(b). Moreover, as shown before, in this limit local disorder ∆ x shifts the real-to-complex transition to lower critical values on average, thereby enabling finite memory at small...

  3. [3]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Schuld, I

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione, Contem- porary Physics 56, 172 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Dunjko and H

    V. Dunjko and H. J. Briegel, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Y. Liu, S. Arunachalam, and K. Temme, Nature Physics 17, 1013 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Fujii and K

    K. Fujii and K. Nakajima, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 024030 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Fujii and K

    K. Fujii and K. Nakajima, arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04890 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

Show all 132 references
  1. [9]

    L. C. G. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, H. K. Krovi, and T. A. Ohki, Physical Review Research 3, 013077 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Angelatos, S

    G. Angelatos, S. A. Khan, and H. E. T¨ ureci, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041062 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Kornjaˇ ca, H.-Y

    M. Kornjaˇ ca, H.-Y. Hu, C. Zhao, J. Wurtz, P. Weinberg, M. Hamdan, A. Zhdanov, S. H. Cantu, H. Zhou, R. A. Bravo, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02553 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Opala, M. Matuszewski, T. Paterek, and T. C. H. Liew, npj Quantum Information 5, 35 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Mujal, R

    P. Mujal, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J. Nokkala, J. Garc ´ ıa-Beni, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies 4, 2100027 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    F. Hu, S. A. Khan, N. T. Bronn, G. Angelatos, G. E. Rowlands, G. J. Ribeill, and H. E. T¨ ureci, nature com- munications 15, 7491 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Senanian, S

    A. Senanian, S. Prabhu, V. Kremenetski, S. Roy, Y. Cao, J. Kline, T. Onodera, L. G. Wright, X. Wu, V. Fatemi, et al., Nature Communications 15, 7490 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J

    R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, J. Nokkala, G. L. Giorgi, R. Zam- brini, and M. C. Soriano, Cognitive Computation , 1 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Tanaka, T

    G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J. B. H´ eroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, and A. Hirose, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04962 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. C. Ozturk, D. Xu, and J. C. Pr ´ ıncipe, Neural Com- putation 19, 111 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Lukoˇ seviˇ cius and H

    M. Lukoˇ seviˇ cius and H. Jaeger, Computer science re- view 3, 127 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    J. B. Butcher, D. Verstraeten, B. Schrauwen, C. R. Day, and P. W. Haycock, Neural networks 38, 76 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    M. t. Vrugt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13212 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Larger, A

    L. Larger, A. Bayl´ on-Fuentes, R. Martinenghi, V. S. Udaltsov, Y. K. Chembo, and M. Jacquot, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011015 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    S. H. Lim, L. Theo Giorgini, W. Moon, and J. S. Wett- laufer, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. N. Kutz, S. L. Brunton, B. W. Brunton, and J. L. Proctor, Dynamic Mode Decomposition: Data-Driven Modeling of Complex Systems (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, et al., Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Q. H. Tran and K. Nakajima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 260401 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Palacios, R

    A. Palacios, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, M. C. Soriano, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Communications Physics 7, 369 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mujal, R

    P. Mujal, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Sori- ano, and R. Zambrini, npj Quantum Information 9, 16 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Settino, L

    J. Settino, L. Salatino, L. Mariani, M. Channab, L. Boz- zolo, S. Vallisa, P. Barill` a, A. Policicchio, N. L. Gullo, A. Giordano, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09886 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kobayashi, K

    K. Kobayashi, K. Fujii, and N. Yamamoto, PRX Quan- tum 5, 040325 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sornsaeng, N

    A. Sornsaeng, N. Dangniam, and T. Chotibut, Quan- tum Machine Intelligence 6, 57 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Chen and H

    J. Chen and H. I. Nurdin, Quantum Information Pro- cessing 18, 1 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Sannia, R

    A. Sannia, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, M. C. Soriano, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zambrini, Quantum 8, 1291 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Grigoryeva and J.-P

    L. Grigoryeva and J.-P. Ortega, arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00797 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nokkala, R

    J. Nokkala, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, G. L. Giorgi, V. Pa- rigi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Communications Physics 4, 53 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    McCaul, J

    G. McCaul, J. S. T. Gongora, W. Otieno, S. Savel’ev, A. Zagoskin, and A. G. Balanov, Preprint (2025), manuscript in preparation

    2025

  31. [39]

    Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, edited by C

    A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, edited by C. Seelig (Crown Publishing Group, 2005) originally published in 1954

    2005

  32. [40]

    W. Xia, J. Zou, X. Qiu, and X. Li, Frontiers of Physics 17, 33506 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    M. N. Ivaki, A. Lazarides, and T. Ala-Nissila, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03665 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, G

    R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, G. L. Giorgi, J. Nokkala, M. C. So- riano, and R. Zambrini, Physical Review Letters 127, 100502 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Domingo, G

    L. Domingo, G. Carlo, and F. Borondo, Scientific Re- ports 13, 8790 (2023). 14

    2023

  36. [44]

    D. Fry, A. Deshmukh, S. Y.-C. Chen, V. Rastunkov, and V. Markov, Scientific Reports 13, 19326 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Y. Kora, H. Zadeh-Haghighi, T. C. Stewart, K. Hes- hami, and C. Simon, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042416 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    M. L. Olivera-Atencio, L. Lamata, and J. Casado- Pascual, Advanced Quantum Technologies , 2300247 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Yosifov, A

    A. Yosifov, A. Iyer, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012622 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Advances in Physics 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    Matsumoto, K

    N. Matsumoto, K. Kawabata, Y. Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260601 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    T. E. Lee and C.-K. Chan, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041001 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    S.-H. Lin, R. Dilip, A. G. Green, A. Smith, and F. Poll- mann, PRX Quantum 2, 010342 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 140506 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Y. Mao, M. Chaudhary, M. Kondappan, J. Shi, E. O. Ilo-Okeke, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 110602 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Kamakari, S.-N

    H. Kamakari, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, PRX Quantum 3, 010320 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Nature Physics 16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    S. Endo, J. Sun, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 010501 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Y. Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Science 364, 878 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nature communications 10, 855 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Liang, D

    Q. Liang, D. Xie, Z. Dong, H. Li, H. Li, B. Gadway, W. Yi, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 070401 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    T. Chen, W. Gou, D. Xie, T. Xiao, W. Yi, J. Jing, and B. Yan, npj Quantum Information 7, 78 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    J. Han, W. Cai, L. Hu, X. Mu, Y. Ma, Y. Xu, W. Wang, H. Wang, Y. P. Song, C.-L. Zou, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 020504 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Cattaneo, M

    M. Cattaneo, M. A. Rossi, G. Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, R. Zam- brini, and S. Maniscalco, PRX Quantum 4, 010324 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    K.¨Ozdemir, S

    S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Nature materials 18, 783 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    K. Ding, C. Fang, and G. Ma, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 745 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Gopalakrishnan and M

    S. Gopalakrishnan and M. J. Gullans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170503 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Kawabata, T

    K. Kawabata, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021007 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Barch, N

    B. Barch, N. Anand, J. Marshall, E. Rieffel, and P. Za- nardi, Phys. Rev. B 108, 134305 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Turkeshi and M

    X. Turkeshi and M. Schir´ o, Phys. Rev. B107, L020403 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir´ o, Phys. Rev. B103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Yamamoto and R

    K. Yamamoto and R. Hamazaki, Phys. Rev. B 107, L220201 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Panda and S

    A. Panda and S. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. B 101, 184201 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Le Gal, X

    Y. Le Gal, X. Turkeshi, and M. Schir` o, PRX Quantum 5, 030329 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    D´ ora and C

    B. D´ ora and C. u. u. u. u. P. m. c. Moca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 136802 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Ashida and M

    Y. Ashida and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 185301 (2018)

    2018

  70. [78]

    Barch, Phys

    B. Barch, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094307 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Hamazaki, K

    R. Hamazaki, K. Kawabata, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090603 (2019)

    2019

  72. [80]

    M´ ak, M

    J. M´ ak, M. Bhaseen, and A. Pal, Communications Physics 7, 92 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Li, X.-J

    H.-Z. Li, X.-J. Yu, and J.-X. Zhong, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043301 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    J. M. Deutsch, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Cipolloni and J

    G. Cipolloni and J. Kudler-Flam, Phys. Rev. B 109, L020201 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Singha Roy, S

    S. Singha Roy, S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Costa de Almeida, and P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180405 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    G. Kerg, K. Goyette, M. Puelma Touzel, G. Gidel, E. Vorontsov, Y. Bengio, and G. Lajoie, Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    Ganguli, D

    S. Ganguli, D. Huh, and H. Sompolinsky, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 105, 18970 (2008)

    2008

  79. [87]

    Sannia, G

    A. Sannia, G. L. Giorgi, S. Longhi, and R. Zambrini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14112 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Novikau and I

    I. Novikau and I. Joseph, Computer Physics Communi- cations 309, 109498 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 045002 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Na- ture Physics 14, 11 (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    Ashida, S

    Y. Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Ueda, Nature commu- nications 8, 15791 (2017)

    2017

  84. [92]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. On- ishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Na- ture 488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    Mostafazadeh, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 7, 1191 (2010)

    A. Mostafazadeh, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 7, 1191 (2010)

    2010

  86. [94]

    Mostafazadeh, arXiv preprint math-ph/0110016 (2001)

    A. Mostafazadeh, arXiv preprint math-ph/0110016 (2001)

    2001 arXiv

  87. [95]

    C. M. Bender, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 947 (2007)

    2007

  88. [96]

    Takasu, T

    Y. Takasu, T. Yagami, Y. Ashida, R. Hamazaki, Y. Kuno, and Y. Takahashi, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020, 12A110 (2020)

    2020

  89. [97]

    C.-Z. Lu, X. Deng, S.-P. Kou, and G. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 110, 014441 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    J. C. Budich, J. Carlstr¨ om, F. K. Kunst, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. B 99, 041406 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    Okugawa and T

    R. Okugawa and T. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. B99, 041202 (2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    Kawabata, Y

    K. Kawabata, Y. Ashida, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 190401 (2017)

    2017

  93. [101]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)

    2009

  94. [102]

    G¨ unther and B

    U. G¨ unther and B. F. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 15 230404 (2008)

    2008

  95. [103]

    A. S. Holevo, Quantum systems, channels, information, Vol. 2 (de Gruyter Berlin, 2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    R. Shen, T. Chen, B. Yang, and C. H. Lee, Nature Communications 16, 1340 (2025)

    2025

  97. [105]

    Mart ´ ınez, E

    D. Mart ´ ınez, E. S. G´ omez, J. Cari˜ ne, L. Pereira, A. Del- gado, S. P. Walborn, A. Tavakoli, and G. Lima, Nature Physics 19, 190 (2023)

    2023

  98. [106]

    Jacobs and D

    K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, Contemporary Physics 47, 279 (2006)

    2006

  99. [107]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (OUP Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  100. [108]

    Minganti, A

    F. Minganti, A. Miranowicz, R. W. Chhajlany, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062131 (2019)

    2019

  101. [109]

    Roccati, G

    F. Roccati, G. M. Palma, F. Ciccarello, and F. Bagarello, Open Systems & Information Dynamics 29, 2250004 (2022)

    2022

  102. [110]

    D. C. Brody, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 035305 (2013)

    2013

  103. [111]

    An, J.-P

    D. An, J.-P. Liu, and L. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 150603 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    Quantum dynamical emulation of imag- inary time evolution,

    J. M. Leamer, A. B. Magann, D. I. Bondar, and G. McCaul, “Quantum dynamical emulation of imag- inary time evolution,” (2024), arXiv:2403.03350

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A

    V. Havl ´ ıˇ cek, A. D. C´ orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 567, 209 (2019)

    2019

  106. [114]

    Yasuda, Y

    T. Yasuda, Y. Suzuki, T. Kubota, K. Nakajima, Q. Gao, W. Zhang, S. Shimono, H. I. Nurdin, and N. Ya- mamoto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06706 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Mehta, M

    P. Mehta, M. Bukov, C.-H. Wang, A. G. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, Physics reports 810, 1 (2019)

    2019

  108. [116]

    Mujal, J

    P. Mujal, J. Nokkala, R. Mart ´ ınez-Pe˜ na, G. L. Giorgi, M. C. Soriano, and R. Zambrini, Journal of Physics: Complexity 2, 045008 (2021)

    2021

  109. [117]

    L. C. Govia, G. J. Ribeill, G. E. Rowlands, and T. A. Ohki, Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering 2, 014008 (2022)

    2022

  110. [118]

    Gilchrist, N

    A. Gilchrist, N. K. Langford, and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062310 (2005)

    2005

  111. [119]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  112. [120]

    Breuer, E.-M

    H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 210401 (2009)

    2009

  113. [121]

    Wang, Z.-P

    Y.-T. Wang, Z.-P. Li, S. Yu, Z.-J. Ke, W. Liu, Y. Meng, Y.-Z. Yang, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230402 (2020)

    2020

  114. [122]

    L. Xiao, K. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, K. Kawabata, M. Ueda, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 230401 (2019)

    2019

  115. [123]

    Sannia, R

    A. Sannia, R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, G. L. Giorgi, and R. Zam- brini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02491 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Barch and D

    B. Barch and D. Lidar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03435 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  118. [126]

    M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  119. [127]

    Markovi´ c and J

    D. Markovi´ c and J. Grollier, Applied physics letters117 (2020)

    2020

  120. [128]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. Volatier-Ravat, V. Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 093902 (2009)

    2009

  121. [129]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031045 (2019)

    2019

  122. [130]

    Schuld and N

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran, PRX Quantum 3, 030101 (2022)

    2022

  123. [131]

    Gujju, A

    Y. Gujju, A. Matsuo, and R. Raymond, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 067001 (2024)

    2024

  124. [132]

    McCaul, K

    G. McCaul, K. Jacobs, and D. I. Bondar, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013017 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.