Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Dressing chiral free-fermion circuits with a specific Majorana scattering term yields circuits with exactly solvable, non-Markovian influence matrices.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:58 UTC pith:EXRJOAT7

load-bearing objection First systematic CDU3 construction with non-Markovian influence matrices; clever and potentially important, but Property 3's proof in Appendix E is sketchy and needs tightening. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25969 v1 pith:EXRJOAT7 submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.stat-mech math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Solvable Quantum Circuits with non-Markovian Influence Matrices

Samuel H. Pickering , Max McGinley , Bhavik Kumar , Bruno Bertini This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech math-phmath.MPquant-ph
keywords quantum circuitsinfluence matricesnon-Markovian bathsdual-unitarityfree-fermion circuitsMajorana fermionsmatrix product statesmany-body thermalization
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 aims to build a systematic family of quantum many-body circuits whose influence matrices—the objects encoding how the rest of the system acts as a bath on a local subsystem—can be written down exactly, while still displaying genuine temporal (non-Markovian) correlations. Earlier exactly solvable examples, notably dual-unitary circuits, yield Markovian baths with product-form influence matrices. The paper shows that starting from chiral free-fermion circuits and adding appropriate Majorana scattering terms produces circuits satisfying a condition called column-DU3, for which the influence matrix reduces to two columns of gates and can be stored as a matrix product state of bounded bond dimension. If correct, this is the first systematic route to non-Markovian solvable influence matrices, and the resulting correlation patterns resemble those of typical many-body thermalization, unlike previous solvable circuits.

Core claim

The core discovery is that chirality plus a single quartic Majorana term is enough to make an otherwise free-fermion circuit's influence matrix non-Markovian yet exactly writable. The authors prove that for the gate U I(θ), where U is a chiral Majorana Clifford gate with fermion velocities {−1, −1/3, 1/3, 1} and I(θ) = exp(iθ γ_x^(1) γ_{1,x}^(1/3) γ_{1,x+1/2}^(1/3) γ_{x+1/2}^(1)), the circuit satisfies the CDU3 condition (influence matrix equal to its two-column contraction) for every θ not a multiple of π/2, while failing CDU2. The proof shows that the interaction removes one left stabilizer from a single column, but the missing stabilizer reappears as a two-column stabilizer after the scat

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the stabilizer algebra of the chiral Majorana gate, organized by velocity bands. Each gate has left stabilizers (from fermion pairs that stay on the left leg) and right stabilizers (from fermion pairs that stay on the right leg); chirality guarantees that every right stabilizer anticommutes with some left stabilizer, which enforces the Markovian CDU2 condition (Property 1). To separate from the Markovian class, the authors add a four-Majorana scattering term that removes exactly one stabilizer from the single-column tensor; the key step is that after concatenating two columns, the removed stabilizer is recovered as a longer, two-column stabilizer, built by conjugatin

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the claim that the four-Majorana interaction term, after being pulled through two layers of gates, generates a two-column stabilizer that anticommutes with every right-moving operator; the proof of this recovery requires the bare fermion velocities to be bounded away from zero (v0=1/T for odd T) and the single-qudit rotations to satisfy the commutation restrictions (E20)–(E21).

What would settle it

For the gate of Property 3 with T=3 and a generic angle (e.g. θ=π/4), numerically contract the full influence matrix and compare it with the two-column expression in Eq. (8b) for t=3; any discrepancy at any site would falsify the CDU3 claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the CDU3 proof is correct, the influence matrices of these circuits can be stored as matrix product states with bond dimension at most q², so all single-operator correlation functions at zero separation are computable in polynomial time.
  • These circuits realize a genuinely non-Markovian effective bath: the influence matrix is not a product over temporal sites, so the bath's action at one time depends on earlier times, in contrast to dual-unitary circuits.
  • The construction gives a whole family, not an isolated example: any odd T yields a velocity configuration with the same CDU3 property, providing a tunable hierarchy of solvable non-Markovian circuits.
  • Numerically, the CDU3 example exhibits nonvanishing correlations along all rays inside the light cone, in contrast to previously known solvable circuits whose correlations live on discrete rays; this matches the phenomenology expected of typical many-body systems.
  • The error-correction interpretation shows that terms breaking the free-fermionic structure are correctable errors for the code space defined by the column tensors, connecting solvability to quantum error correction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The stabilizer-recovery mechanism seems to generalize to a full CDUn hierarchy: if a gate's lost stabilizer is recovered only after n columns, the influence matrix should be an n-column tensor with bond dimension q^{2(n−1)}. The paper only proves n=3, but its graphical argument suggests a route to higher orders with larger T. (Editorial inference.)
  • The error-correcting interpretation hints that these circuits could serve as self-correcting quantum memories in the crossed channel: the sideways evolution acts as a code whose distance grows with T, and the interaction terms play the role of errors. Whether this yields a practical code is untested. (Editorial inference.)
  • The velocity-gap assumption (v0=1/T with T odd) means the family has a controlled non-Markovianity time scale T; one could engineer circuits where the bath memory time is set by T, offering a testbed for non-Markovian open quantum systems in quantum simulators. (Editorial inference.)

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a systematic construction of one-dimensional brickwork quantum circuits whose influence matrices are exactly representable with bounded bond dimension, while being genuinely non-Markovian. The key conceptual step is to generalize the column-level dual-unitarity conditions: the authors define CDU2 and CDU3, and show that CDU3 leads to influence matrices that are sums of two-column tensor networks with nontrivial temporal correlations. Starting from chiral free-fermionic Clifford circuits, they prove (Properties 1 and 2) that the CDU2 conditions hold, and then propose a four-Majorana deformation that destroys CDU2 while restoring the missing stabilizer at the two-column level, yielding CDU3 (Property 3). The paper also gives an error-correction interpretation, explicit Clifford tableaus for three example circuits, and numerical MPS computations of dynamical correlation functions for these circuits.

Significance. If the central claim of Property 3 is correct, this is a significant advance: it provides the first systematic, exactly solvable family of non-Markovian influence matrices, going beyond the Markovian cases of dual-unitary and CDU2 circuits. The paper is explicit and concrete: the Clifford tableaus in Table I, the deformation formulas (D2)-(D4), and the numerical influence-matrix bond dimensions in Fig. 3 give the reader a clear picture of the mechanism. The solvability statement has no fitted parameters; the coupling θ is excluded only at the isolated points θ∈(π/2)Z. The error-correction viewpoint is conceptually appealing and likely to stimulate further work. However, the proof of the central Property 3, contained in Appendix E, is not yet at the standard of rigor required for a foundational exact-solvability result, and the general odd-T family is only sketched. These gaps are load-bearing and need to be repaired before the claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E13)-(E17)] The recovery of the lost left stabilizer as the two-column stabilizer L^(2T) is the key step that makes the CDU3 condition hold, but it is only established diagrammatically and 'up to potential minus signs'. An exact stabilizer equation cannot tolerate an undetermined sign: a minus sign would turn L^(2T) into an anti-stabilizer and would invalidate the anticommutation with the problematic R_j. The chain of deformations in (E13) needs to be converted into an explicit operator identity with all signs tracked, or verified by a direct algebraic proof. As written, 'one can show' and '∼' leave the central claim unproven.
  2. [Appendix E, text after Eq. (E18)] The proof of CDU3 relies on the assertion that the generators of all relevant R operators commute with O, and therefore with V, in the definition of L^(2T). This is stated but not demonstrated. The four-Majorana interaction (17) produces a nonlocal operator O in (E16), and the commutation with every R_j must be checked explicitly for arbitrary T, not just 'seen' from a diagram. If some R_j fails to commute with V, the anticommutation with L^(2T) is lost and the CDU3 equation (E18) is not established.
  3. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E19)-(E22)] The extension to gates (u1⊗u2)U I(θ) relies on conditions (E20)-(E21) for u1 and u2. The displayed argument is again diagrammatic: the first equality in (E22) assumes that u1 can be removed from all elements of R using (E20), but only the single operator R_j in (E10) is explicitly identified as the problematic one. It is necessary to show that no additional elements of R acquire a u1 dependence and to give a complete proof that (E20)-(E21) are sufficient (or state whether they are also necessary).
  4. [Main text, paragraph after Property 3; Appendix E] The paper claims a 'much more general family' of chiral circuits with velocities v∈[−1,−1/T]∪{0}∪[1/T,1] for odd T, but the proof in Appendix E is only illustrated for T=5 (and T=3 by the displayed condition). The 'and so on' after (E13) and (E18) is not a proof. An induction or a closed-form construction of the stabilizers for arbitrary odd T is required to support the generality claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Typo: 'non-Marovian' should be 'non-Markovian'.
  2. [Appendix E, first paragraph] 'eluded to' should be 'alluded to'.
  3. [Eq. (E11)] The maps P, Q, S, T are carried over from Appendix B without restating their domains; a brief reminder would improve readability, since Appendix E is the proof of the central property.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The blank entries are explained in the text, but the caption itself could state that blank regions correspond to bond dimensions exceeding the cutoff χc=384, as is done for Fig. 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the CDU3 construction is derived from the gate's stabilizer algebra, not from prior results or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claim (Property 3) is not circular. The CDU3 conditions (8) are defined independently as tensor-network relations, and the proof of Property 3 in Appendix E constructs the required two-column stabilizer L^(2T) from the explicit scattering term (17), using commutation relations derived from the chiral Clifford gate. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: θ is excluded only at θ ∈ (π/2)Z, and the conditions are checked algebraically rather than matched to data. Citations to earlier influence-matrix and dual-unitary work (e.g. Ref. [29]) are used for standard definitions and reductions (Eq. (4)) that are not the source of the new solvability claim. The manuscript does contain proof gaps — Appendix E relies on 'one can show' and 'up to potential minus signs' in Eq. (E13), and the recovery identity Eq. (E17) is asserted rather than demonstrated — but a missing or informal derivation is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the claimed identity is not assumed as an input; it is what the appendix attempts to prove. Nothing in the paper's own equations reduces the CDU3 result to its defining conditions or to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data. The couplings θ and the single-site rotation angles in Circuits I–III are hand-picked values for numerical examples; the solvability property (CDU3) holds for all θ∉(π/2)Z and is independent of these values. There is no parameter that is tuned to make the central claim match an externally imposed target. The paper also introduces no new physical entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions; the CDU2/CDU3 conditions are mathematical definitions, not invented entities.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Unitarity of gates allows reducing the influence matrix to t−1 column tensors (Eq. 4) and gives the CPTP-map interpretation (Appendix A).
    Used throughout; standard tensor-network manipulation with unitary gates.
  • standard math Clifford algebra and Jordan-Wigner representation (Eqs. 10–11) with parity conservation.
    Defines the free-fermionic structure on which the construction is built.
  • domain assumption The circuit is a 1D brickwork Floquet circuit in the thermodynamic limit with periodic boundary conditions (Setup).
    Bulk physics; boundary conditions are stated to be irrelevant.
  • domain assumption CDU3 (two-column form) is taken to define non-Markovian solvability; CDU2 (product form) defines Markovian.
    This maps the graphical conditions onto the physics of temporal memory; the paper does not tie this to an external process-tensor Markovianity criterion.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of chiral free-fermionic Clifford gates with prescribed velocity bands, e.g. v∈{−1,−1/3,1/3,1} (Eq. 16, Appendix D).
    Explicit tableaus supply existence; this is the raw material on which the CDU3 perturbation acts.
  • ad hoc to paper The added interaction I(θ) (Eq. 17) removes exactly one left and one right stabilizer per gate, and these stabilize again at the two-column level (Appendix E, E13–E17).
    This is the core of Property 3; if this recovery fails, the CDU3 claim collapses.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21838 in / 17695 out tokens · 170877 ms · 2026-08-01T00:58:04.933722+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Influence matrices encode the action exerted on local subsystems by the rest of an extended quantum many-body system during their evolution. Thus, knowledge of the influence matrix facilitates computationally efficient simulations of local dynamics. Here we propose a new systematic approach to generating quantum circuits with complex dynamics for which the influence matrices can be written down exactly. In contrast to previous frameworks of this kind, such as dual-unitary circuits, the resulting influence matrices are non-Markovian, exhibiting nontrivial temporal correlations. We explicitly construct a broad family of circuits of this kind, based on dressing free-fermion (matchgate) circuits with appropriately chosen interaction terms. We show that, contrary to previous solvable instances, these circuits produce patterns of correlations that closely resemble that of typical many-body systems. Our approach can be directly interpreted in terms of an error correction scheme where the terms breaking the solvability of the influence matrices play the role of errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25969 by Bhavik Kumar, Bruno Bertini, Max McGinley, Samuel H. Pickering.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Tensor network describing dynamical correlations on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In the most general case, we observe nontriv￾ial correlations along all rays x = ζt within the light￾cone (|ζ| ≤ 1), distinguishing them from the previously known families of solvable circuits (cf. Refs. [9, 10, 13– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Maximum bond dimensions of both the (tilted) left and right influence matrices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Tilted influence matrices characterising correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Examples of different operator trajectories and how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.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

61 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nature Physics11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Calabrese, F

    P. Calabrese, F. H. Essler, and G. Mussardo, Introduc- tion to ‘quantum integrability in out of equilibrium sys- tems’, J. Stat. Mech.2016, 064001 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papić, Quantum many- body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Bastianello, B

    A. Bastianello, B. Bertini, B. Doyon, and R. Vasseur, Introduction to the special issue on emergent hydrody- namics in integrable many-body systems, J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 014001 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    M. C. Bañuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Matrix Product States for dynamical simulation of infinite chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240603 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Müller-Hermes, J

    A. Müller-Hermes, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, Tensor network techniques for the computation of dynamical ob- servables in one-dimensional quantum spin systems, New J. Phys.14, 075003 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    M. B. Hastings and R. Mahajan, Connecting entangle- ment in time and space: Improving the folding algorithm, Phys. Rev. A91, 032306 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    A.Lerose, M.Sonner,andD.A.Abanin,Influencematrix approach to many-body floquet dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021040 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Entanglement spread- ing in a minimal model of maximal many-body quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. X9, 021033 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Piroli, B

    L. Piroli, B. Bertini, J. I. Cirac, and T. Prosen, Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quantum circuits, Physical Re- view B101, 094304 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    K.Klobas, B.Bertini,andL.Piroli,Exactthermalization dynamics in the “rule 54” quantum cellular automaton, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 160602 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Klobas and B

    K. Klobas and B. Bertini, Exact relaxation to Gibbs and non-equilibrium steady states in the quantum cellular au- tomaton Rule 54, SciPost Phys.11, 106 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Giudice, G

    G. Giudice, G. Giudici, M. Sonner, J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, D. A. Abanin, and L. Piroli, Temporal en- tanglement, quasiparticles, and the role of interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 220401 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Prosen, Many-body quantum chaos and dual-unitarity round-a-face, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science31, 093101 (2021)

    T. Prosen, Many-body quantum chaos and dual-unitarity round-a-face, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science31, 093101 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Jonay, V

    C. Jonay, V. Khemani, and M. Ippoliti, Triunitary quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043046 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    P. W. Claeys, A. Lamacraft, and J. Vicary, From dual-unitary to biunitary: a 2-categorical model for exactly-solvable many-body quantum dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 335301 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    X.-H. Yu, Z. Wang, and P. Kos, Hierarchical generaliza- tion of dual unitarity (2024), arXiv:2307.03138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Bertini, C

    B. Bertini, C. De Fazio, J. P. Garrahan, and K. Klobas, Exact quench dynamics of the floquet quantum east model at the deterministic point, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 120402 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    H.-R. Wang, I. Vilkoviskiy, and D. A. Abanin, Temporal complexity hierarchies in solvable quantum many-body dynamics (2025), arXiv:2510.21927 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    M. A. Rampp, S. A. Rather, and P. W. Claeys, Geomet- ric constructions of generalized dual-unitary circuits from biunitarity, SciPost Phys.18, 182 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    M. A. Rampp, S. A. Rather, and P. W. Claeys, Solv- able quantum circuits from spacetime lattices (2025), arXiv:2512.15871 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    M. A. Rampp, S. A. Rather, and P. W. Claeys, Infinite- level hierarchy of solvable quantum circuits (2026), arXiv:2606.23803 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    S. H. Pickering and B. Bertini, Asymptotically solv- able quantum circuits (2026), arXiv:2602.24276 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Yang, H.-R

    X.-Y. Yang, H.-R. Wang, and Z. Wang, Solving nonequilibrium dynamics via influence matrix bootstrap: Floquet-pxp model (2026), arXiv:2606.19430 [quant-ph]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Klobas, Exact subsystem dynamics in the determin- istic floquet-pxp model (2026), arXiv:2606.27337 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    K. Klobas, Exact subsystem dynamics in the determin- istic floquet-pxp model (2026), arXiv:2606.27337 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Exact correlation func- tions for dual-unitary lattice models in1 + 1dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Maximum velocity quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033032 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Foligno, P

    A. Foligno, P. Kos, and B. Bertini, Quantum informa- tion spreading in generalised dual-unitary circuits (2024), arXiv:2312.02940

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. W. Claeys, and T. Prosen, Exactly solvable many-body dynamics from space-time duality (2025), arXiv:2505.11489 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Krajnik, E

    Ž. Krajnik, E. Ilievski, and T. Prosen, Absence of normal fluctuations in an integrable magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 090604 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Feldmeier, W

    J. Feldmeier, W. Witczak-Krempa, and M. Knap, Emer- gent tracer dynamics in constrained quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B106, 094303 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    De Nardis, S

    J. De Nardis, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur, Non- linear fluctuating hydrodynamics for kardar-parisi-zhang scaling in isotropic spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 197102 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Gopalakrishnan, A

    S. Gopalakrishnan, A. Morningstar, R. Vasseur, and V. Khemani, Distinct universality classes of diffusive transport from full counting statistics, Phys. Rev. B109, 024417 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Krajnik, J

    Ž. Krajnik, J. Schmidt, E. Ilievski, and T. Prosen, Dy- namical criticality of magnetization transfer in integrable spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 017101 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, B. Ye, F. Machado, J. Kemp, K. Srakaew, S. Hollerith, J. Rui, S. Gopalakrishnan, N. Y. Yao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Quantum gas microscopy of kardar- parisi-zhang superdiffusion, Science376, 716 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abk2397

    doi:10.1126/science.abk2397 2022

  36. [36]

    E.Rosenberg, T.I.Andersen, R.Samajdar, A.Petukhov, J. C. Hoke, D. Abanin, A. Bengtsson, I. K. Drozdov, C. Erickson, and P. V. K. et al., Dynamics of magneti- zation at infinite temperature in a heisenberg spin chain, Science384, 48 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Hübner and S

    F. Hübner and S. W. P. Kim, Influence-solvability: a systematic theory of(1 + 1)dsolvability and its ap- plication to brickwork circuits (2026), arXiv:2606.12538 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Insall, B

    A. Insall, B. Bertini, and K. Klobas, Systematic clas- sification of rule 54-like solvable models, in preparation (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Lerose, M

    A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Overcoming the entanglement barrier in quantum many-body dynam- ics via space-time duality, Phys. Rev. B107, L060305 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Lerose, M

    A. Lerose, M. Sonner, and D. A. Abanin, Scaling of tem- poral entanglement in proximity to integrability, Phys. Rev. B104, 035137 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    Magazzù and M

    L. Magazzù and M. Grifoni, Feynman-vernon influence functional approach to quantum transport in interacting nanojunctions: An analytical hierarchical study, Phys. Rev. B105, 125417 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Thoenniss, A

    J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Nonequi- librium quantum impurity problems via matrix-product states in the temporal domain, Phys. Rev. B107, 195101 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Thoenniss, M

    J. Thoenniss, M. Sonner, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Efficient method for quantum impurity problems out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B107, L201115 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    N.Ng, G.Park, A.J.Millis, G.K.-L.Chan,andD.R.Re- ichman, Real-time evolution of Anderson impurity mod- els via tensor network influence functionals, Phys. Rev. B107, 125103 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    R. Chen, X. Xu, and C. Guo, Grassmann time-evolving matrix product operators for quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. B109, 045140 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    R. Chen, X. Xu, and C. Guo, Real-time impurity solver using Grassmann time-evolving matrix product opera- tors, Phys. Rev. B109, 165113 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    G. Park, N. Ng, D. R. Reichman, and G. K.-L. Chan, Tensor network influence functionals in the continuous- time limit: Connections to quantum embedding, bath discretization, and higher-order time propagation, Phys. Rev. B110, 045104 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Nayak, J

    M. Nayak, J. Thoenniss, M. Sonner, D. A. Abanin, and P. Werner, Steady-state dynamical mean field the- ory based on influence functional matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B112, 035103 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Sonner, V

    M. Sonner, V. Link, and D. A. Abanin, Semigroup in- fluence matrices for nonequilibrium quantum impurity models, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 170402 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Carignano, C

    S. Carignano, C. Ramos Marimón, and L. Tagliacozzo, Temporal entropy and the complexity of computing the expectation value of local operators after a quench, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033021 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Carignano, The ITransverse.jl library for transverse tensor network contractions, SciPost Phys

    S. Carignano, The ITransverse.jl library for transverse tensor network contractions, SciPost Phys. Codebases 63, 63 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Carignano, G

    S. Carignano, G. Lami, J. D. Nardis, and L. Tagliacozzo, Overcoming the entanglement barrier with sampled ten- sor networks, arXiv:2505.09714 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    H. K. Yadalam and M. T. Mitchison, Process-tensor ap- proach to full counting statistics of charge transport in quantum many-body circuits, arXiv:2603.28894 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    C. Li, B. Bertini, K. Klobas, and T. Zhou, Low rank structure of the reduced transition matrix (2026), arXiv:2605.12665 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Foligno, T

    A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Temporal entan- glement in chaotic quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X13, 041008 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Rakovszky, C

    T. Rakovszky, C. W. von Keyserlingk, and F. Poll- mann,Dissipation-assistedoperatorevolutionmethodfor capturing hydrodynamic transport, Phys. Rev. B105, 075131 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, A polynomial-time classical algorithm for noisy quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X15, 041018 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems (2026), arXiv:2505.21606 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, A. Ashikhmin, H. Barnum, L. Vi- ola, and W. H. Zurek, Introduction to quantum error correction (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0207170 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  60. [60]

    (14) makes it clear that the conditions forRk to be adetectableerror are satisfiedΠ LRkΠL ∝Π L (Ref

    The anticommutation ofLj andR k in Eq. (14) makes it clear that the conditions forRk to be adetectableerror are satisfiedΠ LRkΠL ∝Π L (Ref. [59]). Correctability then follows from the closure of{Rk}k under products

  61. [61]

    M. B. Hastings and J. Haah, Dynamically Generated Logical Qubits, Quantum5, 564 (2021). 9 Appendix A: Solvable influence matrices from operator trajectories In the main text, we used the decomposition in Eq. (9) to describe the Heisenberg evolution of a local operator, and used this to identify operator trajectories that lead to violation of the CDU condi...

    2021