Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Noise-Induced Thermalization in Quantum Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A noisy circuit—interleaving Haar-random or phase-flip shocks between Hamiltonian evolutions—approaches its localized Gibbs state up to 3.5 times faster than the noiseless circuit, and can thermalize integrable systems that otherwise never

desk verdict The numerical demonstration that interleaved noise accelerates local Gibbs-state formation is worth taking seriously, but the analytic mechanism section does not prove the generic claim and should be treated as suggestive. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.14842 v2 pith:S4NTRMAR submitted 2025-12-16 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Sameer Dambal , Yu Zhang , Eric R Bittner , Pavan Hosur This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords noise-inducedthermalizationGibbsstatepreparationEigenstateHypothesisNISQphase-flipnoiseHaar-randomunitaryspinchainquantumcircuit
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 argues that noise, usually treated as an obstacle, can be harnessed to speed up a central subroutine of quantum computing: preparing Gibbs (thermal) states. It shows that when a noise 'shock' — either a Haar-random unitary on a few spins or a dephasing (phase-flip) channel — is interleaved between Hamiltonian evolutions of a spin chain, the reduced state of a small subsystem converges to the thermal state of the full Hamiltonian up to roughly 3.5 times faster than in noiseless evolution. The same mechanism makes an integrable model, which normally never thermalizes because of conserved quantities, reach a thermal state. The practical upshot is that naturally occurring phase-flip noise on NISQ machines can be used as a resource for Gibbs state preparation, rather than something to be fully corrected.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interleaved-noise map E(ρ)=N ρ0 N†, where N = U(t_max − t_{max−1}) M ⋯ M U(t_1) alternates Hamiltonian evolution U(t)=e^{-iHt} with a noise operator M applied to a few randomly chosen sites. M is either a Haar-random unitary block-diagonal in the spin-conserving sector or a phase-flip channel M[ρ]=(1−p)ρ + p S_z ρ S_z with S_z = σ_z σ_z σ_z on three sites. The load-bearing identity is that if [M,H]≠0, the reduced state of a test subsystem changes; combined with the typicality argument that any changed state is a 'typical' state, the protocol increases the Rényi-2 entropy (a standard measure of mixedness and entanglement) and pushes the reduced state closer to the in

What would settle it

Test whether a single-site, non-commuting noise shock applied far from the test subsystem accelerates convergence of its reduced density matrix to the finite-temperature Gibbs state in a large integrable chain; if the subsystem's distance to the Gibbs state does not decay faster than in noiseless evolution — or if its Rényi-2 purity increases rather than decreases — then non-commutation alone is not sufficient and the generic acceleration claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms: interleaving noise between unitary dynamics momentarily introduces non-integrability, enhances chaotic dynamics, and accelerates preparation of localized Gibbs states by up to a factor of about 3.5 compared with noiseless systems. A localized Gibbs state means that the reduced density matrix of a subsystem spanning less than half the system matches the Gibbs state e^{-β*H}/Z of the underlying Hamiltonian, with β* fixed by the initial state's energy. The protocol is demonstrated classically on a 24-spin extended XZ chain and on a 12-qubit Trotterized circuit with phase-flip noise, and the noise is shown to suppress recurrences and produce smooth convergence. The pape

Load-bearing premise

The generic conclusion depends on the assumption that any noise shock that changes the subsystem's state automatically makes it a typical, more entangled state, and therefore closer to the actual equilibrium state being prepared — but the paper's inequalities only show closeness to the infinite-temperature state, not to that warm equilibrium state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On NISQ devices, Gibbs states can be prepared without waiting for fault tolerance, since the noise that normally corrupts a circuit can be repurposed for state preparation.
  • Integrable quantum simulators, traditionally useless for thermalization tasks, can be pushed into thermal equilibrium by interleaved noise, widening the class of models that can supply Gibbs states.
  • Naturally occurring phase-flip (dephasing) noise, which is hard to avoid, is sufficient — no engineered nonunital channel or ancilla dilation is required.
  • Repeated noise shocks give a logarithmic speedup in integrable models (up to about 4.5x), while a single shock already saturates the advantage in non-integrable ones.
  • The protocol's requirement — noise that is nonlocal and non-commuting with the Hamiltonian — is satisfied by generic device noise, so the acceleration should appear across different qubit architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the typicality mechanism is confirmed for finite-temperature targets, noise itself could be engineered as a control knob for fast thermal-state preparation, inverting the usual error-mitigation strategy.
  • The shock protocol resembles a random-circuit scrambler; a natural extension is to test whether it doubles as an efficient pseudorandom state generator for local observables, potentially reducing the depth needed for quantum machine-learning routines built on Boltzmann machines.
  • The mutual-information front could be measured directly on hardware: tracking when correlations from the noisy sites arrive at a probe region gives an experimental signature of the accelerated thermalization and a way to calibrate the effective noise-induced velocity.
  • A testable prediction of the locality claim is that single-site noise, even when non-commuting, should fail to speed up subsystems far away, whereas multi-site nonlocal noise should work at any distance — a contrast that can be checked in one experiment.
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 noise-assisted protocol for preparing localized Gibbs states on noisy quantum devices. The authors consider a spin-1/2 chain with a non-integrable extended XZ Hamiltonian and an integrable limit, and simulate both noiseless unitary evolution and evolution with interleaved Haar-random unitary shocks (classical simulation) or phase-flip noise (quantum circuit simulation). They report that noise accelerates convergence of a local reduced density matrix to the finite-temperature Gibbs state by a factor of ~3.5 in the non-integrable case, and that it induces thermalization in the integrable case. They also study mutual information growth, scaling of the thermalization rate with noise frequency, number of noisy sites, and system size, and propose in Section IV a mechanism based on ETH, typicality, and Rényi-2 entropy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a constructive and potentially practical use of noise in the NISQ era, relevant to Gibbs-state preparation for quantum simulation and quantum machine learning. The paper includes both classical and circuit-level simulations, and it explicitly compares multiple distance measures. The numerical evidence in Sections III A and III B is nontrivial and appears to support the reported acceleration for the specific models and initial states studied. However, the general claim that noise generically accelerates thermalization rests on an analytical argument in Section IV A that is not rigorous; the presented inequalities target the infinite-temperature state rather than the finite-β Gibbs state, and the typicality step is asserted rather than proved. The paper's own Section IV B concedes that a rigorous mechanism is not well understood.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV A, Eqs. (20)–(22)] The analytical argument compares the noisy and noiseless reduced states to the infinite-temperature state ρ∞_A, not to the finite-β Gibbs state ρ_th,A used as the target throughout the numerics. For the negative-β* regime relevant to Fig. 3, moving closer to ρ∞_A does not imply moving closer to ρ_th,A; in fact, increased entropy can move a state away from a negative-temperature Gibbs state. Thus Eq. (22) does not support the conclusion that the noise channel accelerates approach to the thermal state. This is a load-bearing gap in the claimed mechanism.
  2. [Section IV A, paragraph after Eq. (22)] The statement that 'Since M is shown to produce a state different from ρ_A, it forms a typical state' is a non sequitur. Popescu–Short–Winter typicality concerns almost all pure states in a high-dimensional Hilbert space (or energy shell), not the output of a fixed, local three-site unitary applied to a specific state. A perturbation that changes the reduced state can produce an atypical, low-entanglement state. Therefore the paper does not establish that a generic M with [M,H] ≠ 0 increases entanglement between A and B, or that it accelerates thermalization. The numerical examples may be correct, but the generic claim is analytically unsupported.
  3. [Section III C and Fig. 9] The claim that the thermalization rate scales linearly with system size is based on a very small number of data points (the text mentions a factor of ~3 for scaling to L=30, but does not state how many sizes were simulated). Since the central quantitative claim is partly built on this scaling, the authors should either provide more system sizes or soften the 'linear scaling' statement. This is not fatal, but it is load-bearing for the practical-scaling narrative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III A, Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to 'relative entropy' while the text and inset discuss trace distance and energy density; please make the labeling consistent.
  2. [Section III A, Fig. 3a inset] The text mentions 'blue, orange, and green dotted curves' but the description is unclear which curve corresponds to which quantity; please clarify the legend.
  3. [Section II B, Eq. (14)] The notation P^{(m)}_l is introduced but the sum over l and the normalization of p_l are not fully specified; a brief explanation of the Pauli channel would help.
  4. [Section IV A] The sentence 'any quantum channel that increases entanglement between two subsystems gets them closer to the thermal state' is stated as a general principle but is not proved and is in tension with the target being a finite-β Gibbs state; this should be flagged as an assumption.
  5. [Data Availability] The statement that data are available 'upon reasonable request' is weaker than the reproducibility standard now common for quantum-information papers; consider depositing the simulation code and data in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction; analytic mechanism has gaps but simulation results are independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by independent numerical simulations—classical exact evolution and quantum-circuit simulations—comparing noisy and noiseless protocols against a finite-β Gibbs state defined from the initial energy (Figs. 3–9). The decay-rate ratios are fits to those simulations, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The analytic section IV.A does contain unsupported inferential steps: Eq. (22) bounds the distance to the infinite-temperature state, while the numerical target is the finite-β Gibbs state, and the claim that a state merely different from ρ_A is therefore 'typical' is a misuse of the Popescu–Short–Winter typicality theorem. However, these are rigor/correctness gaps rather than circular reductions: no equation is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation. The only self-citation (Ref. [49]) appears as related work in the introduction and does not support the central thermalization claim. The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV.B that 'a rigorous mechanism for the emergence of these localized Gibbs states is not well-understood,' which confirms that the mechanism is underived rather than circular.

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

The central claim rests on ETH as an input, on a typicality step that is used too loosely, and on the assumption that entanglement growth implies closeness to the finite-temperature Gibbs state. The only fitted constants are the exponential decay rates used to quantify the speedup; the phase-flip probability is varied but unreported.

free parameters (2)
  • κ_plain, κ_noisy (exponential thermalization decay rates) = κ_plain ≈ 0.443, κ_noisy ≈ 1.187 for Fig 3a; additional fitted rates in Figs 7–9
    Exponential fits to trace-distance curves quantify the claimed speedup; they are outputs of data analysis rather than ad hoc inputs, but the headline ~3.5x acceleration depends on these fitted values.
  • Phase-flip probability p = unspecified (varied)
    The phase-flip channel in Eq. (15) is varied over 'all probabilities' but no numerical values are reported, so the claim that all probabilities give similar acceleration cannot be audited.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ETH holds for the non-integrable extended XZ model and guarantees local reduced density matrices approach Gibbs states.
    Invoked via Eqs. (1)–(3) and Refs. [39,40]; finite-size corrections are not quantified for L=24 or 12 qubits.
  • domain assumption Popescu et al. typicality: any pure state 'typical' in the Hilbert space has subsystems that are nearly maximally mixed.
    Used in Section IV A to claim that M produces a typical state merely by producing a different reduced state; the application is not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper Any quantum channel that increases entanglement between two subsystems gets them closer to the thermal state.
    This premise in Section IV A is essentially the conclusion the paper is trying to prove; the provided inequalities only bound distance to the infinite-temperature state.
  • domain assumption The implemented noise operator M conserves spin-up number on the selected sites and acts block-diagonally on the 1- and 2-spin-up sectors.
    This is a modeling assumption that defines the Haar-random noise protocol and phase-flip channel; it is not independently justified as a physical noise model.
  • domain assumption [M, H] ≠ 0 for the chosen noise channels.
    The paper asserts this in Section IV and uses it to claim the final state differs from the noiseless one; no explicit commutator calculation is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-Induced Thermalization in Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4NTRMAR

@misc{pith2026251214842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-Induced Thermalization in Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4NTRMAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14842}
}
read the original abstract

In the current Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum era, noise is widely regarded as the primary obstacle to achieving fault-tolerant quantum computation. However, certain stages of the quantum computing pipeline can, in fact, benefit from this noise. In this work, we exploit the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis to show that noise generically accelerates a fundamental task in quantum computing -- the preparation of Gibbs states. We demonstrate this behavior using classical and quantum simulations with Haar-random and phase-flip noise, respectively, on a spin-1/2 chain with a local Hamiltonian. Our non-integrable model sees ~3.5x faster thermalization in the presence of noise, while our integrable model, which would not otherwise thermalize, reaches a thermal state due to noise. Since certifying a local Gibbs state is relatively easy on a quantum computer, our approach provides a new practical solution to a key problem in quantum computing. More broadly, these results establish a new paradigm in which noise can be harnessed on quantum computers, enabling practical advantages before the years of fault-tolerance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14842 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [49]

    Dambal, A

    S. Dambal, A. Sone, and Y. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21075 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [53]

    Shtanko and K

    O. Shtanko and K. Sharma, PRX Quantum6, 030347 (2025)

    2025

  3. [1]

    A. M. Childs, D. Maslov, Y. Nam, N. J. Ross, and Y. Su, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 9456 (2018)

    2018

  4. [2]

    R. P. Feynman, inFeynman and computation(cRc Press,

  5. [3]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature photonics1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  6. [4]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of modern physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  7. [5]

    Gisin, G

    N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Re- views of modern physics74, 145 (2002)

    2002

  8. [6]

    Huynh, J

    L. Huynh, J. Hong, A. Mian, H. Suzuki, Y. Wu, and S. Camtepe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11269 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd, Nature549, 195 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    S. B. Ramezani, A. Sommers, H. K. Manchukonda, S. Rahimi, and A. Amirlatifi, in2020 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN)(IEEE, 2020) pp. 1–8

    2020

  3. [9]

    F. G. Brandao and K. M. Svore, in2017 IEEE 58th An- nual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS)(IEEE, 2017) pp. 415–426

    2017

  4. [10]

    R. D. Somma, S. Boixo, H. Barnum, and E. Knill, Phys- ical review letters101, 130504 (2008)

    2008

  5. [11]

    Lu and O

    Z. Lu and O. Raz, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 5083 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    Brooks and J

    P. Brooks and J. Preskill, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics87, 032310 (2013)

    2013

  7. [13]

    E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172 (2017)

    2017

  8. [14]

    Albash, V

    T. Albash, V. Martin-Mayor, and I. Hen, Physical review letters119, 110502 (2017)

    2017

  9. [15]

    Vinjanampathy and J

    S. Vinjanampathy and J. Anders, Contemporary Physics 57, 545 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynamics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum in- formation(Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

  11. [17]

    Poulin and P

    D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Physical review letters103, 220502 (2009)

    2009

  12. [18]

    Yung and A

    M.-H. Yung and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 754 (2012)

    2012

  13. [19]

    Riera, C

    A. Riera, C. Gogolin, and J. Eisert, Physical review letters108, 080402 (2012)

    2012

  14. [20]

    D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and A. Roggero, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08250 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Na- ture Physics16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  16. [22]

    Y. Wang, G. Li, and X. Wang, Physical Review Applied 16, 054035 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    Guo, S.-S

    X.-Y. Guo, S.-S. Li, X. Xiao, Z.-C. Xiang, Z.-Y. Ge, H.- K. Li, P.-T. Song, Y. Peng, Z. Wang, K. Xu,et al., Chi- nese Physics B32, 010307 (2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    Verdon, J

    G. Verdon, J. Marks, S. Nanda, S. Leichenauer, and J. Hidary, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02071 (2019). 13

    1910 arXiv

  19. [25]

    A. N. Chowdhury and R. D. Somma, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.02940 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  20. [26]

    M. E. Edo and L.-A. Wu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14630 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Aharonov, I

    D. Aharonov, I. Arad, and T. Vidick, Acm sigact news 44, 47 (2013)

    2013

  22. [28]

    Sgroi, S

    S. Sgroi, S. Lorenzo, L. Innocenti, P. A. Erdman, G. M. Palma, and M. Paternostro, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20625 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [29]

    T. E. Baker, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19185 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Reimann, Nature communications7, 10821 (2016)

    P. Reimann, Nature communications7, 10821 (2016)

    2016

  25. [31]

    Coopmans, Y

    L. Coopmans, Y. Kikuchi, and M. Benedetti, PRX Quantum4, 010305 (2023)

    2023

  26. [32]

    Perrin, T

    H. Perrin, T. Scoquart, A. I. Pavlov, and N. V. Gnezdilov, Communications Physics8, 95 (2025)

    2025

  27. [33]

    D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun,Quantum error correction (Cambridge university press, 2013)

    2013

  28. [34]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  29. [35]

    S. Endo, S. C. Benjamin, and Y. Li, Physical Review X 8, 031027 (2018)

    2018

  30. [36]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Physical Review Letters 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  31. [37]

    Khodjasteh and D

    K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, Physical review letters 95, 180501 (2005)

    2005

  32. [38]

    Pathria and P

    R. Pathria and P. D. Beale,5 - Formulation of quantum statistics, Editor(s): R.K. Pathria, Paul D. Beale, Statis- tical Mechanics (Fourth Edition), Pages 117-154(Aca- demic Press, 2022)

    2022

  33. [39]

    J. R. Garrison and T. Grover, Physical Review X8, 021026 (2018)

    2018

  34. [40]

    J. M. Deutsch, New Journal of Physics12, 075021 (2010)

    2010

  35. [41]

    J. M. Deutsch, Physical review a43, 2046 (1991)

  36. [42]

    Srednicki, Physical review e50, 888 (1994)

    M. Srednicki, Physical review e50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  37. [43]

    Srednicki, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 1163 (1999)

    M. Srednicki, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 1163 (1999)

    1999

  38. [44]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh ` ı, Physical review letters96, 050403 (2006)

    2006

  39. [45]

    Popescu, A

    S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Nature Physics 2, 754 (2006)

    2006

  40. [46]

    Murthy and M

    C. Murthy and M. Srednicki, Physical Review E100, 022131 (2019)

    2019

  41. [47]

    Lu and T

    T.-C. Lu and T. Grover, Physical Review E99, 032111 (2019)

    2019

  42. [48]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, and U. Vazirani, arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14646 (2019)

    1910 arXiv

  43. [50]

    P. M. Harrington, E. J. Mueller, and K. W. Murch, Nature Reviews Physics4, 660 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    Schuster, C

    T. Schuster, C. Yin, X. Gao, and N. Y. Yao, Physical Review X15, 041018 (2025)

    2025

  45. [52]

    Ben-Or, D

    M. Ben-Or, D. Gottesman, and A. Hassidim, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.1995 (2013)

    1995 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. W. Schlimgen, K. Head-Marsden, L. M. Sager, P. Narang, and D. A. Mazziotti, Physical Review Letters 127, 270503 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Cheraghi and S

    H. Cheraghi and S. Mahdavifar, Scientific Reports10, 4407 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Chatterjee, B

    S. Chatterjee, B. K. Behera, and F. J. Seo, Applied Sciences13, 12075 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Zhang, Z

    C. Zhang, Z. Guan, Y. Qian, and S. Feng, in2022 In- ternational Conference on Computing, Communication, Perception and Quantum Technology (CCPQT)(IEEE,

  50. [58]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    Casini, H

    H. Casini, H. Liu, and M. Mezei, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 1 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Liu and S

    H. Liu and S. J. Suh, Physical review letters112, 011601 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, Physical review letters97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.