Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Analog Circuit-QED Simulator of Quantum Spin Dynamics Through the Extended Bose-Hubbard Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An engineered array of microwave oscillators can be tuned so that its photon dynamics exactly reproduces the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model, with each spin carried by a hard-core boson through a continuous family of deformed-boson mappings.

desk verdict The core spin-to-boson mapping holds up; the alpha-family is a real but modest generalization, and the one sharp objection I was handed does not survive contact with the equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03587 v3 pith:YTVO4G47 submitted 2025-07-04 quant-ph

Ivan V. Dudinets , Jaehee Kim , Tomás Ramos , Aleksey K. Fedorov , Vladimir I. Man'ko , Joonsuk Huh This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P6882B20 PACS 03.67.-a85.25.-j75.10.Jm
keywords circuitquantumelectrodynamicsanalogsimulationHeisenbergspinmodelextendedBose-HubbarddeformedbosonrepresentationHolstein-PrimakofftransformationDyson-MaleevJosephsonjunctionarray
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 proposes an experimentally reachable route to analog quantum simulation of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model using superconducting circuits. The central construction is a one-parameter family of deformed-boson representations of SU(2) that contains the Holstein-Primakoff and Dyson-Maleev transformations as special cases, and the paper shows that for spin-1/2 every member of the family reduces to the same extended Bose-Hubbard (EBH) Hamiltonian on the physical subspace of zero or one excitation per site. The paper then shows that a Josephson-junction array of nonlinear microwave oscillators has a Hamiltonian with exactly the same operator structure, so that when the circuit parameters satisfy the derived algebraic relations, the array reproduces the spin dynamics. Exact-diagonalization comparisons for dimerized chains, spinon propagation, a two-dimensional anisotropic model, and a disordered model show agreement to machine precision, establishing that microwave photons in a properly engineered circuit can stand in for quantum spins.

What carries the argument

The central object is the continuous $\alpha$-family of deformed-boson representations of SU(2): $\hat{S}^+ = \sqrt{2S}\,\hat{a}^\dagger(1-\hat n/2S)^\alpha$, $\hat{S}^- = \sqrt{2S}(1-\hat n/2S)^{1-\alpha}\hat a$, with $\hat{S}^z = \hat n - S$, built from $f$-deformed bosonic operators whose product satisfies $f_p(\hat n)f_m(\hat n) = 2S - \hat n$, which enforces the SU(2) commutation relations. For spin-1/2 the physical subspace truncates each site to two levels, so the mapping becomes a hard-core-boson encoding. The second element is the Josephson-junction-array Hamiltonian: each site is a nonlinear oscillator with frequency $\omega_j$ and anharmonicity $\delta\omega_j$; the couplings comprise linear hopping $t_{jk}$, cross-Kerr terms $\Delta_{jk}$, and density-assisted tunneling $T_{jk}$, $\bar T_{jk}$. The parameter identities $\Delta_{jk} = 2T_{jk} = 2\bar T_{jk}$ and $t_{jk} = -3J_{jk}/2$, together with the impedance-uniformity condition $E_{C,j}/E^{\rm eq}_{J,j} = E_C/E_{\rm eq}$, are what make the array Hamiltonian coincide exactly with the EBH Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Prepare the domain-wall state in a small array built to the Table I bond parameters and monitor both the integrated photon flow across the center and the two-photon occupation probability at each site; if the measured flow deviates from the exact antiferromagnetic-chain curve once parameters drift a few percent off Eqs. (40)-(42), or if double occupations appear and grow in time, the claimed confinement of the dynamics to the physical subspace is disproved, while agreement at machine precision for the exact parameter sets would confirm the equivalence in hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is an exact Hamiltonian equivalence, not a perturbative one. On the subspace with at most one boson per site, the spin-1/2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with couplings $J_{jk}$ and fields $h_j$ is mapped by the deformed-boson transformation onto the extended Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian of Eq. (25), whose nearest-neighbor interaction and density-assisted tunneling terms are fixed functions of $J_{jk}$. The paper further shows that the Josephson-junction-array Hamiltonian of Eq. (37), obtained in the rotating-wave approximation and the low-phase-drop limit, coincides with this EBH Hamiltonian provided the array has uniform impedance $E_C/E_{\rm eq}$ across the lattice, with the parameter mapping $J_{jk} = 2E'_{J,jk}E_C/E_{\rm eq}$, $t_{jk} = -3J_{jk}/2$, $\Delta_{jk} = J_{jk}$, $T_{jk} = J_{jk}/2$, together with the tuning condition on the capacitive couplings given in Eq. (42). Because the EBH dynamics never leaves the physical subspace when it starts there, the microwave-photon dynamics is in principle exactly the spin dynamics, and the numerical simulations confirm the two Hamiltonians give indistinguishable time evolution up to machine precision.

Load-bearing premise

The equivalence holds only while the system never leaves the subspace of at most one photon per site, and the circuit stays inside that subspace only if every bond's Josephson and capacitive energies satisfy the paper's algebraic parameter relations exactly, so any fabrication spread or flux-trimming error could leak amplitude into double-occupied states and break the spin simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A built array would read out spin dynamics directly as microwave observables: magnetization as photon numbers and correlations as quadrature or homodyne signals.
  • The same target spin Hamiltonian can be realized by many different circuit parameter sets because the ratio $r = E_{\rm eq}/E_C$ is a free knob, which gives calibration flexibility.
  • Because the equivalence is exact on the physical subspace rather than approximate, an as-built device should reproduce genuine many-body features such as entanglement growth and disorder-driven localization in regimes where exact diagonalization and tensor-network methods cannot reach.
  • The dimerized-chain benchmark opens the platform to spin-Peierls-type physics, and the design extends naturally to two-dimensional lattices and, in principle, to higher-spin encodings.
  • Fabrication precision of a few MHz per bond is identified as the practical requirement, with local flux addressability as the proposed tuning mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the equivalence lives entirely inside the one-excitation-per-site subspace, the next quantity to characterize is the leakage rate into two-photon sites under realistic fabrication spread; a leakage-versus-detuning curve would convert the paper's algebraic parameter constraints into a concrete hardware error budget.
  • The boson encoding is local in any lattice dimension, unlike the nonlocal string terms of a Jordan-Wigner transformation, which is likely why it fits a nearest-neighbor circuit array so naturally; this geometric advantage is implicit in the construction but not spelled out.
  • A natural experimental extension is to fabricate the two-dimensional disordered array and measure the imbalance versus disorder strength $W$; the survival or decay of the imbalance would bring direct evidence on whether many-body localization persists in two dimensions, a question the paper notes is still unsettled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an analog circuit-QED simulator for spin-1/2 Heisenberg models. The authors introduce a one-parameter family of deformed boson mappings of SU(2) (interpolating between Holstein-Primakoff and Dyson-Maleev), show that on the spin-1/2 physical subspace (n_j=0,1) every member reduces to a common hard-core-boson form, and rewrite the Heisenberg model as an extended Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian. They then design a Josephson junction array with nearest-neighbor hopping, cross-Kerr, and density-assisted tunneling terms, and give a parameter map (Eqs. (40)-(42) and Appendix B) under which the JJA Hamiltonian coincides with the EBH form on the physical subspace. Exact diagonalization comparisons are presented for a dimerized chain, a periodic chain with a spinon excitation, a 2D anisotropic lattice, and a disordered 2D lattice, with claims of machine-precision agreement.

Significance. If the mapping is valid, this is a valuable proposal: it connects a formal bosonization construction to a concrete, scalable superconducting-circuit platform, with explicit parameter tables and open data/code. The numerical validation covers four distinct spin models and several observables, and the mapping is derived rather than fitted, so the work is not circular. I verified that the operator ordering in Eq. (25) is in fact confining: the density factor stands to the right of the hopping operator, so on |1,1> it acts first and gives zero, and the main skeptical concern about that equation does not land. The remaining issues concern missing proofs and clarifications about subspace invariance, a chemical-potential convention, and an incorrect energy-measurement formula.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.D and Appendix A] The invariance of the physical subspace under Eq. (37) is asserted rather than proved. Acting with the individual linear hopping term t_jk(a†_j a_k + a_j a†_k) on |1_j,1_k> produces √2 t_jk |2_j,0_k> plus √2 t_jk |0_j,2_k>, so the at-most-one-excitation condition is not preserved term by term; the same is true of the T_jk and \bar T_jk density-assisted terms. The cancellation that makes the combination (37) confine the dynamics to the physical subspace follows only from the exact parameter relations (38)-(42), and this calculation should be shown explicitly. The problem is load-bearing because Sec. III states that the simulations restrict the system to at most one excitation per site; if the numerics imposed that truncation rather than simulating the full bosonic Hilbert space, they do not by themselves test the leakage cancellation. Please state the local Hilbert-space dimension used in QuSpin and report the population of nonphysical states in a full-space run.
  2. [Sec. III, Tables I-IV] With the tabulated parameters (ℏω ≈ 2πℏ×5 GHz, E_C ≈ 2πℏ×200 MHz, E'_J ≈ 2πℏ×1.56 GHz, J ≈ 2πℏ×40 MHz), Eq. (B3) gives h_j + J_eq_j/2 = ℏω + ℏδω - Δeq_j/2 ≈ 2πℏ×4.72 GHz for the site terms. In the spin language this is a large uniform (up to small boundary corrections) Zeeman field. Such a term is a constant on each total-magnetization sector, which explains why the observables in Figs. 3-6, all initialized within one sector, are unaffected; but it is not a constant for superpositions of different sectors. The closing claim of Sec. III that equivalence was verified for superpositions of states from different magnetization sectors is therefore inconsistent with the tabulated parameters unless those simulations used a different parameter set or explicitly compensated the chemical potential. Please clarify the frame/parameter convention and state the equivalence as holding up to a term proportional to total boson number.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (49)] The proposed energy-measurement formula omits the T_jk and \bar T_jk density-assisted tunneling terms present in Eq. (37). On physical states these terms contribute to the effective spin-exchange amplitude (together with t_jk = -3J_jk/2 they produce the physical hopping amplitude -J_jk/2), so Eq. (49) does not equal ⟨Ĥ_JJA⟩ on the subspace of interest. The quadrature identity is also misstated: with X_j=(â_j+â†_j)/2 and P_j=(â_j-â†_j)/(2i), the correct relation is â†_jâ_k+â_jâ†_k = 2(X_jX_k+P_jP_k), not the expression with P_j=(â_j+â_k)/(2i).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption refers to Eq. (50) for the disordered Heisenberg model, but the model is defined in Eq. (52).
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (45)] The bosonic deviation should read Δm_boson(j,t)=⟨n_j⟩(t)-1+θ(j-N/2) to match the spin definition; as written it differs by 1 on the left half of the chain.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (20)-(21)] The operators (1-ˆn_j)^α are not defined for n_j≥2 when α is not an integer; please specify the convention (for example, zero on nonphysical sectors) or restrict the definition to the physical subspace n=0,1.
  4. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (25)] The statement that each term maps physical states to physical states is correct with the density factor placed to the right of the hopping operators; a one-sentence explanation of the ordering would help readers avoid the apparent leakage from |1,1>.
  5. [Sec. III.B] The state |HS> should be identified explicitly as an eigenstate of the bosonic Hamiltonian (Eq. (37) or the EBH form), not of the spin Hamiltonian, to avoid confusion about the inverted spectrum for antiferromagnetic couplings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-to-EBH mapping is derived algebraically and the JJA parameters are obtained by coefficient matching, then independently validated with exact-diagonalization simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. The deformed-boson representation is derived from the SU(2) commutation relations through a finite-difference condition, and the EBH Hamiltonian in Eq. (25) is constructed from the spin Hamiltonian by adding terms that vanish on the physical subspace. The JJA parameters are then obtained by equating coefficients between the JJA Hamiltonian Eq. (37) and the EBH Hamiltonian in Appendix B (Eqs. B3-B22), not by fitting to simulated dynamics. The numerical comparisons in Figs. 3-6 check two independently implemented Hamiltonians (the spin model and the circuit-QED model) using QuSpin, so the 'indistinguishable dynamics up to machine precision' is a genuine consistency test of the algebraic mapping rather than a quantity forced by construction. There are self-citations to Refs. [57,58] on f-oscillators and Ref. [59] on the Josephson-junction array, and one coauthor (Ramos) is an author of Ref. [59]; however, these citations provide the underlying mathematical framework and the physical platform Lagrangian, not the Heisenberg-to-EBH equivalence itself, and they do not function as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as a forbidden alternative. The displayed operator ordering in Eq. (25) and the confinement claim should ideally be spelled out more rigorously, since the recast form Eq. (B1) has a different operator structure on the full bosonic Hilbert space; this is a correctness/auditability concern, not a circularity one. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against independent numerical benchmarks, so the circularity score is 1 due only to minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mapping rests on the standard bosonic Fock space truncation and on the circuit approximations used to derive the JJA Hamiltonian. No new physical particles or forces are introduced. The two free parameters, alpha and r, are not fitted to data: alpha is irrelevant for spin-1/2, and r is a design choice with multiple valid values.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (deformation parameter)
    Continuous parameter alpha in (0,1] indexing the deformed boson representation family; for spin-1/2 its effect cancels on the physical subspace, so it does not affect the final EBH mapping or the numerical results.
  • r = E_eq_J / E_C (impedance ratio)
    Design freedom in the parameter mapping; the paper notes that the same target spin Hamiltonian can be realized by multiple values of r, and the numerical tables choose specific values within experimentally typical ranges.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Canonical bosonic commutation relations and f-deformed oscillator algebra define the representation.
    Used throughout Section II A to construct S+ and S- operators from bosonic creation and annihilation operators.
  • domain assumption The physical state space is truncated to boson numbers n = 0, ..., 2S per site.
    Section II A states the space spanned by |n> with n=0,...,2S is the physical state space; this truncation is exact for spin-S only if the dynamics stay inside the subspace.
  • domain assumption The Josephson junction array can be described by expanding cosines to fourth order in the flux and by the rotating-wave approximation.
    Appendix A derives the JJA Hamiltonian using low phase drops |phi| << Phi0 and low coupling capacitances C'_jk << C_j, and drops non-number-conserving terms via RWA; these are standard but not error-quantified.
  • domain assumption The ratio E_C,j / E_eq_J,j is uniform across the lattice.
    Section II D assumes uniform impedance to obtain Delta_jk = 2 T_jk = 2 Tbar_jk and the simplified parameter relations; this is stated as realizable by uniform impedance distribution but is not derived from fabrication constraints.
  • domain assumption Initial states are in the physical subspace and the exact parameter matching keeps the evolution in that subspace.
    Section II D and Appendix A assert that the dynamics keep the system within the at-most-one-excitation-per-site subspace; this requires the exact algebraic relations among t, Delta, T, and Tbar, and is sensitive to parameter errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analog Circuit-QED Simulator of Quantum Spin Dynamics Through the Extended Bose-Hubbard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTVO4G47

@misc{pith2026250703587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analog Circuit-QED Simulator of Quantum Spin Dynamics Through the Extended Bose-Hubbard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTVO4G47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03587}
}
read the original abstract

We propose and validate a framework for analog simulation of the Heisenberg spin model using a circuit quantum electrodynamics (circuit-QED) platform. To this end, we develop a continuous family of deformed boson representations of the SU(2) algebra, which includes the Holstein-Primakoff and Dyson-Maleev transformations as special cases. For spin-1/2 systems, we introduce a procedure to circumvent the inherent non-Hermiticity of the representation, showing that this entire family yields the extended Bose-Hubbard (EBH) Hamiltonian. For the experimental realization of this EBH model, we design a scalable circuit-QED architecture based on an engineered Josephson junction array. Numerical simulations confirm that the microwave photon dynamics in this simulator accurately reproduces the original spin dynamics. Our work establishes an experimentally accessible method for investigating complex quantum spin dynamics in a highly controllable bosonic setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Design of the analog circuit-QED-based simulator for a one-dimensional Heisenberg model with (a) open and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Design of the analog circuit-QED-based simulator for the Heisenberg model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the dynamics of the circuit-QED simulator (solid line), Eq. (37), and the dimerized antiferromagnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the dynamics of the circuit-QED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the dynamics of the circuit-QED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. M. Chaikin, T. C. Lubensky, and T. A. Witten,Prin- ciples of condensed matter physics, Vol. 10 (Cambridge university press Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Therefore, the cosine functions can be expanded, yielding the following approximation for the potential term up to fourth order in the flux: ˆUpot =− NX j=1 EJ,j cos ˆϕj Φ0 ! − X ⟨j,k⟩ E′ J,jk cos ˆϕj − ˆϕk Φ0 ! = NX j=1 EJ,j ˆϕ2 j 2 Φ2 0 − ˆϕ4 j 24 Φ4 0 ! (A14) + X ⟨j,k⟩ E′ J,jk ( ˆϕj − ˆϕk)2 2 Φ2 0 − ( ˆϕj − ˆϕk)4 24 Φ4 0 ! . Terms that are quadratic in...

  3. [3]

    C. H. Bennett and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum infor- mation and computation, nature404, 247 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    S. Wolf, D. Awschalom, R. Buhrman, J. Daughton, v. S. von Moln´ ar, M. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. Treger, Spintronics: a spin-based electronics vision for the future, science294, 1488 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Felser, G

    C. Felser, G. H. Fecher, and B. Balke, Spintronics: a challenge for materials science and solid-state chemistry, Angewandte Chemie International Edition46, 668 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    J. R. Thomson, H. Guo, D. H. Ryan, M. J. Zucker- mann, and M. Grant, Magnetic ordering in the three- dimensional frustrated heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 45, 3129 (1992)

    1992

  8. [8]

    Heisenberg,Zur theorie des ferromagnetismus (Springer, 1985)

    W. Heisenberg,Zur theorie des ferromagnetismus (Springer, 1985)

    1985

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    G. F. Newell and E. W. Montroll, On the theory of the ising model of ferromagnetism, Reviews of Modern Physics25, 353 (1953)

    1953

  2. [10]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Kanamori, Magnetization process in an ising spin system, Progress of Theoretical Physics35, 16 (1966)

    J. Kanamori, Magnetization process in an ising spin system, Progress of Theoretical Physics35, 16 (1966)

    1966

  5. [13]

    Emery and G

    V. Emery and G. Reiter, Mechanism for high- temperature superconductivity, Physical Review B38, 4547 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    A. S. T. Pires,Theoretical Tools for Spin Models in Magnetic Systems, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nature Physics4, 173 (2008)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nature Physics4, 173 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Sachdev and B

    S. Sachdev and B. Keimer, Quantum criticality, Physics Today64, 29 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Rosner, R

    H. Rosner, R. R. P. Singh, W. H. Zheng, J. Oitmaa, and W. E. Pickett, High-temperature expansions for the J1 −J 2 heisenberg models: Applications to ab initio calculated models for li2vosio4 and li2vogeo4, Phys. Rev. B67, 014416 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    C.-Y. Park, P. A. Casares, J. M. Arrazola, and J. Huh, The hardness of quantum spin dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07658 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. A. Zhukov, S. V. Remizov, W. V. Pogosov, and Y. E. Lozovik, Algorithmic simulation of far-from-equilibrium dynamics using quantum computer, Quantum Informa- tion Processing17, 223 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    L¨ otstedt and K

    E. L¨ otstedt and K. Yamanouchi, Comparison of encod- ing schemes for quantum computing ofs >1/2 spin chains, Phys. Rev. A111, 062416 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    J. L. Lancaster and D. B. Allen, Simulating spin dynamics with quantum computers, American Journal of Physics93, 98 (2025), https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/93/1/98/20309553/98 1 5.0112717.pdf

    2025

  15. [23]

    A. K. Fedorov, N. Gisin, S. M. Beloussov, and A. I. Lvovsky, Quantum computing at the quantum advantage threshold: a down-to-business review (2022), arXiv:2203.17181 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Buluta and F

    I. Buluta and F. Nori, Quantum simulators, Science 326, 108 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  21. [29]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic mott insulator, Nature467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    F. H. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. E. Korepin,The one-dimensional Hubbard model (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Many-body physics with ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Aidelsburger, L

    M. Aidelsburger, L. Barbiero, A. Bermudez, T. Chanda, A. Dauphin, D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, P. R. Grzybowski, 18 S. Hands, F. Jendrzejewski, J. J¨ unemann,et al., Cold atoms meet lattice gauge theory, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A380, 20210064 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Omran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nature Physics8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Scholl, H

    P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barredo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier, A. Tebben, A. Salzinger, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lahaye, M. Weidem¨ uller, and A. Browaeys, Mi- crowave engineering of programmablexxzhamiltonians in arrays of rydberg ...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Koepsell, J

    J. Koepsell, J. Vijayan, P. Sompet, F. Grusdt, T. A. Hilker, E. Demler, G. Salomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Imaging magnetic polarons in the doped fermi–hubbard model, Nature572, 358 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    C. Luo, H. Zhang, A. Chu, C. Maruko, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Hamiltonian engineering of collective xyz spin models in an optical cavity, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-02866-0 (2025)

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, On-chip quan- tum simulation with superconducting circuits, Nature Physics8, 292 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z. X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    M. J. Hartmann, Quantum simulation with interacting photons, Journal of Optics18, 104005 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Barends, L

    R. Barends, L. Lamata, J. Kelly, L. Garc ´ ıa- ´Alvarez, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I. C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner,...

    2015

  35. [43]

    Jiang, C

    Y.-Y. Jiang, C. Deng, H. Fan, B.-Y. Li, L. Sun, X.-S. Tan, W. Wang, G.-M. Xue, F. Yan, H.- F. Yu, Y.-S. Zhang, Y.-R. Zhang, and C.-L. Zou, Advancements in superconducting quantum computing, National Science Review12, nwaf246 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/12...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Kyriienko and A

    O. Kyriienko and A. S. Sørensen, Floquet quantum simulation with superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.9, 064029 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Y. Y. Gao, M. A. Rol, S. Touzard, and C. Wang, Practical guide for building superconducting quantum devices, PRX Quantum2, 040202 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c and I. Salom, Quantum dynamics of the small-polaron formation in a superconducting analog simulator, Phys. Rev. B99, 134308 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Fedortchenko, S

    S. Fedortchenko, S. Felicetti, D. Markovi´ c, S. Jezouin, A. Keller, T. Coudreau, B. Huard, and P. Milman, Quantum simulation of ultrastrongly coupled bosonic modes using superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A95, 042313 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    J. K. Nauth and V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Spectral features of polaronic excitations in a superconducting analog simulator, Phys. Rev. B107, 174306 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Mansikkam¨ aki, S

    O. Mansikkam¨ aki, S. Laine, A. Piltonen, and M. Silveri, Beyond hard-core bosons in transmon arrays, PRX Quantum3, 040314 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Yanay, J

    Y. Yanay, J. Braum¨ uller, S. Gustavsson, W. D. Oliver, and C. Tahan, Two-dimensional hard-core bose– hubbard model with superconducting qubits, npj Quan- tum Information6, 58 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Schmidt and J

    S. Schmidt and J. Koch, Circuit qed lattices: Towards quantum simulation with superconducting circuits, An- nalen der Physik525, 395 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Physical Review58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  46. [54]

    S. A. Wilkinson and M. J. Hartmann, Superconduct- ing quantum many-body circuits for quantum simu- lation and computing, Applied Physics Letters116, 10.1063/5.0008202 (2020)

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    F. J. Dyson, Thermodynamic behavior of an ideal ferromagnet, Physical Review102, 1230 (1956)

    1956

  48. [56]

    F. J. Dyson, General theory of spin-wave interactions, Physical review102, 1217 (1956)

    1956

  49. [57]

    V. I. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E. C. G. Sudarshan, and F. Zaccaria, f-oscillators and nonlinear coherent states, Physica Scripta55, 528 (1997)

    1997

  50. [58]

    Maleev, Scattering of slow neutrons in ferromagnets, Sov

    S. Maleev, Scattering of slow neutrons in ferromagnets, Sov. Phys. JETP6, 776 (1958)

    1958

  51. [59]

    Ramos, A

    T. Ramos, A. G´ omez-Le´ on, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and D. Porras, Topological joseph- son parametric amplifier array: A proposal for di- rectional, broadband, and low-noise amplification, arXiv:2207.13728 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    I. V. Dudinets, V. I. Man’ko, G. Marmo, and F. Zac- caria, Tomography on f-oscillators, Physica Scripta92, 115101 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    G´ omez-Leon, T

    A. G´ omez-Leon, T. Ramos, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and D. Porras, Driven-dissipative topological phases in parametric resonator arrays, Quantum7, 1016 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Ramos, J

    T. Ramos, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and D. Porras, Topolog- ical input-output theory for directional amplification, Phys. Rev. A103, 033513 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Sowi´ nski, O

    T. Sowi´ nski, O. Dutta, P. Hauke, L. Tagliacozzo, and M. Lewenstein, Dipolar molecules in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 115301 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    C. N. Yang and C. P. Yang, One-dimensional chain of anisotropic spin-spin interactions. ii. properties of the ground-state energy per lattice site for an infinite system, Phys. Rev.150, 327 (1966)

    1966

  57. [65]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems part I: spin chains, SciPost Phys. 2, 003 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Baier, M

    S. Baier, M. J. Mark, D. Petter, K. Aikawa, L. Chomaz, Z. Cai, M. Baranov, P. Zoller, and 19 F. Ferlaino, Extended bose-hubbard models with ultracold magnetic atoms, Science352, 201 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aac9812

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Barford and R

    W. Barford and R. J. Bursill, Peierls transition in the quantum spin-peierls model, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 137207 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. Part II: bosons, fermions and higher spins, SciPost Phys.7, 020 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, M. Vanevi´ c, E. Demler, and L. Tian, Transmon-based simulator of nonlocal electron-phonon coupling: A platform for observing sharp small-polaron transitions, Phys. Rev. B89, 144508 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Herzog, P

    A. Herzog, P. Horsch, A. M. Ole´ s, and J. Sirker, Dimerized ferromagnetic heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. B84, 134428 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Gobert, C

    D. Gobert, C. Kollath, U. Schollw¨ ock, and G. Sch¨ utz, Real-time dynamics in spin- 1 2 chains with adaptive time-dependent density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. E71, 036102 (2005)

    2005

  64. [72]

    V. M. Stojanovi´ c, Bare-excitation ground state of a spinless-fermion–boson model andw-state engineering in an array of superconducting qubits and resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 190504 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Vlijm and J.-S

    R. Vlijm and J.-S. Caux, Spinon dynamics in quantum integrable antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B93, 174426 (2016)

    2016

  66. [74]

    Misguich, K

    G. Misguich, K. Mallick, and P. L. Krapivsky, Dynamics of the spin- 1 2 heisenberg chain initialized in a domain- wall state, Phys. Rev. B96, 195151 (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    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 communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Lieb and D

    E. Lieb and D. Mattis, Ordering energy levels of inter- acting spin systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 749 (1962)

    1962

  69. [77]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, The variational quantum eigensolver: A review of methods and best practices, Physics Reports 986, 1 (2022), the Variational Quantum Eigensolver: a review of ...

    2022

  70. [78]

    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, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Y.-F. Chen, D. Hover, S. Sendelbach, L. Maurer, S. Merkel, E. Pritchett, F. Wilhelm, and R. McDer- mott, Microwave photon counter based on josephson junctions, Physical review letters107, 217401 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    M. D. Sapova and A. K. Fedorov, Variational quantum eigensolver techniques for simulating carbon monoxide oxidation, Communications Physics5, 199 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Romero, J

    G. Romero, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, and E. Solano, Mi- crowave photon detector in circuit qed, Physical review letters102, 173602 (2009)

    2009

  74. [82]

    Peropadre, G

    B. Peropadre, G. Romero, G. Johansson, C. M. Wilson, E. Solano, and J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, Approaching perfect microwave photodetection in circuit qed, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 063834 (2011)

    2011

  75. [83]

    Eichler, D

    C. Eichler, D. Bozyigit, and A. Wallraff, Characterizing quantum microwave radiation and its entanglement with superconducting qubits using linear detectors, Phys. Rev. A86, 032106 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    DiCarlo, M

    L. DiCarlo, M. D. Reed, L. Sun, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Preparation and measurement of three-qubit entanglement in a superconducting circuit, Nature467, 574 (2010)

    2010

  77. [85]

    D. R. Baykusheva, M. H. Kalthoff, D. Hofmann, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, M. A. Sentef, and M. Mitrano, Witnessing nonequilibrium entanglement dynamics in a strongly correlated fermionic chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 106902 (2023)

    2023

  78. [86]

    Morong, F

    W. Morong, F. Liu, P. Becker, K. Collins, L. Feng, A. Kyprianidis, G. Pagano, T. You, A. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Observation of stark many-body localization without disorder, Nature599, 393 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Krishna, M

    A. Krishna, M. Ippoliti, and R. N. Bhatt, Many-body localization in landau-level subbands, Phys. Rev. B99, 041111 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    J. Hur, J. Li, B. Lee, K. Kwon, M. Kim, S. Hwang, S. Kim, Y. S. Yu, A. Chan, T. Wahl,et al., Stability of many-body localization in two dimensions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20699 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Heidrich-Meisner, A

    F. Heidrich-Meisner, A. Honecker, and T. Vekua, Frus- trated ferromagnetic spin- 1 2 chain in a magnetic field: The phase diagram and thermodynamic properties, Phys. Rev. B74, 020403 (2006)

    2006

  82. [90]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1297 (American Institute of Physics, 2010) pp. 135–338

    2010

  83. [91]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  84. [92]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  85. [93]

    W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Rajagopal, Quantum monte carlo simulations of solids, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 33 (2001)

    2001

  86. [94]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  87. [95]

    Cohen, E

    G. Cohen, E. Gull, D. R. Reichman, and A. J. Millis, Taming the dynamical sign problem in real-time evolution of quantum many-body problems, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 266802 (2015)

    2015

  88. [96]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Computational complexity and fundamental limitations to fermionic quantum monte carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005)

    2005

  89. [97]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 20 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  90. [98]

    Lange, A

    H. Lange, A. Van de Walle, A. Abedinnia, and A. Bohrdt, From architectures to applications: a review of neural quantum states, Quantum Science and Technology9, 040501 (2024)

    2024

  91. [99]

    Svetitsky, H

    E. Svetitsky, H. Suchowski, R. Resh, Y. Shalibo, J. M. Martinis, and N. Katz, Hidden two-qubit dynamics of a four-level josephson circuit, Nature Communications5, 5617 (2014)

    2014

  92. [100]

    Krantz, M

    P. Krantz, M. Kjaergaard, F. Yan, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, A quantum engineer’s guide to superconducting qubits, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021318 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5089550/16667201/021318 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  93. [101]

    Kiktenko, A

    E. Kiktenko, A. Fedorov, A. Strakhov, and V. Man’ko, Single qudit realization of the deutsch algorithm using superconducting many-level quantum circuits, Physics Letters A379, 1409 (2015)

    2015

  94. [102]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, O. V. Man’ko, and V. I. Man’ko, Multilevel superconducting circuits as two-qubit systems: Operations, state preparation, and entropic inequalities, Phys. Rev. A91, 042312 (2015)

    2015

  95. [103]

    Bækkegaard, L

    T. Bækkegaard, L. Kristensen, N. J. Loft, C. K. Andersen, D. Petrosyan, and N. T. Zinner, Realization of efficient quantum gates with a superconducting qubit- qutrit circuit, Scientific reports9, 13389 (2019)

    2019

  96. [104]

    Braum¨ uller, J

    J. Braum¨ uller, J. Cramer, S. Schl¨ or, H. Rotzinger, L. Radtke, A. Lukashenko, P. Yang, S. T. Skacel, S. Probst, M. Marthaler, L. Guo, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Multiphoton dressing of an anharmonic superconducting many-level quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. B91, 054523 (2015)

    2015

  97. [105]

    Z. Wang, R. W. Parker, E. Champion, and M. S. Blok, High-EJ /EC transmon qudits with up to 12 levels, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 034046 (2025)

    2025

  98. [106]

    T. Roy, Z. Li, E. Kapit, and D. Schuster, Two-qutrit quantum algorithms on a programmable superconduct- ing processor, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064024 (2023)

    2023

  99. [107]

    C. L. Edmunds, E. Rico, I. Arrazola, G. K. Brennen, M. Meth, R. Blatt, and M. Ringbauer, Constructing the spin-1 haldane phase on a qudit quantum processor (2024), arXiv:2408.04702 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  100. [108]

    E. O. Kiktenko, A. S. Nikolaeva, and A. K. Fedorov, Colloquium: Qudits for decomposing multiqubit gates and realizing quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 021003 (2025)

    2025

  101. [109]

    I. V. Dudinetset al., spin-dynamics-cQED- EBH-simulator, 10.5281/zenodo.18220576 (2025), GitHub:https://github.com/IvanDudinets/ spin-dynamics-cQED-EBH-simulator

    2025 doi

  102. [110]

    Chicco, G

    S. Chicco, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, C. D. Buch, P. Santini, R. De Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Carretta, Proof-of-concept quantum simulator based on molecular spin qudits, Journal of the American Chemical Society 146, 1053 (2024)

    2024

  103. [140]

    T.R. acknowledges funding from the Generaci´ on de Conocimientos project PID2023-146531NA-I00 and the Ram´ on y Cajal program RYC2021-032473-I, financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR. DA T A A V AILABILITY The data that generate...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.