Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 72 references

High-coordination spin stars admit a continuous-time 1/d hierarchy whose classical Landau–Lifshitz sector is the high-d limit and whose first Gaussian correction is O(1/d^{2}).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 08:25 UTC pith:GKH3WOZN

load-bearing objection Solid continuous-time 1/d hierarchy for driven stars with exact leaf elimination, measured O(1/d) and O(1/d^{2}) remainders, and an honest IM crossover; soft spots are the paper's own (H2) and series-vs-remainder gap. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10899 v1 pith:GKH3WOZN submitted 2026-07-12 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.data-an

Driven Quantum Stars as Controlled Primitives for Real-Time Spin Dynamics

Michael Chertkov This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.data-an
keywords driven spin starLandau–Lifshitz classical sector1/d hierarchyleaf eliminationweak trajectoriesGaussian influencereal-time spin dynamicsmessage passing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that quantum advantage for real-time spin dynamics should be judged against the strongest classical substitutes, not merely against the fact that the microscopic spins are qubits. It reduces a spin-1/2 model to a Landau–Lifshitz classical sector and organizes the residual quantum corrections by graph coordination. The concrete object is a driven star: one hub spin coupled to d leaves with O(1/d) hub–leaf tensors. Exact leaf elimination converts the leaves into weak mean trajectories and connected two-time kernels; the resulting cumulant series is ordered by 1/d. The leading term L0 is a driven one-spin weak-mean-field problem; the first correction G1 is a Gaussian nonlocal influence that pairs leaf kernels with the hub’s weak two-point function. On finite time windows away from zeros of the boundary amplitudes the log-amplitude errors scale as O(1/d) and O(1/d^{2}), with fully driven anisotropic ensembles giving slopes near −1 and −2. The same star is presented as the local influence primitive for tree message passing and, with loop corrections, for loopy graphs, and is compared head-to-head with temporal matrix-product influence matrices to map complementary regimes of coordination and coupling strength.

Core claim

For coherent-state return amplitudes of the driven star with hub–leaf couplings scaled as O(1/d), exact leaf elimination plus the connected-cumulant hierarchy yields log A − log A_L0 = O(1/d) and log A − log A_L0 − Δ_G1 = O(1/d^{2}) on bounded finite-time windows away from zeros of the free-leaf and L0 hub amplitudes. Fully driven anisotropic nested ensembles produce ensemble slopes −1.05 and −2.03, confirming that the exact remainders follow the same orders.

What carries the argument

Exact leaf-elimination lemma: every leaf is contracted out of the single-contour amplitude and replaced by its free return amplitude, weak mean trajectory, and connected two-time kernel; the residual hub problem is then expanded in the 1/d-ordered cumulant series whose first two truncations are the weak-mean-field theory L0 and the Gaussian influence correction G1.

Load-bearing premise

The free-leaf and weak-mean-field hub amplitudes must stay bounded away from zero on the continuous log branch; when they hit zero the weak trajectories and kernels develop poles and the error bounds break.

What would settle it

On a fully driven anisotropic star, measure the final-time branch-continuous log-errors of L0 and L0+G1 versus degree over nested ensembles at fixed time away from Fisher zeros; if the ensemble slopes deviate systematically from −1 and −2, or if the hierarchy fails qualitatively before any amplitude zero, the claimed ordering is false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes assessing quantum advantage in real-time spin dynamics against a spin-Landau–Lifshitz classical sector plus controlled quantum corrections, with graph coordination 1/d as the expansion parameter. For a driven spin star with hub–leaf couplings K_c = O(1/d), it proves exact leaf elimination for coherent-state return amplitudes (Lemma 1) and organizes the residual influence as a continuous-time cumulant hierarchy: L0 is a driven one-spin weak mean-field (weak-LL) theory and G1 a Gaussian nonlocal influence correction. Under bounded drives and away from zeros of the boundary amplitudes, Proposition 1 orders the cumulant series so that log A − log A_L0 = O(1/d) and the G1 remainder is O(1/d²); nested-ensemble numerics on fully driven anisotropic instances give slopes −1.05 and −2.03. Static homogeneous, Schur-block, inhomogeneous, and driven oracles provide validation rungs, and a head-to-head comparison with a temporal-MPS influence-matrix baseline delineates complementary regimes of coordination versus coupling strength. The star is positioned as a message-passing primitive for trees and, prospectively, loopy graphs.

Significance. If the claims hold in the stated domain, the work supplies a physics-parameter-ordered alternative to rank-controlled temporal compression for real-time spin dynamics: each truncation level is itself a physical theory, with the LL sector as the high-coordination limit. Strengths that should be credited include the exact formal-series leaf-elimination identity (Lemma 1), explicit hypotheses and O(d^{1−k}) counting in Proposition 1, multiple independent exact oracles (aligned closed form, Schur-block, sparse Krylov, circuit-exact Trotter), nested-ensemble scaling that avoids prefactor redraws, a quantitative crossover surface against the influence-matrix baseline (Fig. 10, Table 1), and a public code repository that reproduces the figures. The diagnostic framing—when LL is enough, when Gaussian corrections suffice, and when discrete-sector interference dominates—is a useful contribution beyond the star itself.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Proposition 1; Remark 2] Abstract and Proposition 1 / Remark 2: The abstract states that the hierarchy “gives” log A − log A_L0 = O(1/d) and log A − log A_L0 − Δ_G1 = O(1/d²), which reads as a claim on the exact remainders. Proposition 1 only proves term-by-term ordering of the cumulant series under (H1)–(H3); Remark 2 explicitly says control of the exact remainders after resummation is asymptotic and supported numerically (Figs. 6, 9). Please align the abstract (and the corresponding claim in Sec. 1) with Remark 2 so that what is proved versus what is validated is unambiguous.
  2. [Sec. 3; Proposition 1 (H2); Remark 2] Sec. 3 and hypothesis (H2): The domain of validity is restricted to continuous log branches away from zeros of free-leaf and L0 hub amplitudes (Fisher zeros / DQPT times), where weak objects develop poles and error constants diverge. This is stated carefully in Sec. 3 and Remark 2 but is easy to miss relative to the headline scaling. A short, explicit domain statement near the main claim (e.g., after Eq. (21) or in the abstract’s “bounded finite-time windows” clause) would prevent over-reading the result as uniform in T for all product-state Loschmidt amplitudes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1; Appendix E] Fig. 1 caption and lower-right panel: the fitted exponents T_L0_ε ∼ d^{0.30} and T_G1_ε ∼ d^{0.82} are useful; stating the fit window and the precise definition of the ε = 0.1 horizon (already in Appendix E) once in the main-text caption would help readers who skip the appendix.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (12); Remark 1] Eq. (12) and the noise/response split: the identification of the real symmetric and imaginary antisymmetric parts with covariance and response is clear; a one-sentence pointer that this is the single-contour counterpart of the Keldysh/retarded split (already in Remark 1) would help readers coming from open-system literature.
  3. [Sec. 7.2; Fig. 10] Sec. 7.2 / Fig. 10: the projected overtake of χ = 4 near d ≈ 35 is an extrapolation of the measured d^{−2} law; labeling it as such in the caption (not only in the text) would avoid mistaking it for a measured crossing.
  4. [Sec. 8, Eq. (25)] Sec. 8 is appropriately prospective but quite brief. Even a short schematic of the open message m_{i→p} = (ℓ, μ, κ) update rule (already in Eq. (25)) with one sentence on per-generation error accumulation under Proposition 1 would make the tree claim easier to assess without overselling implementation.
  5. [Abstract; Eq. (1)] Notation: the manuscript mixes A, script A, and calligraphic A for the return amplitude across abstract and body; a single symbol throughout would reduce friction.
  6. [Sec. 2; Sec. 6.3] References: the positioning relative to influence-matrix / process-tensor work is good; if space allows, a brief nod to related central-spin / Gaudin literature beyond [64, 67] is optional and not required for acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 1/d hierarchy is derived from the Hamiltonian via exact leaf elimination and cumulant counting, then checked against independent exact oracles.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is self-contained. Lemma 1 rewrites the star amplitude by interaction-picture factorization and linked-cluster resummation of each leaf; that identity is formal and does not presuppose the truncation error. L0 and G1 are the first two terms of the connected expansion of W_c (Eqs. 15–20), with Beff and Δ_G1 defined from free-leaf weak objects and the L0 hub two-point function—not fitted to force the slopes. Proposition 1 then orders the series by the model scaling ∥K_c∥≤C_K/d under (H1)–(H3); the O(1/d) and O(1/d²) statements are power-counting consequences of that scaling, not predictions that recycle fitted inputs. Exact remainders are validated numerically against independent oracles (Schur-block recursion, sparse Krylov midpoint, circuit-exact Trotter statevector), with nested-ensemble slopes −1.05 and −2.03 measured rather than imposed. Self-citations (Chertkov–Kolokolov Heisenberg functional integrals; Chertkov–Chernyak loop calculus) supply motivation and the tree/loopy outlook; they are not used as uniqueness theorems or as the sole support for the star ordering. Hypothesis (H2) and the gap between term-by-term series bounds and a proved tail resummation are stated as domain limitations (Sec. 3, Remark 2), not hidden circular steps. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation reduction appears.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum spin dynamics plus structural modeling choices (star geometry, 1/d coupling scaling, single-contour return amplitude, Gaussian truncation). No free parameters are fitted to manufacture the O(1/d) and O(1/d²) laws; ensemble slopes are measurements. Invented named levels L0/G1 are derived truncations, not new physical entities. The main non-standard load is the domain restriction away from amplitude zeros and the numerical (not analytic) control of exact remainders after series ordering.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Unitary quantum evolution of spin-1/2 operators under a time-dependent pairwise star Hamiltonian with bounded drives.
    Standard Schrödinger/Heisenberg dynamics; used throughout Secs. 3–5.
  • domain assumption Hub–leaf couplings scale as ∥K_c(t)∥ = O(1/d) so mean fields stay O(1) while connected k-point cumulants of the summed leaf influence scale as O(d^{1−k}).
    Central modeling choice that supplies the small parameter; stated in Eq. (4) and Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Hypothesis (H2): free-leaf and L0 hub boundary amplitudes remain ≥ δ > 0 on the continuous log branch (no zeros on the window).
    Required for uniform bounds on weak objects and for Proposition 1; fails at Fisher zeros of DQPTs (Sec. 3).
  • domain assumption Connected k-point weak cumulants of each driven leaf obey a factorial bound independent of d (H3).
    Used in the proof sketch of Proposition 1 to convert moment bounds into cumulant bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian truncation of the cumulant tower (keep μ and κ, drop ≥3 and re-exponentiation error of Q2) defines the practical G1 message.
    Exact elimination is infinite-order; the algorithmic primitive truncates at Gaussian order by design (Sec. 5, Remark 1).
  • ad hoc to paper Single forward-contour coherent-state return amplitude is a sufficient diagnostic arena; Keldysh counterparts are deferred.
    Explicit scope choice after Eq. (1) and Remark 1; physical expectation values live on the doubled contour.
invented entities (2)
  • L0 weak-mean-field / weak Landau–Lifshitz sector independent evidence
    purpose: Name the leading high-coordination classical substitute obtained by shifting the hub field by summed leaf weak means.
    Derived from the linear cumulant term, not postulated as a new particle or force; independent evidence is the d→∞ LL limit and numerical match to exact amplitudes.
  • G1 Gaussian nonlocal influence correction Δ_G1 independent evidence
    purpose: Name the first connected quantum correction pairing leaf two-time kernels with the hub weak two-point function.
    Derived from the quadratic cumulant; validated by O(1/d²) error reduction. Not an independent physical field.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 32612 in / 3742 out tokens · 40198 ms · 2026-07-14T08:25:48.803665+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum advantage in real-time spin dynamics should be assessed against the strongest relevant classical substitutes, not merely against the qubit nature of the microscopic system. We develop a physics-based diagnostic for this boundary by reducing a qubit spin model to a spin-Landau--Lifshitz (LL) classical sector and organizing the residual quantum sector as controlled corrections. The control parameter is graph coordination: we study a spin star with \(d\) leaves and \(O(1/d)\) hub--leaf couplings. In its homogeneous form the star benchmarks the transition from LL-substitutable dynamics to genuinely quantum, discrete-sector interference; in its fully driven form, with time-dependent fields and bilinear couplings, it is the basic message-passing primitive for tree and loopy spin structures. For coherent-state return amplitudes we prove exact leaf elimination and derive a continuous-time \(1/d\) hierarchy. L0 is a driven one-spin weak-mean-field theory, while G1 is a Gaussian nonlocal-in-time influence correction coupling leaf two-time kernels to the hub weak two-point function. On bounded finite-time windows away from zeros of the boundary amplitudes, the hierarchy gives \(\log\mathcal A-\log\mathcal A_{\rm L0}=O(1/d)\) and \(\log\mathcal A-\log\mathcal A_{\rm L0}-\Delta_{\rm G1}=O(1/d^2)\); numerical tests on fully driven anisotropic ensembles give slopes \(-1.05\) and \(-2.03\). Static, inhomogeneous, aligned, and fully driven stars provide validation rungs, and comparison with a temporal matrix-product influence-matrix baseline delineates complementary regimes. Unlike rank compression on a Trotter grid, the hierarchy is ordered by a physical parameter, formulated in continuous time, and each truncation level is itself a physical theory, with the LL sector as the high-coordination limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10899 by Michael Chertkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Uniform-star diagnostic for the transition from LL-substitutable to genuinely quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The driven star is the algorithmic primitive. Leaf elimination converts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of the method. (I) The model is the fully driven star in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 1/d hierarchy. L0 is a mean weak field. G1 is the first Gaussian influence correction, nonlocal in time but still assembled from one-spin objects. 6 Special cases and exact validation rungs The driven formulation above is the main theory. The static and homogeneous models are best presented as validation rungs: they give exact or semi-exact oracles against which the 1/d hier￾archy can be tested. 15 [P… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The aligned homogeneous star gives an exact benchmark and exposes the finite-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Central scaling test. The leading error is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Static inhomogeneous validation tests the hierarchy beyond the homogeneous exact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The driven-star experiment validates the fully time-dependent formulation directly, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fully driven anisotropic star: final-time log-errors over nested ensembles (eight seeds; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal-MPS influence-matrix (IM) baseline versus the Gaussian (L0+G1) message. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Richard P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21(6-7):467–488, 1982

    1982

  2. [2]

    Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

    Seth Lloyd. Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273(5278):1073–1078, 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 10th anniversary edition edition, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Lov K. Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. InProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 212–219, 1996

    1996

  5. [5]

    Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer.SIAM Journal on Computing, 26(5):1484–1509, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    Quantum algorithms: an overview.npj Quantum Information, 2:15023, 2016

    Ashley Montanaro. Quantum algorithms: an overview.npj Quantum Information, 2:15023, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Jahromi, Sukhbinder Singh, and Rom´ an Or´ us

    Augustine Kshetrimayum, Saeed S. Jahromi, Sukhbinder Singh, and Rom´ an Or´ us. Quantum Advantage: a Tensor Network Perspective, 2026. eprint: 2603.18825. 31

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey. Many-Body Quantum Spin Dynamics with Monte Carlo Trajectories on a Discrete Phase Space.Physical Review X, 5(1):011022, 2015

    2015

  9. [9]

    Mink, David Petrosyan, and Michael Fleischhauer

    Christopher D. Mink, David Petrosyan, and Michael Fleischhauer. Hybrid discrete- continuous truncated Wigner approximation for driven, dissipative spin systems.Physical Review Research, 4(4):043136, 2022. eprint: 2203.17120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Emulation of quantum correlations by classical dynamics in a spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain, 2025

    Chaebin Kim and Martin Mourigal. Emulation of quantum correlations by classical dynamics in a spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain, 2025. eprint: 2503.19975

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Semi-Classical Dynamics in Quantum Spin Systems.Letters in Mathematical Physics, 82(2–3):275–296, 2007

    J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, Antti Knowles, and Enno Lenzmann. Semi-Classical Dynamics in Quantum Spin Systems.Letters in Mathematical Physics, 82(2–3):275–296, 2007. eprint: 0709.4561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    R. L. Stratonovich. On a method of calculating quantum distribution functions.Soviet Physics Doklady, 2:416–419, 1957

    1957

  13. [13]

    J. Hubbard. Calculation of partition functions.Physical Review Letters, 3(2):77–78, 1959

    1959

  14. [14]

    J. M. Radcliffe. Some Properties of Coherent Spin States.Journal of Physics A: General Physics, 4:313, 1971

    1971

  15. [15]

    J. R. Klauder. Path Integrals and Stationary-Phase Approximations.Physical Review D, 19:2349, 1979

    1979

  16. [16]

    Springer, 1994

    Assa Auerbach.Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism. Springer, 1994

    1994

  17. [17]

    Albert, and Lev Vaidman

    Yakir Aharonov, David Z. Albert, and Lev Vaidman. How the Result of a Measurement of a Component of the Spin of a Spin-1/2 Particle Can Turn Out to Be 100.Physical Review Letters, 60(14):1351–1354, 1988

    1988

  18. [18]

    Yakir Aharonov and Eyal Y. Gruss. Two-time interpretation of quantum mechanics, July

  19. [19]

    arXiv:quant-ph/0507269

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    The Two-Time Interpretation and Macroscopic Time-Reversibility.Entropy, 19(3):111, March 2017

    Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, and Tomer Landsberger. The Two-Time Interpretation and Macroscopic Time-Reversibility.Entropy, 19(3):111, March 2017

    2017

  21. [21]

    Chernyak

    Michael Chertkov and Vladimir Y. Chernyak. Loop calculus in statistical physics and infor- mation science.Physical Review E, 73(6):065102, June 2006

    2006

  22. [22]

    Loop series for discrete statistical models on graphs.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2006(06):P06009–P06009, June 2006

    Michael Chertkov and Vladimir Y Chernyak. Loop series for discrete statistical models on graphs.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2006(06):P06009–P06009, June 2006

    2006

  23. [23]

    Sommers, and Hilbert Kappen

    Joseph Tindall, Grace M. Sommers, and Hilbert Kappen. Contracting Tensor Networks with Generalized Belief Propagation, April 2026. arXiv:2604.24760 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Loop series expansions for tensor networks.Physical Review Research, 8(1):013245, March 2026

    Glen Evenbly, Nicola Pancotti, Ashley Milsted, Johnnie Gray, and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Loop series expansions for tensor networks.Physical Review Research, 8(1):013245, March 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    Siddhant Midha and Yifan F. Zhang. Beyond Belief Propagation: Cluster-Corrected Tensor Network Contraction with Exponential Convergence, October 2025. arXiv:2510.02290 [quant- ph]. 32

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Sommers, Joseph Tindall, and Dmitry A

    Siddhant Midha, Grace M. Sommers, Joseph Tindall, and Dmitry A. Abanin. Belief Propa- gation and Tensor Network Expansions for Many-Body Quantum Systems: Rigorous Results and Fundamental Limits, April 2026. arXiv:2604.03228 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Long-time dynamics of the infinite-temperature Heisenberg magnet.Physical Review B, 49(5):3592–3595, February 1994

    Michael Chertkov and Igor Kolokolov. Long-time dynamics of the infinite-temperature Heisenberg magnet.Physical Review B, 49(5):3592–3595, February 1994

    1994

  28. [28]

    Equilibrium dynamics of a paramagnetic cluster

    Michael Chertkov and Igor Kolokolov. Equilibrium dynamics of a paramagnetic cluster. Physical Review B, 51(6):3974–3977, February 1995

    1995

  29. [29]

    Kolokolov

    I.V. Kolokolov. Functional representation for the partition function of the quantum Heiden- berg ferromagnet.Physics Letters A, 114(2):99–104, February 1986

    1986

  30. [30]

    Functional integration for quantum magnets: New method and new results

    I.V Kolokolov. Functional integration for quantum magnets: New method and new results. Annals of Physics, 202(1):165–185, August 1990

    1990

  31. [31]

    Transport in a one-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg model at high tempera- ture.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011(12):P12008, December 2011

    Marko ˇZnidariˇ c. Transport in a one-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg model at high tempera- ture.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011(12):P12008, December 2011

    2011

  32. [32]

    Spin diffusion from an inhomogeneous quench in an integrable system.Nature Communications, 8:16117, 2017

    Marko Ljubotina, Marko ˇZnidariˇ c, and Tomaˇ z Prosen. Spin diffusion from an inhomogeneous quench in an integrable system.Nature Communications, 8:16117, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Kardar–Parisi–Zhang Physics in the Quantum Heisenberg Magnet.Physical Review Letters, 122(21):210602, 2019

    Marko Ljubotina, Marko ˇZnidariˇ c, and Tomaˇ z Prosen. Kardar–Parisi–Zhang Physics in the Quantum Heisenberg Magnet.Physical Review Letters, 122(21):210602, 2019

    2019

  34. [34]

    Scheie, N

    A. Scheie, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, S. E. Nagler, M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, J. E. Moore, and D. A. Tennant. Detection of Kardar–Parisi–Zhang hydrodynamics in a quantum Heisenberg spin-1/2 chain.Nature Physics, 17(6):726–730, 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    Yao, Immanuel Bloch, and Johannes Zeiher

    David Wei, Antonio Rubio-Abadal, Bingtian Ye, Francisco Machado, Jack Kemp, Kritsana Srakaew, Simon Hollerith, Jun Rui, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Norman Y. Yao, Immanuel Bloch, and Johannes Zeiher. Quantum gas microscopy of Kardar–Parisi–Zhang superdiffu- sion.Science, 376(6594):716–720, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    Kinetic Theory of Spin Diffusion and Superdif- fusion in XXZ Spin Chains.Physical Review Letters, 122(12):127202, 2019

    Sarang Gopalakrishnan and Romain Vasseur. Kinetic Theory of Spin Diffusion and Superdif- fusion in XXZ Spin Chains.Physical Review Letters, 122(12):127202, 2019

    2019

  37. [37]

    Superdiffu- sion from Emergent Classical Solitons in Quantum Spin Chains.Physical Review Letters, 125(7):070601, 2020

    Jacopo De Nardis, Sarang Gopalakrishnan, Enej Ilievski, and Romain Vasseur. Superdiffu- sion from Emergent Classical Solitons in Quantum Spin Chains.Physical Review Letters, 125(7):070601, 2020

    2020

  38. [38]

    Huse, Manas Kulkarni, Christian B

    Avijit Das, Kedar Damle, Abhishek Dhar, David A. Huse, Manas Kulkarni, Christian B. Mendl, and Herbert Spohn. Nonlinear Fluctuating Hydrodynamics for the Classical XXZ Spin Chain.Journal of Statistical Physics, 180(1–6):238–262, 2020

    2020

  39. [39]

    Phase space representation of quantum dynamics.Annals of Physics, 325(8):1790–1852, 2010

    Anatoli Polkovnikov. Phase space representation of quantum dynamics.Annals of Physics, 325(8):1790–1852, 2010

    2010

  40. [40]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz. On the theory of the dispersion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies.Phys. Z. Sowjetunion, 8:153–169, 1935. 33

    1935

  41. [41]

    Lakshmanan

    M. Lakshmanan. The fascinating world of the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation: an overview.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 369(1939):1280–1300, 2011

    1939

  42. [42]

    Cluster truncated Wigner approxi- mation in strongly interacting systems.Annals of Physics, 395:341–365, 2018

    Jonathan Wurtz, Anatoli Polkovnikov, and Dries Sels. Cluster truncated Wigner approxi- mation in strongly interacting systems.Annals of Physics, 395:341–365, 2018

    2018

  43. [43]

    Masaya Kunimi, Kazuma Nagao, Shimpei Goto, and Ippei Danshita. Performance evaluation of the discrete truncated Wigner approximation for quench dynamics of quantum spin systems with long-range interactions.Physical Review Research, 3(1):013060, 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    H. A. Bethe. Statistical Theory of Superlattices.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 150(871):552–575, 1935

    1935

  45. [45]

    Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1988

    Judea Pearl.Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1988

    1988

  46. [46]

    Yedidia, William T

    Jonathan S. Yedidia, William T. Freeman, and Yair Weiss. Constructing Free-Energy Ap- proximations and Generalized Belief Propagation Algorithms. In Gerhard Lakemeyer and Bernhard Nebel, editors,Exploring Artificial Intelligence in the New Millennium, pages 239–

  47. [47]

    Morgan Kaufmann, 2003

    2003

  48. [48]

    Wainwright and Michael I

    Martin J. Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan. Graphical Models, Exponential Families, and Variational Inference.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 1(1–2):1–305, 2008

    2008

  49. [49]

    Gauges, loops, and polynomials for partition functions of graphical models.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2020(12):124006, 2020

    Michael Chertkov, Vladimir Chernyak, and Yury Maximov. Gauges, loops, and polynomials for partition functions of graphical models.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2020(12):124006, 2020

    2020

  50. [50]

    INFERLO: Inference, Learning and Optimization with Graphical Models (Living Book, https://sites.google.com/site/mchertkov/research/living-books), 2024

    Michael Chertkov. INFERLO: Inference, Learning and Optimization with Graphical Models (Living Book, https://sites.google.com/site/mchertkov/research/living-books), 2024

    2024

  51. [51]

    Laumann, A

    C. Laumann, A. Scardicchio, and S. L. Sondhi. Cavity Method for Quantum Spin Glasses on the Bethe Lattice.Physical Review B, 78:134424, 2008

    2008

  52. [52]

    Krzakala, A

    F. Krzakala, A. Rosso, G. Semerjian, and F. Zamponi. Path-Integral Representation for Quantum Spin Models: Application to the Quantum Cavity Method and Monte Carlo Sim- ulations.Physical Review B, 78:134428, 2008

    2008

  53. [53]

    M. B. Hastings. Quantum Belief Propagation: An Algorithm for Thermal Quantum Systems. Physical Review B, 76:201102(R), 2007

    2007

  54. [54]

    Belief-Propagation Algorithm for Computing Correlation Functions in Finite-Temperature Quantum Many-Body Systems on Loopy Graphs.Physical Review A, 77:052318, 2008

    David Poulin and Ersen Bilgin. Belief-Propagation Algorithm for Computing Correlation Functions in Finite-Temperature Quantum Many-Body Systems on Loopy Graphs.Physical Review A, 77:052318, 2008

    2008

  55. [55]

    Seshadreesan, Saikat Guha, and Henry D

    Narayanan Rengaswamy, Kaushik P. Seshadreesan, Saikat Guha, and Henry D. Pfister. Belief Propagation with Quantum Messages for Quantum-Enhanced Classical Communications.npj Quantum Information, 7:97, 2021

    2021

  56. [56]

    Hale F. Trotter. On the product of semi-groups of operators.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 10(4):545–551, 1959. 34

    1959

  57. [57]

    M. Suzuki. Generalized Trotter’s Formula and Systematic Approximants of Exponential Op- erators and Inner Derivations with Applications to Many-Body Problems.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 51:183, 1976

    1976

  58. [58]

    Hastings, Frank Verstraete, and J

    Mari Carmen Ba˜ nuls, Matthew B. Hastings, Frank Verstraete, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Ma- trix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains.Physical Review Letters, 102(24):240603, 2009

    2009

  59. [59]

    Strathearn, P

    A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett. Efficient non-Markovian quantum dynamics using time-evolving matrix product operators.Nature Communications, 9:3322, 2018

    2018

  60. [60]

    Alessio Lerose, Michael Sonner, and Dmitry A. Abanin. Influence matrix approach to many- body Floquet dynamics.Physical Review X, 11(2):021040, 2021

    2021

  61. [61]

    Michael Sonner, Alessio Lerose, and Dmitry A. Abanin. Influence functional of many- body systems: Temporal entanglement and matrix-product state representation.Annals of Physics, 431:168552, 2021

    2021

  62. [62]

    G. Park, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan. Simulating Quantum Dynamics in Two-Dimensional Lattices with Tensor Network Influence Functional Belief Propagation, 2025. eprint: 2504.07344

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    N. V. Prokof’ev and P. C. E. Stamp. Theory of the spin bath.Reports on Progress in Physics, 63(4):669–726, 2000

    2000

  64. [64]

    Non-Markovian dynamics in a spin star system: Exact solution and approximation techniques.Physical Review B, 70(4):045323, 2004

    Heinz-Peter Breuer, Daniel Burgarth, and Francesco Petruccione. Non-Markovian dynamics in a spin star system: Exact solution and approximation techniques.Physical Review B, 70(4):045323, 2004

    2004

  65. [65]

    Mediated entanglement and correlations in a star network of interacting spins.Physical Review A, 69(4):042312, 2004

    Alexandra Hutton and Sougato Bose. Mediated entanglement and correlations in a star network of interacting spins.Physical Review A, 69(4):042312, 2004

    2004

  66. [66]

    Diagonalisation d’une classe d’hamiltoniens de spin.Journal de Physique, 37:1087–1098, 1976

    Michel Gaudin. Diagonalisation d’une classe d’hamiltoniens de spin.Journal de Physique, 37:1087–1098, 1976

    1976

  67. [67]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein. Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in the Transverse-Field Ising Model.Physical Review Letters, 110:135704, 2013

    2013

  68. [68]

    Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 81:054001, 2018

    Markus Heyl. Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a review.Reports on Progress in Physics, 81:054001, 2018

    2018

  69. [69]

    Exact dynamics in the inhomogeneous central-spin model

    Michael Bortz and Joachim Stolze. Exact dynamics in the inhomogeneous central-spin model. Physical Review B, 76:014304, 2007

    2007

  70. [70]

    Ignacio Cirac

    Frank Verstraete, Valentin Murg, and J. Ignacio Cirac. Matrix Product States, Projected Entangled Pair States, and Variational Renormalization Group Methods for Quantum Spin Systems.Advances in Physics, 57(2):143–224, 2008

    2008

  71. [71]

    A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States.Annals of Physics, 349:117–158, 2014

    Rom´ an Or´ us. A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States.Annals of Physics, 349:117–158, 2014. 35

    2014

  72. [72]

    Ignacio Cirac, David P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, Norbert Schuch, and Frank Verstraete

    J. Ignacio Cirac, David P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, Norbert Schuch, and Frank Verstraete. Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States: Concepts, Symmetries, Theorems.Reviews of Modern Physics, 93:045003, 2021. 36

    2021