arxiv: 2605.01029 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Model-agnostic cooling algorithms for strongly interacting fermions

Henning Schl\"omer , Liyuan Chen , Susanne F. Yelin , Hong-Ye Hu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

keywords cooling algorithmsstrongly interacting fermionsdissipative state preparationquantum simulationmodel-agnostic methodscorrelated ground stateshigh-temperature superconductivity

0 comments

The pith

A randomized cooling protocol using local ancilla couplings with random energy splittings drives strongly interacting fermions to their low-energy manifold without spectral knowledge.

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

The paper introduces a cooling algorithm for strongly interacting fermions that couples the system locally to ancilla degrees of freedom whose energy splittings are chosen randomly. This approach preserves symmetries, needs no information about the quasiparticle spectrum, and requires no model-specific tuning. Benchmarks across metallic, density-wave, paired, superconducting, and phase-separated regimes all show monotonic energy decrease, buildup of low-energy spectral weight, and stabilization of ground-state order. The result suggests a general route to preparing correlated fermionic states on programmable quantum devices.

Core claim

We introduce a randomized, symmetry-preserving cooling algorithm that requires no spectral information, using only local coupling operators to ancilla degrees of freedom with randomly sampled energy splittings to drive generic fermionic systems toward their low-energy manifold. Across all models, we observe universal cooling behavior: monotonic energy relaxation, concentration of spectral weight at low energies, and stabilization of correlated ground-state order.

What carries the argument

The randomized dissipative cooling protocol that couples the system to ancilla qubits via local operators whose energy splittings are sampled randomly at each step.

If this is right

The protocol produces monotonic energy relaxation in metallic, density-wave, paired, superconducting, and phase-separated phases.
Spectral weight concentrates at low energies across all tested models.
Correlated ground-state order stabilizes without requiring prior knowledge of the target state.
The method applies to generic strongly interacting fermions relevant to high-temperature superconductivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same local-random-splitting construction may simplify state preparation on near-term quantum hardware by removing the need for spectrum estimation.
If the observed universality holds, similar randomized ancilla schemes could be tested on bosonic or spin models without additional model engineering.

Load-bearing premise

Randomly sampled energy splittings on local ancilla couplings will reliably drive arbitrary strongly interacting fermionic systems to their low-energy manifold without spectral knowledge or model-specific adjustments.

What would settle it

Observing either non-monotonic energy increase or failure of spectral weight to concentrate at low energies in any benchmarked fermionic model under repeated application of the protocol would falsify the claim of universal cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01029 by Henning Schl\"omer, Hong-Ye Hu, Liyuan Chen, Susanne F. Yelin.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: (c) shows the matrix elements |Akk′ | 2 = |⟨k|Aˆ|k ′ ⟩|2 of the first 100 eigenstates of Hˆ tt′V for V /t = 0 and V /t = 4. For the non-interacting case, most of the weight is concentrated along narrow bands corresponding to lowenergy particle-hole excitations. In this regime, bath frequencies of order ω ∈ [0, t] are most effective, as indicated by the arrows. In contrast, at V /t = 4 the matrix element… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) shows the normalized energy ϵ, the ground state fidelity Fgs as well as summed weights over the first 10 eigenstates (F10), evaluated after 1000 cooling cycles. Notably, for dephasing probabilities p ≲ 10−3 the protocol remains stable, still reaching a steady state that has close to unit fidelity. As p increases further, cooling efficiency gradually degrades and a crossover occurs once the dephasing r… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (d) shows how a sweep over varying weights of α and β (while fixing the overall strength through the constraint α + β = 1) leads to a broad minimum of the energy (maximum of the fidelity respectively) for values around α = 0.4, β = 0.6. This underlines that both spinand charge channels are essential in cooling the t-J chain, though their exact decomposition only has a minor effect on the cooling efficienc… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Strongly interacting fermions underpin some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, such as high-temperature superconductivity. The low-energy states of these systems encode their essential microscopic properties, yet remain largely inaccessible to classical methods. Quantum simulation offers a promising path forward, and among state-preparation strategies, engineered dissipation has emerged as a particularly compelling approach. Existing cooling protocols, however, typically rely on knowledge of the quasiparticle spectrum or mappings to free-fermion limits. In this letter, we introduce a randomized, symmetry-preserving cooling algorithm that requires no spectral information, using only local coupling operators to ancilla degrees of freedom with randomly sampled energy splittings to drive generic fermionic systems toward their low-energy manifold. We benchmark the protocol on canonical correlated fermionic models relevant to high-temperature superconductors, spanning metallic, density-wave, paired, superconducting, and phase-separated phases. Across all models, we observe universal cooling behavior: monotonic energy relaxation, concentration of spectral weight at low energies, and stabilization of correlated ground-state order. Our results establish randomized dissipative cooling as a general strategy for preparing strongly correlated fermionic states on programmable quantum devices.

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 offers a randomized ancilla cooling scheme for fermions that skips explicit spectral knowledge, with benchmarks across Hubbard and t-J phases, but the universality may still hinge on how the random splitting range is set.

read the letter

The core idea is a dissipative cooling protocol that couples local operators to ancilla qubits with randomly sampled energy splittings, aiming to relax generic strongly interacting fermion systems to their low-energy states without needing quasiparticle spectra or free-fermion mappings. It keeps symmetries intact and reports consistent behavior across metallic, density-wave, paired, and superconducting regimes in standard models.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a randomized, symmetry-preserving cooling algorithm for strongly interacting fermions on quantum devices. It couples local operators to ancilla degrees of freedom using randomly sampled energy splittings, claiming to require no spectral information or model-specific adjustments. The protocol is benchmarked on canonical models (Hubbard, t-J and variants) spanning metallic, density-wave, paired, superconducting, and phase-separated phases, with reported universal behavior including monotonic energy relaxation, concentration of spectral weight at low energies, and stabilization of correlated ground-state order.

Significance. If the central claims hold without hidden model dependence, this would represent a meaningful advance in dissipative state preparation for quantum simulation of correlated fermions. The model-agnostic framing and observation of universality across diverse phases could enable broader use on programmable hardware where spectral knowledge is unavailable, complementing existing approaches that rely on quasiparticle spectra or free-fermion mappings.

major comments (2)

[§2] §2 (Protocol): The assertion that the method requires 'no spectral information' is load-bearing for the model-agnostic claim, yet the random sampling of ancilla energy splittings must have a distribution whose support overlaps system excitations. If the sampling range or variance is chosen to match typical model energy scales (as is standard to ensure dissipation), this implicitly incorporates spectral knowledge; the manuscript does not demonstrate robustness for a fixed, model-independent distribution.
[§4] §4 (Benchmarks): The universality of cooling (monotonic relaxation, spectral concentration, order stabilization) is reported across phases, but without quantitative details on the number of random realizations, statistical error bars, or sensitivity to the ancilla splitting distribution, it is unclear whether the observed behavior is robust or specific to per-model tuning of the random protocol parameters.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly list the exact models and system sizes used in the benchmarks for immediate clarity.
[§2] Notation for the ancilla coupling operators and the probability distribution of sampled splittings should be defined with an equation in §2 to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope of our model-agnostic claims and strengthen the presentation of the benchmark results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§2] §2 (Protocol): The assertion that the method requires 'no spectral information' is load-bearing for the model-agnostic claim, yet the random sampling of ancilla energy splittings must have a distribution whose support overlaps system excitations. If the sampling range or variance is chosen to match typical model energy scales (as is standard to ensure dissipation), this implicitly incorporates spectral knowledge; the manuscript does not demonstrate robustness for a fixed, model-independent distribution.

Authors: We thank the referee for this important clarification on the meaning of 'no spectral information.' Our protocol samples ancilla energy splittings from a distribution whose width is determined by the overall energy scale set by the Hamiltonian parameters (e.g., the largest of the hopping or interaction strengths appearing in the model definition). This choice ensures the support overlaps typical excitation energies without requiring any knowledge of the detailed spectrum, specific eigenvalues, quasiparticle dispersions, or model-specific features such as gaps or band structures. We view the overall scale as part of the model definition rather than spectral information, consistent with the model-agnostic framing. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not explicitly test robustness under a single fixed distribution independent of all model scales. In the revised version we will add a paragraph in §2 distinguishing overall energy scale from spectral details and include a supplementary test showing that the cooling performance remains qualitatively unchanged under moderate variations of the sampling width across the benchmark models. revision: partial
Referee: [§4] §4 (Benchmarks): The universality of cooling (monotonic relaxation, spectral concentration, order stabilization) is reported across phases, but without quantitative details on the number of random realizations, statistical error bars, or sensitivity to the ancilla splitting distribution, it is unclear whether the observed behavior is robust or specific to per-model tuning of the random protocol parameters.

Authors: We agree that the current presentation of the benchmarks would benefit from additional quantitative information to substantiate the claimed universality and robustness. In the revised manuscript we will expand §4 (and the associated figures) to report the number of independent random realizations used for each model, include statistical error bars derived from those realizations, and add a brief analysis of the sensitivity of the cooling metrics to the width and variance of the ancilla splitting distribution. These additions will make explicit that the reported monotonic relaxation, spectral concentration, and order stabilization persist across a range of distribution parameters and are not the result of per-model fine-tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: new randomized protocol validated by independent benchmarks

full rationale

The paper introduces a randomized dissipative cooling protocol using local ancilla couplings with randomly sampled energy splittings, explicitly claiming it requires no spectral information or model-specific adjustments. This is presented as a constructive definition of the algorithm, followed by numerical benchmarks on Hubbard, t-J, and related models that demonstrate monotonic energy relaxation and ground-state order stabilization. No load-bearing step reduces the claimed universality or cooling behavior to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or tautological redefinition; the success metrics are external to the protocol definition itself and arise from simulation outcomes rather than by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on the domain assumption that local random ancilla couplings suffice to drive cooling in generic interacting systems; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Local coupling operators to ancilla with randomly sampled energy splittings can drive generic fermionic systems to low-energy states without spectral information
Central premise of the proposed algorithm stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1249 out tokens · 32296 ms · 2026-05-09T18:04:57.342428+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

Altman, K

E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier- Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds,...

2021
[2]

Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

J. Preskill, Quantum2, 79 (2018)

2018
[3]

Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

2011
[4]

Schollw¨ ock, Rev

U. Schollw¨ ock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

2005
[5]

S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

1992
[6]

Wecker, M

D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, N. Wiebe, B. K. Clark, C. Nayak, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A92, 062318 (2015)

2015
[7]

Born and V

M. Born and V. Fock, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik51, 165 (1928)

1928
[8]

Sels and A

D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E3909 (2017)

2017
[9]

P. W. Claeys, M. Pandey, D. Sels, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090602 (2019)

2019
[10]

Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart´ ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

2019
[11]

Shortcuts to analog preparation of non-equilibrium quantum lakes,

N. O. Gjonbalaj, R. Sahay, and S. F. Yelin, “Shortcuts to analog preparation of non-equilibrium quantum lakes,” (2025), arXiv:2502.03518 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

J. R. Finˇ zgar, S. Notarnicola, M. Cain, M. D. Lukin, and D. Sels, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 180602 (2025)

2025
[13]

S. Roy, J. T. Chalker, I. V. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033347 (2020)

2020
[14]

Herasymenko, I

Y. Herasymenko, I. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, PRX Quan- tum4, 020347 (2023)

2023
[15]

Volya and P

D. Volya and P. Mishra, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering5, 1 (2024)

2024
[16]

Wecker, M

D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. A92, 042303 (2015)

2015
[17]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, 6 S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

2021
[18]

J. Yao, L. Lin, and M. Bukov, Phys. Rev. X11, 031070 (2021)

2021
[19]

Machine learning appli- cations in cold atom quantum simulators,

H. Schl¨ omer and A. Bohrdt, “Machine learning appli- cations in cold atom quantum simulators,” (2025), arXiv:2509.08011 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Kraus, H

B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A78, 042307 (2008)

2008
[21]

Diehl, A

S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

2008
[22]

Verstraete, M

F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

2009
[23]

Tindall, B

J. Tindall, B. Buˇ ca, J. R. Coulthard, and D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 030603 (2019)

2019
[24]

Dissipation engineering of fermionic long- range order beyond lindblad,

S. Neri, F. Damanet, A. J. Daley, M. L. Chiofalo, and J. Y. Malo, “Dissipation engineering of fermionic long- range order beyond lindblad,” (2025), arXiv:2507.00553 [cond-mat.supr-con]

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Lin, APL Computational Physics1, 010901 (2025)

L. Lin, APL Computational Physics1, 010901 (2025)

2025
[26]

Westhoff, S

P. Westhoff, S. Paeckel, and M. Moroder, Phys. Rev. A 112, L061304 (2025)

2025
[27]

Sahay and R

R. Sahay and R. Verresen, PRX Quantum6, 010329 (2025)

2025
[28]

Polla, Y

S. Polla, Y. Herasymenko, and T. E. O’Brien, Phys. Rev. A104, 012414 (2021)

2021
[29]

X. Mi, A. A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. Miao, P. Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. An- dersen,et al., Science383, 1332 (2024)

2024
[30]

Molpeceres, S

D. Molpeceres, S. Lu, J. I. Cirac, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033162 (2025)

2025
[31]

Langbehn, G

J. Langbehn, G. Mouloudakis, E. King, R. Menu, I. Gornyi, G. Morigi, Y. Gefen, and C. P. Koch, “Uni- versal cooling of quantum systems via randomized mea- surements,” (2025), arXiv:2506.11964 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Marti, R

L. Marti, R. Mansuroglu, and M. J. Hartmann, Quan- tum9, 1635 (2025)

2025
[33]

Lloyd, A

J. Lloyd, A. A. Michailidis, X. Mi, V. Smelyanskiy, and D. A. Abanin, PRX Quantum6, 010361 (2025)

2025
[34]

Y. Zhan, Z. Ding, J. Huhn, J. Gray, J. Preskill, G. K.-L. Chan, and L. Lin, Phys. Rev. X16, 011004 (2026)

2026
[35]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008
[36]

Esslinger, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 129 (2010)

T. Esslinger, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 129 (2010)

2010
[37]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 579 (2017)

2017
[38]

Bohrdt, L

A. Bohrdt, L. Homeier, C. Reinmoser, E. Demler, and F. Grusdt, Annals of Physics435, 168651 (2021), special issue on Philip W. Anderson

2021
[39]

M. Xu, L. H. Kendrick, A. Kale, Y. Gang, C. Feng, S. Zhang, A. W. Young, M. Lebrat, and M. Greiner, Nature642, 909 (2025)

2025
[40]

D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Hu, J. Kwan, C. Kokail, S. Choi, and S. F. Yelin, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 123402 (2025)

2025
[42]

C. Cade, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, and S. Stanisic, Phys. Rev. B102, 235122 (2020)

2020
[43]

Stanisic, J

S. Stanisic, J. L. Bosse, F. M. Gambetta, R. A. Santos, W. Mruczkiewicz, T. E. O’Brien, E. Ostby, and A. Mon- tanaro, Nature Communications13, 5743 (2022)

2022
[44]

Nigmatullin, K

R. Nigmatullin, K. H´ emery, K. Ghanem, S. Moses, D. Gresh, P. Siegfried, M. Mills, T. Gatterman, N. He- witt, E. Granet, and H. Dreyer, Nature Physics21, 1319 (2025)

2025
[45]

Granet, S.-H

E. Granet, S.-H. Lin, K. H´ emery, R. Haghshenas, P. Andres-Martinez, D. T. Stephen, A. Ransford, J. Arkinstall, M. S. Allman, P. Campora, S. F. Cooper, R. D. Delaney, J. M. Dreiling, B. Estey, C. Figgatt, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, A. Hall, A. Husain, A. Isanaka, C. J. Kennedy, N. Kotibhaskar, I. S. Madjarov, M. Mills, A. R. Milne, A. J. Park, A. P. Reed, ...

work page arXiv 2026
[46]

Majidy, C

S. Majidy, C. Wilson, and R. Laflamme,Building quan- tum computers: a practical introduction(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2024)

2024
[47]

H. Zhou, C. Zhao, M. Cain, D. Bluvstein, N. Maskara, C. Duckering, H.-Y. Hu, S.-T. Wang, A. Kubica, and M. D. Lukin, Nature646, 303 (2025)

2025
[48]

Bluvstein, A

D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gul- lans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, Nature649, 39 (2026)

2026
[49]

Verstraete and J

F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P09012–P09012 (2005)

2005
[50]

Derby, J

C. Derby, J. Klassen, J. Bausch, and T. Cubitt, Physical Review B104(2021), 10.1103/physrevb.104.035118

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.104.035118 2021
[51]

Jafarizadeh, F

A. Jafarizadeh, F. Pollmann, and A. Gammon-Smith, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043018 (2025)

2025
[52]

S. J. Evered, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, T. Manovitz, D. Bluvstein, S. H. Li, N. Maskara, H. Zhou, S. Ebadi, M. Xu, J. Campo, M. Cain, S. Ostermann, S. F. Yelin, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature645, 341 (2025)

2025
[53]

Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 2003)

T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 2003)

2003
[54]

Ogata, M

M. Ogata, M. U. Luchini, S. Sorella, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2388 (1991)

1991
[55]

Moreno, A

A. Moreno, A. Muramatsu, and S. R. Manmana, Phys. Rev. B83, 205113 (2011)

2011
[56]

Similarly, the spin-exchange operator is ˆAexc =P ⟨ij⟩ ˆS+ i ˆS− j +P ⟨ ⟨ij⟩ ⟩ ˆS+ i ˆS− j

Here ˆAc = P ⟨ij⟩,σ ˆc† i,σˆcj,σ + P ⟨ ⟨ij⟩ ⟩,σˆc† i,σˆcj,σ denotes directed hopping including both nearest-neighbor⟨ij⟩ and next-nearest-neighbor⟨ ⟨ij⟩ ⟩bonds on the 1D lat- tice. Similarly, the spin-exchange operator is ˆAexc =P ⟨ij⟩ ˆS+ i ˆS− j +P ⟨ ⟨ij⟩ ⟩ ˆS+ i ˆS− j
[57]

H. Sun, M. Huo, X. Hu, J. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Han, L. Tang, Z. Mao, P. Yang, B. Wang, J. Cheng, D.-X. Yao, G.-M. Zhang, and M. Wang, Nature621, 493 (2023)

2023
[58]

Zhang, D

Y. Zhang, D. Su, Y. Huang, Z. Shan, H. Sun, M. Huo, K. Ye, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Su, R. Li, M. Smid- man, M. Wang, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Nature Physics 20, 1269 (2024)

2024
[59]

Oh and Y.-H

H. Oh and Y.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B108, 174511 (2023)

2023
[60]

Qu, D.-W

X.-Z. Qu, D.-W. Qu, J. Chen, C. Wu, F. Yang, W. Li, 7 and G. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036502 (2024)

2024
[61]

Schl¨ omer, U

H. Schl¨ omer, U. Schollw¨ ock, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, Communications Physics7, 366 (2024)

2024
[62]

Hirthe, T

S. Hirthe, T. Chalopin, D. Bourgund, P. Bojovi´ c, A. Bohrdt, E. Demler, F. Grusdt, I. Bloch, and T. A. Hilker, Nature613, 463 (2023)

2023
[63]

Schl¨ omer, H

H. Schl¨ omer, H. Lange, T. Franz, T. Chalopin, P. Bo- jovi´ c, S. Wang, I. Bloch, T. A. Hilker, F. Grusdt, and A. Bohrdt, PRX Quantum5, 040341 (2024)

2024
[64]

The corresponding spectrum has degen- eracies 1,2,3,2,1 at energies−2 √ 2t,− √ 2t, 0, + √ 2t, and +2 √ 2t, respectively

For the non-interacting spinless fermion problem on a 3×3 square lattice with open boundary conditions, the nearest-neighbor hopping Hamiltonian has single-particle energiesϵ nx,ny =−2t[cos(πn x/4) + cos(πn y/4)], with nx, ny = 1,2,3. The corresponding spectrum has degen- eracies 1,2,3,2,1 at energies−2 √ 2t,− √ 2t, 0, + √ 2t, and +2 √ 2t, respectively. F...
[65]

C.-F. Chen, M. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, Nature646, 561 (2025)

2025
[66]

Moroder, O

M. Moroder, O. Culhane, K. Zawadzki, and J. Goold, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140404 (2024)

2024
[67]

Summer, M

A. Summer, M. Moroder, L. P. Bettmann, X. Turkeshi, I. Marvian, and J. Goold, “A resource theoretical unifica- tion of mpemba effects: classical and quantum,” (2025), arXiv:2507.16976 [quant-ph]. END MATTER Rotating wave approximation.—In our protocol, the system and ancilla are coupled withg( ˆA⊗ˆσ + + h.c.). Assume the system Hamiltonian has the fol- lo...

work page arXiv 2025