Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Sampling random unitaries approximates unital dephasing and, for coupled subsystems, an ancilla measurement plus conditional unitary reduces the dynamics to IQP sampling.

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

2026-08-03 11:30 UTC pith:5LNUTYJK

load-bearing objection The finite-dimensional decoupling trick is the real contribution; the electron-phonon/IQP application is interesting but not rigorously established because the unbounded bosons break the Trotter error proof. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.06298 v2 pith:5LNUTYJK submitted 2026-01-09 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Quantum algorithm for dephasing of coupled systems: decoupling and IQP duality

Sabrina Yue Wang , Raul A. Santos This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.str-el MSC 81P6881S2268Q12 PACS 03.67.Ac03.65.Yz
keywords quantum algorithmLindbladian simulationdephasingunital quantum channeldecoupling schemeIQP circuitelectron-phonon couplingopen quantum systems
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.

This paper puts forward a low-resource quantum algorithm for open-system dephasing. Its central claim is that a unital Lindbladian with Hermitian jump operators can be approximated, up to O(t^2) error, by averaging over random unitary channels, so no ancillas are needed for unital dynamics and only one ancilla per jump operator is needed for general Lindbladians. For bipartite systems whose jump operators factor as A_i B_i with A_i^2 = 1 and [A_i, B_j] = 0, the paper's Dcube decoupling theorem shows that the evolution on one subsystem can be reproduced by sampling a bitstring from the other subsystem's evolution and using that bitstring to choose a unitary on the first subsystem. Applying this to anharmonic electron-phonon coupling, the paper claims that the bosonic degrees of freedom can be traced out exactly, leaving a fermionic channel whose probabilities are computed by an IQP circuit; an efficient classical sampler for those probabilities would collapse the polynomial hierarchy. If correct, this gives a practical route to simulating dissipative electron-phonon dynamics without truncating the boson Hilbert space, and links the difficulty of dephasing simulation to IQP sampling hardness.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, factorized dephasing is separable in a statistical sense: for L(ρ) = ABρAB − ½{(AB)^2, ρ} with A^2 = 1 and [A,B] = 0, the symmetric average of e^{±i√t AB} equals a channel where B couples to an ancilla via B⊗Z, and the measured X-eigenvalue γ dictates whether A or 1 acts on subsystem A. Repeated over jump operators and Trotter steps, this is Theorem 2 (Dcube): e^{tL}ρ ≈ Σ_γ U_γ^(A) Tr_C(V^(B,C) ρ⊗ρ_C V† Π_γ) U_γ^(A)† + O(t^2). In the harmonic-boson vacuum case the boson trace closes with displacement operators, giving Lemma 4: the fermionic state is Σ_γ Tr(e^{t L_IQP(t)}(Π_0)Π_γ) U_{γ,t}(ρ_F)U_{γ,t}† + O(t^2/N), where L_IQP(t) is a Lindbladian made of time-dependent

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the single-jump approximation e^{tL}ρ ≈ ½(e^{i√t L}ρ e^{-i√t L} + e^{-i√t L}ρ e^{i√t L}) + O(t^2), where all odd powers of √t cancel in the symmetric average. When L = AB with A^2 = 1 and [A,B] = 0, splitting the two exponentials and using A^2 = 1 lets every A factor be pulled to the outside, so the B factors couple only to a fresh ancilla through B⊗Z; measuring the ancilla in the X basis yields a classical bit γ that selects the unitary A^γ on subsystem A. Repeated for each jump operator and Trotter slice, this decoupling gadget converts an interacting dephasing Lindbladian into a single quantum circuit on subsystem B plus ancillas, followed by classically contr

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the O(t^2) error bound assumes bounded Hermitian jump operators, but the electron-phonon application uses the unbounded boson position operator x_j in the jump operators; the paper gives no truncation-dependent error bound or exchange-of-limits argument, so the claimed exactness in the infinite boson space is not established.

What would settle it

Take the dimer of Section IV with the boson initially in vacuum, fix the coupling g and time t, and compute the fermion density predicted by Dcube (which treats the boson space as infinite) alongside exact Lindbladian evolutions at increasing boson cutoff N_b = 2, 4, 8, 16. If the exact results do not converge to the Dcube prediction as N_b grows, or if the leading Trotter remainder of Appendix A diverges for finite-boson-number states when the jump operator contains x_j, the unbounded-boson claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Unital Lindbladians with Hermitian jump operators can be simulated on a quantum device as an average over random unitary channels, needing no ancillas; gate complexity scales as O(t^2/ε) for evolution time t and precision ε.
  • Any Lindbladian, not only unital ones, can be approximated by the same sampling scheme after embedding each non-Hermitian jump operator with one ancilla qubit and tracing it out.
  • For bipartite dephasing with factorized jump operators, simulating both subsystems together can be replaced by simulating one subsystem coupled to ancillas plus classically controlled unitaries on the other, cutting the effective Hilbert space.
  • The anharmonic electron-phonon dephasing model can be simulated without truncating the infinite boson Hilbert space: bosons are traced out analytically, and the remaining dynamics is a fermionic mixed-unitary channel weighted by an IQP distribution; for non-interacting fermions the post-sampling evolution is classically solvable.
  • Because approximate classical sampling of IQP circuits is hard under standard conjectures, the probability distribution Γ_γ(t) that drives the fermionic channel is a candidate source of classical hardness for simulating unital dephasing, even though the identity is a fixed point.
  • The decoupling construction offers a route to study non-Markovian dissipation on a quantum computer, since the effective fermionic channel carries a time-dependent, non-Markovian probability distribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference — the decoupling trick should extend to jump operators A_i B_i where A_i is any reflection (A_i^2 = 1) or more generally any unitary with finite spectrum; each distinct eigenvalue would become a separate measurement outcome, giving finer classical control over the complementary circuit.
  • Editorial inference — a thermal (rather than vacuum) initial state of the bosons would enter as a thermal expectation of displacement operators; deriving the analogue of Lemma 4 for finite temperature is a direct, likely tractable extension that would make the method applicable to realistic materials.
  • Editorial inference — the anti-concentration of Γ_γ(t) observed at small system sizes suggests that the sampling hardness may grow with time and system size; benchmarking the sampling gap on larger lattices would test whether the IQP hardness bound translates into practical computational difficulty.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a sampling-based algorithm for unital Lindbladian evolution, approximating e^{tL} by averaging unitary channels e^{±i√t L_j}; Theorem 1 claims diamond-norm error O(t²). It extends to general Lindbladians via an ancilla. For bipartite dephasing with L_i = A_i B_i, A_i² = 1 and [A_i, B_j] = 0, Theorem 2/Lemma 3 formulate a decoupling scheme (Dcube): the evolution on subsystem A is a measurement-controlled unitary, with the measurement distribution obtained by evolving subsystem B coupled to ancillas. The main application is an electron-phonon Lindbladian (Eq. (25)) with jump operators x_j(2n_j−1), where x_j is the bosonic position operator; Lemma 4 claims the bosons can be traced exactly, reducing part of the dynamics to sampling an IQP circuit with Lindbladian L_IQP(t). Numerical simulations on a dimer compare Dcube with truncated exact evolution for fermion densities, LDOS, and the IQP sampling distribution. The paper also connects disorder averaging to dephasing via Theorem 1.

Significance. If made rigorous, the finite-dimensional Dcube decoupling is a useful resource-reduction technique for simulating bipartite dephasing systems, and the stochastic-unitary unravelling is simple and practical. The IQP connection is interesting, and the authors are appropriately cautious that hardness for IQP does not automatically imply hardness for this particular family. The paper is self-contained, has explicit algorithms, and reports numerical comparisons without fitting free parameters. However, the central application to the electron-phonon model is not fully justified: the formal error bounds apply to bounded jump operators, while the physical jump operators contain the unbounded bosonic x_j. The algebraic boson trace is exact only after a fixed Trotterized circuit and does not by itself establish convergence of that circuit to e^{tL} with the claimed infinite-boson accuracy. With additional rigorous truncation/state-dependent bounds or explicitly weakened claims, this would be a solid contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 4 / Appendix A / Eq. (25)] The stress-test concern is substantiated. Appendix A proves Theorem 1 by expanding the Lindblad superoperator and bounding ||ℓ_j^m||_diamond (Eqs. (A8)-(A9)); this requires bounded jump operators. In Lemma 4 the jump operators are x_j(2n_j−1) with x_j the unbounded bosonic position operator. No truncation-dependent error bound, state-dependent estimate for vacuum-initialized bosons, or exchange-of-limits argument is given. The exact trace over the bosonic subsystem after a fixed Trotterized V_t does not imply that V_t's channel converges to e^{tL} with the claimed O(t²/N) error. The numerical 'exact' comparisons use N_b=8, and Section IV A1 and the Conclusion acknowledge truncation effects without bounding them. The abstract's 'exactly tracing out bosonic degrees of freedom' and Lemma 4's 'arbitrary accuracy' are therefore not established as stated. The paper should either add a rigorous
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A7)] There is a factor-of-two error in the proof of Theorem 1. The identity Adj²_{L_j}(ρ) = [L_j,[L_j,ρ]] equals L_j²ρ − 2L_jρL_j + ρL_j² = −2ℓ_j(ρ), not −ℓ_j(ρ). Consequently the expansion for Adj^{2m} in Eq. (A8) is incorrect. The leading O(t²) statement can likely be recovered by direct Taylor expansion of cos(√t ad_{L_j}), so this is fixable, but the written proof is not correct and needs revision.
  3. [Theorem 2 / Lemma 3] The multi-jump, Hamiltonian-including statement of Theorem 2 is asserted rather than proved. The derivation in Eqs. (7)-(11) covers only a single jump operator with H=0. The generalization in Eq. (14), and especially the Trotterized version with R steps and error O(t²/R) in Lemma 3, requires proof that the measurement probabilities from V_t combine with the unitaries U_{γ,t} exactly as claimed. Since Dcube and Lemma 4 both rest on this result, a complete proof or a precise reduction to Theorem 1 should be included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text refers to 'Theorem 3' and 'Theorem 4' in several places (e.g., Section III B, Section III C, Section IV A, Appendix C), but no Theorem 3 or Theorem 4 is stated; only Theorem 1, Theorem 2, Lemma 3, and Lemma 4 exist. The numbering should be corrected.
  2. [Lemma 4 proof, Eq. (33)] The definition of η_k and the ordering/sign of the displacement operators in Eq. (33) should be checked against Eq. (31). The step from Eq. (33) to the final L_IQP(t) with jump operator ℓ_k(t) in Eq. (29) is not fully transparent and would benefit from an explicit sign/definition summary.
  3. [Section III A, Eq. (22)] The expansion of the disorder variable uses an infinite binary product; the truncation needed to apply Theorem 1 is not discussed. A short comment on truncation error would make the disorder connection more rigorous.
  4. [Abstract / text] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'subsytem' in the abstract, 'hermitian', 'operaror', and the notation for the diamond norm is occasionally written without surrounding norms. These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Dcube/IQP derivation is self-contained, with self-citations used only as background.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from explicit algebraic and Trotter-style arguments rather than fitted to the target results. Theorem 1 expands the stochastic-unitary channel and compares it term by term with e^{tL} in Appendix A. Theorem 2 (Dcube) follows by the identity A^2 = 1 and [A_i,B_j]=0, which decouples the AB jump operator into an ancilla-mediated channel; this is an exact algebraic equivalence up to the already-bounded Trotter error. Lemma 4 then computes the bosonic partial trace using BCH relations and the vacuum displacement algebra, producing the IQP distribution as the trace over the ancilla Lindbladian L_IQP(t). No parameter is fitted to reproduce the fermionic density, and the error terms are stated as O(t^2/N) rather than absorbed into definitions. The IQP-hardness claims are supported by external results [48,49], not by self-citation. The self-citations [11,12,34] are background references for practical Hamiltonian simulation and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The paper explicitly acknowledges the boson-truncation limitation of its 'exact' numerical comparisons (Section IV A 1, Conclusion), which is a rigor/correctness concern, not a circularity. No quoted step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivation is mostly self-contained; its assumptions are the usual open-systems and complexity-theoretic inputs. The key restrictions (Hermitian factorized jump operators, harmonic bosons, vacuum initial state) are stated but limit the generality of the IQP-duality result. No free parameters are fitted; all model couplings and numerical settings are inputs chosen for the demonstration.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation description of subsystem-bath dynamics in the fast-relaxation regime.
    The entire work assumes the open-system dynamics is captured by a Lindblad master equation (Abstract, Section I); this is the standard open-systems modeling assumption and is not derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Flat bath spectral density and vacuum bath initial state in the electron-phonon derivation.
    Appendix B uses ∫dω̃∫ds e^{±iω̃s}=2π and Tr_B(ρ_B X_i,α)=0 to derive the Lindbladian Eq. (25); if the bath is colored or not in vacuum, the resulting generator differs and the IQP duality may not hold.
  • domain assumption Decoupling structural condition: jump operators factor as L_i=A_iB_i with A_i²=1, [A_i,B_j]=0, and H=H_A+H_B.
    This is Theorem 2's hypothesis; it is the precise condition that lets the dissipative product be rewritten as a measurement-controlled unitary on A. It restricts applicability to factorized jump operators with involutive A operators.
  • domain assumption Harmonic boson Hamiltonian and vacuum initial boson state in Lemma 4.
    The closed-form boson trace in Eqs. (31)-(36) uses H_Q=Σω_i q_i†q_i and ρ_Q=|0⟩⟨0|, enabling x_j(t) to be linear in q,q† and the displacement operators to be evaluated with BCH. Without this, the IQP circuit form is lost.
  • domain assumption Standard complexity conjectures (PH non-collapse, approximate IQP sampling hardness).
    The concluding hardness interpretation assumes the standard conjecture that approximate IQP sampling is classically hard [48,49]; used only to argue significance, not the algorithm's correctness.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25625 in / 34946 out tokens · 334281 ms · 2026-08-03T11:30:22.947310+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Noise and decoherence are ubiquitous in the dynamics of quantum systems coupled to an external environment. In the regime where environmental correlations decay rapidly, the evolution of a subsytem is well described by a Lindblad quantum master equation. In this work, we introduce a quantum algorithm for simulating unital Lindbladian dynamics by sampling unitary quantum channels without extra ancillas. Using ancillary qubits we show that this algorithm allows approximating general Lindbladians as well. For interacting dephasing Lindbladians coupling two subsystems, we develop a decoupling scheme that reduces the circuit complexity of the simulation. This is achieved by sampling from a time-correlated probability distribution - determined by the evolution of one subsystem, which specifies the stochastic circuit implemented on the complementary subsystem. We demonstrate our approach by studying a model of bosons coupled to fermions via dephasing, which naturally arises from anharmonic effects in an electron-phonon system coupled to a bath. Our method enables tracing out the bosonic degrees of freedom, reducing part of the dynamics to sampling an IQP circuit. The sampled bitstrings then define a corresponding fermionic problem, which in the non-interacting case can be solved efficiently classically. We comment on the computational complexity of this class of dissipative problems, using the known fact that sampling from IQP circuits is believed to be difficult classically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.06298 by Raul A. Santos, Sabrina Yue Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Decoupling gadget: The average of a channel with interaction term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the dimer in the presence of a bath and quantum Brownian particles on each site. Physical sites are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Density time dynamics of the spinless free fermion dimer induced by the dephasing Lindbladian of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (LHS) Time dynamics of particle density of a spinless Fermi-Hubbard dimer under the Lindbladian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The full decomposition of the probability distribution of the dimer Γ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LDOS of the spinful Fermi-Hubbard dimer under two different types of dephasing at half-filling with Sz = 0 at site i = 1. Each column denotes a fixed interaction strength U. The vertical dashed lines denote the analytical peaks of the one-body Green’s function for the dimer with no dephasing. Along row one, the solid black lines denote the rescaled imaginary component of the FFT of the truncated time signa… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time dynamics of Re  ⟨{c † 1 (t)c1}0⟩  for the spinful dimer at half-filling at site one, Sz = 0 and g = 1. The solid lines denote exact Lindbladian statevector simulation with truncated Boson Hilbert space of with Nb levels (i.e. with maximum Nb − 1 bosons). The dashed lines denote using the Dcube algorithm (Theorem 4 ) with 10k IQP samples at various first order Trotter step sizes Nt. The error bars ar… 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

93 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The boson number density evolution is shown on the LHS of Fig

    Dependence on Hilbert space truncation Consider again time dynamics using the ‘exact Lindbladian’ simulation method where the boson Hilbert space is truncated. The boson number density evolution is shown on the LHS of Fig. 4. Assume there is no knowledge of the Nb = 4 curves. Notice that the boson number density forN b = 2 on each site, shown as dashed li...

  2. [2]

    This suggests that although the evolution is dissipative in nature, it may be hard to capture it classically

    Behaviour of auxiliary dissipative LindbladianΓdistribution In this work we have uncovered a relationship between dissipative Lindbladian dynamics and IQP circuits. This suggests that although the evolution is dissipative in nature, it may be hard to capture it classically. This is because to carry out this computation it is necessary to sample from IQP c...

  3. [3]

    D. W. Berry, G. Ahokas, R. Cleve, and B. C. Sanders, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys.270, 359 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    A. M. Childs and R. Kothari, Limitations on the simulation of non-sparse Hamiltonians, Quantum Inf. Comput.10, 669 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Exponential improvement in precision for simulating sparse Hamiltonians, inProceedings of the forty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing(ACM, 2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    D. W. Berry, A. M. Childs, R. Cleve, R. Kothari, and R. D. Somma, Simulating hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated taylor series, Physical Review Letters114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.090502 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.090502 2015

  7. [7]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 010501 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    G. H. Low and I. L. Chuang, Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization, Quantum3, 163 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    A. M. Childs, Y. Su, M. C. Tran, N. Wiebe, and S. Zhu, Theory of Trotter error with commutator scaling, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011020 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Deutsch, Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    D. Deutsch, Quantum theory, the church–turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences400, 97 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    Somaroo, C

    S. Somaroo, C. H. Tseng, T. F. Havel, R. Laflamme, and D. G. Cory, Quantum simulations on a quantum computer, Physical Review Letters82, 5381–5384 (1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    Miessen, P

    A. Miessen, P. J. Ollitrault, F. Tacchino, and I. Tavernelli, Quantum algorithms for quantum dynamics, Nature Compu- tational Science3, 25 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    F. Alam, J. L. Bosse, I. ˇCepait˙ e, A. Chapman, L. Clinton, M. Crichigno, E. Crosson, T. Cubitt, C. Derby, O. Dowinton, P. K. Faehrmann, S. Flammia, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, M. Hunter-Gordon, G. Jones, A. Khedkar, J. Klassen, M. Kreshchuk, E. H. McMullan, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, C. Mora, J. J. L. Morton, D. Patel, P. Rolph, R. A. ...

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    F. Alam, J. L. Bosse, I. ˇCepait˙ e, A. Chapman, L. Clinton, M. Crichigno, E. Crosson, T. Cubitt, C. Derby, O. Dowinton, P. K. Faehrmann, S. Flammia, B. Flynn, F. M. Gambetta, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, M. Hunter-Gordon, G. Jones, A. Khedkar, J. Klassen, M. Kreshchuk, E. H. McMullan, L. Mineh, A. Montanaro, C. Mora, J. J. L. Morton, D. Patel, P. Rolph, R. A. ...

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Granet, S.-H

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

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Li and C

    X. Li and C. Wang, Succinct description and efficient simulation of non-markovian open quantum systems, Communications in Mathematical Physics401, 147–183 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  18. [18]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  19. [19]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  21. [21]

    Kliesch, T

    M. Kliesch, T. Barthel, C. Gogolin, M. Kastoryano, and J. Eisert, Dissipative quantum church-turing theorem, Physical Review Letters107, 10.1103/physrevlett.107.120501 (2011)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.120501 2011

  22. [22]

    A. M. Childs and T. Li, Efficient simulation of sparse Markovian quantum dynamics, Quant. Inf. Comput.17, 0901 (2017), arXiv:1611.05543 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Cleve and C

    R. Cleve and C. Wang, Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating lindblad evolution (2019), arXiv:1612.09512 [quant-ph]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of open quantum systems using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 270503 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Quantum simulation of the lindblad equation using a unitary decomposition of operators, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023216 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    Joo and T

    J. Joo and T. P. Spiller, Commutation simulator for open quantum dynamics, New Journal of Physics25, 083041 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    Li and C

    X. Li and C. Wang, Simulating markovian open quantum systems using higher-order series expansion (2023), arXiv:2212.02051 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    N. Suri, J. Barreto, S. Hadfield, N. Wiebe, F. Wudarski, and J. Marshall, Two-Unitary Decomposition Algorithm and Open Quantum System Simulation, Quantum7, 1002 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Watad and N

    T. Watad and N. H. Lindner, Variational quantum algorithms for simulation of lindblad dynamics (2023), arXiv:2305.02815 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Di Bartolomeo, M

    G. Di Bartolomeo, M. Vischi, T. Feri, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, Efficient quantum algorithm to simulate open systems through a single environmental qubit, Physical Review Research6, 10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043321 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043321 2024

  31. [31]

    Borras and M

    E. Borras and M. Marvian, Quantum algorithm to simulate lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023076 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Z. Ding, X. Li, and L. Lin, Simulating open quantum systems using hamiltonian simulations, PRX Quantum5, 020332 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Pocrnic, D

    M. Pocrnic, D. Segal, and N. Wiebe, Quantum simulation of lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions (2025), arXiv:2312.05371 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Toward the first quantum simulation with quantum speedup, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115, 9456 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    A. M. Childs and Y. Su, Nearly optimal lattice simulation by product formulas, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 050503 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    J. L. Bosse, A. M. Childs, C. Derby, F. M. Gambetta, A. Montanaro, and R. A. Santos, Efficient and practical hamiltonian simulation from time-dependent product formulas, Nature Communications16, 10.1038/s41467-025-57580-5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57580-5 2025

  37. [37]

    K. M. R. Audenaert and S. Scheel, On random unitary channels, New Journal of Physics10, 023011 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    M. V. Medvedyeva, F. H. Essler, and T. Prosen, Exact bethe ansatz spectrum of a tight-binding chain with dephasing noise, Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.137202 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.137202 2016

  39. [39]

    Longhi, Anderson localization in dissipative lattices, Annalen der Physik535, 10.1002/andp.202200658 (2023)

    S. Longhi, Anderson localization in dissipative lattices, Annalen der Physik535, 10.1002/andp.202200658 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.202200658 2023

  40. [40]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, Dephasing-induced diffusive transport in the anisotropic heisenberg model, New Journal of Physics12, 043001 (2010)

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Dephasing-induced diffusive transport in the anisotropic heisenberg model, New Journal of Physics12, 043001 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    M. H. Fischer, M. Maksymenko, and E. Altman, Dynamics of a many-body-localized system coupled to a bath, Physical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.160401 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.160401 2016

  42. [42]

    M. V. Medvedyeva, T. c. v. Prosen, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Influence of dephasing on many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B93, 094205 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    E. Levi, M. Heyl, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garrahan, Robustness of many-body localization in the presence of dissipation, Physical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.237203 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.237203 2016

  44. [44]

    Marcantoni, F

    S. Marcantoni, F. Carollo, F. M. Gambetta, I. Lesanovsky, U. Schneider, and J. P. Garrahan, Anderson and many-body localization in the presence of spatially correlated classical noise, Physical Review B106, 10.1103/physrevb.106.134211 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.134211 2022

  45. [45]

    Rebentrost, M

    P. Rebentrost, M. Mohseni, I. Kassal, S. Lloyd, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Environment-assisted quantum transport, New Journal of Physics11, 033003 (2009)

    2009

  46. [46]

    Turkeshi and M

    X. Turkeshi and M. Schir´ o, Diffusion and thermalization in a boundary-driven dephasing model, Phys. Rev. B104, 144301 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Longhi, Dephasing-induced mobility edges in quasicrystals, Phys

    S. Longhi, Dephasing-induced mobility edges in quasicrystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236301 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    T. G. Kiely and C. Xu, Phase transition of topological index driven by dephasing (2025), arXiv:2506.04102 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Lonigro and D

    D. Lonigro and D. Chru´ sci´ nski, On the classicality of quantum dephasing processes, Frontiers in Quantum Science and TechnologyV olume 1 - 2022, 10.3389/frqst.2022.1090022 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences467, 459–472 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    M. J. Bremner, A. Montanaro, and D. J. Shepherd, Average-case complexity versus approximate simulation of commuting quantum computations, Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.080501 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.080501 2016

  52. [52]

    Werner, D

    A. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, Positive tensor network approach for simulating open quantum many-body systems, Physical Review Letters116, 10.1103/physrevlett.116.237201 (2016)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.237201 2016

  53. [53]

    Sander, M

    A. Sander, M. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, P. Gelß, M. Hinterm¨ uller, R. M. Milbradt, R. Wille, and C. B. Mendl, Large-scale stochastic simulation of open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2501.17913 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part i

    T. Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part i. the molecular-crystal model, Annals of physics8, 325 (1959)

    1959

  55. [55]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Electrons in lattice fields, Advances in Physics3, 325 (1954)

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Electrons in lattice fields, Advances in Physics3, 325 (1954)

    1954

  56. [56]

    Tempere, W

    J. Tempere, W. Casteels, M. Oberthaler, S. Knoop, E. Timmermans, and J. Devreese, Feynman path-integral treatment of the bec-impurity polaron, Physical Review B80, 184504 (2009)

    2009

  57. [57]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Physical review108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  58. [58]

    Kvande, C

    C. Kvande, C. Feng, F. H´ ebert, G. Batrouni, and R. Scalettar, Enhancement of charge density wave correlations in a holstein model with an anharmonic phonon potential, Physical Review B108, 075119 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    R. P. Feynman, Slow electrons in a polar crystal, Physical Review97, 660 (1955). 20

    1955

  60. [60]

    Prokof’ev and B

    N. Prokof’ev and B. Svistunov, Bold diagrammatic monte carlo: A generic sign-problem tolerant technique for polaron models and possibly interacting many-body problems, Physical Review B77, 125101 (2008)

    2008

  61. [61]

    A. S. Mishchenko, N. Nagaosa, and N. Prokof’ev, Diagrammatic monte carlo method for many-polaron problems, Physical Review Letters113, 166402 (2014)

    2014

  62. [62]

    T. Hahn, S. Klimin, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and C. Franchini, Diagrammatic monte carlo study of fr¨ ohlich polaron dispersion in two and three dimensions, Physical Review B97, 134305 (2018)

    2018

  63. [63]

    Dynamic polaron response from variational imaginary time evolution

    D. Sels, Dynamic polaron response from variational imaginary time evolution, arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.04998 10.48550/arXiv.1605.04998 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.04998 2016

  64. [64]

    Vlietinck, W

    J. Vlietinck, W. Casteels, K. Van Houcke, J. Tempere, J. Ryckebusch, and J. T. Devreese, Diagrammatic monte carlo study of the acoustic and the bose–einstein condensate polaron, New Journal of Physics17, 033023 (2015)

    2015

  65. [65]

    Taheridehkordi, S

    A. Taheridehkordi, S. Curnoe, and J. LeBlanc, Algorithmic matsubara integration for hubbard-like models, Physical Review B99, 035120 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c and M

    J. Vuˇ ciˇ cevi´ c and M. Ferrero, Real-frequency diagrammatic monte carlo at finite temperature, Physical Review B101, 075113 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    First-principles theory of nonlinear long-range electron-phonon interaction

    M. Houtput, L. Ranalli, C. Verdi, S. Klimin, S. Ragni, C. Franchini, and J. Tempere, Anharmonic long-range electron- phonon interaction: analytic formalism, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09470 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09470 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09470 2024

  68. [68]

    Cochran, Crystal stability and the theory of ferroelectricity, Advances in Physics9, 387 (1960)

    W. Cochran, Crystal stability and the theory of ferroelectricity, Advances in Physics9, 387 (1960)

    1960

  69. [69]

    T. A. Mellan, A. Aziz, Y. Xia, R. Grau-Crespo, and A. I. Duff, Electron and phonon interactions and transport in the ultrahigh-temperature ceramic zrc, Physical Review B99, 094310 (2019)

    2019

  70. [70]

    Hooton, Li

    D. Hooton, Li. a new treatment of anharmonicity in lattice thermodynamics: I, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science46, 422 (1955)

    1955

  71. [71]

    Werthamer, Self-consistent phonon formulation of anharmonic lattice dynamics, Physical Review B1, 572 (1970)

    N. Werthamer, Self-consistent phonon formulation of anharmonic lattice dynamics, Physical Review B1, 572 (1970)

    1970

  72. [72]

    Zacharias, G

    M. Zacharias, G. Volonakis, F. Giustino, and J. Even, Anharmonic lattice dynamics via the special displacement method, Physical Review B108, 035155 (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    A. F. White, Y. Gao, A. J. Minnich, and G. K. Chan, A coupled cluster framework for electrons and phonons, The Journal of Chemical Physics153, 10.1063/5.0033132 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0033132 2020

  74. [74]

    Paleari, F

    G. Paleari, F. H´ ebert, B. Cohen-Stead, K. Barros, R. T. Scalettar, and G. G. Batrouni, Quantum monte carlo study of an anharmonic holstein model, Physical Review B103, 195117 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    P. E. Dolgirev, J. Marino, D. Sels, and E. Demler, Non-gaussian correlations imprinted by local dephasing in fermionic wires, Physical Review B102, 100301 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Huang and W.-M

    Y.-W. Huang and W.-M. Zhang, Exact master equation for generalized quantum brownian motion with momentum- dependent system-environment couplings, Physical Review Research4, 033151 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    A. G. Redfield, On the theory of relaxation processes, IBM Journal of Research and Development1, 19 (1957)

    1957

  78. [78]

    E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations, Communications in mathematical Physics39, 91 (1974)

    1974

  79. [79]

    R. K. Wangsness and F. Bloch, The dynamical theory of nuclear induction, Physical Review89, 728 (1953)

    1953

  80. [80]

    Lampo, S

    A. Lampo, S. H. Lim, J. Wehr, P. Massignan, and M. Lewenstein, Lindblad model of quantum brownian motion, Physical Review A94, 042123 (2016)

    2016

Showing first 80 references.