Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Shortcuts to Analog Preparation of Non-Equilibrium Quantum Lakes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Approximate counterdiabatic driving, a ground-state shortcut, targets the non-equilibrium quantum-lakes state instead and accelerates its preparation by almost an order of magnitude.

desk verdict The paper's central observation — that approximate CD driving inherits the hemidiabatic 'cancel high, allow low' structure — is new and useful, but the abstract overstates it as a general property when the mechanism rests on a numerically observed, unproven freezing of the slow sector. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03518 v1 pith:E7NH47GI submitted 2025-02-05 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el

Nik O. Gjonbalaj , Rahul Sahay , Susanne F. Yelin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-el
keywords counterdiabaticdrivingadiabaticgaugepotentialquantumspinlakeshemidiabaticdynamicsRydbergatomarraysliquidstatepreparationshortcutstoadiabaticity
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 argues that approximate counterdiabatic driving, a technique normally used to speed up adiabatic ground-state preparation, instead speeds up the preparation of quantum lakes, which are finite regions of non-equilibrium quantum order formed during parameter sweeps at a rate between the adiabatic and sudden limits. The claim is demonstrated in a single-qutrit model, a Rydberg-atom model on the ruby lattice, a Landau-Ginzburg field theory, and a deformed toric code. In the Rydberg model the authors construct pulse sequences that reach the resonating-valence-bond lake state almost an order of magnitude faster than an undriven hemidiabatic sweep at fixed laser power. A sympathetic reader would care because it turns an existing experimental toolbox into a shortcut for preparing states whose order does not appear in the equilibrium phase diagram.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the approximate adiabatic gauge potential $A_K^{(\ell)} = i \sum_{k=1}^{\ell} \alpha_k [H,[H,\cdots[H,\partial_K H]]]$, with coefficients variationally optimized so that the best local polynomial fit to $-1/(E_m-E_n)$ cancels large energy transitions preferentially. In the qutrit, the mechanism is isolated with an exactly gapped AGP whose matrix elements are $\langle m | A_K^{\Delta} | n \rangle = \Theta(|E_m-E_n|-\Delta)\langle m|A_K|n\rangle$: transitions above $\Delta$ are cancelled and transitions below it are left alone. In the Rydberg lattice the pulse sequence $U_c = e^{-ixPXP} e^{-iyPYP} e^{2ixPXP} e^{-iyPYP} e^{-ixPXP}$ realizes, through conjugation and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion, the same nested-commutator terms that appear in the AGP ansatz, so the driving acts as a state-dependent force on the fast e-defects without acting on the slow m-defects.

What would settle it

Run the ruby-lattice pulse sequence and measure the projected Wilson loop $\langle \tilde W_p \rangle$ restricted to the dimer-covering subspace together with the Gauss-law expectation $\langle G_v \rangle$ as functions of total time: the mechanism requires $\langle \tilde W_p \rangle$ to stay near 1 (m defects frozen) while $\langle G_v \rangle$ approaches $-1$ (e defects flushed) at the fast times where the RVB fidelity is claimed, so a visible drop in $\langle \tilde W_p \rangle$ before the fidelity peak would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that approximations to the adiabatic gauge potential have a built-in gapped structure: they cancel transitions above an energy scale $\Delta$ and leave transitions below it intact, which is exactly the structure of a hemidiabatic sweep. The hemidiabatic regime sits between adiabatic and sudden sweeps, flushing fast e-defects (violations of the dimer-covering constraint) out of an initial trivial state while keeping slow m-defects (violations of the equal-weight superposition of dimer coverings) frozen. Because low-order variational AGPs inherit this cancel-high, allow-low structure, they target the non-equilibrium lakes state rather than the ground state. In the 36-atom PXP model on the ruby lattice, variational AGPs through fifth order all target the resonating-valence-bond (RVB) lake state, and a five-pulse sequence built from $PXP$ and $PYP$ operators accelerates preparation by nearly an order of magnitude at fixed laser power, with the lake size growing toward the system size as the number of cycles increases. At infinite order the exact AGP would eventually recover the ground state, but the paper shows that crossover has not set in by fifth order.

Load-bearing premise

The slow, low-energy defects (the m excitations) remain frozen during the accelerated protocol, so the driving removes fast e-defects without nucleating slow ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Approximate counterdiabatic driving becomes a direct shortcut to the lakes state, so an experiment already set up for CD driving can prepare non-equilibrium order without adding new Hamiltonian terms.
  • In the 36-atom PXP model on the ruby lattice, the optimized five-pulse sequences reach approximate RVB order nearly an order of magnitude faster than the best undriven hemidiabatic sweep at fixed laser power.
  • Variational AGPs through fifth order all target the RVB lakes state rather than the VBS ground state, so the effect is not an artifact of the lowest-order approximation.
  • The circuit-depth estimate of lake size grows toward the system size as the number of pulse cycles increases, so the prepared lakes are large enough to probe locally.
  • The Landau-Ginzburg picture identifies the first-order AGP as a state-dependent force on the fast boson only, indicating the method should transfer to any system with two well-separated dynamical timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit design principle is that the gap scale $\Delta$ in the gapped AGP is a tunable knob, so one could construct bespoke hemidiabatic gauge potentials that target the lakes state at all orders by choosing $\Delta$ between the fast and slow sectors.
  • A testable extension: in Hubbard models near the Mott limit, where doublons are fast and spin excitations are soft, the same approximate CD driving should speed up preparation of short-range correlated spin states; the prediction is that the doublon density drops while spin correlations are unchanged.
  • The crossover to the adiabatic target at high AGP order implies the order $\ell$ or the cutoff $\Delta$ controls whether a drive prepares lakes or ground states, offering an experimental dial between non-equilibrium and equilibrium state preparation.
  • The paper itself notes that its deformed-toric-code pulse sequence achieves lake-state fidelity without a speedup, so the near-order-of-magnitude speedup is specifically a feature of the optimized Rydberg sequence rather than of the general mechanism.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that approximate counterdiabatic (CD) driving, originally designed to prepare ground states, can instead prepare non-equilibrium "quantum lakes" states produced by hemidiabatic sweeps. The authors demonstrate this in a single qutrit model, in a 36-atom PXP model on the ruby lattice, in a two-component Landau-Ginzburg field theory, and in a deformed toric code on an infinite cylinder. In the Rydberg model they construct experimentally accessible pulse sequences that prepare a resonating-valence-bond (RVB) lake state nearly an order of magnitude faster than the undriven hemidiabatic sweep at fixed laser power. The proposed mechanism is that low-order approximate adiabatic gauge potentials cancel large-energy transitions (e defects) while leaving small-energy transitions (m defects) frozen, thereby targeting the projected lake state rather than the ground state.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper adds a useful tool to the analog-simulation toolbox: existing approximate CD protocols can be repurposed to accelerate preparation of non-equilibrium ordered states, not just ground states. The paper is strong in its multi-pronged numerics: exact diagonalization, MPS on infinite cylinders, TWA simulations, and explicit pulse sequences with transferability checks between 24- and 36-qubit lattices. The DTC construction of a modified AGP that exactly conserves the m-anyon Wilson loop is a particularly clean proof-of-principle. However, the generality of the abstract's claim is not fully supported: the m-sector freezing is a finite-order, parameter-window observation, and the exact AGP at infinite order targets the ground state. These caveats need to be addressed in a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §Quantum Many-Body System; §SM Rydberg section] The abstract states that "existing counterdiabatic driving techniques ... instead naturally target the lakes state," but the results support only low-order approximate AGPs. The main text explicitly notes that "at infinite order, we will recover the exact AGP and target the ground state" (near Fig. 3), and the Supplemental Material (Rydberg section) concedes that "we cannot ensure that the AGPs do not interact with the m sector of the model." The numerical evidence for the crucial m-sector freezing is restricted to the specific sweeps and pulse sequences of Figs. 3 and 7. The claim should therefore be qualified to low-order approximate CD driving, or the authors should provide additional evidence (e.g., higher AGP order, longer pulse sequences, or larger system sizes) showing that the lake-targeting window persists.
  2. [Supplemental Materials E, Eqs. (45)-(46)] The "hemidiabatic gauge potential" that exactly commutes with all W_p is constructed from H_e with h_z=0, i.e., by modifying the variational ansatz. This is a bespoke construction, not an "existing counterdiabatic driving technique" as claimed in the abstract. While the standard first-order AGP in the DTC also shows lake targeting, the exact freezing of m anyons is only established for the modified ansatz. The manuscript should explicitly separate these two statements, since the generality of the abstract's claim rests on the former.
  3. [Supplemental Materials E, 'System size independence'; Figs. 11-12] The statement that the MPS results provide evidence "that lakes preparation is not a finite-size effect" is based on infinite-cylinder calculations with circumference Ly=2 for the first-order driving and Ly=4 for the pulse sequence. A circumference of 2 or 4 is narrow for a topological phase and may not capture two-dimensional anyon-condensation physics. This does not affect the finite-size speedup demonstrations, but the thermodynamic-limit claim should be tempered or supported with larger Ly calculations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Please specify "low-order approximate counterdiabatic driving" instead of the unqualified "counterdiabatic driving techniques" in the abstract, to avoid the impression that exact CD also targets lakes.
  2. [Supplemental Materials A, Eq. (16)] The notation for the nested commutators in Eq. (16) is ambiguous (the underbrace may be read as the number of H's or the number of commutators). Please clarify the definition.
  3. [Fig. 4 and §Experimental Protocol] The quantity "overlap density" used in Fig. 4(b) is not defined in the main text; please define it (e.g., as an N-th root of the global overlap) and specify the ranges of x, y and the number of cycles N_c used in the optimization.
  4. [Supplemental Materials C, Fig. 9] The matching undriven sweep times T (colored stars in Fig. 9) are not reported numerically; please list them so the reader can quantify the speedup.
  5. [§Semi-Classical Picture] The description of the first-order AGP as a "translation" that sends ϕ_a to 0 is imprecise; with the sign used in the text, the AGP generates exponential relaxation dϕ_a/dt = -λ ϕ_a rather than a rigid translation. Please rephrase.
  6. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states "Simulations are performed in the translation and inversion symmetric subspace of dimension 11438 ≡ 2Nd"; the notation for Nd (the number of diamond sites) should be defined in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lakes-targeting claim is supported by direct dynamics numerics and by the analytic structure of the variational AGP, not by definition or by a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that approximate counterdiabatic driving, tuned to cancel high-energy transitions while leaving small ones, prepares the hemidiabatic 'lakes' state. This is not circular: the approximate AGP ansatz (Eq. 16) is imported from the independent variational method of Refs. [17,18], and its 'cancel high, allow low' property follows algebraically from Eq. (17), where the off-diagonal elements are a polynomial in omega_mn whose low-frequency behavior vanishes. The qutrit, Rydberg ruby, Landau-Ginzburg, and deformed-toric-code results are all verified by direct time evolution against independent observables: RVB overlap, Gauss law <G_v>, projected Wilson loop <W_tilde_p>, and Fredenhagen-Marcu order parameters. The target projected state P|psi(0)> originates in Ref. [11], co-authored by one of the present authors, but it is used as a target and benchmark, not as the mechanism that forces the CD dynamics; the numerics confirm that the driven states match the hemidiabatic lakes states and are distinct from the VBS ground state. The paper's explicit caveat that 'we cannot ensure that the AGPs do not interact with the m sector' is a limitation on the generality of the m-frozen premise, not a circular definition. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the pulse-sequence parameters x,y are optimized to maximize dimer density and then checked against RVB overlap, Wilson-loop, and lake-size metrics, and the claimed factor-of-ten speedup is defined relative to the undriven sweep at fixed laser power. The claim that exact AGPs at infinite order would target the ground state is an independent check that the finite-order approximations are doing something different, not an input. Thus no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on the lakes projection ansatz and on the separation of timescales between fast and slow excitations, both taken from the prior literature (mainly Ref. [11]). The paper adds protocol parameters that are optimized, but no new physical entities are introduced; 'hemidiabatic gauge potential' is a descriptive name for an AGP that conserves W_p.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_f for Rydberg AGP = 2.5 to 3
    Overall prefactor multiplying the approximate AGP in the Rydberg simulations, chosen to maximize the final RVB fidelity in a quench sweep (SM C). This is a protocol tuning parameter.
  • x and y per pulse cycle in Rydberg sequence = not tabulated
    Two parameters per cycle in Eq. (5), optimized to maximize final dimer density (Fig. 4). The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) is only valid for y << 1, so the optimization operates near the edge of the derivation.
  • alpha_k coefficients in Rydberg AGP = computed numerically from trace action on a 2x2 ruby lattice
    Variationally optimized coefficients in Eq. (4); they depend on the chosen ansatz and are not tabulated. They are obtained by minimizing the trace action, not by fitting to the RVB state.
  • lambda_f for Landau-Ginzburg driving = 45 hx
    Overall driving strength chosen to minimize the a-boson order parameter in the quench limit (SM D). Hand-selected for the illustrative semi-classical model.
  • Landau-Ginzburg model parameters = Delta_a=0.05hx, Delta_b=0.001hz, f_a=0.1hx, f_b=0.01hx, h_z=hx/5, lambda_a=100hx, lambda_b=0.05hx
    Hand-chosen to realize a clear separation of fast and slow timescales and to keep condensed phases stable; the TWA results are demonstrative rather than quantitative predictions.
  • y in DTC pulse sequence = -2.17e-2
    Chosen by scanning y in the DTC protocol to optimize final fidelity and Gauss law values (SM E); the authors note no preparation speedup is achieved in this model.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The final state of a hemidiabatic sweep can be approximated by projecting the initial state into the low-energy (no-e-excitation) subspace, i.e. P|ψ(0)> for the qutrit and P_G|ψ(0)> ≈ |RVB> for the Rydberg model.
    Invoked in the qutrit and Rydberg sections; this projection ansatz comes from Ref. [11], co-authored by R. Sahay, and is the definition of the lakes target state.
  • domain assumption The dynamical timescales of the fast e excitations and slow m excitations are well separated, so m's remain frozen on the preparation timescale and the approximate AGP only affects e's.
    Stated in the Rydberg section ('This separation of energy scales implies that e's respond quickly to the sweep while m's remain frozen') and used to argue that CD driving targets lakes rather than the VBS ground state.
  • standard math The variational AGP ansatz of Claeys et al. [18] has matrix elements that vanish as ω_mn -> 0, so it cancels high-energy transitions while leaving low-energy transitions intact.
    This property is derived in the SM from the polynomial fit in Eq. (17) and is the mechanism behind the paper's central claim. It is taken from prior literature, not proven here.
  • domain assumption The PXP blockade approximation for Rydberg atoms (infinite interaction within R_b, zero outside) and the dimer representation on the ruby lattice.
    Used in Eq. (3) and throughout the Rydberg section; standard in the cited Refs [8,9,39-42].
  • standard math The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion in the limit y << 1 gives the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (6) for the pulse sequence.
    Used in the Experimental Protocol section and SM C to connect the pulse sequence to the approximate AGP terms.
  • domain assumption The stabilizer Hamiltonian H_stab in Eq. (24) and the circuit-depth lower bound of Ref. [48] apply to the 36-qubit Rydberg ruby lattice and can define a physical lake size.
    Used in SM C to compute Llake; the bound is derived for the toric code and is assumed to transfer to the Rydberg stabilizer model.
  • domain assumption In the Landau-Ginzburg model, the truncated Wigner approximation with 10 million samples and a product-of-Gaussians initial state captures the sweep dynamics.
    Used in SM D for Fig. 5; the initial state fidelity is given as >0.9989, and no error bars are reported.
  • ad hoc to paper For the DTC, constructing the AGP from H_e (with h_z = 0) yields a 'hemidiabatic gauge potential' that commutes with all W_p and exactly freezes m anyons.
    Introduced in SM E to build a model with exact m-conservation; it is an illustrative construction, not part of the Rydberg speedup claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shortcuts to Analog Preparation of Non-Equilibrium Quantum Lakes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7NH47GI

@misc{pith2026250203518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shortcuts to Analog Preparation of Non-Equilibrium Quantum Lakes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7NH47GI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03518}
}
abstract

The dynamical preparation of exotic many-body quantum states is a persistent goal of analog quantum simulation, often limited by experimental coherence times. Recently, it was shown that fast, non-adiabatic Hamiltonian parameter sweeps can create finite-size ``lakes'' of quantum order in certain settings, independent of what is present in the ground state phase diagram. Here, we show that going further out of equilibrium via external driving can substantially accelerate the preparation of these quantum lakes. Concretely, when lakes can be prepared, existing counterdiabatic driving techniques -- originally designed to target the ground state -- instead naturally target the lakes state. We demonstrate this both for an illustrative single qutrit and a model of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ Rydberg quantum spin liquid. In the latter case, we construct experimental drive sequences that accelerate preparation by almost an order of magnitude at fixed laser power. We conclude by using a Landau-Ginzburg model to provide a semi-classical picture for how our method accelerates state preparation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As expected, the performance is not dramatically different when compared with that of the full ansatz. In the quench limit, there is very little change in the fidelities and stabilizer values. This supports the claim that the exact form of the AGP is not crucial to the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.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. Partial Reversibility and Counterdiabatic Driving in Nearly Integrable Systems

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Slow integrability-breaking ramps in degenerate systems leave a finite irreversible energy spread that local counterdiabatic driving cannot fully remove.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Sahay, A

    R. Sahay, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Quantum spin puddles and lakes: Nisq-era spin liquids from non- equilibrium dynamics (2023), arXiv:2211.01381 [cond- mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Altman, K

    E. Altman, K. R. Brown, G. Carleo, L. D. Carr, E. Dem- ler, C. Chin, B. DeMarco, S. E. Economou, M. A. Eriks- son, K.-M. C. Fu, M. Greiner, K. R. Hazzard, R. G. Hulet, A. J. Koll´ ar, B. L. Lev, M. D. Lukin, R. Ma, X. Mi, S. Misra, C. Monroe, K. Murch, Z. Nazario, K.-K. Ni, A. C. Potter, P. Roushan, M. Saffman, M. Schleier- Smith, I. Siddiqi, R. Simmonds,...

    2021

  3. [2]

    Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

  4. [3]

    Bachmann, W

    S. Bachmann, W. De Roeck, and M. Fraas, Physi- cal Review Letters 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.060201 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.060201 2017

  5. [4]

    X. Chen, A. Ruschhaupt, S. Schmidt, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and J. G. Muga, Physical Review Let- ters 104, 10.1103/physrevlett.104.063002 (2010)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.063002 2010

  6. [5]

    Torrontegui, S

    E. Torrontegui, S. Ib´ a˜ nez, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, M. Mod- 6 ugno, A. del Campo, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, X. Chen, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Elsevier, 2013) p. 117–169

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Gu´ ery-Odelin, A

    D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Mart ´ ınez-Garaot, and J. Muga, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 10.1103/revmodphys.91.045001 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.045001 2019

  8. [7]

    del Campo and K

    A. del Campo and K. Kim, New Journal of Physics 21, 050201 (2019)

    2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 374, 1242–1247 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Verresen, M

    R. Verresen, M. D. Lukin, and A. Vishwanath, Physical Review X 11, 10.1103/physrevx.11.031005 (2021)

    2021 doi

  3. [10]

    Giudici, M

    G. Giudici, M. D. Lukin, and H. Pichler, Physical Review Letters 129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.090401 (2022)

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Cheng, C

    Y. Cheng, C. Li, and H. Zhai, New Journal of Physics 25, 033010 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sahay, Rahul sahay - quantum spin lakes: Nisq- era sl from non-equilibrium dynamics @ harvard cmsa 2/17/2023 (2023)

    R. Sahay, Rahul sahay - quantum spin lakes: Nisq- era sl from non-equilibrium dynamics @ harvard cmsa 2/17/2023 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 107, 9937 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1021/jp030708a

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    Demirplak and S

    M. Demirplak and S. A. Rice, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109, 6838 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    M. V. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 42, 365303 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 10.1073/pnas.1619826114 (2017)

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    Kolodrubetz, D

    M. Kolodrubetz, D. Sels, P. Mehta, and A. Polkovnikov, Physics Reports 697, 1 (2017)

    2017

  11. [20]

    Ljubotina, B

    M. Ljubotina, B. Roos, D. A. Abanin, and M. Serbyn, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/prxquantum.3.030343 (2022)

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    N. O. Gjonbalaj, D. K. Campbell, and A. Polkovnikov, Physical Review E 106, 10.1103/physreve.106.014131 (2022)

    2022 doi

  13. [23]

    ˇCepait˙ e, A

    I. ˇCepait˙ e, A. Polkovnikov, A. J. Daley, and C. W. Dun- can, PRX Quantum 4, 10.1103/prxquantum.4.010312 (2023)

    2023 doi

  14. [24]

    Morawetz and A

    S. Morawetz and A. Polkovnikov, Efficient paths for local counterdiabatic driving (2024), arXiv:2401.12287 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Hartmann and W

    A. Hartmann and W. Lechner, New Journal of Physics 21, 043025 (2019)

    2019

  16. [26]

    N. N. Hegade, P. Chandarana, K. Paul, X. Chen, F. Al- barr´ an-Arriagada, and E. Solano, Physical Review Re- search 4, 043204 (2022)

    2022

  17. [27]

    F. P. Barone, O. Kiss, M. Grossi, S. Vallecorsa, and A. Mandarino, New Journal of Physics26, 033031 (2024)

    2024

  18. [28]

    Chandarana, N

    P. Chandarana, N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, A. del Campo, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013141 (2022)

    2022

  19. [29]

    Lawrence, S

    E. Lawrence, S. F. J. Schmid, I. ˇCepait˙ e, P. Kirton, and C. W. Duncan, SciPost Physics 18, 10.21468/scipost- phys.18.1.014 (2025)

    2025 doi

  20. [30]

    P. M. Schindler and M. Bukov, Physical Review Letters 133, 10.1103/physrevlett.133.123402 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [31]

    Wurtz and P

    J. Wurtz and P. J. Love, Quantum 6, 635 (2022)

    2022

  22. [32]

    del Campo, Phys

    A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100502 (2013)

    2013

  23. [33]

    See supplemental material

  24. [34]

    del Campo, M

    A. del Campo, M. M. Rams, and W. H. Zurek, Physi- cal Review Letters 109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.115703 (2012)

    2012 doi

  25. [35]

    Damski, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014, P12019 (2014)

    B. Damski, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2014, P12019 (2014)

    2014

  26. [36]

    M. B. Hastings and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045141 (2005)

    2005

  27. [37]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  28. [38]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nature Physics 16, 132–142 (2020)

    2020

  29. [39]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037901 (2001)

    2001

  30. [40]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  31. [41]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Nature Physics 5, 115–118 (2009)

    2009

  32. [42]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nature Physics5, 110–114 (2009)

    2009

  33. [43]

    Lukin, B

    A. Lukin, B. F. Schiffer, B. Braverman, S. H. Cantu, F. Huber, A. Bylinskii, J. Amato-Grill, N. Maskara, M. Cain, D. S. Wild, R. Samajdar, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum quench dynamics as a shortcut to adiabaticity (2024), arXiv:2405.21019 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [44]

    W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 95, 10.1103/physrevlett.95.105701 (2005)

    2005 doi

  35. [46]

    Dziarmaga, Physical Review Letters 95, 10.1103/phys- revlett.95.245701 (2005)

    J. Dziarmaga, Physical Review Letters 95, 10.1103/phys- revlett.95.245701 (2005)

    2005 doi

  36. [47]

    C. W. Duncan, Counterdiabatic-influenced floquet- engineering: State preparation, annealing and learning the adiabatic gauge potential (2025), arXiv:2501.14881 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [48]

    Tikku and I

    A. Tikku and I. H. Kim, Circuit depth versus energy in topologically ordered systems (2022), arXiv:2210.06796 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Blakie †, A

    P. Blakie †, A. Bradley †, M. Davis, R. Ballagh, and C. Gardiner, Advances in Physics 57, 363–455 (2008)

    2008

  39. [50]

    Polkovnikov, Annals of Physics 325, 1790–1852 (2010)

    A. Polkovnikov, Annals of Physics 325, 1790–1852 (2010)

    2010

  40. [51]

    W. K. Wootters, Annals of Physics 176, 1 (1987)

    1987

  41. [52]

    Fano, Rev

    U. Fano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 74 (1957)

    1957

  42. [53]

    Altland and B

    A. Altland and B. D. Simons, Condensed matter field theory (Cambridge univer- sity press, 2010)

    2010

  43. [54]

    Sahay, S

    R. Sahay, S. Divic, D. E. Parker, T. Soejima, S. Anand, J. Hauschild, M. Aidelsburger, A. Vishwanath, S. Chat- terjee, N. Y. Yao, and M. P. Zaletel, Phys. Rev. B 110, 195126 (2024). 7

    2024

  44. [55]

    Bintz, V

    M. Bintz, V. S. Liu, J. Hauschild, A. Khalifa, S. Chat- terjee, M. P. Zaletel, and N. Y. Yao, Dirac spin liquid in quantum dipole arrays (2024), arXiv:2406.00098 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [56]

    Feldmeier, N

    J. Feldmeier, N. Maskara, N. U. K¨ oyl¨ uo˘ glu, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum simulation of dynamical gauge theo- ries in periodically driven rydberg atom arrays (2024), arXiv:2408.02733 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [57]

    R. Ott, T. V. Zache, N. Maskara, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and H. Pichler, Probing topological entanglement on large scales (2024), arXiv:2408.12645 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [58]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2017), arXiv:1601.03742 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Sachdev, in String Theory and Its Applications (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2011) p

    S. Sachdev, in String Theory and Its Applications (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2011) p. 559–620

    2011

  49. [60]

    I. Cong, N. Maskara, M. C. Tran, H. Pichler, G. Semegh- ini, S. F. Yelin, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Com- munications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-45584-6 (2024)

    2024 doi

  50. [61]

    Pandey, P

    M. Pandey, P. W. Claeys, D. K. Campbell, A. Polkovnikov, and D. Sels, Physical Review X 10, 10.1103/physrevx.10.041017 (2020)

    2020 doi

  51. [62]

    Bukov, A

    M. Bukov, A. G. Day, D. Sels, P. Weinberg, A. Polkovnikov, and P. Mehta, Physical Review X 8, 031086 (2018)

    2018

  52. [63]

    N. N. Hegade, K. Paul, Y. Ding, M. Sanz, F. Albarr´ an- Arriagada, E. Solano, and X. Chen, Physical Review Ap- plied 15, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  53. [64]

    Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion 2, 46 (1932)

    L. Landau, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion 2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  54. [65]

    Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zener, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Phys- ical Character 137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  55. [66]

    St¨ uckelberg, Helv

    E. St¨ uckelberg, Helv. Phys. Acta5, 369 (1932)

    1932

  56. [67]

    Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 9, 43 (1932)

    E. Majorana, Il Nuovo Cimento (1924-1942) 9, 43 (1932)

    1932

  57. [68]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2–30 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2–30 (2003)

    2003

  58. [69]

    C. Li, J. Shen, R. Shaydulin, and M. Pistoia, Quan- tum counterdiabatic driving with local control (2024), arXiv:2403.01854 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Hauschild and F

    J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 5 (2018)

    2018

  60. [71]

    Hauschild, J

    J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. Geiger, M. Hefel, K. H´ emery, W. Kadow, J. Kemp, N. Kirchner, V. S. Liu, G. M¨ oller, D. Parker, M. Rader, A. Romen, S. Scalet, L. Schoonderwoerd, M. Schulz, T. Soejima, P. Thoma, Y....

    2024 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Chandran, F

    A. Chandran, F. J. Burnell, V. Khemani, and S. L. Sondhi, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 404214 (2013)

    2013

  62. [73]

    Fredenhagen and M

    K. Fredenhagen and M. Marcu, Communications in Mathematical Physics 92, 81 (1983)

    1983

  63. [74]

    Fredenhagen and M

    K. Fredenhagen and M. Marcu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 223 (1986)

    1986

  64. [75]

    MARCU (Springer Nature, 1986) pp

    M. MARCU (Springer Nature, 1986) pp. 267–278

    1986

  65. [76]

    adiabatic gauge potential

    K. Gregor, D. A. Huse, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, New Journal of Physics 13, 025009 (2011). Supplemental Materials Supplemental Materials A: Interpretation and Review Advantages of hemidiabatic sweeps Although we have argued that hemidiabatic sweeps allow for the creation ...

    2011

  66. [77]

    complete the π pulse

    ≈ 0.062. Although we cannot sweep to infinite K in experiment, we can modify the driving strength to “complete the π pulse” while doing a sweep to finite K [69] using λf = π 2 arctan 4 q 2 5 ≈ 1.315. (43) 20 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 11. Approximate CD Driving in the Deformed T ori...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.