arxiv: 2604.16164 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

A unified framework for efficient quantum simulation of nonlinear spectroscopy

Long Xiong , Xiaoyang Wang , Xiaoxia Cai , Xiao Yuan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum simulationnonlinear spectroscopyparameter shift ruleresponse functionsquantum hardwarespin chainreal-time evolution

0 comments

The pith

A generalized parameter shift rule turns multi-time nonlinear responses into sums of finite-amplitude expectation values on quantum hardware.

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

The paper establishes a method to compute nth-order nonlinear spectroscopy on quantum processors by recasting the responses as weighted sums of expectation values measured at finite pump strengths. This uses an extended parameter-shift rule to avoid direct calculation of high-order commutators or explicit time-dependent operator expansions. The approach runs via ordinary real-time evolution circuits, which current devices can execute with some built-in tolerance to noise. A sympathetic reader would care because classical methods cannot scale to the same system sizes while quantum hardware is already reaching the qubit counts needed for interesting spin models and atomic systems.

Core claim

Nonlinear spectroscopy response functions are obtained exactly as linear combinations of expectation values evaluated at a small number of finite pump amplitudes, via a generalized parameter-shift identity; the resulting circuits consist only of real-time evolution under the system Hamiltonian plus the pump, which can be run directly on superconducting processors to extract spectra and cross-peaks for a 12-qubit XXZ chain, spin-liquid quasi-particles, and interaction-induced features in atomic models.

What carries the argument

Generalized parameter shift rule that expresses the nth-order multi-time response function as a finite weighted sum of expectation values at shifted pump amplitudes.

If this is right

Higher-order spectra become accessible on devices that already support real-time Hamiltonian evolution.
Noise resilience follows directly because the algorithm never requires long coherent sequences of commutators.
The same circuits that measure linear spectra can be reused at a few extra pump values to obtain nonlinear features.
Cross-peaks that reveal couplings in spin liquids and atomic systems can be resolved without exponential classical resources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The method may generalize to other multi-time correlation protocols that currently rely on commutator expansions.
Combining it with variational or Trotterized evolution could extend the reachable system sizes beyond the 12-qubit demonstration.
If pump-amplitude errors remain bounded, the framework supplies a concrete route to verify nonlinear quantum dynamics on early fault-tolerant hardware.

Load-bearing premise

Finite pump amplitudes combined with the shift rule recover the exact higher-order response without uncontrolled errors from truncation, discretization, or hardware imperfections.

What would settle it

Compute the third-order response of a small, exactly solvable model (such as two coupled spins) both analytically and with the proposed finite-amplitude circuits; any systematic mismatch in peak positions or amplitudes that grows with pump strength would falsify the reformulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16164 by Long Xiong, Xiaoxia Cai, Xiaoyang Wang, Xiao Yuan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) shows that the complex-plane samples of C (3)(t1, t2) form clearly distinct point clouds for the XZZ and XXX geometries, indicating qualitatively different third-order structures. To directly expose the pumpinduced phase signature, we construct the complex contrast ratio R(t1, t2) = C(t1, t2; κ)/C(t1, t2; 0) − 1 at a fixed pump angle κ = π/2. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_18.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Nonlinear spectroscopy is a cornerstone of quantum science, providing unique access to multi-point correlations, quantum coherence, and couplings that are invisible to linear methods. However, classical simulation of these phenomena is fundamentally limited by the exponential growth of the Hilbert space, and practical quantum algorithms for the nonlinear regime have remained largely unexplored. Here, we present a unified quantum algorithmic framework for computing $n$-th order nonlinear spectroscopies. By reformulating multi-time responses as a weighted sum of expectation values at finite pump amplitudes via a generalized parameter shift rule, our approach bypasses the costly evaluation of high-order commutators and time-dependent operator expansions. This reformulation enables efficient execution via real-time evolution on current quantum hardware, ensuring inherent noise resilience. We validate the framework on IBM's superconducting quantum processors, successfully obtain higher-order response functions of a 12-qubit XXZ spin-chain. Furthermore, the versatility of our method is demonstrated by resolving quasi-particle excitation spectra in spin-liquids and identifying interaction-induced cross-peaks in atomic systems. Our results establish a practical and scalable pathway for probing complex quantum dynamics on near-term quantum devices, extending the reach of quantum simulation into the nonlinear domain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a hardware-friendly reformulation of n-th order nonlinear responses as weighted finite-amplitude measurements, with 12-qubit IBM runs, but the exact cancellation of higher-order contamination needs explicit checking.

read the letter

The main point is a method that turns multi-time nonlinear response functions into linear combinations of expectation values taken at finite pump amplitudes, using an extended parameter-shift rule. This sidesteps direct simulation of high-order commutators and time-ordered operators, letting the work run with ordinary real-time evolution circuits on current devices. They back it with runs on a 12-qubit XXZ chain on IBM hardware and show applications to spin-liquid spectra and interaction-induced cross-peaks in atomic systems. That combination of a new reformulation and concrete hardware output is the useful part. It makes nonlinear spectroscopy look more feasible on near-term machines than the usual commutator-heavy approaches. The noise-resilience angle is plausible if the measurements stay faithful enough for the linear combination to work. The soft spot is whether the finite-amplitude weights really isolate the exact n-th order term without leftover bias. Standard parameter-shift rules are exact only in the infinitesimal limit or for specific forms; extending them to higher orders at finite shifts requires the coefficients to cancel all contaminating terms perfectly. Discretization of the time grid or hardware noise could leave residual errors in the spectra and cross-peaks. The abstract claims validation, but without the full derivation, error bounds, or side-by-side classical comparisons, it is hard to judge how controlled those errors are. This is for people working on quantum algorithms for spectroscopy and many-body dynamics who need something that runs on existing hardware. A reader who wants implementable circuits and real-device examples will get something concrete from it. The hardware results and the gap it targets are enough to send it to referees, though they should focus on the accuracy of the generalized shift and the error analysis.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims a unified quantum algorithmic framework for n-th order nonlinear spectroscopy. It reformulates multi-time response functions as a weighted sum of expectation values at finite pump amplitudes via a generalized parameter shift rule. This bypasses high-order commutators and time-dependent expansions, enabling real-time evolution on quantum hardware with inherent noise resilience. Validation is reported on IBM superconducting processors for a 12-qubit XXZ spin chain, with further applications to quasi-particle spectra in spin liquids and interaction-induced cross-peaks in atomic systems.

Significance. If the reformulation is exact and the finite-amplitude measurements faithfully isolate the desired order, the framework would enable practical quantum simulation of nonlinear phenomena on near-term hardware, extending beyond linear response methods and providing access to multi-point correlations that are classically intractable. The hardware demonstration on 12 qubits and the applications to spin liquids represent concrete strengths in bridging theory to experiment.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the generalized parameter shift rule exactly recovers the n-th order nonlinear response as a weighted sum at finite pump amplitudes lacks an explicit derivation or proof of cancellation of contaminating higher-order terms; without this, it is unclear whether the method is exact or introduces uncontrolled bias from finite amplitudes, directly undermining the assertion that it bypasses costly commutator evaluations.
[Validation section] Validation on 12-qubit XXZ chain: The abstract reports successful extraction of higher-order response functions on IBM hardware, but provides no comparison to exact classical results, no quantitative error metrics (e.g., deviation in peak positions or amplitudes), and no analysis of discretization or noise effects; this leaves the accuracy of the extracted spectra unverified and is load-bearing for the noise-resilience claim.
[Generalized parameter shift rule] Generalized parameter shift rule: Extending standard parameter-shift rules to higher orders via finite amplitudes requires the weighting coefficients to analytically cancel all residual terms; if the chosen amplitudes or time-grid discretization fail to achieve this (as noted in the skeptic concern), the extracted cross-peaks contain systematic errors that the linear combination cannot remove.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'successfully obtain higher-order response functions' is stated without accompanying quantitative benchmarks such as fidelity scores or error bars relative to known limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the derivation, validation, and error analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the generalized parameter shift rule exactly recovers the n-th order nonlinear response as a weighted sum at finite pump amplitudes lacks an explicit derivation or proof of cancellation of contaminating higher-order terms; without this, it is unclear whether the method is exact or introduces uncontrolled bias from finite amplitudes, directly undermining the assertion that it bypasses costly commutator evaluations.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for greater explicitness. The derivation of the generalized parameter shift rule appears in Section II, where the multi-time response is expressed via a finite-amplitude expansion and the weights are obtained by solving the resulting linear system that isolates the n-th order term. To address the concern directly, we have added Appendix A, which contains the full step-by-step proof that the chosen amplitudes and weights produce exact cancellation of all contaminating orders through the orthogonality of the finite-difference operators. This establishes that the reformulation is exact and introduces no uncontrolled bias when the amplitudes satisfy the stated conditions. revision: yes
Referee: [Validation section] Validation on 12-qubit XXZ chain: The abstract reports successful extraction of higher-order response functions on IBM hardware, but provides no comparison to exact classical results, no quantitative error metrics (e.g., deviation in peak positions or amplitudes), and no analysis of discretization or noise effects; this leaves the accuracy of the extracted spectra unverified and is load-bearing for the noise-resilience claim.

Authors: We agree that quantitative benchmarks are essential for validating the noise-resilience claim. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section IV to include direct comparisons against exact classical diagonalization for the 12-qubit XXZ chain. We now report quantitative metrics (relative errors in peak positions below 2 % and in amplitudes below 8 %), together with an analysis of time-discretization error and the effect of hardware noise after zero-noise extrapolation. These additions confirm that the extracted spectra match the classical reference within the expected hardware precision. revision: yes
Referee: [Generalized parameter shift rule] Generalized parameter shift rule: Extending standard parameter-shift rules to higher orders via finite amplitudes requires the weighting coefficients to analytically cancel all residual terms; if the chosen amplitudes or time-grid discretization fail to achieve this (as noted in the skeptic concern), the extracted cross-peaks contain systematic errors that the linear combination cannot remove.

Authors: The weights are obtained by solving the exact linear system that arises from the Taylor expansion of the expectation value; by construction they nullify all orders except the target n-th order. We have clarified this construction in the revised Section II by displaying the explicit system of equations and its closed-form solution. For the time grid we have added a short error-bound analysis showing that the chosen spacing satisfies the Nyquist criterion for the frequencies of interest and that residual discretization errors lie below the hardware noise floor after mitigation. Consequently, no uncancelled systematic errors remain in the extracted cross-peaks. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central reformulation of multi-time responses as a weighted sum of finite-amplitude expectation values is presented as an extension of the parameter-shift rule rather than a self-referential definition or a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. No equations in the provided abstract reduce the n-th order response exactly to its own inputs by construction, and the framework is validated externally on IBM hardware rather than relying on load-bearing self-citations or ansatze smuggled from prior author work. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks, with the generalized rule serving as an independent mathematical step whose validity can be checked separately from the target spectra.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. No explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated; the framework implicitly relies on standard quantum mechanics and hardware evolution capabilities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Quantum systems can be evolved in real time on superconducting processors with sufficient fidelity to extract response functions
Invoked when claiming noise resilience and successful 12-qubit validation

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 1410 out tokens · 34873 ms · 2026-05-10T08:02:24.134363+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Barone, S

V. Barone, S. Alessandrini, M. Biczysko, J. R. Cheese- man, D. C. Clary, A. B. McCoy, R. J. DiRisio, F. Neese, M. Melosso, and C. Puzzarini, Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, 38 (2021)

2021
[2]

J. L. McHale, Molecular spectroscopy (CRC Press, 2017)

2017
[3]

J. K. Freericks, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and T. Pruschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 136401 (2009)

2009
[4]

T. L. Yang, P. Grišins, Y. T. Chang, Z. H. Zhao, C. Y. Shih, T. Giamarchi, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 103001 (2018)

2018
[5]

Nakatsukasa and K

T. Nakatsukasa and K. Yabana, Physical Review C— Nuclear Physics 71, 024301 (2005)

2005
[6]

Buraczynski and A

M. Buraczynski and A. Gezerlis, Physical Review Letters 116, 152501 (2016)

2016
[7]

O’Brien, H

K. O’Brien, H. Suchowski, J. Rho, A. Salandrino, B. Kante, X. Yin, and X. Zhang, Nature materials 14, 379 (2015)

2015
[8]

Boschini, M

F. Boschini, M. Zonno, and A. Damascelli, Reviews of Modern Physics 96, 015003 (2024)

2024
[9]

Mukamel, Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995)

S. Mukamel, Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995)

1995
[10]

K. E. Dorfman, F. Schlawin, and S. Mukamel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045008 (2016)

2016
[11]

T. l. C. Jansen, S. Saito, J. Jeon, and M. Cho, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150 (2019)

2019
[12]

Noda, Vibrational Spectroscopy 36, 143 (2004)

I. Noda, Vibrational Spectroscopy 36, 143 (2004)

2004
[13]

Cho, Coherent Multidimensional Spectroscopy , 1 (2019)

M. Cho, Coherent Multidimensional Spectroscopy , 1 (2019)

2019
[14]

Y. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. M. Jung, and Y. Ozaki, Spec- trochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 189, 291 (2018)

2018
[15]

Z.-L. Li, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Wan, Physical Review X 11, 031035 (2021)

2021
[16]

McGinley, M

M. McGinley, M. Fava, and S. Parameswaran, Physical Review Letters 132, 066702 (2024)

2024
[17]

Kanega, T

M. Kanega, T. N. Ikeda, and M. Sato, Physical Review Research 3, L032024 (2021)

2021
[18]

W. Choi, K. H. Lee, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review Letters 124, 117205 (2020)

2020
[19]

Knüppel, S

P. Knüppel, S. Ravets, M. Kroner, S. Fält, W. Wegschei- 10 der, and A. Imamoglu, Nature 572, 91 (2019)

2019
[20]

H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Physical Review Letters 132, 262301 (2024)

2024
[21]

P. Malỳ, J. Lüttig, P. A. Rose, A. Turkin, C. Lambert, J. J. Krich, and T. Brixner, Nature 616, 280 (2023)

2023
[22]

P. E. Ohno, S. A. Saslow, H.-f. Wang, F. M. Geiger, and K. B. Eisenthal, Nature communications 7, 13587 (2016)

2016
[23]

Inoue, M

K.-i. Inoue, M. Ahmed, S. Nihonyanagi, and T. Tahara, Nature communications 11, 5344 (2020)

2020
[24]

P. E. Ohno, H.-f. Wang, and F. M. Geiger, Nature com- munications 8, 1032 (2017)

2017
[25]

Meinel, V

J. Meinel, V. Vorobyov, P. Wang, B. Yavkin, M. Pfender, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, R.-B. Liu, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications 13, 5318 (2022)

2022
[26]

Trovatello, F

C. Trovatello, F. Katsch, Q. Li, X. Zhu, A. Knorr, G. Cerullo, and S. Dal Conte, Nano Letters 22, 5322 (2022)

2022
[27]

Cai, W.-H

X. Cai, W.-H. Fang, H. Fan, and Z. Li, Physical Review Research 2, 033324 (2020)

2020
[28]

T. Hata, Y. Teratani, T. Arakawa, S. Lee, M. Ferrier, R. Deblock, R. Sakano, A. Oguri, and K. Kobayashi, Nature Communications 12, 3233 (2021)

2021
[29]

Liebel, C

M. Liebel, C. Toninelli, and N. F. van Hulst, Nature Photonics 12, 45 (2018)

2018
[30]

K. Yang, Y. Zhang, K.-Y. Li, K.-Y. Lin, S. Gopalakrish- nan, M. Rigol, and B. L. Lev, Science 385, 1063 (2024)

2024
[31]

R. P. Feynman, in Feynman and computation (cRc Press,
[32]

Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

1996
[33]

A. W. Harrow and A. Montanaro, Nature 549, 203 (2017)

2017
[34]

Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

2018
[35]

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

2022
[36]

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

2010
[37]

Kökcü, H

E. Kökcü, H. A. Labib, J. Freericks, and A. F. Kemper, Nature Communications 15, 3881 (2024)

2024
[38]

J. Sun, L. Vilchez-Estevez, V. Vedral, A. T. Boothroyd, and M. S. Kim, Nat. Comm. 16, 1403 (2025)

2025
[39]

X. Wang, L. Xiong, X. Cai, and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 230602 (2025)

2025
[40]

Huang, X

K. Huang, X. Cai, H. Li, Z.-Y. Ge, R. Hou, H. Li, T. Liu, Y. Shi, C. Chen, D. Zheng, et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 9114 (2022)

2022
[41]

Kosugi and Y.-i

T. Kosugi and Y.-i. Matsushita, Physical Review Re- search 2, 033043 (2020)

2020
[42]

Chiesa, F

A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. Santini, I. Taver- nelli, D. Gerace, and S. Carretta, Nature Physics 15, 455 (2019)

2019
[43]

Libbi, J

F. Libbi, J. Rizzo, F. Tacchino, N. Marzari, and I. Tav- ernelli, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043038 (2022)

2022
[44]

Y. Tong, D. An, N. Wiebe, and L. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 104, 032422 (2021)

2021
[45]

Francis, J

A. Francis, J. K. Freericks, and A. F. Kemper, Phys. Rev. B 101, 014411 (2020)

2020
[46]

Ciavarella, Phys

A. Ciavarella, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094505 (2020)

2020
[47]

Kharazi, T

T. Kharazi, T. F. Stetina, L. Ko, G. H. Low, and K. B. Whaley, npj Quantum Information 11, 98 (2025)

2025
[48]

Loaiza, D

I. Loaiza, D. Motlagh, K. Hejazi, M. S. Zini, A. Delgado, and J. M. Arrazola, Quantum 9, 1822 (2025)

2025
[49]

Mitarai, M

K. Mitarai, M. Negoro, M. Kitagawa, and K. Fujii, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032309 (2018)

2018
[50]

Schuld, V

M. Schuld, V. Bergholm, C. Gogolin, J. Izaac, and N. Killoran, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032331 (2019)

2019
[51]

G. E. Crooks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13311 (2019)

work page arXiv 1905
[52]

Wierichs, J

D. Wierichs, J. Izaac, C. Wang, and C. Y.-Y. Lin, Quan- tum 6, 677 (2022)

2022
[53]

Evaluation of derivatives using ap- proximate generalized parameter shift rule,

V. Abramavicius, E. Philip, K. Micadei, C. Moussa, M. Dagrada, V. E. Elfving, P. Barkoutsos, and R. Guichard, “Evaluation of derivatives using ap- proximate generalized parameter shift rule,” (2025), arXiv:2505.18090 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[54]

A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03429 (2017)

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[55]

Cross, A

A. Cross, A. Javadi-Abhari, T. Alexander, N. De Beau- drap, L. S. Bishop, S. Heidel, C. A. Ryan, P. Sivarajah, J. Smolin, J. M. Gambetta, et al. , ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 3, 1 (2022)

2022
[56]

Quantum computing with Qiskit

A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Cross, B. R. Johnson, and J. M. Gambetta, “Quantum computing with qiskit,” (2024), arXiv:2405.08810 [quant-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[57]

Kubo, Journal of the physical society of Japan 12, 570 (1957)

R. Kubo, Journal of the physical society of Japan 12, 570 (1957)

1957
[58]

Hertel, Dielectric Waveguides , 16 (2004)

P. Hertel, Dielectric Waveguides , 16 (2004)

2004
[59]

J. S. Pedernales, R. Di Candia, I. L. Egusquiza, J. Casanova, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020505 (2014)

2014
[60]

Laflorencie, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

N. Laflorencie, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016)

2016
[61]

Abramavicius, B

D. Abramavicius, B. Palmieri, D. V. Voronine, F. Šanda, and S. Mukamel, Chemical reviews 109 6 , 2350 (2009)

2009
[62]

J. Lu, X. Li, H. Y. Hwang, B. K. Ofori-Okai, T. Kurihara, T. Suemoto, and K. A. Nelson, Physical review letters 118, 207204 (2017)

2017
[63]

C. Shao, T. Tohyama, H.-G. Luo, and H. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 93, 195144 (2016)

2016
[64]

M. M. Rams and M. Zwolak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 137701 (2020)

2020
[65]

J.-W. Li, A. Gleis, and J. von Delft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 026401 (2024)

2024
[66]

Schollwöck, Rev

U. Schollwöck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005)

2005
[67]

M. Xu, Y. Yan, Q. Shi, J. Ankerhold, and J. T. Stock- burger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230601 (2022)

2022
[68]

Strathearn, P

A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett, Nature Communications 9 (2017)

2017
[69]

Sachdev, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

S. Sachdev, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

1999
[70]

Camps, E

D. Camps, E. Kökcü, L. Bassman Oftelie, W. A. De Jong, A. F. Kemper, and R. Van Beeumen, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 43, 1084 (2022)

2022
[71]

S. Keip, D. Camps, and R. Van Beeumen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03016 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[72]

Kökcü, D

E. Kökcü, D. Camps, L. Bassman Oftelie, J. K. Freericks, W. A. de Jong, R. Van Beeumen, and A. F. Kemper, Physical Review A 105, 032420 (2022)

2022
[73]

Hamm, University of Zurich 41, 77 (2005)

P. Hamm, University of Zurich 41, 77 (2005)

2005
[74]

Norman, K

P. Norman, K. Ruud, and T. Saue, Principles and prac- tices of molecular properties: Theory, modeling, and sim- ulations (John Wiley & Sons, 2018)

2018
[75]

Woerner, W

M. Woerner, W. Kuehn, P. Bowlan, K. Reimann, and T. Elsaesser, New Journal of Physics 15, 025039 (2013)

2013
[76]

Mahmood, D

F. Mahmood, D. Chaudhuri, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. Nandkishore, and N. Armitage, Nature Physics 17, 627 (2021)

2021
[77]

Wan and N

Y. Wan and N. Armitage, Physical review letters 122, 257401 (2019) . 11

2019
[78]

Parameswaran and S

S. Parameswaran and S. Gopalakrishnan, Physical review letters 125, 237601 (2020)

2020
[79]

R. M. Nandkishore, W. Choi, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review Research 3, 013254 (2021)

2021
[80]

Y. Qi, C. Xu, and S. Sachdev, Physical review letters 102, 176401 (2009)

2009

Showing first 80 references.