Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Quantum simulation of dynamical phase transitions in noisy quantum devices

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-24 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Depolarizing noise doubles non-analytic points in the Loschmidt echo at dynamical phase transitions, creating an unmitigable error.

desk verdict Abstract claims noise doubles non-analytic points in the Loschmidt echo for the TFIM, creating an unmitigable error under ZNE, but without the full paper the evidence can't be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2211.08318 v2 pith:RS2LWBFP submitted 2022-11-15 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Younes Javanmard , Ugne Liaubaite , Tobias J. Osborne , Luis Santos This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumsimulationdynamicalphasetransitionsLoschmidtechonoisemitigationtransverse-fieldIsingmodelzero-noiseextrapolationmatrixproductdensityoperatorsdepolarizing
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

The paper studies the effects of depolarizing noise on simulations of dynamical phase transitions in the transverse-field Ising model using matrix product density operators. It shows that noise systematically modifies the Loschmidt echo by doubling the number of non-analytic points at the transition times. This modification introduces an error that zero-noise extrapolation cannot remove. At the same time, the extrapolation technique succeeds in recovering quantum revivals of the Loschmidt echo that would otherwise be lost and in restoring accurate inter-site correlations. The results match those from actual quantum simulators and point to both limits and capabilities of error mitigation for non-equilibrium dynamics on noisy devices.

What carries the argument

Matrix product density operators applied to the Loschmidt echo of the transverse-field Ising model under depolarizing noise.

What would settle it

An experiment on a quantum device implementing the transverse-field Ising model that measures whether the Loschmidt echo exhibits exactly twice as many non-analytic points at the predicted transition times as the noise-free case would confirm or refute the unmitigable-error claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Matrix product density operator simulations of the transverse-field Ising model with depolarizing noise demonstrate that noise alters the Loschmidt echo at dynamical phase transition times by doubling the number of non-analytic points and thereby induces an error that inherently cannot be mitigated by zero-noise extrapolation. The same extrapolation recovers quantum revivals of the Loschmidt echo missed without mitigation and retrieves noise-free inter-site correlations, with results agreeing with those from quantum simulators.

Load-bearing premise

The matrix product density operator model with depolarizing noise accurately represents the actual dynamics on noisy quantum devices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zero-noise extrapolation cannot correct the noise-induced doubling of non-analytic points in the Loschmidt echo.
  • Zero-noise extrapolation recovers quantum revivals of the Loschmidt echo that are lost without mitigation.
  • Zero-noise extrapolation retrieves accurate noise-free inter-site correlations.
  • Matrix product density operators can be used to assess performance limits of large noisy quantum circuits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Certain dynamical phase transition signatures may remain distorted on noisy devices even after standard mitigation is applied.
  • The doubling effect may appear under other noise models beyond depolarizing noise.
  • Matrix product density operators could serve as a low-cost proxy for testing mitigation strategies before running them on hardware.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses matrix product density operators to analyze the transverse-field Ising model under depolarizing noise. It claims that noise systematically modifies the Loschmidt echo at dynamical phase transition times by doubling the number of non-analytic points, producing an error that cannot be mitigated by zero-noise extrapolation. At the same time, zero-noise extrapolation recovers quantum revivals of the Loschmidt echo and faithful noise-free inter-site correlations. Results are reported to agree with quantum-simulator experiments and to illustrate both the utility and the intrinsic limitations of zero-noise extrapolation for non-equilibrium many-body dynamics on NISQ devices.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would identify a concrete class of observables and dynamical features for which zero-noise extrapolation is provably insufficient, while also showing that the same technique can still restore other quantities. The demonstration that matrix product density operators can be used to benchmark large-scale noisy circuits would further strengthen the case for tensor-network methods as diagnostic tools for NISQ performance.

major comments (1)
  1. The abstract asserts that depolarizing noise doubles the number of non-analytic points in the Loschmidt echo and that the resulting error is inherently unmitigable. Because the manuscript supplies neither the precise definition used to locate non-analytic points, the explicit MPDO construction, nor the quantitative comparison between noisy and extrapolated data, it is impossible to determine whether the doubling is a physical effect of the noise model or an artifact of the chosen representation.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that results are 'in good agreement' with quantum simulators but provides no quantitative metrics, system sizes, or circuit depths for the comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract asserts that depolarizing noise doubles the number of non-analytic points in the Loschmidt echo and that the resulting error is inherently unmitigable. Because the manuscript supplies neither the precise definition used to locate non-analytic points, the explicit MPDO construction, nor the quantitative comparison between noisy and extrapolated data, it is impossible to determine whether the doubling is a physical effect of the noise model or an artifact of the chosen representation.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as presented, does not supply the precise definition of non-analytic points, the explicit MPDO construction, or quantitative comparisons between noisy and extrapolated data. Consequently, from the abstract alone it is not possible to determine whether the reported doubling constitutes a physical effect of the depolarizing noise or an artifact of the representation. We will revise the abstract to include a concise statement defining non-analytic points as the times at which the Loschmidt echo exhibits non-differentiable behavior, thereby clarifying the basis of the claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

Only the abstract is available, containing no equations, parameter fits, self-citations, or derivation steps. The described analysis of MPDO for noisy TFIM and Loschmidt echo behavior is presented as a direct computational result without any visible reduction of predictions to inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps matching the enumerated circularity patterns can be identified or quoted.

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

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all entries left empty due to lack of detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum simulation of dynamical phase transitions in noisy quantum devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RS2LWBFP

@misc{pith2026221108318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum simulation of dynamical phase transitions in noisy quantum devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RS2LWBFP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2211.08318}
}
read the original abstract

Zero-noise extrapolation provides an especially useful error mitigation method for noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices. Our analysis, based on matrix product density operators, of the transverse-field Ising model with depolarizing noise, reveals both advantages and inherent problems associated with zero-noise extrapolation when simulating non-equilibrium many-body dynamics. On the one hand, interestingly, noise alters systematically the behavior of the Loschmidt echo at the dynamical phase transition times, doubling the number of non-analytic points, and hence inducing an error that, inherently, cannot be mitigated. On the other, zero-noise extrapolation may be employed to recover quantum revivals of the Loschmidt echo, which would be completely missed in the absence of mitigation, and to retrieve faithfully noise-free inter-site correlations. Our results, which are in good agreement with those obtained using quantum simulators, reveal the potential of matrix product density operators for the investigation of the performance of quantum devices with a large number of qubits and deep noisy quantum circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2211.08318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum circuit employed for the quantum sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum simulation results of the behavior of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Rate function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Error rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two-point correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Prospects of Quantum Error Mitigation for Quantum Signal Processing

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ZNE can recover noiseless expectation values for short, low-noise QSP Hamiltonian simulations, but a steady-state regime makes it fail at higher noise, independent of sample budget.

  2. A Survey on Security with Quantum Computing

    cs.CR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey consolidating literature on quantum computing security issues, threats to existing systems, and development of quantum-resilient solutions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, Int J Theor Phys 21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    D. A. Lidar. and T. A. Brun, Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science 273, 1073 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature 549, 195 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Wendin, Rep

    G. Wendin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 106001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021314 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Phys 8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Nature Phys 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, J. M. Nichol, A. Pan, and J. R. Petta, (2021), 10.48550/arXiv.2112.08863, com- ment: Rev. Mod. Phys. - Corrections and comments welcome, arXiv:2112.08863 [cond-mat, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Slussarenko and G

    S. Slussarenko and G. J. Pryde, (2019), 10.1063/1.5115814, comment: 21 pages, 3 figures. A brief review on some topics in photonic quantum computing with lots of references to longer specialist reviews. Close to published version, arXiv:1907.06331 [quant-ph]

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Temme, S

    K. Temme, S. Bravyi, and J. M. Gambetta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 180509 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Li and S

    Y. Li and S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021050 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    van den Berg, Z

    E. van den Berg, Z. K. Minev, A. Kandala, and K. Temme, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2201.09866, arXiv:2201.09866 [quant-ph]

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    A. Mari, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Phys. Rev. A 104, 052607 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    A. Lowe, M. H. Gordon, P. Czarnik, A. Arrasmith, P. J. Coles, and L. Cincio, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033098 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Takagi, S

    R. Takagi, S. Endo, S. Minagawa, and M. Gu, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2109.04457, arXiv:2109.04457 [quant-ph]

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Tsubouchi, T

    K. Tsubouchi, T. Sagawa, and N. Yoshioka, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2208.09385, arXiv:2208.09385 [quant- ph]

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Takagi, H

    R. Takagi, H. Tajima, and M. Gu, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2208.09178, arXiv:2208.09178 [quant- ph]

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Zwolak and G

    M. Zwolak and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207205 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Cheng, C

    S. Cheng, C. Cao, C. Zhang, Y. Liu, S.-Y. Hou, P. Xu, and B. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 023005 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    A. H. Werner, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, M. Kliesch, T. Calarco, J. Eisert, and S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 237201 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  23. [31]

    Urbanek, B

    M. Urbanek, B. Nachman, V. R. Pascuzzi, A. He, C. W. Bauer, and W. A. de Jong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 270502 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Pfeuty, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

    P. Pfeuty, Annals of Physics 57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 205701 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Heyl, Rep

    M. Heyl, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 140602 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Karrasch and D

    C. Karrasch and D. Schuricht, Phys. Rev. B 87, 195104 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Dborin, V

    J. Dborin, V. Wimalaweera, F. Barratt, E. Ostby, T. E. O’Brien, and A. G. Green, Nat Commun 13, 5977 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    J. C. Halimeh and V. Zauner-Stauber, Phys. Rev. B 96, 134427 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Homrighausen, N

    I. Homrighausen, N. O. Abeling, V. Zauner-Stauber, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104436 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B 97, 174401 (2018). 6

    2018

  35. [43]

    Van Damme, J.-Y

    M. Van Damme, J.-Y. Desaules, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2210.02453, arXiv:2210.02453 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Van Damme, T

    M. Van Damme, T. V. Zache, D. Banerjee, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2203.01337, arXiv:2203.01337 [cond-mat, physics:hep-lat, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Jurcevic, H

    P. Jurcevic, H. Shen, P. Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 080501 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    L.-N. Wu, J. Nettersheim, J. Feß, A. Schnell, S. Bur- gardt, S. Hiebel, D. Adam, A. Eckardt, and A. Widera, (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2208.05164, arXiv:2208.05164 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    Kandala, K

    A. Kandala, K. Temme, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. Mezzacapo, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 567, 491 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Giurgica-Tiron, Y

    T. Giurgica-Tiron, Y. Hindy, R. LaRose, A. Mari, and W. J. Zeng, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2020) pp. 306–316

    2020

  42. [50]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Mari, S. Kaiser, P. J. Karalekas, A. A. Alves, P. Czarnik, M. E. Mandouh, M. H. Gordon, Y. Hindy, A. Robertson, P. Thakre, M. Wahl, D. Samuel, R. Mistri, M. Tremblay, N. Gardner, N. T. Stemen, N. Shammah, and W. J. Zeng, Quantum 6, 774 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    R. L. Burden and J. D. Faires, Numerical Analysis (Cen- gage Learning, 2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Montangero, Introduction to Tensor Network Meth- ods: Numerical Simulations of Low-Dimensional Many- Body Quantum Systems (Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2018)

    S. Montangero, Introduction to Tensor Network Meth- ods: Numerical Simulations of Low-Dimensional Many- Body Quantum Systems (Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Javanmard, D

    Y. Javanmard, D. Trapin, S. Bera, J. H. Bardarson, and M. Heyl, New J. Phys. 20, 083032 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Hatano and M

    N. Hatano and M. Suzuki, Quantum Annealing and Other Optimization Methods , Lecture Notes in Physics, 37 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,

    IBM-Quantum, “Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing,” (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. S. Kim, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, npj Quantum Information 5, 106 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Fauseweh and J.-X

    B. Fauseweh and J.-X. Zhu, Quantum Inf Process 20, 138 (2021). 1 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL: QUANTUM SIMULA TION OF DYNAMICAL PHASE TRANSITIONS IN NOISY QUANTUM DEVICES We provide additional details and numerical results supplementing the conclusions from the main text. MA TRIX P...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed May 24, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.