State-space gradient descent and metastability in quantum systems

Shuchen Zhu; Yu Tong

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 56 references

State-space gradient descent and metastability in quantum systems

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces state-space gradient descent (SSGD), a variational quantum algorithm that iteratively lowers the energy of a quantum state using ancilla-assisted local operations, and claims that at convergence it reaches a…

desk verdict The algorithm and the Lindbladian lemma are the real content; the no-barren-plateau proof rests on an unsupported Haar-random assumption and should be softened or fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09729 v1 pith:IGJSE5Q4 submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph

Shuchen Zhu , Yu Tong This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords variationalquantumalgorithmstate-spacegradientdescentmetastablestatesbarrenplateausLindbladianperturbationslocal-minimumtransverse-fieldIsingmodelRydbergatomarrays

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 introduces state-space gradient descent (SSGD), a variational quantum algorithm that iteratively lowers the energy of a quantum state using ancilla-assisted local operations. The central claim is that at convergence the algorithm reaches a local-minimum state: no local operation can reduce the energy to first order, and the Hessian is positive semidefinite. Moreover, such a state is provably stable against small Lindbladian (dissipative) perturbations, so it is either the true ground state or a physically meaningful metastable state. The paper also argues that a brickwall version of the circuit has energy variance bounded below by a constant, so it does not suffer from barren plateaus. Numerical simulations on the 1D transverse-field Ising model and a Rydberg atom chain show that SSGD consistently terminates at either the ground state or a known long-lived metastable state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local-minimum state defined by vanishing first-order energy gradients and a positive semidefinite Hessian with respect to the generator set G. The load-bearing identity is Lemma 2's equivalence between this second-order condition and first-order Lindbladian optimality, proved by writing a local Lindbladian L = A + iB and embedding it as a Hermitian G on one ancilla plus k−1 system qubits, so that Tr(L(ρ)H) = (1/2) α† K α. The no-barren-plateau mechanism is the brickwall circuit with alternating GA and GS layers and ancilla reset, which makes the circuit a dynamically parameterized circuit with small lightcone, giving a constant lower bound on the energy variance.

What would settle it

Compute the energy variance of the SSGD circuit for increasing system size N using the actual gates $e^{{-iθP}}$ with θ drawn from the same distribution used in training; if the variance decreases exponentially with N, the claimed barren-plateau avoidance fails. Alternatively, run SSGD on a 1D TFIM with a larger system and check whether the final-state energies continue to cluster at ground/metastable energies rather than at generic local minima.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that a variational algorithm can be designed so that its failure mode is physically informative rather than arbitrary. SSGD maintains a state on the system register plus a single ancilla; each iteration applies a unitary generated by local Pauli operators from a set G = GA ∪ GS, then resets the ancilla, giving an effective non-unitary operation on the system. The algorithm chooses update directions from the energy gradient (for system generators) and from the low-lying directions of the Hessian (for ancilla generators). A state is a local-minimum state (Definition 1) if the first-order gradient vanishes and the Hessian is positive semidefinite; Lemma 2 shows this second-order condition implies the state is also first-order stable against any local Lindbladian generator, so the local minima are robust to physically realizable dissipative perturbations. The authors further prove that a brickwall-structured version of SSGD has energy variance lower bounded by a constant (via [33, Theorem 1]), ruling out barren plateaus. In numerics, the final states cluster around the ground state energy or the metastable state energy in both the TFIM and the Rydberg chain.

Load-bearing premise

The no-barren-plateau guarantee assumes that the two-qubit gates in the SSGD circuit are effectively sampled from the Haar measure on SU(2), but the actual gates are rotations generated by a fixed local Pauli operator, so the cited variance bound may not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If SSGD works as claimed, near-term quantum devices can prepare not only ground states but also metastable states by choosing the initial state, which is useful for studying false-vacuum decay, prethermalization, and quantum memory.
The algorithm's convergence to a Lindbladian-stable local minimum means the final state is robust against weak dissipation, a property that matters for any state preparation routine on noisy hardware.
The no-barren-plateau guarantee for the brickwall circuit suggests that SSGD can be scaled to larger system sizes without vanishing gradients, addressing a key bottleneck for variational quantum algorithms.
Since the algorithm only needs gradient and Hessian measurements that are efficient, it can be implemented with modest circuit depth, making it a candidate for near-term quantum experiments.
The connection between local-minimum states and long-lived metastable states opens a path toward a rigorous lifetime bound, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's Lemma 2 may extend beyond the first-order Lindbladian check: the same embedding argument could yield a rigorous lower bound on the lifetime of SSGD's local-minimum states under weak dissipation, effectively converting the numerical metastability evidence into a proof for certain models.
The Haar-random assumption in the barren-plateau argument could be tested and possibly replaced by a weaker assumption using Weingarten calculus for one-parameter subgroups; if the variance bound holds for the actual gate distribution, the result becomes fully rigorous for SSGD rather than for a neighboring circuit family.
Since SSGD only requires gradient and Hessian estimates, a classical tensor-network implementation of the same state-space descent might locate metastable states in larger systems, giving a quantum-inspired classical algorithm for metastability.
The choice of Hessian eigenvector direction for ancilla generators resembles second-order optimization; one could connect it to quantum natural gradient and possibly show improved convergence rates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me skip the small talk. The paper describes a variational algorithm (SSGD) that does something genuinely useful: it uses ancilla-assisted non-unitary updates chosen from Hessian information, and at convergence it produces a state that is a local minimum under both unitary and Lindbladian perturbations. Lemma 2 is the real clean result: Hessian PSD implies first-order Lindbladian stability, so you don't need to simulate dissipative dynamics. The numerics on TFIM and Rydberg chains are honest, including cases where the ancilla method is slower than purely unitary descent, and the final states do cluster around known ground and metastable energies. Credit where due: the algorithm design is new in its specifics, and the paper does not oversell the metastability link—it explicitly says the connection is numerical.

The soft spot is in the no-barren-plateau proof. The sentence 'such that each two-qubit unitary is effectively sampled from the Haar measure over SU(2)' carries the entire argument. For a fixed Pauli P, e^{-iθP} is a one-parameter subgroup of SU(4), not a Haar-random gate; its moments do not match Haar. Maybe the cited theorem in [33] only needs continuous Pauli rotations, but the paper does not say that. As written, the variance lower bound does not follow. And even if it did, it would be a statement about random initialization, while SSGD's parameters are adaptively chosen by gradient and Hessian updates. The link between the bound and the algorithm's trainability is missing. This is a load-bearing flaw in the headline claim, but it is fixable: either prove a moment condition for the actual gate distribution or cite a theorem that covers it.

Two smaller gaps: Algorithm 1 has no convergence proof, and the numerics are small-scale with no code or data released, so reproducibility is limited. These are minor relative to the BP issue.

Unless I am misreading [33], the central contribution—the algorithm and Lemma 2—holds up; the no-BP claim as stated does not. The paper deserves a serious referee, and I would send it out. I would ask for a major revision on the BP argument and a gentle request for convergence statements and code/data. I would not cite the no-BP result in my own work until it is fixed, but I would cite the algorithm and the Lindbladian lemma.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes State-Space Gradient Descent (SSGD), a variational algorithm that iteratively reduces the energy of a quantum state by applying local unitary and non-unitary (via an ancilla) operations chosen from gradient and Hessian information. The central theoretical claims are: (i) a local-minimum state in the sense of Definition 1 satisfies both first- and second-order optimality conditions and, by Lemma 2, is also stable against local Lindbladian perturbations; (ii) the algorithm is provably free from barren plateaus because a brickwall circuit variant has energy variance lower bounded by a constant (Sec. II.A); and (iii) numerical simulations on the 1D transverse-field Ising model and a Rydberg atom chain show that the algorithm converges to either the ground state or a physically meaningful metastable state. The paper includes pseudocode for Algorithm 1, two technical lemmas in Appendix A, and numerical comparisons of dissipative versus purely unitary updates.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the algorithm would be a useful contribution to variational quantum optimization: it targets physically meaningful local minima rather than arbitrary ansatz artifacts, and it offers a concrete, near-term-friendly procedure for preparing metastable states. The use of ancilla-mediated operations to escape spurious local minima is well motivated by the cited Haar-random state result. The numerical demonstrations for TFIM and Rydberg chains provide initial evidence for the metastable-state claim. The paper also benefits from a clean separation: Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 are elementary and appear correct, and the algorithm's fixed points satisfy the stated optimality conditions by construction. However, the advertised barren-plateau guarantee rests on an unproved and questionable equivalence between the actual SSGD gates and Haar-random two-qubit unitaries, and the convergence of Algorithm 1 is asserted without proof; these are load-bearing gaps for the paper's headline claims.

major comments (1)

[Sec. II.B / Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 does not specify how the Hessian K is measured or how many samples are used. The paper states that the gradient noise variance is chosen as σ_j^2 = δt_S, but no similar prescription is given for the Hessian noise, which is important because the ancilla direction uses the sign of the Hessian eigenvalues. The threshold Etol in Eq. (6) is a new free parameter, and the paper does not discuss how to set it in experiments or how sensitive the algorithm is to this parameter.

minor comments (1)

[Global] There are several typos and grammatical issues (e.g., 'oftentimes' used repeatedly, missing articles, and inconsistent use of “the algorithm” vs “the SSGD algorithm”). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SSGD's local-minimum guarantee is a definitional consequence of Definition 1 and Algorithm 1, while the metastable-state and numerical claims are checked against independently computed quantities.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the quantities it then predicts. The local-minimum guarantee is explicitly defined by conditions (2) and (3) in Definition 1, and Algorithm 1 updates along the gradient and clipped negative-Hessian directions until those conditions hold; calling the converged state a local-minimum state is therefore a definitional consequence rather than a derived prediction. Lemma 2 is a self-contained proof that the second-order condition implies first-order Lindbladian optimality under the stated assumption that X⊗P and Y⊗P are in G_A. The numerical demonstrations compare SSGD energies against independently obtained ground-state energies and quench-prepared or Néel-order-identified metastable states, so there is no fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations [51,52] appear in the outlook on Lindbladian mixing times and are not load-bearing. Section IV explicitly disclaims any rigorous lifetime/metastability theorem, weakening the physical-interpretation claim without making it circular. The no-barren-plateau section relies on the assertion that e^{-iθP} gates are 'effectively sampled from the Haar measure over SU(2)' and then applies [33, Theorem 1]; for fixed Pauli P this equivalence is questionable, but that is an unsupported premise or correctness risk, not a reduction of the conclusion to the paper's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameter is fitted to target data; the step sizes and clipping threshold are hyperparameters. The central proof depends on external theorems [19,33], on the availability of ancilla-system Pauli generators, and on treating Pauli rotations as Haar-random for the variance bound. No new physical entities are posited.

free parameters (2)

Step sizes δtS and δtA
Hyperparameters controlling gradient and Hessian update magnitudes; values not stated in the paper and no convergence analysis depends on their choice.
Hessian clipping threshold Etol
Threshold in Eq. (6) that discards negative Hessian eigenvalues above -Etol; value not reported.

assumptions (4)

standard math Theorem 1 of [33] correctly lower-bounds the energy variance for dynamically parameterized circuits in the regime used here.
The no-barren-plateau claim inherits this external theorem; its hypotheses must be verified for SSGD.
domain assumption For every Pauli P on k-1 adjacent system qubits, X⊗P and Y⊗P belong to GA (Lemma 2 assumption).
Needed to convert Hessian positive semidefiniteness into first-order Lindbladian optimality; if these couplings are absent, local-minimum states are only stable under unitary perturbations.
ad hoc to paper The brickwall SSGD circuit can be treated as a dynamically parameterized circuit in which each two-qubit unitary is effectively sampled from the Haar measure on SU(2).
This is the questionable equivalence used to apply [33]; actual gates are e^{-iθP} for fixed Paulis, a one-parameter subgroup.
domain assumption Gradient and Hessian estimates are unbiased with controllable shot-noise (δ_j ~ N(0, σ_j^2)).
Algorithm 1 relies on these estimates; no finite-sample concentration bound is supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State-space gradient descent and metastability in quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGJSE5Q4

@misc{pith2026250509729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State-space gradient descent and metastability in quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGJSE5Q4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09729}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a quantum algorithm, inspired by ADAPT-VQE, to variationally prepare the ground state of a quantum Hamiltonian, with the desirable property that if it fails to find the ground state, it still yields a physically meaningful local-minimum state that oftentimes corresponds to a metastable state of the quantum system. At each iteration, our algorithm reduces the energy using a set of local physical operations. The operations to perform are chosen using gradient and Hessian information that can be efficiently extracted from experiments. We show that our algorithm does not suffer from the barren plateau problem, which is a significant issue in many variational quantum algorithms. We use numerical simulation to demonstrate that our method reliably produces either the true ground state or a physically meaningful metastable state in typical physical systems with such states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09729 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The final state energies of all 64 initial computational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. For the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. For the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The final state energies of some initial computational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. For the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[33]

Li, Quantum computers quickly find local minima, Nature Physics (2025)

T. Li, Quantum computers quickly find local minima, Nature Physics (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

Peruzzo, J

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

2014
[2]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

2021
[3]

Bharti, A

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

2022
[4]

J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

2018
[5]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communications 12, 1791 (2021). 7

work page 2021
[6]

Larocca, S

M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics 7, 174 (2025)

2025
[7]

Cerezo, M

M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classi- cal simulability? or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2312.09121 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024

Show all 56 references

[8]

Bittel and M

L. Bittel and M. Kliesch, Training variational quantum al- gorithms is np-hard, Physical Review Letters 127, 120502 (2021)

2021
[9]

I. G. Ryabinkin, R. A. Lang, S. N. Genin, and A. F. Izmaylov, Iterative qubit coupled cluster approach with efficient screening of generators, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation 16, 1055 (2020)

2020
[10]

H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. May- hall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer, Nature communica- tions 10, 3007 (2019)

2019
[11]

Gustafson, K

E. Gustafson, K. Sherbert, A. Florio, K. Shirali, Y. Chen, H. Lamm, S. Valgushev, A. Weichselbaum, S. E. Economou, R. D. Pisarski, and N. M. Tubman, Surrogate constructed scalable circuits adapt-vqe in the schwinger model (2024), arXiv:2408.12641 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[12]

H. R. Grimsley, G. S. Barron, E. Barnes, S. E. Economou, and N. J. Mayhall, Adaptive, problem-tailored variational quantum eigensolver mitigates rough parameter land- scapes and barren plateaus, npj Quantum Information 9, 19 (2023)

2023
[13]

P. G. Anastasiou, Y. Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Tetris-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans¨ atze, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013254 (2024)

2024
[14]

H. R. Grimsley, G. S. Barron, E. Barnes, S. E. Economou, and N. J. Mayhall, Adaptive, problem-tailored variational quantum eigensolver mitigates rough parameter land- scapes and barren plateaus, npj Quantum Information 9, 10.1038/s41534-023-00681-0 (2023)

2023 doi
[15]

Stokes, J

J. Stokes, J. Izaac, N. Killoran, and G. Carleo, Quantum natural gradient, Quantum 4, 269 (2020)

2020
[16]

Koczor and S

B. Koczor and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum natural gradient generalized to noisy and nonunitary circuits, Physical Review A 106, 062416 (2022)

2022
[17]

Patel and M

D. Patel and M. M. Wilde, Natural gradient and parame- ter estimation for quantum Boltzmann machines, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24058 (2024)

2024
[18]

Wierichs, C

D. Wierichs, C. Gogolin, and M. Kastoryano, Avoiding local minima in variational quantum eigensolvers with the natural gradient optimizer, Physical Review Research 2, 043246 (2020)

2020
[19]

Chen, H.-Y

C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, J. Preskill, and L. Zhou, Local minima in quantum systems (2023), arXiv:2309.16596 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[20]

Ancilla qubits have also been used for ADAPT-VQE [ 21, 22] but mainly for Gibbs state preparation, which is a different task from what we are considering in this work

mainly in that we use ancilla qubits, and we update the quantum state with a set of operators rather than just one, which resembles how gradient descent differs from coordinate descent in classical optimization. Ancilla qubits have also been used for ADAPT-VQE [ 21, 22] but ma...

2025 arXiv
[21]

H. L. Tang, Y. Chen, P. Biswas, A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, and S. E. Economou, Non-variational adapt algorithm for quantum simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09736 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[22]

Warren, L

A. Warren, L. Zhu, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Adaptive variational algorithms for quantum gibbs state preparation (2022), arXiv:2203.12757 [quant- ph]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Sambasivam, K

B. Sambasivam, K. Sherbert, K. Shirali, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Tepid-adapt: Adap- tive variational method for simultaneous preparation of low-temperature gibbs and low-lying eigenstates (2025), arXiv:2503.14490 [quant-ph]

2025
[24]

C. Yin, F. M. Surace, and A. Lucas, Theory of metastable states in many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011064 (2025)

2025
[25]

Macieszczak, M

K. Macieszczak, M. Gu t ¸ˇ a, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garra- han, Towards a theory of metastability in open quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 240404 (2016)

2016
[26]

J. D. Mason, S. A. Studenikin, A. Kam, Z. R. Wasilewski, A. S. Sachrajda, and J. B. Kycia, Role of metastable charge states in a quantum-dot spin-qubit readout, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125434 (2015)

2015
[27]

Tanzi, E

L. Tanzi, E. Lucioni, F. Fam` a, J. Catani, A. Fioretti, C. Gabbanini, R. N. Bisset, L. Santos, and G. Modugno, Observation of a dipolar quantum gas with metastable su- persolid properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130405 (2019)

2019
[28]

Pucher, V

S. Pucher, V. Kl¨ usener, F. Spriestersbach, J. Geiger, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, Fine-structure qubit encoded in metastable strontium trapped in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150605 (2024)

2024
[29]

Earnest, S

N. Earnest, S. Chakram, Y. Lu, N. Irons, R. K. Naik, N. Leung, L. Ocola, D. A. Czaplewski, B. Baker, J. Lawrence, J. Koch, and D. I. Schuster, Realization of a Λ system with metastable states of a capacitively shunted fluxonium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150504 (2018)

2018
[30]

DeBry, J

K. DeBry, J. Sinanan-Singh, C. D. Bruzewicz, D. Reens, M. E. Kim, M. P. Roychowdhury, R. McConnell, I. L. Chuang, and J. Chiaverini, Experimental quantum chan- nel discrimination using metastable states of a trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 170602 (2023)

2023
[31]

Zenesini, A

A. Zenesini, A. Berti, R. Cominotti, C. Rogora, I. G. Moss, T. P. Billam, I. Carusotto, G. Lamporesi, A. Recati, and G. Ferrari, False vacuum decay via bubble formation in ferromagnetic superfluids, Nature Physics 20, 558 (2024)

2024
[32]

Vodeb, J.-Y

J. Vodeb, J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hallam, A. Rava, G. Hu- mar, D. Willsch, F. Jin, M. Willsch, K. Michielsen, and Z. Papi´ c, Stirring the false vacuum via interacting quan- tized bubbles on a 5,564-qubit quantum annealer, Nature Physics 21, 386 (2025)

2025
[34]

Deshpande, M

A. Deshpande, M. Hinsche, S. Najafi, K. Sharma, R. Sweke, and C. Zoufal, Dynamic parameterized quan- tum circuits: expressive and barren-plateau free, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05760 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[35]

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer physics communications183, 1760 (2012)

2012
[36]

Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2011)

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2011)

2011
[37]

Pfeuty, The one-dimensional ising model with a trans- verse field, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

P. Pfeuty, The one-dimensional ising model with a trans- verse field, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

1970
[38]

Kormos, M

M. Kormos, M. Collura, G. Tak´ acs, and P. Calabrese, Real-time confinement following a quantum quench to a non-integrable model, Nature Physics 13, 246 (2017)

2017
[39]

F. Liu, R. Lundgren, P. Titum, G. Pagano, J. Zhang, C. Monroe, and A. V. Gorshkov, Confined quasiparticle dynamics in long-range interacting quantum spin chains, Physical Review Letters 122, 150601 (2019)

2019
[40]

Vovrosh, S

J. Vovrosh, S. Sota, F. Mintert, and J. Knolle, Confine- ment and entanglement dynamics on a digital quantum 8 computer, Nature Communications 12, 5743 (2021)

2021
[41]

P. P. Mazza, G. Perfetto, M. Collura, A. Gambassi, and A. Lerose, Suppression of transport in nondisordered quan- tum spin chains due to confined excitations, Physical Review B 99, 180302(R) (2019)

2019
[42]

Lagnese, F

G. Lagnese, F. M. Surace, M. Kormos, and P. Calabrese, False vacuum decay in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 104, L201106 (2021)

2021
[43]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

2020
[44]

Saffman, T

M. Saffman, T. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum infor- mation with rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 2313 (2010)

2010
[45]

Bernien, S

H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al. , Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

2017
[46]

Levine, A

H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel implementation of high-fidelity multiqubit gates with neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 170503 (2019)

2019
[47]

S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, High-fidelity parallel entan- gling gates on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 622...

2023
[48]

T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Lichtman, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Camp- bell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers, ...

2022
[49]

I. Cong, H. Levine, A. Keesling, D. Bluvstein, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Hardware-efficient, fault-tolerant quan- tum computation with rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021049 (2022)

2022
[50]

Darbha, M

S. Darbha, M. Kornjaˇ ca, F. Liu, J. Balewski, M. R. Hirs- brunner, P. L. S. Lopes, S.-T. Wang, R. Van Beeumen, D. Camps, and K. Klymko, False vacuum decay and nu- cleation dynamics in neutral atom systems, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155103 (2024)

2024
[51]

Rouz´ e, D

C. Rouz´ e, D. S. Fran¸ ca, and´A. M. Alhambra, Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum gibbs samplers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12691 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[52]

D. Fang, J. Lu, and Y. Tong, Mixing time of open quantum systems via hypocoercivity, Physical Review Letters 134, 140405 (2025)

2025
[53]

Tong and Y

Y. Tong and Y. Zhan, Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00443 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[54]

ˇSm´ ıd, R

ˇS. ˇSm´ ıd, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bondesan, Polynomial time quantum gibbs sampling for fermi- hubbard model at any temperature, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01412 (2025)

2025
[55]

Y. Zhan, Z. Ding, J. Huhn, J. Gray, J. Preskill, G. K. Chan, and L. Lin, Rapid quantum ground state preparation via dissipative dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15827 (2025)

2025
[56]

Carleo and M

G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many-body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017). Appendix A: Technical lemmas Lemma 1. The Hessian (K)ij defined in Eq. (3) equals to− 1 2 Tr[{adPk, adPj}(˜ρ) ˜H]. Proof. Kjk = ∂2 ∂θj∂θk Tr ( U(⃗θ) ˜ρU†(⃗θ...

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

Li, Quantum computers quickly find local minima, Nature Physics (2025)

T. Li, Quantum computers quickly find local minima, Nature Physics (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Peruzzo, J

A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor, Nature Communications 5, 4213 (2014)

2014

[3] [2]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

2021

[4] [3]

Bharti, A

K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.-C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate-scale quantum algorithms, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015004 (2022)

2022

[5] [4]

J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Bab- bush, and H. Neven, Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes, Nature Communications 9, 4812 (2018)

2018

[6] [5]

Cerezo, A

M. Cerezo, A. Sone, T. Volkoff, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Cost function dependent barren plateaus in shallow parametrized quantum circuits, Nature Communications 12, 1791 (2021). 7

work page 2021

[7] [6]

Larocca, S

M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bia- monte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Barren plateaus in variational quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics 7, 174 (2025)

2025

[8] [7]

Cerezo, M

M. Cerezo, M. Larocca, D. Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, N. L. Diaz, P. Braccia, E. Fontana, M. S. Rudolph, P. Bermejo, A. Ijaz, S. Thanasilp, E. R. Anschuetz, and Z. Holmes, Does provable absence of barren plateaus imply classi- cal simulability? or, why we need to rethink variational quantum computing (2024), arXiv:2312.09121 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2024