Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that an imaginary-time extension of the truncated Wigner approximation computes thermal and ground states of interacting spin systems, and that for general Ising Hamiltonians the large-imaginary-time limit is exact up to sa

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 ↗

Imaginary-time truncated Wigner (iTWA) converts spin thermal-state computation into stochastic differential equations that approximate Ising/QUBO ground states and reproduce TFIM quantum phase transitions.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection Clever method, but the 'exact at large imaginary time' claim for Ising is a bridge too far; the paper is a useful heuristic with nice benchmarks, not a proved algorithm. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.03950 v2 pith:7EWM5HZV submitted 2026-03-04 quant-ph

Imaginary-time evolution of interacting spin systems in the truncated Wigner approximation

Tom Schlegel , Dennis Breu , Michael Fleischhauer This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords imaginary-time evolutiontruncated Wigner approximationspin systemsIsing modelMaxCutQUBOquantum phase transitionFokker-Planck equation
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 reading

The paper proposes imaginary-time truncated Wigner approximation (iTWA): a semiclassical, phase-space way to compute thermal and ground states of large spin systems by evolving a Wigner function in imaginary time and simulating the resulting stochastic differential equations. The central assertion is that for general Ising Hamiltonians this evolution becomes exact at large imaginary times, with only sampling errors left — which would make it a practical approximate solver for binary optimization problems such as MaxCut that are NP-hard in general. On anti-ferromagnetic Ising models on random 3-regular graphs, iTWA matches exact diagonalization at N=22, and at N=100 it crosses the known 1/17 NP-hard approximation threshold with roughly 10^2 trajectories. For the transverse-field Ising model in one and two dimensions, the method reproduces the ground-state quantum phase transition. The authors state that the method is not expected to work well for highly entangled ground states such as spin liquids.

Core claim

The core claim is that the canonical density matrix e^{-τH}/Z can be obtained semiclassically: mapping imaginary-time evolution onto the spin Wigner function gives a Fokker-Planck-type PDE, and truncating at second order yields stochastic ODEs whose trajectories are weighted by e^{-∫H dτ}. For the anti-ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonian, the diffusion matrix is non-positive and is dropped entirely, leaving deterministic ODEs for the angles θ_i (with φ_i fixed) plus initial-state sampling; the large-τ reweighted ensemble is claimed to be the exact Gibbs state subject only to sampling errors. The paper demonstrates agreement with exact diagonalization for N=22 Gibbs-state energies and near-ground

What carries the argument

The machinery is a spin Wigner function built from phase-point operators labelled by angles (θ, φ), the imaginary-time PDE for the flattened Wigner function, and truncation to Fokker-Planck form with the reweighting identity ⟨A⟩(τ) = overline{A e^{-∫H dτ}} / overline{e^{-∫H dτ}}. For Ising models, the non-positive diffusion is neglected, yielding the deterministic ODEs dθ_i = -J(2/sin θ_i - 3 sin θ_i) Σ_j cos θ_j, dφ_i = 0, with random initial samples; for the transverse-field Ising model, a block-diagonal diffusion is kept, with the positive Toeplitz D_φφ decomposed and the non-positive D_θθ truncated to repair negative and off-diagonal components.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the unproved step where the exact Wigner-function equation is cut down to a Fokker-Planck equation: for Ising models the diffusion is simply dropped, and the remaining deterministic flow, after exponential reweighting, is assumed to give the exact Gibbs state at long imaginary times.

What would settle it

Run iTWA on a small 3-regular Ising graph with a known exact ground state at large Jτ, and compare the reweighted distribution of configurations — not just the average energy — with the exact Boltzmann weights as the trajectory count grows. If the weighted ensemble does not converge to the exact Gibbs distribution as N_traj → ∞, the claim of exactness subject only to sampling errors is false; if the average energy at Jτ ≥ 3 does not approach the exact ground-state energy, the central claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • Ising spin glasses become numerically accessible at sizes far beyond exact diagonalization, with accuracy controlled by the number of sampled trajectories.
  • MaxCut and QUBO instances encoded as anti-ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonians on 3-regular graphs can be approximated below the known 1/17 inapproximability threshold with about 10^2 trajectories at 100 spins.
  • For non-frustrated models such as the transverse-field Ising model, the method captures quantum critical behavior and reproduces the known order parameter in 1D and 2D.
  • Because the imaginary-time equations decouple into per-spin ODEs/SDEs, the simulation is GPU-friendly and scales to large systems.
  • The method offers a sign-problem-free alternative to quantum Monte Carlo for frustrated Ising models, at the price of a truncation whose errors are not bounded for general models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the large-τ exactness holds, the same τ-evolution can be read as a classical annealing schedule, with τ playing the role of inverse temperature; the method would then be a classical counterpart to quantum annealing for low-entanglement Ising problems.
  • Editorial inference: the deterministic flow's fixed points sit at |cos θ| = 1/√3 rather than at bit-string ground states, which suggests the exponential reweighting factor carries the Gibbs-state information; comparing the weighted histogram of output spin configurations against exact Boltzmann weights would test this mechanism directly.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own caveat about spin liquids suggests the method's domain is bounded by ground-state entanglement; mapping that boundary with models of tunable entanglement would show where iTWA can be trusted.
  • Editorial inference: the TFIM treatment repairs non-positive diffusion by truncating negative eigenvalues; a systematic study of how that repair shifts critical exponents could turn the observed agreement into a diagnostic for truncation errors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an imaginary-time extension of the truncated Wigner approximation for spin-1/2 systems. The canonical density matrix e^{-τH} is represented by a Wigner function whose evolution is truncated to a Fokker-Planck equation and then simulated by stochastic differential equations; expectation values are reconstructed with an exponential reweighting factor. The authors claim that for general Ising Hamiltonians the approximation becomes exact for large imaginary times up to sampling errors, and support this with numerical results for MaxCut on random 3-regular graphs (N=22 against exact diagonalization, N=100 against GUROBI) and for the transverse-field Ising model in 1D and 2D, where the quantum phase transition is reproduced. A supplementary proof of the reweighting formula is provided for a single-variable Fokker-Planck equation with positive diffusion.

Significance. If the large-τ exactness conjecture for Ising models were established, the method would be a striking new tool for frustrated spin systems and QUBO/MaxCut problems, with potentially far-reaching complexity implications. The paper's numerical benchmarks are encouraging: the N=22 Gibbs-state energies match exact diagonalization well, the N=100 results cross the 1/17 NP-hardness threshold with modest trajectory numbers, and the TFIM order parameter reproduces the expected qualitative behavior. The included Feynman-Kac proof is a useful check but covers only a scalar, positive-diffusion case. The main significance hinges on whether the uncontrolled truncations used to obtain the many-body SDEs can be justified in the large-τ limit; this is not demonstrated in the current manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Imaginary-time evolution / AF Ising model, Eqs. (5)-(7) and Supplement Eqs. (10)-(15)] The proof of Eq. (7) is a standard Feynman-Kac identity for a scalar Fokker-Planck equation with positive diffusion D=B^2. For the AF Ising model the diffusion matrix is explicitly non-positive and is discarded, so the simulated ODEs are not equivalent to the truncated FP equation used in the proof. Thus the statement that the approximation 'becomes exact for large imaginary times' for general Ising Hamiltonians does not follow from the presented derivation. The authors should either prove that the discarded diffusion terms vanish on the attracting manifold at |cosθ_i|=1/√3 (note D_θθ ∝ (3cos²θ−1)²/sin²θ, which does vanish there) and that the reweighted measure converges to the exact Gibbs/ground state, or clearly label the exactness claim as a conjecture.
  2. [AF Ising model on 3-regular graphs, Eqs. following Eq. (8)] The deterministic flow does not converge to the bit-string states cosθ_i=±1 but to the fixed manifold |cosθ_i|=1/√3. This is not in itself a contradiction: setting s_i=√3 cosθ_i maps that manifold to Ising spin configurations s_i=±1, and the Hamiltonian symbol on the manifold reproduces the original Ising energy J/2 Σ s_i s_j. However, the paper does not analyze the stability structure on this manifold, does not prove that the reweighting in Eq. (7) selects the global minima, and does not bound the finite-τ bias. In fact, the caption of Fig. 2 states that for all trajectories E0(τ=10J−1)>E0, so the estimator is biased at the finite τ used in the numerics; the τ→∞ limit and the scaling of the sampling error with N are not addressed. This is exactly the step needed to substantiate the central exactness claim.
  3. [Transverse-field Ising model and Supplementary SDEs, Eqs. (16)-(18)] In the TFIM case the diffusion matrix D_θθ is not positive; the authors repair it by truncating negative eigenvalues and off-diagonal components, while D_ϕϕ is factored as B B^T. This is an uncontrolled, ad hoc modification of the Fokker-Planck equation. The good agreement for the order parameter in Fig. 3 is suggestive but does not provide an error estimate. If the method is intended as a heuristic for non-Ising models, the text should say so explicitly; if a controlled approximation is claimed, a convergence or error argument is required.
  4. [Abstract and Summary] The abstract claims exactness 'for general Ising Hamiltonians' at large imaginary times, while the body and summary describe 'very good approximations' and state that the method is not expected to work for highly entangled ground states. These statements are inconsistent. Moreover, an exact polynomial-trajectory method for MaxCut on 3-regular graphs would have major complexity implications; the paper should discuss why the sampling overhead does not become exponential, or should restrict the claim to a practical heuristic with controlled benchmarks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'know to be NP hard' should be 'known to be NP hard'. Also 'the iTWA' is used inconsistently (iTWA vs. iTW A).
  2. [Eq. (7)] The overbar denoting stochastic averaging is used before being defined; define it at first use and specify the number of trajectories and the order of the τ and N_traj limits.
  3. [Eq. (2) and correspondence rules] The 'complete set' is written as '∂²_ϕ Δ or ∂²_θ Δ'; it is unclear which second-derivative basis is used in each derivation. This matters for the non-uniqueness argument and should be clarified.
  4. [TFIM energy shift] The constant shift −dJ added to the TFIM Hamiltonian is a free parameter. Its effect on the order parameter and on the comparison with exact results should be discussed; the text only says it is 'beneficial'.
  5. [Supplement heading] The supplement heading is misspelled 'SUPPLEMENT AR Y'.
  6. [References] References [28] and [30] are unpublished/in preparation; since [30] is used for the gauge-freedom foundation, the relevant results should be summarized in the paper rather than relying on an unavailable manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction; the exactness claim is an unsupported approximation claim, with minor foundational self-citations but no fitted-input prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the estimator: eq. (7) is an exact Feynman-Kac representation of the truncated Fokker-Planck equation, and the Supplement verifies this identity for the single-variable, positive-diffusion case (eqs. 10-15). No parameter is fitted to the target energies; E(τ)=H(τ) is a control variate, not a fit. The AF-Ising diffusion matrix is computed and then neglected because it is not positive, leaving deterministic ODEs with random initial sampling; the claim that this becomes exact at large imaginary time is an unproven approximation/stability statement (fixed points at |cosθ|=1/√3 rather than bit strings), not a circular one. Benchmarks are external: exact diagonalization for N=22, GUROBI for N=100, and exact TFIM results, so the predictions are not forced by construction. Self-citations [5,6,30] supply the gauge/correspondence framework and the continuous TWA basis; they are foundational but do not assume the exactness being tested, and no imported uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz carries the conclusion. An omitted proof is noted: the multi-variable, non-positive-diffusion case is not covered by the Supplement; this is a correctness risk that does not rise to circularity. Score 2 reflects only the minor reliance on same-group foundational references, one unpublished, which is not load-bearing.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The main burden is not invented entities or fitted constants — there are none — but (i) free construction choices: the correspondence-rule/gauge pick, the −dJ energy shift, the E(τ) reweighting shift, and the τ-averaging windows; and (ii) uncontrolled truncation assumptions: dropping the non-positive Ising diffusion and manually repairing the TFIM D_θθ block. The only standard-math axiom is the Ito/Feynman-Kac calculus, which the supplement proves for a single variable. The exactness claim for Ising Hamiltonians effectively functions as an additional unproven axiom.

free parameters (4)
  • E(τ): energy shift in the reweighting estimator = chosen as the stochastic average H(τ) (example given)
    Eq. (7) section: H(τ) is replaced by H(τ)−E(τ) in numerator and denominator with 'appropriately chosen value E(τ)' to tame fluctuations. The choice controls the estimator's bias-variance trade-off and is not fixed by any stated principle.
  • −dJ per-site energy offset added to the TFIM Hamiltonian = −dJ with d = spatial dimension
    Eq. (16): the constant shift changes the truncated SDEs and is chosen so the D_φφ diffusion block becomes a positive Toeplitz matrix; physically a null operation that the truncation makes consequential.
  • Correspondence-rule / gauge choice = ∂²_φ Δ for Ising; ∂²_θ Δ and a special rule for the identity for TFIM
    Eq. (2) and Supplementary: the non-uniqueness of the correspondence rules is exploited to shape drift and diffusion; the numerical results depend on this choice, but no systematic comparison of choices is given.
  • τ-averaging windows for the TFIM order parameter = 1D: τ ∈ [3/J, 5/J]; 2D: τ ∈ [1/J, 3/J]
    Fig. 3 caption: 'stationary values were determined by averaging ⟨m²⟩ over τ' in the stated intervals; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation of the exact Wigner-function PDE at second-derivative (Fokker-Planck) order, and approximation of the coefficient matrix by a positive-definite D = BBᵀ, preserves the large-τ limit.
    Eq. (5) and following text: higher-order terms are dropped and the diffusion is made positive by hand. For the Ising model this goes further: the non-positive diffusion is entirely neglected, turning the SDEs into ODEs. No error bound is given.
  • ad hoc to paper For the AF Ising Hamiltonian, the deterministic flow with initial-state sampling and the e^{−∫H} reweighting becomes exact for large τ.
    Abstract exactness claim and Section 'AF Ising model on 3-regular graphs'. The printed fixed points (|cosθ|=1/√3 or zero neighbor sums) differ from the bit-string ground states cosθ=±1, so the exactness mechanism is not evident.
  • domain assumption The correspondence-rule dictionary of four operators {Δ̂, ∂θΔ̂, ∂φΔ̂, ∂²Δ̂} (eq. 2) is complete for the Hamiltonians studied, and the gauge freedom of the spin Wigner function can be used to optimize the SDEs.
    Invoked at eq. (2) and in the imaginary-time section; framework from refs. [5,30], with [30] unpublished. The specific gauge choices for the Ising drift are not derived in the main text or supplement.
  • standard math Ito formula / Feynman-Kac equivalence between FP-with-sink equation and reweighted SDEs (supplementary eqs. 10–15) extends from the single variable to the multi-spin case after the ad hoc diffusion repair.
    Supplement proves the one-variable identity; the multi-variable TFIM case relies on the same theorem with the modified (truncated) diffusion matrices.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaginary-time evolution of interacting spin systems in the truncated Wigner approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EWM5HZV

@misc{pith2026260303950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaginary-time evolution of interacting spin systems in the truncated Wigner approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EWM5HZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.03950}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present a semiclassical phase-space method to calculate thermal and ground states of large interacting spin systems. To this end, we extend the recently developed truncated Wigner approximation for spins (TWA) to the imaginary time, termed iTWA. The evolution of the canonical density matrix in imaginary time is mapped to a partial differential equation of its Wigner function. Truncation at the Fokker-Planck level leads to a set of stochastic differential equations, which can be efficiently simulated even for large systems. We show that for general Ising Hamiltonians the approximation becomes exact for large imaginary times subject only to sampling errors. Thus the iTWA is ideal to determine the ground state of spin glasses or to find solutions to quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problems (QUBO) on a controlled approximation level. We illustrate this for MaxCut on random, unweighted 3-regular graphs, encoded in an anti-ferromagnetic Ising Hamiltonian, for which finding the exact ground state and even approximations to it beyond a certain accuracy is know to be NP hard. Furthermore, in order to assess the quality of the method also for general spin models, we analyze the ground-state quantum phase transition of the transverse-field Ising model in one and two spatial dimensions, finding reasonably good agreement with the exact behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.03950 by Dennis Breu, Michael Fleischhauer, Tom Schlegel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Average energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mean relative error ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Total squared magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Truncated Wigner approximation for spins in continuous phase space

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    The truncated Wigner approximation for spins is systematically derived, extended to spectra and thermal states, and shown to be equivalent to a consistent path-integral treatment when dissipative operator products are...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. Suzuki, Relationship between d-dimensional quan- tal spin systems and (d+ 1)-dimensional ising systems: Equivalence, critical exponents and systematic approx- imants of the partition function and spin correlations, Progress of theoretical physics56, 1454 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    Suzuki, S

    M. Suzuki, S. Miyashita, and A. Kuroda, Monte carlo simulation of quantum spin systems, Progress of Theo- retical Physics58, 1377 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    W. M. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. Needs, and G. Rajagopal, Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids, Reviews of Modern Physics73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations, Physical review letters94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    C. D. Mink, D. Petrosyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Hy- brid discrete-continuous truncated wigner approximation for driven, dissipative spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043136 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative in- teractions in the discrete truncated wigner approxima- tion, SciPost Physics15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with monte carlo trajecto- ries on a discrete phase space, Phys. Rev. X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    Pucci, A

    L. Pucci, A. Roy, and M. Kastner, Simulation of quantum spin dynamics by phase space sampling of bogoliubov- born-green-kirkwood-yvon trajectories, Physical Review B93, 174302 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Wurtz, A

    J. Wurtz, A. Polkovnikov, and D. Sels, Cluster truncated wigner approximation in strongly interacting systems, Annals of Physics395, 341 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    B. Zhu, A. M. Rey, and J. Schachenmayer, A generalized phase space approach for solving quantum spin dynamics, 6 New Journal of Physics21, 082001 (2019)

    2019

  11. [12]

    Berman and M

    P. Berman and M. Karpinski, On some tighter inap- proximability results (extended abstract), inAutomata, Languages and Programming, edited by J. Wiedermann, P. van Emde Boas, and M. Nielsen (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999) pp. 200–209

    1999

  12. [13]

    H ˚ astad, Some optimal inapproximability results, J

    J. H ˚ astad, Some optimal inapproximability results, J. ACM48, 798–859 (2001)

    2001

  13. [14]

    Feige, M

    U. Feige, M. Karpinski, and M. Langberg, Improved ap- proximation of max-cut on graphs of bounded degree, Journal of Algorithms43, 201 (2002)

    2002

  14. [15]

    Halperin, D

    E. Halperin, D. Livnat, and U. Zwick, Max cut in cubic graphs, Journal of Algorithms53, 169 (2004)

    2004

  15. [16]

    S. Khot, G. Kindler, E. Mossel, and R. O’Donnell, Op- timal inapproximability results for max-cut and other 2-variable csps?, SIAM Journal on Computing37, 319 (2007)

    2007

  16. [17]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (2026)

    2026

  17. [18]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    1999

  18. [19]

    M. A. Perlin, C. Qu, and A. M. Rey, Spin squeezing with short-range spin-exchange interactions, Physical Review Letters125, 223401 (2020)

    2020

  19. [20]

    Czischek, M

    S. Czischek, M. G¨ arttner, M. Oberthaler, M. Kastner, and T. Gasenzer, Quenches near criticality of the quan- tum ising chain—power and limitations of the discrete truncated wigner approximation, Quantum Science and Technology4, 014006 (2018)

    2018

  20. [21]

    Khasseh, A

    R. Khasseh, A. Russomanno, M. Schmitt, M. Heyl, and R. Fazio, Discrete truncated wigner approach to dynam- ical phase transitions in ising models after a quantum quench, Physical Review B102, 014303 (2020)

    2020

  21. [22]

    Sundar, K

    B. Sundar, K. C. Wang, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Analysis of continuous and discrete wigner approximations for spin dynamics, Phys. Rev. A99, 043627 (2019)

    2019

  22. [23]

    Kunimi, K

    M. Kunimi, K. Nagao, S. Goto, and I. Danshita, Per- formance evaluation of the discrete truncated wigner ap- proximation for quench dynamics of quantum spin sys- tems with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013060 (2021)

    2021

  23. [24]

    Huber, P

    J. Huber, P. Kirton, and P. Rabl, Phase-space methods for simulating the dissipative many-body dynamics of collective spin systems, SciPost Physics10, 045 (2021)

    2021

  24. [25]

    Huber, A

    J. Huber, A. M. Rey, and P. Rabl, Realistic simulations of spin squeezing and cooperative coupling effects in large ensembles of interacting two-level systems, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013716 (2022)

    2022

  25. [26]

    V. P. Singh and H. Weimer, Driven-dissipative critical- ity within the discrete truncated wigner approximation, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 200602 (2022)

    2022

  26. [27]

    Tebbenjohanns, C

    F. Tebbenjohanns, C. D. Mink, C. Bach, A. Rauschen- beutel, and M. Fleischhauer, Predicting correlations in superradiant emission from a cascaded quantum system, Phys. Rev. A110, 043713 (2024)

    2024

  27. [28]

    Spahn, J

    Y. Spahn, J. Hartmann, B. Saalfrank, M. Fleischhauer, T. Halfmann, and T. Peters, Motion-induced direction- ality of collective emission in a non-chiral waveguide (in preparation) (2026)

    2026

  28. [29]

    Gardiner, P

    C. Gardiner, P. Zoller, and P. Zoller,Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic methods with applications to quantum optics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  29. [30]

    Hartmann, T

    J. Hartmann, T. Schlegel, D. Breu, C. Mink, and M. Fleischhauer, Truncated wigner approximation for unitary and open many-body spin systems (in prepara- tion)

  30. [31]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt Jr, and M. P. Vecchi, Opti- mization by simulated annealing, science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  31. [32]

    Du and P

    D. Du and P. M. Pardalos,Handbook of combinatorial optimization, Vol. 4 (Springer Science & Business Media, 1998)

    1998

  32. [33]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi,Pattern recognition and machine learning, Vol. 4 (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  33. [34]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics2, 5 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics2, 5 (2014)

    2014

  34. [35]

    M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, S. Kourtis, and A. Blais, Low-depth clifford circuits approximately solve maxcut, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023294 (2024)

    2024

  35. [36]

    S. L. Sondhi, S. Girvin, J. Carini, and D. Shahar, Con- tinuous quantum phase transitions, Reviews of modern physics69, 315 (1997)

    1997

  36. [37]

    Efron and C

    B. Efron and C. Stein, The jackknife estimate of variance, The Annals of Statistics9, 586 (1981)

    1981

  37. [38]

    Gardiner,Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer Series in Synerget- ics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    C. Gardiner,Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer Series in Synerget- ics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010). SUPPLEMENT AR Y Solution of eq.(5) Let us consider a quasi-probability functionW(x, τ) of a single variablexthat obeys a Fokker-Planck type equation with additional linear term similar to eq. (5): ∂τ W(x, τ) ...

    2010

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.