Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Robust Structure Learning of $k$-local Lindbladians

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read An efficient protocol learns k-local Lindblad generators to accuracy ε using Õ(n^{2k}) samples.

desk verdict This paper gives the first poly(n) sample protocol for learning general k-local Lindbladians from product states and single-qubit measurements, but only when the weighted interaction strength is bounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23652 v1 pith:NFAPFRAP submitted 2026-06-22 quant-ph cs.ITcs.NAmath.ITmath.NAmath.STstat.TH

Tim Möbus , Thiago Bergamaschi , Daniel Stilck França , Cambyse Rouzé This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITcs.NAmath.ITmath.NAmath.STstat.TH
keywords LindbladdynamicsstructurelearningquantumtomographyopensystemssamplecomplexityPaulimeasurementsdissipative
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

The paper develops a method to learn the full set of coefficients defining a k-local Lindblad generator, which describes the evolution of an open quantum system on n qubits. The approach relies solely on preparing product states, evolving for short times, and measuring single-qubit Paulis, without needing to know the interaction graph beforehand. It achieves entrywise accuracy epsilon on all coefficients using order n to the 2k over epsilon squared samples for fixed k and bounded strengths. A subsequent projection step ensures the output is a valid generator with diamond norm error at most epsilon, at the cost of n to the 4k samples. This opens the door to characterizing dissipative dynamics in many-body systems under realistic experimental constraints.

What carries the argument

Estimation of Pauli-GKSL coefficients from short-time evolutions combined with semidefinite projection onto the set of valid Lindblad generators.

What would settle it

Finding a family of k-local Lindbladians where achieving epsilon accuracy on the coefficients requires substantially more than n to the 2k samples, such as exponential in k or worse polynomial dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present an efficient protocol for learning an unknown k-local Lindblad generator on n qubits using only product-state preparations, short-time evolution, and single-qubit Pauli measurements, without prior knowledge of the interaction structure. For fixed k and bounded weighted interaction strength, the protocol estimates all Hamiltonian and dissipative Pauli--GKSL coefficients to entrywise accuracy ε with probability at least 1-δ using Õ_k(ε^{-2}n^{2k}log(1/δ)) samples and polylogarithmically many evolution times. A semidefinite projection converts these estimates into a valid k-local Lindblad generator with diamond-norm error at most ε using Õ_k(ε^{-2}n^{4k}log(1/δ)) samples and polynomi

Load-bearing premise

The weighted interaction strength must be bounded independently of system size n, and k must remain fixed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents an efficient protocol for learning an unknown k-local Lindblad generator on n qubits from product-state preparations, short-time evolution, and single-qubit Pauli measurements, without prior knowledge of the interaction graph. Under the assumptions of fixed k and bounded weighted interaction strength, it claims entrywise estimation of all Hamiltonian and dissipative Pauli-GKSL coefficients to accuracy ε with Õ_k(ε^{-2} n^{2k} log(1/δ)) samples, followed by an SDP projection step achieving diamond-norm error ε with Õ_k(ε^{-2} n^{4k} log(1/δ)) samples. Extensions include robust structure learning under stable sparsity (reducing to Õ_k(ε^{-2} log(n/δ)) samples for bounded intersection degree), robustness to model misspecification, and matching lower bounds.

Significance. If the central claims and error analyses hold, the result would constitute a notable advance in quantum system identification for open systems, supplying the first polynomial-sample guarantees for general k-local dissipative dynamics under severely restricted experimental control (product states and local measurements only). The SDP projection to a valid generator and the structure-learning reductions under sparsity are technically substantive contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the sample-complexity statements are explicitly conditioned on bounded weighted interaction strength; the manuscript must clarify in which theorem this hypothesis is invoked to control truncation error in the short-time channel expansion and the variance of the Pauli estimators, and whether the SDP projection inherits the same dependence without additional factors.
  2. [Abstract] The semidefinite projection step (mentioned in abstract) converts coefficient estimates into a valid k-local Lindblad generator; the error analysis for this step must be checked against the entrywise ε guarantee to confirm the diamond-norm bound does not inflate the sample requirement beyond the stated Õ(n^{4k}).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for the weighted interaction strength should be defined at first use and its relation to the GKSL coefficients made explicit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for highlighting these points on conditioning and error propagation. We address each major comment below and will incorporate clarifications where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §1] Abstract and §1: the sample-complexity statements are explicitly conditioned on bounded weighted interaction strength; the manuscript must clarify in which theorem this hypothesis is invoked to control truncation error in the short-time channel expansion and the variance of the Pauli estimators, and whether the SDP projection inherits the same dependence without additional factors.

    Authors: The bounded weighted interaction strength assumption is stated in the abstract and invoked explicitly in Theorem 3.1 (entrywise coefficient estimation). It enters via Lemma 2.3 to bound truncation error in the short-time expansion and via Lemma 3.2 to control estimator variance. Theorem 4.1 (SDP projection) inherits the same dependence without extra polynomial factors in n or 1/ε, because the projection is 1-Lipschitz in the diamond norm under the bounded-strength hypothesis and the entrywise ε guarantee is already sufficient. We will add forward references to Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 in the abstract and §1. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The semidefinite projection step (mentioned in abstract) converts coefficient estimates into a valid k-local Lindblad generator; the error analysis for this step must be checked against the entrywise ε guarantee to confirm the diamond-norm bound does not inflate the sample requirement beyond the stated Õ(n^{4k}).

    Authors: Section 4 contains the full error analysis. The SDP projection maps an entrywise-ε estimate (under bounded strength) to a valid generator whose diamond-norm distance is at most ε; the proof uses contractivity of the projection together with the coefficient bounds already assumed for the entrywise stage. Consequently the sample complexity remains Õ_k(ε^{-2} n^{4k} log(1/δ)) and is not inflated. No revision to the stated bound is required. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation rests on standard concentration and SDP arguments

full rationale

The protocol derives sample bounds from Hoeffding-type concentration on single-qubit Pauli estimators and a subsequent SDP projection step, both under the explicit hypothesis of fixed k and bounded weighted interaction strength. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness or ansatz claim, or renames an empirical pattern. The central Õ(n^{2k}) bound follows directly from variance control on the short-time channel expansion and does not collapse to the input data or prior author results.

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

Review based on abstract only. The protocol rests on domain assumptions of fixed locality k and bounded weighted interaction strength; no free parameters or invented entities are visible in the abstract. Full paper would likely invoke standard matrix concentration inequalities and SDP projection properties.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Fixed k (locality parameter)
    Sample complexity depends polynomially on k; stated for fixed k.
  • domain assumption Bounded weighted interaction strength
    Required for the Õ(n^{2k}) scaling to hold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Structure Learning of $k$-local Lindbladians." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFAPFRAP

@misc{pith2026260623652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Structure Learning of $k$-local Lindbladians},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFAPFRAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23652}
}
abstract

We present an efficient protocol for learning an unknown $k$-local Lindblad generator on $n$ qubits using only product-state preparations, short-time evolution, and single-qubit Pauli measurements, without prior knowledge of the interaction structure. For fixed $k$ and bounded weighted interaction strength, the protocol estimates all Hamiltonian and dissipative Pauli--GKSL coefficients to entrywise accuracy $\varepsilon$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ using $\widetilde{\mathcal O}_k(\varepsilon^{-2}n^{2k}\log(1/\delta))$ samples and polylogarithmically many evolution times. A semidefinite projection converts these estimates into a valid $k$-local Lindblad generator with diamond-norm error at most $\varepsilon$ using $\widetilde{\mathcal O}_k(\varepsilon^{-2}n^{4k}\log(1/\delta))$ samples and polynomial-time classical postprocessing. If a suitable set of influential coefficients is supplied and satisfies a stable sparsity condition, the dependence on $n$ can improve from polynomial to logarithmic; in particular, exact supports of bounded intersection degree require only $\widetilde{\mathcal O}_k(\varepsilon^{-2}\log(n/\delta))$ samples, with analogous reductions in system-size dependence for sufficiently decaying long-range interactions. We also provide a robust structure-learning procedure, extend the guarantees to model misspecification, and prove complementary sample-complexity lower bounds. To our knowledge, these are the first efficient learning guarantees for general $k$-local dissipative quantum dynamics under such limited experimental control.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Characterizing Arbitrary Lindbladian Dynamics with a Few Pauli Measurements

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A control-free protocol using only product-Pauli preparations and measurements reconstructs arbitrary sparse Lindbladian generators, identifying supports from data with O~(Γ²M0²/ε⁴) samples and O~(ΓM0²/ε²) total evolu...

  2. Efficient Lindbladian Learning from Constant-Time Pauli Responses

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Local Pauli responses, inverted through a known generator dictionary, separate coherent from dissipative Lindbladian coefficients and recover all of them to accuracy epsilon from O~(M/epsilon^2) short-time measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan. Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17(5):821–825, 1976.doi: 10.1063/1.522979

    work page doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  2. [2]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    Goran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 48(2):119–130, 1976.doi:10.1007/BF01608499

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01608499 1976

  3. [3]

    Jens Eisert, Dominik Hangleiter, Nathan Walk, Ingo Roth, Damian Markham, Rieffel Keller, and Fernando G. S. L. Brandao. Quantum certification and benchmarking.Nature Reviews Physics, 2(7):382–390, 2020.doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4. 48

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4 2020

  4. [4]

    Eyal Bairey, Itai Arad, and Netanel H. Lindner. Learning a local hamiltonian from local meas- urements.Physical Review Letters, 122(2), 2019.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.020504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.020504 2019

  5. [5]

    Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms and Quantum Error Mitigation

    Suguru Endo, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Hybrid quantum-classical al- gorithms and quantum error mitigation.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 90(3):032001, 2021.doi:10.7566/JPSJ.90.032001

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.90.032001 2021

  6. [6]

    Wolf, and J

    Frank Verstraete, Michael M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Quantum computation and quantum- state engineering driven by dissipation.Nature Physics, 5(9):633–636, 2009.doi:10.1038/ nphys1342

    2009

  7. [7]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Inform- ation: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2012.doi:10.1017/ cbo9780511976667

    2012

  8. [8]

    Chuang and Michael A

    Isaac L. Chuang and Michael A. Nielsen. Prescription for experimental determination of the dynamics of a quantum black box.Journal of Modern Optics, 44(11-12):2455–2467, 1997. doi:10.1080/09500349708231894

    work page doi:10.1080/09500349708231894 1997

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Complete characterization of a quantum process: The two-bit quantum gate.Physical Review Letters, 78(2), 1997.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78. 390

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Oxford University PressOxford, 2007.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The Theory of Open Quantum Systems. Oxford University PressOxford, 2007.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    Structure learning of hamiltonians from real-time evolution

    Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang. Structure learning of hamiltonians from real-time evolution. InProceedings of the 65th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 1037–1050. IEEE, 2024.doi:10.1109/focs61266.2024.00069

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Markovich, V

    Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, Liubov A. Markovich, V. V. Dobrovitski, Albert H. Werner, and Jo- hannes Borregaard. Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit Hamiltonians.Nature Communications, 15(1), 2024.doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44012-5

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg-limited scaling.Physical Review Letters, 130(20), 2023.doi:10.1103/ physrevlett.130.200403

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Yu Tong, Di Fang, and Yuan Su. Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg-limited scaling.Physical Review Letters, 130(20), 2023.doi:10.1103/ physrevlett.130.200403

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lindner, and Eyal Bairey

    Assaf Zubida, Elad Yitzhaki, Netanel H. Lindner, and Eyal Bairey. Optimal short-time meas- urements for hamiltonian learning, 2021.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2108.08824

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Matthias C. Caro. Learning quantum processes and hamiltonians via the pauli transfer matrix. ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 5(2):1–53, 2024.doi:10.1145/3670418

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Quantum model learning agent: characterisation of quantum systems through machine learn- ing.New Journal of Physics, 24(5), 2022.doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac68ff

    Brian Flynn, Antonio A Gentile, Nathan Wiebe, Raffaele Santagati, and Anthony Laing. Quantum model learning agent: characterisation of quantum systems through machine learn- ing.New Journal of Physics, 24(5), 2022.doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ac68ff

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Andi Gu, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J. Coles. Practical hamiltonian learning with unit- ary dynamics and gibbs states.Nature Communications, 15(1), 2024.doi:10.1038/ s41467-023-44008-1. 49

    2024

  10. [18]

    Holz¨ apfel, T

    M. Holz¨ apfel, T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio. Scalable reconstruction of unitary processes and hamiltonians.Physical Review A, 91(4), 2015.doi:10.1103/physreva.91. 042129

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Caro, Albert H

    Tim M¨ obus, Andreas Bluhm, Matthias C. Caro, Albert H. Werner, and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Dissipation-enabled bosonic Hamiltonian learning via new information-propagation bounds, 2023.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2307.15026

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Heisenberg-limited hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons.npj Quantum Information, 10(1), 2024.doi: 10.1038/s41534-024-00881-2

    Haoya Li, Yu Tong, Tuvia Gefen, Hongkang Ni, and Lexing Ying. Heisenberg-limited hamiltonian learning for interacting bosons.npj Quantum Information, 10(1), 2024.doi: 10.1038/s41534-024-00881-2

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Werner, and Cambyse Rouz´ e

    Tim M¨ obus, Andreas Bluhm, Tuvia Gefen, Yu Tong, Albert H. Werner, and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Heisenberg-limited hamiltonian learning continuous variable systems via engineered dissipa- tion, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2506.00606

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin

    Marcus P. da Silva, Olivier Landon-Cardinal, and David Poulin. Practical characterization of quantum devices without tomography.Physical Review Letters, 107(21), 2011.doi:10.1103/ physrevlett.107.210404

    2011

  15. [23]

    Nathan Wiebe, Christopher Granade, Christopher Ferrie, and D. G. Cory. Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources.Physical Review Letters, 112(19), 2014. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.190501

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, Tim M¨ obus, Cambyse Rouz´ e, and Albert H. Werner. Learning and certification of local time-dependent quantum dynamics and noise, 2025.doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2510.08500

    2025

  17. [25]

    Petr Ivashkov, Nikita Romanov, Weiyuan Gong, Andi Gu, Hong-Ye Hu, and Susanne F. Yelin. Ansatz-free learning of lindbladian dynamics in situ, 2026.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2603.05492

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    Lindbladian learning with neural differential equations, 2026.doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.07778

    Timothy Heightman, Roman Aseguinolaza Gallo, Edward Jiang, JRM Saavedra, Antonio Ac´ ın, and Marcin P lodzie´ n. Lindbladian learning with neural differential equations, 2026.doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.07778

    2026 doi

  19. [27]

    Lieb and Derek W

    Elliott H. Lieb and Derek W. Robinson. The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 28(3):251–257, 1972.doi:10.1007/BF01645779

    1972 doi

  20. [28]

    Zur fermischen theorie des ?-zerfalls.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 104(7-8), 1937

    Markus Fierz. Zur fermischen theorie des ?-zerfalls.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 104(7-8), 1937. doi:10.1007/bf01330070

    1937 doi

  21. [29]

    Lieb-robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 265(1):119–130, 2006.doi:10.1007/ s00220-006-1556-1

    Bruno Nachtergaele and Robert Sims. Lieb-robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 265(1):119–130, 2006.doi:10.1007/ s00220-006-1556-1

    2006

  22. [30]

    Hastings

    Matthew B. Hastings. An area law for one-dimensional quantum systems.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(08):P08024, 2007.doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/ 08/p08024

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Lower bounds for learning hamiltonians from time evolution, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2509.20665

    Ziyun Chen, Jerry Li, and Joseph Slote. Lower bounds for learning hamiltonians from time evolution, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2509.20665. 50

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Projected least- squares quantum process tomography.Quantum, 6, 2022.doi:10.22331/q-2022-10-20-844

    Trystan Surawy-Stepney, Jonas Kahn, Richard Kueng, and Madalin Guta. Projected least- squares quantum process tomography.Quantum, 6, 2022.doi:10.22331/q-2022-10-20-844

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10), 2020.doi:10.1038/ s41567-020-0932-7

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10), 2020.doi:10.1038/ s41567-020-0932-7

    2020

  26. [34]

    Tran, Daniel Carney, and Jacob M

    Jonathan Kunjummen, Minh C. Tran, Daniel Carney, and Jacob M. Taylor. Shadow process tomography of quantum channels.Physical Review A, 107(4), 2023.doi:10.1103/physreva. 107.042403

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Tristan Kraft, Manoj K. Joshi, William Lam, Tobias Olsacher, Florian Kranzl, Johannes Franke, Lata Kh Joshi, Rainer Blatt, Augusto Smerzi, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, Benoˆ ıt Vermersch, Barbara Kraus, Christian F. Roos, and Peter Zoller. Bounded-error quantum simulation via hamil...

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Learning quantum hamiltonians from high- temperature gibbs states and real-time evolutions.Nature Physics, 20(6), 2024.doi:10.1038/ s41567-023-02376-x

    Jeongwan Haah, Robin Kothari, and Ewin Tang. Learning quantum hamiltonians from high- temperature gibbs states and real-time evolutions.Nature Physics, 20(6), 2024.doi:10.1038/ s41567-023-02376-x

    2024

  29. [37]

    O’Brien, and Thomas Schuster

    Alicja Dutkiewicz, Thomas E. O’Brien, and Thomas Schuster. The advantage of quantum control in many-body hamiltonian learning.Quantum, 8, 2024.doi:10.22331/ q-2024-11-26-1537

    2024

  30. [38]

    Flammia, and Susanne F

    Hong-Ye Hu, Muzhou Ma, Weiyuan Gong, Qi Ye, Yu Tong, Steven T. Flammia, and Susanne F. Yelin. Ansatz-free hamiltonian learning with heisenberg-limited scaling.PRX Quantum, 6(4), 2025.doi:10.1103/j7b8-pb77

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Learning the structure of any hamiltonian from minimal assumptions

    Andrew Zhao. Learning the structure of any hamiltonian from minimal assumptions. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25. ACM, 2025.doi:10.1145/3717823.3718115

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Learning the dynamics of open quantum systems from their steady states.New Journal of Physics, 22(3), 2020

    Eyal Bairey, Chu Guo, Dario Poletti, Netanel H Lindner, and Itai Arad. Learning the dynamics of open quantum systems from their steady states.New Journal of Physics, 22(3), 2020. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab73cd

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems.Nature Physics, 17(8), 2021

    Anurag Anshu, Srinivasan Arunachalam, Tomotaka Kuwahara, and Mehdi Soleimanifar. Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems.Nature Physics, 17(8), 2021. doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01232-0

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Learning quantum hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time

    Ainesh Bakshi, Allen Liu, Ankur Moitra, and Ewin Tang. Learning quantum hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time. InProceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’24. ACM, 2024.doi:10.1145/3618260.3649619

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Chi-Fang Chen, Anurag Anshu, and Quynh T. Nguyen. Learning quantum gibbs states locally and efficiently. In2025 IEEE 66th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE, 2025.doi:10.1109/focs63196.2025.00076

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Efficient hamiltonian learning from gibbs states, 2024.doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2403.18061

    Adam Artymowicz. Efficient hamiltonian learning from gibbs states, 2024.doi:10.48550/ ARXIV.2403.18061. 51

    2024

  37. [45]

    Characterization and verification of trotterized digital quantum simulation via hamiltonian and liouvillian learning

    Lorenzo Pastori, Tobias Olsacher, Christian Kokail, and Peter Zoller. Characterization and verification of trotterized digital quantum simulation via hamiltonian and liouvillian learning. PRX Quantum, 3(3), 2022.doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.030324

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Large-scale lindblad learning from time-series data, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2512.08165

    Ewout van den Berg, Brad Mitchell, Ken Xuan Wei, and Moein Malekakhlagh. Large-scale lindblad learning from time-series data, 2025.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2512.08165

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    Hamilto- nian and liouvillian learning in weakly-dissipative quantum many-body systems.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(1), 2025.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad9ed5

    Tobias Olsacher, Tristan Kraft, Christian Kokail, Barbara Kraus, and Peter Zoller. Hamilto- nian and liouvillian learning in weakly-dissipative quantum many-body systems.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(1), 2025.doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad9ed5

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    Rune Thinggaard Birke, Johann Bock Severin, Malthe A. Marciniak, Emil Hogedal, Andreas Nylander, Irshad Ahmad, Amr Osman, Janka Bizn´ arov´ a, Marcus Rommel, Anita Fadavi Roud- sari, Jonas Bylander, Giovanna Tancredi, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, Albert Werner, Christopher W. Warre...

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    Reconstruction of Markov random fields from samples: Some observations and algorithms.SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(2):563–578, 2013.doi:10.1137/100796029

    Guy Bresler, Elchanan Mossel, and Allan Sly. Reconstruction of Markov random fields from samples: Some observations and algorithms.SIAM Journal on Computing, 42(2):563–578, 2013.doi:10.1137/100796029

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    Efficiently learning Ising models on arbitrary graphs

    Guy Bresler. Efficiently learning Ising models on arbitrary graphs. InProceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’15, pages 771–782. Association for Computing Machinery, 2015.doi:10.1145/2746539.2746631

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Lokhov, and Michael Chertkov

    Marc Vuffray, Sidhant Misra, Andrey Y. Lokhov, and Michael Chertkov. Interaction screening: Efficient and sample-optimal learning of Ising models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29, pages 2603–2611, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Information theoretic properties of Markov random fields, and their algorithmic applications

    Linus Hamilton, Frederic Koehler, and Ankur Moitra. Information theoretic properties of Markov random fields, and their algorithmic applications. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 2463–2472, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Klivans and Raghu Meka

    Adam R. Klivans and Raghu Meka. Learning graphical models using multiplicative weights. In2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS ’17, pages 343–354. IEEE, 2017.doi:10.1109/FOCS.2017.39

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Santhanam and Martin J

    Narayana P. Santhanam and Martin J. Wainwright. Information-theoretic limits of select- ing binary graphical models in high dimensions.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 58(7):4117–4134, 2012.doi:10.1109/TIT.2012.2191659

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    Structure learning of antiferromagnetic ising models

    Guy Bresler, David Gamarnik, and Devavrat Shah. Structure learning of antiferromagnetic ising models. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K. Weinberger, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 27. Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Bypassing the noisy parity barrier: Learning higher-order markov random fields from dynamics

    Jason Gaitonde, Ankur Moitra, and Elchanan Mossel. Bypassing the noisy parity barrier: Learning higher-order markov random fields from dynamics. InProceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’25, page 348–359. ACM, 2025.doi: 10.1145/3717823.3718231. 52

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    Learning graphical models from the Glauber dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64(6):4072–4080, 2018

    Guy Bresler, David Gamarnik, and Devavrat Shah. Learning graphical models from the Glauber dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64(6):4072–4080, 2018. doi:10.1109/TIT.2017.2713828

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Finite speed of quantum scrambling with long range interactions.Physical Review Letters, 123(25), 2019.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.250605

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas. Finite speed of quantum scrambling with long range interactions.Physical Review Letters, 123(25), 2019.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.250605

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Speed limits and locality in many- body quantum dynamics.Reports on Progress in Physics, 86(11), 2023.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/acfaae

    Chi-Fang (Anthony) Chen, Andrew Lucas, and Chao Yin. Speed limits and locality in many- body quantum dynamics.Reports on Progress in Physics, 86(11), 2023.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6633/acfaae

    2023

  52. [60]

    Operator growth bounds from graph theory.Communic- ations in Mathematical Physics, 385(3), 2021.doi:10.1007/s00220-021-04151-6

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas. Operator growth bounds from graph theory.Communic- ations in Mathematical Physics, 385(3), 2021.doi:10.1007/s00220-021-04151-6

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Non-perturbative dynamics of the operator size distribution in the sach- dev–ye–kitaev model.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 61(8), 2020.doi:10.1063/1.5133964

    Andrew Lucas. Non-perturbative dynamics of the operator size distribution in the sach- dev–ye–kitaev model.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 61(8), 2020.doi:10.1063/1.5133964

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model

    Andrew Lucas and Andrew Osborne. Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 61(12), 2020.doi:10.1063/5.0022177

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Robust polynomial regression up to the in- formation theoretic limit

    Daniel Kane, Sushrut Karmalkar, and Eric Price. Robust polynomial regression up to the in- formation theoretic limit. In2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE, 2017.doi:10.1109/focs.2017.43

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Arnab Bhattacharyya, Sutanu Gayen, Eric Price, and N. V. Vinodchandran. Near-optimal learning of tree-structured distributions by chow-liu. InProceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’21, page 147–160. ACM, 2021.doi: 10.1145/3406325.3451066

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    Springer New York, 1997.doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1880-7_29

    Bin Yu.Assouad, Fano, and Le Cam, pages 423–435. Springer New York, 1997.doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1880-7_29

    1997 doi

  58. [66]

    Nikita Romanov, Petr Ivashkov, Weiyuan Gong, Ishaan Kannan, Andi Gu, Hong-Ye Hu, and Susanne F. Yelin. Learning arbitrary lindbladians with quantum error correction, 2026. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2606.18188

    2026 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Near-optimal learning of local lindbladians, 2026.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2606.20535

    Itai Arad, Zhili Chen, Naixu Guo, Patrick Rebentrost, and Zhan Yu. Near-optimal learning of local lindbladians, 2026.doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2606.20535

    2026 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    Springer US, 2002.doi:10.1007/ b105286

    Etienne de Klerk.Aspects of Semidefinite Programming. Springer US, 2002.doi:10.1007/ b105286

    2002

  61. [69]

    SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics

    Yurii Nesterov and Arkadii Nemirovski.Interior-Point Polynomial Algorithms in Convex Pro- gramming. SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1994.doi:10.1137/1.9781611970791

    1994 doi

  62. [70]

    Semidefinite programming.SIAM Review, 38(1), 1996.doi:10.1137/1038003

    Lieven Vandenberghe and Stephen Boyd. Semidefinite programming.SIAM Review, 38(1), 1996.doi:10.1137/1038003. 53

    1996 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.