Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weakly interacting fermionic Gibbs states can be prepared efficiently at any temperature because the Lindbladian mixing time is linear in the system size.

desk verdict First rigorous efficient mixing guarantee for fermionic Gibbs samplers at arbitrary temperature, with a sound but dense proof that hinges on a black-box stability theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00443 v2 pith:27WXGMWY submitted 2024-12-31 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Yu Tong , Yongtao Zhan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81P6882C1081V70 PACS 03.67.Ac05.30.-d71.10.Fd
keywords mixingtimeLindbladianspectralgapGibbsstatepreparationfermioniclatticeHamiltoniansthirdquantizationweakinteractionquantumsamplerFermi-Hubbardmodel
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

This paper aims to prove that Gibbs states of weakly interacting fermionic lattice Hamiltonians can be prepared efficiently on a quantum computer at any temperature. It shows that a recently proposed Lindbladian, when restricted to even-parity observables, has a spectral gap bounded below by a constant independent of system size, provided the interaction strength is below a constant threshold. From this gap, the epsilon-mixing time is at most linear in the system size, giving a polynomial-time quantum Gibbs state preparation algorithm. The proof works by mapping the Lindbladian to a parent Hamiltonian via third quantization and treating the interaction as a quasi-local perturbation of a gapped free-fermion Hamiltonian.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parent Hamiltonian H_parent = \tilde\Phi(L^\dagger), constructed by mapping super-operators to operators on a doubled fermionic Hilbert space whose particles are called a-fermions. The third quantization map \Phi preserves locality and, crucially, preserves the spectrum on the even-parity sector, so a gap lower bound on H_parent transfers to the Lindbladian restricted to even-parity observables. The free part H0_parent decouples into single-mode terms whose spectral gap can be computed exactly, while the interacting part V_parent is shown to have (CU,mu)-decay using Lieb-Robinson bounds. A stability theorem for free-fermion Hamiltonians then converts these structural facts into a constant gap lower bound.

What would settle it

Take the 2D Fermi-Hubbard model at a fixed small U below the claimed threshold and fixed beta, and compute the spectral gap of the Lindbladian (10) restricted to even-parity observables for increasing system sizes n; if the gap decays with n instead of approaching a positive constant, Theorem 1 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any inverse temperature beta>0 there exists a threshold U_beta such that whenever the interaction strength U is below it, the Lindbladian in Eq. (10) has a unique stationary state in the fermionic even-parity sector and mixes in time O(n + log(1/epsilon)). The key structural result is that the parent Hamiltonian splits as H0_parent + V_parent, where H0_parent is a quadratic free-fermion Hamiltonian with a constant spectral gap and exponentially decaying coefficients, while V_parent is a sum of quasi-local terms whose strength is O(U). Applying a stability theorem for free-fermion Hamiltonians then shows that the gap of the parent Hamiltonian, and hence the Lindbladian gap restricted to even parity, remains bounded below by a constant independent of n.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gap bound rests on the imported stability theorem for free-fermion Hamiltonians, which requires the perturbation V_parent to have exponentially decaying local terms with strength below a constant determined by the unperturbed gap; if that theorem does not apply to the constructed a-fermion geometry, the main result collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Gibbs state e^{-\beta H}/Z of any weakly interacting fermionic lattice Hamiltonian covered by the theorem can be prepared to trace distance epsilon in time O(n^3\,\mathrm{polylog}(n/\epsilon)).
  • The result applies directly to the Fermi-Hubbard model on a D-dimensional lattice whenever the on-site interaction strength |U| is below a constant depending only on the lattice geometry, the chemical potential, and the inverse temperature.
  • The Lindbladian dynamics converges exponentially fast in the KMS norm to the unique stationary state for all even-parity initial states obeying the fermionic superselection rule.
  • The same spectral gap implies exponential decay of correlations in the Gibbs state at any temperature for sufficiently weak interactions, as stated in Corollary 3.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the theorem is correct, weak-interaction fermionic Gibbs states form a concrete family where a provable quantum speedup over rigorous classical algorithms might be demonstrated, since no polynomial-time classical algorithm with arbitrary precision is known in this regime.
  • The interaction threshold U_beta likely shrinks as beta grows, because the stability theorem's conditions depend on the unperturbed gap of the free parent Hamiltonian, which involves factors like e^{-O(\beta^2 \epsilon^2)}; mapping this dependence numerically would delineate the practical regime of the algorithm.
  • The restriction to even-parity observables is essential in the third-quantization construction; extending the argument to odd-parity observables or to Lindbladians without detailed balance would require a different mechanism than the spectrum-preserving map used here.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the mixing time of the efficiently implementable Lindbladian of Chen, Kastoryano, and Gilyén when applied to weakly interacting fermionic lattice Hamiltonians H = H0 + V, where H0 is quadratic and geometrically local and V is a parity-preserving interaction of strength U. The main claim (Theorem 1) is that for every inverse temperature β > 0 there is a positive Uβ depending only on β, r0, D such that for U < Uβ the even-parity sector of the Lindbladian has spectral gap bounded below by a constant independent of the system size, giving ε-mixing time O(n + log(1/ε)) and hence an O(n^3 polylog(n/ε)) quantum Gibbs-state-preparation algorithm. The proof maps the Lindbladian to a parent Hamiltonian by third quantization, computes the gap and decay of the non-interacting parent Hamiltonian, proves that the interacting correction has (CU, μ)-decay using Lieb-Robinson bounds, and then imports the stability theorem for free-fermion Hamiltonians from [30]. The paper also derives exponential clustering of correlations for the Gibbs state from the gapped parent Hamiltonian. The overall architecture is coherent and the parity/superselection handling is careful, but two load-bearing estimates in the locality proofs need repair.

Significance. If the main theorem is established, it is a significant advance: it gives the first rigorous proof of fast mixing for an efficiently implementable fermionic Gibbs sampler at arbitrary temperature, in a regime of weak interactions, and it yields polynomial-time quantum Gibbs-state preparation for a broad class of non-integrable fermionic lattice models. The paper is commendably explicit about the use of the external stability theorem [30], and it makes a serious effort to verify the hypotheses of that theorem rather than treating it as a black box. The third-quantization construction, the explicit free-parent gap computation, and the detailed Lieb-Robinson estimates are valuable technical contributions. No numerical data or code is expected in a proof paper of this type. The main risk is not the import of [30] itself but whether the paper's Propositions 1–3 really verify its hypotheses with all constants uniform in system size; I identified two specific gaps in those verifications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 8, Lemma 21 (Eqs. (118)–(119))] The local approximant Z_1^loc(T) is defined using X_1(-βt'), which by Lemma 13 is a truncated version of γ^free_j(-βt'), not of γ^int_j(-βt'). But Z_1(T) contains the product γ^int_j(βt) γ^int_j(-βt'). In the proof, after 'These results allow us ...', the displayed triangle inequality is not a valid bound for AB - CD with A = γ^int_j(βt), B = γ^int_j(-βt'), C = ∫_0^{βt} X_2(s,t) ds, and D = X_1(-βt'), because B is not close to D: D approximates the free evolution, while B is the interacting correction and differs from D by an O(1) quantity. Therefore the claimed estimate ∥Z_1^loc(T) - Z_1(T)∥ ≤ C U (T+1)^{D+1}(r+1)^D e^{-r/2} is not established. This error propagates to Lemma 22, Corollary 10, Proposition 3, and hence to Theorem 3 and Theorem 1. A repair appears feasible: one can use the local approximant for γ^int provided by Corollary 9 for the second factor as well, obtaining an O(U^2 e^{-μr}) error, which is O(U e^{-μr}) for U below a constant. Please provide a corrected proof of this lemma.
  2. [Section 7.2, Lemma 12 proof, Eq. (93)] The step Σ_j e^{-μ(d(j,k)+d(j,k'))} ≤ C'' Σ_j e^{-μ(d(k,k') + d(j,(k+k')/2))} ≤ C e^{-μ d(k,k')} is not justified. The first inequality is not a consequence of the triangle inequality, and the sum over the lattice can contribute a factor polynomial in d(k,k') (in a D-dimensional lattice, the number of sites at distance R grows polynomially). Since Proposition 2's [K,ν]-decay is a required hypothesis for applying Theorem 2, this estimate needs to be repaired. A standard fix is to prove the decay with a slightly smaller rate ν < μ so that the polynomial prefactor is absorbed, but as written the uniform-in-n claim does not follow.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (69)] The symbol Ξ_kk is never defined; since H^parent_{C,free} = 0 by Lemma 7, the terms L_{Ξ_kk} + R_{Ξ^†_kk} should be omitted or explicitly set to zero.
  2. [Lemma 22] The sentence 'Moreover, ∥\tilde B_j∥ ≤ C' U' should presumably read '∥\tilde B^int_j∥ ≤ C' U'; the full operator \tilde B_j need not be small, and the subsequent use in Corollary 10 requires the bound on the interacting part.
  3. [Lemma 7 proof] The formula \tilde B^free_j = σ^{1/4} B^free_j σ^{-1/2} should read σ^{1/4} B^free_j σ^{-1/4}; the displayed exponent is a typo.
  4. [Lemma 15 proof] The estimate for ∥γ^int_j(t) - ∫_0^t X_2(s,t) ds∥ contains an unexplained factor e^{-βω/4}, although the left-hand side is independent of ω; this factor should appear only after integration against \check F_1(t,ω).
  5. [Lemma 14 proof] The sentence beginning 'Then Xs(s,t) [YZ: two s here?]' contains an unfinished editorial comment and a typo; please clean it up.
  6. [Section 5.1, after Eq. (52)] 'We can that H^parent_0 is quadratic' is missing the word 'see'; please correct.
  7. [General notation] Several places use d(j,k) interchangeably for distances between Majorana modes and between their lattice sites; a brief remark in the notation or a footnote would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the parent-Hamiltonian construction is a proof device, and the spectral gap is obtained from an external stability theorem and computed free-gap, not from the target mixing statement.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained in the sense required for a circularity finding. The parent Hamiltonian H_parent is defined through the similarity transform using the target Gibbs state σ, and its top eigenvector is φ(σ^{1/2}) by construction; however, this is not used as the source of the gap. The spectral gap of H_parent is proved by decomposing it into a free quadratic part H_parent^0 and an interacting part V_parent, then applying the external stability theorem Theorem 2 from [30] (Hastings). The hypotheses of that theorem are verified by Proposition 1 (gap of H_parent^0), Proposition 2 (decay of its coefficient matrix), and Proposition 3 (decay of V_parent), all of which are proved analytically using Lieb-Robinson bounds and explicit computation, not by assuming the desired mixing time. The reference to numerical results in [32], one of whose authors overlaps with the present paper, is explicitly only motivational ('This is suggested by the numerical results in [32]') and is followed by an analytic computation, so it is not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted to the target mixing time, and no 'prediction' is equivalent to an input by construction. The reliance on Hastings' stability theorem is a black box and thus a correctness/verification risk, but it is an external theorem, not a self-citation chain, and it does not make the argument circular. The only unusual inserted passage is an editorial typo note in Lemma 14 ('[YZ: two s here?]'), which concerns notation, not the logic of the proof. Overall the central claim is derived from independent structural and stability arguments rather than from its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No empirical parameters are fitted. The central proof uses external theorems: the KMS-DBC Lindbladian of [10], Hastings' stability theorem for free-fermion Hamiltonians [30], and Lieb-Robinson bounds for fermions. The model assumptions are geometric locality, parity preservation, and restriction to the even-parity superselection sector. The only newly introduced mathematical object is the third-quantized a-fermion space, an auxiliary proof tool.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Lindbladian in Eq. (10) satisfies KMS detailed balance and has the Gibbs state e^{-beta H}/Z as its fixed point, as proven in [10].
    Adopted as a black box from Chen, Kastoryano, and Gilyén; used throughout Sections 2 and 4 to define the parent Hamiltonian and its spectral correspondence.
  • standard math Theorem 2 (stability of free-fermion spectral gaps under quasi-local perturbations) from [30] holds with constants depending only on K, nu, mu, Delta, and D.
    Central bridge: converts quasi-locality of V_parent into a constant gap lower bound in Theorem 3, Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption A Lieb-Robinson bound for geometrically local fermionic Hamiltonians holds with the stated velocity J (Lemma 3, adapted from [35]).
    All quasi-locality decays of jump operators and V_parent rely on this; the paper cites [35] for the fermionic extension without re-proving it.
  • domain assumption Physical fermionic states obey the superselection rule, so convergence is only required on D(H)_even.
    Definition 9 restricts the mixing time to even parity states; the odd sector may not mix as fast and is explicitly excluded.
  • domain assumption H0 is (1, r0)-geometrically local and V is (U, r0)-geometrically local (Definition 1).
    The theorem's threshold and algorithms apply only to this class of lattice Hamiltonians; the Fermi-Hubbard example satisfies it.
invented entities (1)
  • Third-quantized a-fermion Hilbert space H' with operators c_j and c_j^dagger (a-fermions)
    purpose: Maps super-operators to operators on an enlarged space while preserving locality and the even-sector spectrum, enabling a parent Hamiltonian construction.
    Mathematical auxiliary space used in the proof; it is not proposed as physics and makes no falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27WXGMWY

@misc{pith2026250100443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27WXGMWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00443}
}
read the original abstract

We study the mixing time of a recently proposed efficiently implementable Lindbladian designed to prepare the Gibbs states in the setting of weakly interacting fermionic systems. We show that at any temperature, the Lindbladian spectral gap for even parity observables is lower bounded by a constant that is independent of the system size, when the interaction strength (e.g., the on-site interaction strength for the Fermi-Hubbard model) is below a constant threshold, which is also independent of the system size. This leads to a mixing time estimate that is at most linear in the system size, thus showing that the corresponding Gibbs states can be prepared efficiently on quantum computers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Speeding up quantum Markov processes through lifting

    math.PR 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The L2 convergence rate of a lifted quantum Markov semigroup is at most the square root of the spectral gap of its collapsed dynamics, and matching lower bounds hold under explicit structural assumptions.

  2. Fullqubit alchemist: Quantum algorithm for alchemical free energy calculations

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum algorithm for alchemical free energy calculations that block-encodes the Liouvillian to simulate molecular dynamics with polylogarithmic precision scaling, avoiding entropy estimation.

  3. State-space gradient descent and metastability in quantum systems

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A state-space gradient descent algorithm with ancilla-based non-unitary updates prepares ground or metastable states of quantum Hamiltonians and is claimed to avoid barren plateaus.

  4. Efficient Algorithms for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Spin Systems

    quant-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cluster-expansion FPTAS for the partition function and an approximate sampler for weakly-interacting quantum spin systems at arbitrary temperature are claimed, but a key bound in the proof fails.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    The stability of free fermi Hamiltonians,

    M. Hastings, “The stability of free fermi Hamiltonians,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 60, no. 4, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    A polynomial time algorithm for the ground state of one-dimensional gapped local Hamiltonians,

    Z. Landau, U. Vazirani, and T. Vidick, “A polynomial time algorithm for the ground state of one-dimensional gapped local Hamiltonians,”Nature Physics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 566–569, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Finite correlation length implies efficient preparation of quantum thermal states,

    F. G. Brandao and M. J. Kastoryano, “Finite correlation length implies efficient preparation of quantum thermal states,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 365, pp. 1–16, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Gibbs state preparation for commuting Hamiltonian: Mapping to classical Gibbs sampling,

    Y. Hwang and J. Jiang, “Gibbs state preparation for commuting Hamiltonian: Mapping to classical Gibbs sampling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04909, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Quantum Gibbs samplers: The commuting case,

    M. J. Kastoryano and F. G. Brandao, “Quantum Gibbs samplers: The commuting case,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 344, pp. 915–957, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Rapid thermalization of dissipative many-body dynamics of commuting Hamiltonians,

    J. Kochanowski, A. M. Alhambra, A. Capel, and C. Rouzé, “Rapid thermalization of dissipative many-body dynamics of commuting Hamiltonians,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16780, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Rapid thermalization of spin chain commuting Hamiltonians,

    I. Bardet, Á. Capel, L. Gao, A. Lucia, D. Pérez-García, and C. Rouzé, “Rapid thermalization of spin chain commuting Hamiltonians,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 130, no. 6, p. 060401, 2023

    2023

  8. [7]

    Complexity of quantum impurity problems,

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, “Complexity of quantum impurity problems,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 356, pp. 451–500, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Simulation complexity of many-body localized systems,

    A. Ehrenberg, A. Deshpande, C. L. Baldwin, D. A. Abanin, and A. V. Gorshkov, “Simulation complexity of many-body localized systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12967, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Quantum thermal state prepara- tion,

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. Brandão, and A. Gilyén, “Quantum thermal state prepara- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18224, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler,

    C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. Gilyén, “An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09207, 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    Hypercontractivity of quasi-free quantum semigroups,

    K. Temme, F. Pastawski, and M. J. Kastoryano, “Hypercontractivity of quasi-free quantum semigroups,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 47, no. 40, p. 405303, 2014

    2014

  5. [12]

    Polynomial-time preparation of low-temperature Gibbs states for 2d toric code,

    Z. Ding, B. Li, L. Lin, and R. Zhang, “Polynomial-time preparation of low-temperature Gibbs states for 2d toric code,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01206, 2024. 40

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Entropy decay for davies semigroups of a one dimensional quantum lattice,

    I. Bardet, Á. Capel, L. Gao, A. Lucia, D. Pérez-García, and C. Rouzé, “Entropy decay for davies semigroups of a one dimensional quantum lattice,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 405, no. 2, p. 42, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    On thermalization in Kitaev’s 2d model,

    R. Alicki, M. Fannes, and M. Horodecki, “On thermalization in Kitaev’s 2d model,”Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, vol. 42, no. 6, p. 065303, 2009

    2009

  8. [15]

    Mixing time of quantum Gibbs sampling for random sparse Hamiltonians,

    A. Ramkumar and M. Soleimanifar, “Mixing time of quantum Gibbs sampling for random sparse Hamiltonians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04454, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Optimal quantum algorithm for Gibbs state preparation,

    C. Rouzé, D. S. França, and Á. M. Alhambra, “Optimal quantum algorithm for Gibbs state preparation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04885, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    Quasi-optimal sampling from Gibbs states via non-commutative optimal transport metrics,

    Á. Capel, P. Gondolf, J. Kochanowski, and C. Rouzé, “Quasi-optimal sampling from Gibbs states via non-commutative optimal transport metrics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01732, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Quantum logarithmic sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing,

    M. J. Kastoryano and K. Temme, “Quantum logarithmic sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 54, no. 5, 2013

    2013

  12. [19]

    How fast do stabilizer Hamiltonians thermalize?,

    K. Temme and M. J. Kastoryano, “How fast do stabilizer Hamiltonians thermalize?,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07811, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A randomized method for simulating Lindblad equations and thermal state preparation,

    H. Chen, B. Li, J. Lu, and L. Ying, “A randomized method for simulating Lindblad equations and thermal state preparation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06594, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Bottlenecks in quantum channels and finite temperature phases of matter,

    T. Rakovszky, B. Placke, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Khemani, “Bottlenecks in quantum channels and finite temperature phases of matter,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09598, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Quantum space-time Poincare inequality for Lindblad dynamics,

    B. Li and J. Lu, “Quantum space-time Poincare inequality for Lindblad dynamics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Solving quasi-free and quadratic Lindblad master equations for open fermionic and bosonic systems,

    T. Barthel and Y. Zhang, “Solving quasi-free and quadratic Lindblad master equations for open fermionic and bosonic systems,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2022, no. 11, p. 113101, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Mixing time of open quantum systems via hypocoercivity,

    D. Fang, J. Lu, and Y. Tong, “Mixing time of open quantum systems via hypocoercivity,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11503, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger detailed balance condition,

    Z. Ding, B. Li, and L. Lin, “Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger detailed balance condition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05998, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Single-ancilla ground state preparation via lindbladians,

    Z. Ding, C.-F. Chen, and L. Lin, “Single-ancilla ground state preparation via lindbladians,” Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 033147, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum Gibbs samplers,

    C. Rouzé, D. S. França, and Á. M. Alhambra, “Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum Gibbs samplers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12691, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Stability of frustration-free Hamiltonians,

    S. Michalakis and J. P. Zwolak, “Stability of frustration-free Hamiltonians,”Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 322, pp. 277–302, 2013

    2013

  22. [29]

    High-temperature Gibbs states are unentangled and efficiently preparable,

    A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, “High-temperature Gibbs states are unentangled and efficiently preparable,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16850, 2024. 41

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open fermi systems,

    T. Prosen, “Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open fermi systems,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 043026, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Dissipative ground state preparation in ab initio electronic structure theory,

    H.-E. Li, Y. Zhan, and L. Lin, “Dissipative ground state preparation in ab initio electronic structure theory,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01470, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, “The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,”Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 251–257, 1972

    1972

  26. [34]

    Decay of correlations in fermi systems at nonzero temperature,

    M. B. Hastings, “Decay of correlations in fermi systems at nonzero temperature,”Physical review letters, vol. 93, no. 12, p. 126402, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamiltonians,

    J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, “Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamiltonians,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. FOCS18–250, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    From decay of correlations to locality and stability of the gibbs state,

    Á. Capel, M. Moscolari, S. Teufel, and T. Wessel, “From decay of correlations to locality and stability of the gibbs state,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09182, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Exponential decay of mutual information for gibbs states of local hamiltonians,

    A. Bluhm, Á. Capel, and A. Pérez-Hernández, “Exponential decay of mutual information for gibbs states of local hamiltonians,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 650, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Clustering of conditional mutual information for quantum gibbs states above a threshold temperature,

    T. Kuwahara, K. Kato, and F. G. Brandão, “Clustering of conditional mutual information for quantum gibbs states above a threshold temperature,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 124, no. 22, p. 220601, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions,

    M. B. Hastings, “Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimensions,”Physical Review B, vol. 69, no. 10, p. 104431, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Lieb-Robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem,

    B. Nachtergaele and R. Sims, “Lieb-Robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 265, pp. 119–130, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Spectral gap and exponential decay of correlations,

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, “Spectral gap and exponential decay of correlations,”Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics, vol. 265, pp. 781–804, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Locality in quantum systems,

    M. B. Hastings, “Locality in quantum systems,”Quantum Theory from Small to Large Scales, vol. 95, pp. 171–212, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, “Theory of trotter error with commutator scaling,” Physical Review X, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 011020, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations,

    Z. Ding, X. Li, and L. Lin, “Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations,” PRX Quantum, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 020332, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution,

    R. Cleve and C. Wang, “Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09512, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum simulation of Lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions,

    M. Pocrnic, D. Segal, and N. Wiebe, “Quantum simulation of Lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05371, 2023. 42

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics,

    A. M. Childs and T. Li, “Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.05543, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dissipative quantum Church- Turing theorem,

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, “Dissipative quantum Church- Turing theorem,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 107, no. 12, p. 120501, 2011. 43 A Table of symbols Symbol Meaning Λ The physical lattice whose sites each contain a Dirac fermion D Th...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.