Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Variational Quantum Simulation of Anyonic Chains

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that every A_p RSOS anyonic chain can be embedded in a qubit register of ceil(log2 p) qubits per site, with Temperley-Lieb generators acting on 3np neighboring qubits, and that the Euler-Cartan variational ansatz prepares…

desk verdict Plausible qubit encoding of RSOS anyonic chains with solid small-system numerics, but the scalability and spectral claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17781 v1 pith:W62BSC23 submitted 2024-12-23 quant-ph hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Ananda Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords anyonicchainsRSOSmodelsTemperley-LiebalgebravariationalquantumeigensolverEuler-Cartancircuitansatzconformalfieldtheorytopologicalsymmetryoperatorssimulation
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 shows that anyonic chains—quantum systems whose Hilbert space lacks a tensor product structure—can be systematically embedded into ordinary qubit registers, using ceil(log2 p) qubits per site for the A_p RSOS models. It claims that the resulting Hamiltonian, built from Temperley-Lieb generators acting on 3np neighboring qubits, can be solved variationally with a nearest-neighbor Euler-Cartan circuit, reaching the ground-state energies of critical minimal-model conformal field theories to within 0.5% at circuit depths comparable to system size. If correct, this provides a near-term quantum route to simulate a large family of quantum field theories that have so far lacked simple physical realizations, with simple parity and occupation measurements revealing the anyonic constraints.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Temperley-Lieb generator e_j, defined by the RSOS height variables and the Perron-Frobenius eigenvector φ(a) of the Dynkin adjacency matrix, re-expressed as e_j = Σ_a $P^{{(a)}}$_{j-1} \tilde{e}$_j^{{(a)}}$ $P^{{(a)}}$_{j+1} acting on 3np qubits. The variational driver is the compressed Euler-Cartan ansatz, built from KAK-decomposed nearest-neighbor SU(4) unitaries whose fifteen parameters are optimized with ADAM through differentiable matrix-product-state simulation. The topological symmetry operator Y = (-q)^{-1/2} $g_0^{{-1}}$ ... g_{L_R-2}^{-1} $u^{{-1}}$ + h.c., constructed from braid generators g_j = (-q)^{1/2}(1 - e_j/q), provides a benchmark observable whose expectation value on periodic chains must equal 2 cos(π/(p + 1)).

What would settle it

Simulate the same Euler-Cartan optimization for a longer chain—say L_R = 20 sites for p = 8, i.e., 60 qubits—and record the minimal depth at which |E/E_T - 1| < 5 × $10^{{-3}}$; if the required depth grows superlinearly in L, or if the variational state's np-qubit parity stops oscillating (indicating leakage into unphysical sectors), the claimed depth scaling and constraint certification break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Any A_p RSOS anyonic chain with p nodes can be encoded in a register of np = ceil(log2 p) qubits per site, such that the Temperley-Lieb generators, and hence the RSOS Hamiltonian, act on 3np neighboring qubits. The unphysical states introduced by the embedding are excluded by the Hamiltonian cost function, and measuring np-qubit parity strings and site-occupation probabilities recovers the anyonic fusion constraints of the original chain. For 4 ≤ p ≤ 8 at their quantum critical points, the Euler-Cartan variational ansatz prepares the ground states with relative energy error below 5 × $10^{{-3}}$ at circuit depth N ≃ L, and the topological symmetry operator expectation value converges to the predicted S-matrix ratio 2 cos(π/(p + 1)).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nearest-neighbor Euler-Cartan circuit, with depth proportional to system size, remains expressive enough to approximate the critical RSOS ground states as the chain grows, a scaling extrapolated from classical simulations of only 6 to 9 RSOS sites.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any RSOS chain in the A_p family (and, by extension, other Dynkin diagrams) can be realized on a quantum computer with only logarithmic qubit overhead per anyonic site.
  • The ground states of the minimal-model CFTs M(p + 1, p) can be prepared to within 0.5% energy error at circuit depth scaling linearly with system size, consistent with prior observations for gapless systems.
  • Observables acting on np neighboring qubits—parity strings and occupation probabilities—certify that the prepared state obeys the anyonic fusion constraints, distinguishing physical from unphysical sectors.
  • The topological symmetry operator Y, measured via Yu on periodic chains, saturates to the predicted S-matrix ratio and serves as a diagnostic for the topological content of the prepared state.
  • The qubit formulation permits classical DMRG simulations of anyonic chains without explicitly conserving anyonic charges, enabling cross-checks of the variational results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the depth scaling N ~ L persists to larger p and longer chains, the scheme would put quantum simulation of a whole tower of minimal-model CFTs within reach of near-term hardware, not just the Ising and Potts cases that already have spin-chain representations.
  • The oscillating np-qubit parity suggests a general certification strategy: any anyonic chain embedded in qubits can be validated by checking the alternating parity and adjacency-constrained occupation probabilities, without full state tomography.
  • The appendix's unidirectional constraint encoding for the tricritical Ising model hints that more qubit-efficient encodings exist for special cases; a systematic search for such compressions could reduce the 3np-qubit interaction range for other A_p models.
  • Because the optimization is performed classically with matrix-product states, the practical reach is currently limited by classical simulability; the natural next test is whether the optimized circuits transfer to real noisy hardware.
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 paper proposes a variational quantum simulation scheme for RSOS anyonic chains associated with A_p Dynkin diagrams. The p states of each RSOS site are encoded in np = ceil(log2 p) qubits, and the Temperley-Lieb generators, and hence the RSOS Hamiltonian, are expressed as operators acting on 3np neighboring qubits. The ground states of the resulting qubit Hamiltonians at criticality are sought with a variational Euler-Cartan circuit ansatz, with classical MPS/TEBD simulations serving as the stand-in for a quantum device. Benchmarks are reported for p = 4,...,8 and L = 12, 18, 24 qubits (that is, up to 9 RSOS sites), showing relative energy errors below 5e-3 at a circuit depth of order L. Additional diagnostics include np-qubit parity oscillations, site occupation probabilities p(a), and the expectation value of the topological symmetry operator Y, which saturates near 2cos(pi/(p+1)) for the periodic chains tested.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a systematic and comparatively resource-light route to simulating a large family of minimal-model CFTs on near-term quantum hardware, including diagnostics that directly probe the anyonic structure of the prepared state. The work is careful to provide multiple independent checks (energy, parity, p(a), topological operator), and the numerical results are internally consistent. The main gap is that the evidence is confined to very small system sizes (at most 9 RSOS sites) and the paper does not directly quantify the overlap with the physical RSOS subspace, while the qubit embedding introduces unphysical sectors at zero or low energy that the variational optimization is not explicitly prevented from entering.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section I and Eq. (8)] The statement that the Hamiltonian 'contains only those states in its eigenspectrum that satisfy the constraints' is not literally correct. For example, for p=5 the encoding of Eq. (7) leaves three unused codewords; any state with a site in such a codeword is annihilated by every P^{(a)} factor in Eq. (8) and is therefore an exact zero-energy eigenstate of H in Eq. (4). Similarly, configurations with a_{j-1} != a_{j+1} are annihilated by e_j. These states are part of the eigenspectrum and violate the RSOS constraints. The authors presumably mean that the physical ground state is contained in the constrained sector, but that requires a proof or a quantitative study; as written, the variational search is unconstrained and the energy landscape contains these unphysical states.
  2. [Section IV, Figs. 3-5] The benchmark does not directly quantify the overlap with the physical RSOS subspace. The parity oscillations and p(a) distributions are shown only for L=18 (9 or 6 RSOS sites), and no fidelity, overlap, or constraint-violation measure is reported as a function of L. Because the physical gap closes as 1/L while the energy penalty for occupying an unphysical sector is typically O(1) in absolute energy, the relative error |E/ET - 1| < 5e-3 becomes a progressively weaker certificate of anyonic ground-state preparation as L grows. Reporting the weight on unused codewords, the fraction of invalid nearest-neighbor pairs, or the overlap with the exact RSOS ground state would directly address this concern.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 3] The conclusion that circuit depth N ~ L suffices to prepare the critical RSOS ground states is extrapolated from at most three system sizes per p (L=12, 18, 24), corresponding to at most 9 RSOS sites, and no scaling fit or extrapolation analysis is presented. Since the expressibility of the Euler-Cartan ansatz at larger L is a load-bearing premise of the proposed near-term route, this claim should either be supported by additional data or qualified as preliminary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The notation 'P^{(a)}_j = 1p phi(a) |a><a|' appears to contain a typo; the intended expression is likely P^{(a)}_j = (1/phi(a)) |a><a|. Please clarify.
  2. [Appendix A] The statement that the alternate encoding 'requires 2L qubits instead of 4L as proposed in Sec. II' is inconsistent with the main text: for p=4, the Sec. II encoding uses np=2 qubits per RSOS site, i.e., 2L_R qubits for L_R sites, not 4L_R. Please correct the factor.
  3. [Fig. 4] The caption and text state that the occupation probabilities are 'compatible with DMRG results', but no DMRG curves or numerical comparison are shown in the figure. A direct comparison or a quantitative statement of the agreement would be more convincing.
  4. [Sec. II] The verification of the Temperley-Lieb algebra for the qubit representation in Eq. (8) is described only as 'verified by explicitly multiplying the operators'. Including the explicit matrices for a small p (e.g., p=4 or p=5) in an appendix would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5] The periodic-boundary results are shown only for L=12 and p=4,5. The text mentions that similar results were obtained for larger sizes, but without data; a statement of the achieved errors for those cases would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained and the numerical benchmarks are external to the variational cost function.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the RSOS-to-qubit embedding: Eq. (8) defines the Temperley-Lieb generators from the RSOS height data and the adjacency matrix, and the author states the TL algebra was verified by explicit multiplication of Eq. (8). The Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) is then minimized directly by the variational circuit, and the target energies ET are obtained from exact diagonalization of the RSOS model rather than from the variational parameters themselves. The parity measurements, occupation probabilities, and topological symmetry operator expectation value are not part of the cost function, so they provide independent, non-circular checks on the prepared state. The Euler-Cartan ansatz is cited to the author's prior work [25], but the ansatz is fully specified in Sec. III and its performance is demonstrated here in Figs. 3-5; the citation is attribution, not load-bearing evidence. Similarly, the statement that the circuit depth scales as N ~ L is an observed numerical result in Fig. 3 and is only loosely compared with earlier self-authored findings [46,47]. No equation is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, and no derived quantity reduces to its own input by construction. One correctness caveat, not a circularity: the Introduction's claim that the qubit Hamiltonian 'contains only those states in its eigenspectrum that satisfy the constraints' is literally inaccurate because unused height code words and invalid adjacencies form zero-energy unphysical sectors; however, this does not affect the circularity assessment because the variational benchmarks are still compared against external exact-diagonalization data.

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

The central claim does not introduce new physical constants or entities. It rests on standard Temperley-Lieb and RSOS algebra, on the unshown verification of the qubit TL representation, and on the empirical expressibility of the Euler-Cartan ansatz. The variational angles and numerical cutoffs are method hyperparameters, not physical free parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial angle theta0 = 1.0
    Hand-chosen initial value for all circuit angles at N=L/2; part of the optimization schedule in Figs. 3 and 5, not a physical parameter.
  • TEBD bond dimension = not specified
    Set to 'sufficiently high' so truncations did not affect results to six decimals; the exact value is not reported, hindering exact reproduction.
  • SVD Lorentzian broadening = 10^-12
    Regularizer in the complex singular value decomposition during backpropagation (Sec. III).
  • SVD truncation cutoff = 10^-10
    Singular values below this were dropped during TEBD time evolution (Sec. III).
  • ADAM learning rate = not stated
    The optimizer is named but its hyperparameters are not given, so the reported convergence cannot be exactly reproduced.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Temperley-Lieb generators e_j satisfy e_j^2 = (q+1/q)e_j, e_j e_{j+1} e_j = e_j, and [e_j,e_k]=0 for |j-k|>1.
    Used to construct the RSOS Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) and the braid and topological symmetry operators (Eqs. 11-14); this is standard TL algebra from refs [16,17].
  • ad hoc to paper The qubit representation of the Temperley-Lieb generators in Eq. (8) satisfies the same Temperley-Lieb algebra.
    The paper reports this was verified by explicitly multiplying the operators, but the verification is not shown; this identity underpins the qubit Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The RSOS Hamiltonian Eq. (4) at criticality corresponds to the minimal model M(p+1,p), and the topological symmetry operator expectation value on the periodic ground state is 2cos(pi/(p+1)).
    Taken from prior lattice/CFT literature (refs [16,31,32]); used as the external benchmark in Fig. 5c.
  • ad hoc to paper The nearest-neighbor Euler-Cartan circuit ansatz is expressive enough to prepare the critical RSOS ground states at circuit depth N ~ L.
    Load-bearing computational assumption supported only by the small-system benchmarks in Figs. 3-5; no proof or larger-system evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The variational optimization starting from a physical RSOS state stays within the physical subspace despite the presence of unphysical zero-energy states in the qubit Hamiltonian.
    The paper asserts the Hamiltonian enforces the constraints but does not analyze the unphysical sector; the parity and p(a) checks are empirical evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variational Quantum Simulation of Anyonic Chains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W62BSC23

@misc{pith2026241217781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variational Quantum Simulation of Anyonic Chains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W62BSC23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17781}
}
abstract

Anyonic chains provide lattice realizations of a rich set of quantum field theories in two space-time dimensions. The latter play a central role in the investigation of generalized symmetries, renormalization group flows and numerous exotic phases of strongly-correlated systems. Here, a variational quantum simulation scheme is presented for the analysis of those anyonic chains which can be mapped to the restricted solid-on-solid~(RSOS) models of Andrews, Baxter and Forrester. An~$L_R$ site RSOS model associated with a Dynkin diagram containing~$p$ nodes is realized with~$L_R\lceil\ln_2 p\rceil$ qubits, where~$\lceil x\rceil$ is the smallest integer~$\geq x$. The scheme is benchmarked by realizing the ground states of RSOS Hamiltonians in the~$A_p$ family for~$4\leq p\leq8$ using a variational quantum-classical algorithm. The latter is based on the Euler-Cartan circuit ansatz. Topological symmetry operators are analyzed for the RSOS models at the quantum-critical points. Measurement of observables acting on~$\lceil\ln_2 p\rceil$ qubits is shown to capture the anyonic nature of the Hilbert space. The described quantum simulation scheme provides a systematic approach to give rise to a large family of quantum field theories which have largely eluded physical realizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17781 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Schematic of an anyonic chain, chosen to be translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Cartan’s KAK decomposition of an SU(4) operator in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the relative errors in the energies obtained by minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian of Eq. (4) for systems with L = 12, 18 and 24 qubits. The tar￾get energy, ET , is obtained from exact diagonalization of the said Hamiltonian. The initial state for the quantum circuit op￾timization was chosen to be a RSOS state |2, 1, 2, 1, . . .⟩. The corresponding states of the qubit register can be obtained … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Expectation values of observables computed from the states obtained in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. a) Errors in the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Integrability and lattice discretizations of all Topological Defect Lines in minimal CFTs

    hep-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In integrable RSOS models, all Verlinde lines of diagonal minimal models are realized by spectral-parameter insertions: (1,s) lines are exactly topological on the lattice, (r>=2,s) lines only in the continuum limit, w...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg, Zur theorie des ferromagnetismus, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 49, 619 (1928)

    W. Heisenberg, Zur theorie des ferromagnetismus, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik 49, 619 (1928)

    work page 1928

  2. [2]

    M. Hase, I. Terasaki, and K. Uchinokura, Observation of the spin-peierls transition in linear cu2+ (spin-1/2) chains in an in- organic compound cugeo3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3651 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Ikhlef, J

    Y . Ikhlef, J. L. Jacobsen, and H. Saleur, Integrable spin chain for the SL(2, r)/U(1) black hole sigma model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081601 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    V . V . Bazhanov, G. A. Kotousov, S. M. Koval, and S. L. Lukyanov, Scaling limit of the Z2 invariant inhomoge- neous six-vertex model, Nucl. Phys. B 965, 115337 (2021), arXiv:2010.10613 [math-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Feiguin, S

    A. Feiguin, S. Trebst, A. W. W. Ludwig, M. Troyer, A. Kitaev, Z. Wang, and M. H. Freedman, Interacting anyons in topolog- ical quantum liquids: The golden chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160409 (2007), arXiv:cond-mat/0612341

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    C. Gils, E. Ardonne, S. Trebst, D. A. Huse, A. W. W. Lud- wig, M. Troyer, and Z. Wang, Anyonic quantum spin chains: Spin-1 generalizations and topological stability, Phys. Rev. B 87, 235120 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Buican and A

    M. Buican and A. Gromov, Anyonic Chains, Topological De- fects, and Conformal Field Theory, Commun. Math. Phys.356, 1017 (2017), arXiv:1701.02800 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Aasen, R

    D. Aasen, R. S. K. Mong, and P. Fendley, Topological Defects on the Lattice I: The Ising model, J. Phys. A49, 354001 (2016), arXiv:1601.07185 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Bellet ˆete, A

    J. Bellet ˆete, A. M. Gainutdinov, J. L. Jacobsen, H. Saleur, and T. S. Tavares, Topological defects in lattice models and affine temperley-lieb algebra (2020), arXiv:1811.02551 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aasen, P

    D. Aasen, P. Fendley, and R. S. K. Mong, Topological De- fects on the Lattice: Dualities and Degeneracies, (2020), arXiv:2008.08598 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bellet ˆete, A

    J. Bellet ˆete, A. M. Gainutdinov, J. L. Jacobsen, H. Saleur, and T. S. Tavares, Topological defects in lattice models and affine temperley–lieb algebra, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics 10.1007/s00220-022-04618-0 (2023)

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Sinha, F

    M. Sinha, F. Yan, L. Grans-Samuelsson, A. Roy, and H. Saleur, Lattice Realizations of Topological Defects in the critical (1+1)-d Three-State Potts Model, arXiv:2310.19703 (2023), arXiv:2310.19703 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. E. Andrews, R. J. Baxter, and P. J. Forrester, Eight vertex SOS model and generalized Rogers-Ramanujan type identities, J. Statist. Phys. 35, 193 (1984)

    1984

  6. [14]

    Pasquier, Operator content of the ade lattice models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 20, 5707 (1987)

    V . Pasquier, Operator content of the ade lattice models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 20, 5707 (1987)

    1987

  7. [15]

    Pasquier, Two-dimensional critical systems labelled by dynkin diagrams, Nuclear Physics B 285, 162 (1987)

    V . Pasquier, Two-dimensional critical systems labelled by dynkin diagrams, Nuclear Physics B 285, 162 (1987)

    1987

  8. [16]

    Saleur and J

    H. Saleur and J. B. Zuber, Integrable lattice models and quan- tum groups, in Spring School on String Theory and Quantum Gravity (to be followed by 3 day Workshop) (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Temperley and E

    H. Temperley and E. Lieb, Relations between the percolation and coloring problems on the plane square lattice. some exact results for the percolation problem, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 322, 251 (1971)

    1971

  10. [18]

    R. P. Feynman, Quantum mechanical computers, Optics News 11, 11 (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete loga- rithms and factoring, Proc

    P. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: Discrete loga- rithms and factoring, Proc. 35nd Annual Symposium on Foun- dations of Computer Science (Shafi Goldwasser, ed.), IEEE Computer Society Press , 124 (1994)

    1994

  12. [20]

    A. Y . Kitaev, Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem, (1995), arXiv:quant-ph/9511026

    1995 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Peruzzo, A

    A. Peruzzo, A. Laing, A. Politi, T. Rudolph, and J. L. O'Brien, Multimode quantum interference of photons in multiport integrated devices, Nature Communications 2, 10.1038/ncomms1228 (2011)

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Tilly, H

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

    2022

  15. [23]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A quantum approxi- mate optimization algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simula- tions on a quantum computer, Nature Communications10, 3007 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. Roy, R. M. Konik, and D. Rogerson, Universal euler-cartan circuits for quantum field theories (2024), arXiv:2407.21278 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization (2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. K ¨opf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, Pytorch: An imperative style, high-p...

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sierra and T

    G. Sierra and T. T. Nishino, The Density matrix renormalization group method applied to interaction round a face Hamiltonians, Nucl. Phys. B 495, 505 (1997), arXiv:cond-mat/9610221

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    R. N. C. Pfeifer and S. Singh, Finite density matrix renormal- ization group algorithm for anyonic systems, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115135 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Koo and H

    W. Koo and H. Saleur, Representations of the virasoro algebra from lattice models, Nuclear Physics B 426, 459 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    V . B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Generalized twisted parti- tion functions, Phys. Lett. B 504, 157 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0011021

    2001

  24. [32]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal, Conformal Field Theory, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer- Verlag, New York, 1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization (Wiley, 2013)

    R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization (Wiley, 2013). 8

    2013

  26. [34]

    Stokes, J

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

    2020

  27. [35]

    Hadfield, Z

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O'Gorman, E. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas, From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz, Algorithms 12, 34 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Z. Wang, N. C. Rubin, J. M. Dominy, and E. G. Rieffel, xy mixers: Analytical and numerical results for the quantum alter- nating operator ansatz, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012320 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    H. L. Tang, V . Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Qubit-adapt-vqe: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans ¨atze on a quantum processor, PRX Quantum 2, 020310 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

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

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

    2004

  31. [39]

    Vidal and C

    G. Vidal and C. M. Dawson, Universal quantum circuit for two- qubit transformations with three controlled-not gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 010301 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Vatan and C

    F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032315 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Liao, J.-G

    H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Differentiable pro- gramming tensor networks, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031041 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Wan and S.-X

    Z.-Q. Wan and S.-X. Zhang, Automatic differentiation for com- plex valued svd (2019), arXiv:1909.02659 [math.NA]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Townsend, Differentiating the singular value decomposition (2016), Technical Report 2016

    J. Townsend, Differentiating the singular value decomposition (2016), Technical Report 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Seeger, A

    M. Seeger, A. Hetzel, Z. Dai, E. Meissner, and N. D. Lawrence, Auto-differentiating linear algebra (2019), arXiv:1710.08717 [cs.MS]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Saleur and M

    H. Saleur and M. Bauer, On some relations between local height probabilities and conformal invariance, Nuclear Physics B 320, 591 (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    A. Roy, S. Erramilli, and R. M. Konik, Efficient quantum cir- cuits based on the quantum natural gradient, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043083 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Rogerson and A

    D. Rogerson and A. Roy, Quantum circuit optimization using differentiable programming of tensor network states (2024), arXiv:2408.12583 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. W. Ludwig and I. Affleck, Exact conformal-field-theory re- sults on the multi-channel kondo effect: Asymptotic three- dimensional space- and time-dependent multi-point and many- particle green’s functions, Nuclear Physics B 428, 545 (1994)

    1994

  41. [49]

    Affleck, Conformal field theory approach to the kondo effect (1995), arXiv:cond-mat/9512099 [cond-mat]

    I. Affleck, Conformal field theory approach to the kondo effect (1995), arXiv:cond-mat/9512099 [cond-mat]

    1995 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fendley and H

    P. Fendley and H. Saleur, Hyperelliptic curves for multichannel quantum wires and the multichannel kondo problem, Phys. Rev. B 60, 11432 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Bachas and M

    C. Bachas and M. Gaberdiel, Loop operators and the Kondo problem, JHEP 11, 065, arXiv:hep-th/0411067

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kormos, I

    M. Kormos, I. Runkel, and G. M. T. Watts, Defect flows in min- imal models, JHEP 11, 057, arXiv:0907.1497 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    T. S. Tavares, M. Sinha, L. Grans-Samuelsson, A. Roy, and H. Saleur, Integrable RG Flows on Topological Defect Lines in 2D Conformal Field Theories, (2024), arXiv:2408.08241 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, Irreversibility of the flux of the renormal- ization group in a 2d field theory, JETP Letters 43, 565 (1986)

    1986

  47. [55]

    Zamolodchikov, Thermodynamic bethe ansatz for rsos scat- tering theories, Nuclear Physics B 358, 497 (1991)

    A. Zamolodchikov, Thermodynamic bethe ansatz for rsos scat- tering theories, Nuclear Physics B 358, 497 (1991)

    1991

  48. [56]

    Fendley, H

    P. Fendley, H. Saleur, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Mass- less flows i: The sine-gordon and o(n) models, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics A 08, 5717 (1993), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X93002265

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    V . A. Fateev and A. B. Zamolodchikov, Parafermionic Currents in the Two-Dimensional Conformal Quantum Field Theory and Selfdual Critical Points in Z(n) Invariant Statistical Systems, Sov. Phys. JETP 62, 215 (1985)

    1985

  50. [58]

    Fateev and A

    V . Fateev and A. Zamolodchikov, Integrable perturbations of zn parafermion models and the o(3) sigma model, Physics Letters B 271, 91 (1991)

    1991

  51. [59]

    A. G. Bytsko and J. Teschner, Quantization of models with non- compact quantum group symmetry: Modular xxz magnet and lattice sinh-gordon model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 39, 12927 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.