Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Diffusion in quantum state preparation: From passive cooling to system-bath engineering

T0 review · 2 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 Both passive and engineered dissipative cooling of the SSH ground state take time quadratic in system size, with a unique dark state for the engineered protocol.

desk verdict Solid multi-method case for τ ∼ N² in number-conserving dissipative SSH preparation; the uniqueness proof in App. B is too sketchy for the weight it carries, but the scaling result stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.18894 v2 pith:UKCOMY37 submitted 2026-01-26 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Tim Pokart , Lukas König , Sebastian Diehl , Jan Carl Budich This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords dissipativestatepreparationSSHmodelLindbladmasterequationdarkdiffusivecoolingrandomwalkparticlenumberconservationquantumtrajectories
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 aims to establish that two number-conserving dissipative protocols for preparing the half-filled dimerized SSH ground state—one mimicking a cold thermal bath, the other using engineered jump operators—are both bottlenecked by diffusion: the preparation time grows as the square of the number of sites, τ∼N², rather than staying constant as in Gaussian dissipative models. The diffusive slowdown is traced to particle-number conservation, which turns the late-time dynamics into a random walk of particle-hole defects that must find each other to annihilate. A mean-field reaction-diffusion equation and a classical random-walk model reproduce the quadratic scaling, and the engineered protocol is argued to possess a unique, stable dark steady state, in contrast to an earlier impact-ionization instability scenario. If correct, the result sets a fundamental speed limit on a leading approach to preparing topological quantum matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the defect representation in terms of fermionic bond operators x_{j,±}=(c_{j,b}±c_{j+1,a})/√2, which diagonalize the SSH Hamiltonian into flat bands and turn the ground state into the dark state ∏j x†_{j,-}|0⟩. Excitations are x†_+ particles and x_- holes, and the jump operators of the engineered protocol move them leftward and recombine them. The argument is carried by two complementary reductions: a continuum reaction-diffusion equation for defect densities whose coefficients lack the destabilizing impact-ionization terms, and a classical random-walk model whose hitting time L²/4 gives the quadratic cooling time. A third piece is the jump sequence M = L²_{j_k'} ∏_i L¹

What would settle it

Find a second stationary state: exact diagonalization of the engineered Liouvillian at N=14 must show exactly one zero eigenvalue, and any additional eigenvalue that tends to zero as N grows—or a nonzero plateau in the late-time excited population prepared from the state |ι_n⟩—would falsify the uniqueness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that cooling a dimerized SSH chain to its ground state by either thermal coupling or engineered dissipation is governed by the same diffusive mechanism. In both cases, the target state is a vacuum of particle-hole defects in the bond-operator basis, and cooling proceeds by locally hopping these defects and annihilating pairs when they meet; the annihilation rate is controlled by how long defects take to diffuse across the system. The paper argues that this diffusive bottleneck is unavoidable whenever total particle number is conserved, making τ=DN² with a protocol-dependent diffusion constant D, and that the engineered protocol has a smaller D than the thermal one. It furthe

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness proof rests on the combinatorial claim that a minimal-distance particle-hole pair can always be transported to annihilation without another defect or Pauli exclusion blocking the path; if that claim fails, the engineered protocol could have additional steady states even though the quadratic cooling time would remain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Particle-number-conserving dissipative preparation of this topological state cannot be accelerated beyond quadratic-in-size cooling times by choosing better local jump operators; only the prefactor (the diffusion constant) is protocol-dependent.
  • The engineered protocol has a unique steady state, so the dark-state preparation approach is stable at all system sizes in this model, contradicting the impact-ionization instability predicted for related continuum models.
  • Low-temperature thermal protocols come exponentially close to the ground state and share the same quadratic scaling as engineered dissipation, meaning cryostatic and engineered routes face the same fundamental diffusive bottleneck.
  • The mean-field equations without impact-ionization terms imply that in the thermodynamic limit the defect densities decay diffusively with no residual plateau, a prediction testable in quantum-trajectory simulations.
  • Because τ=DN², the engineered protocol's faster cooling is a quantitative prefactor advantage, not a change of scaling class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the diffusive bottleneck is generic to number-conserving local dissipative dynamics, then any dissipative state-preparation protocol for fermionic symmetry-protected states will inherit quadratic (or worse) scaling, and the practical route to speedup lies in temporarily breaking or relaxing number conservation.
  • The uniqueness proof's jump-sequence construction may generalize to other parent Hamiltonians whose ground states admit similar defect vacuums; a testable extension is to apply the same construction to other dimerized or topological band structures.
  • The classical random-walk model suggests that the late-time dynamics is effectively single-particle even in a many-body system; one could test whether the full distribution of cooling times, not just its mean, matches the hitting-time statistics of the random walk.
  • Since the engineered protocol is formulated with H=0, a direct experimental realization with optical or ionic platforms could probe the N² scaling by measuring the excited-population decay across two decades in time; observing a deviation at large N would point to finite-size corrections or a competing steady state.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two particle-number-conserving dissipative protocols for preparing the half-filled dimerized SSH ground state: a thermal protocol based on Davies/ULE master equations and an engineered protocol based on local jump operators. The authors report that in both cases the cooling time scales as τ ~ N^2, with N the number of lattice sites. This scaling is supported by exact diagonalization, quantum trajectories, truncated-Hilbert-space calculations, DMRG, a mean-field reaction-diffusion analysis, and a classical random-walk model. The paper further claims that the engineered protocol has a unique stable dark state, in contrast to recent claims of an impact-ionization instability in related dissipative topological systems.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete example in which particle-number conservation forces dissipative state preparation to be diffusive, with a quadratic rather than constant cooling time, and it challenges the FKPP impact-ionization instability scenario. The numerical evidence is strong: the parameter-free random-walk prediction τ = L^2/4 ≈ 0.0625N^2 is close to the numerical fit 0.057N^2, and the authors use several independent methods with overlapping system sizes. The mean-field equations are derived explicitly, and the data are made available. The main weakness is the analytical proof of uniqueness of the engineered steady state, which is not valid as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B] The move-operator construction does not prove connectivity to the dark state. For a one-defect state |j;j> = x†_{j,+} x_{j,-}|◦>, the operator L2_j = L^-_{j,b} satisfies L2_j |j;j> = |j;j> - |◦> (up to normalization) and L2_j |◦> = 0. Thus the image of a same-site defect is not in the m-1 sector; the combination |j;j> - |◦> is an eigenvector of L2_j with eigenvalue 1, so repeated application of L2_j does not drain the m=1 component. The same failure occurs for an adjacent pair: L1_{j+1}|j+1;j> = |j;j> - |◦>, and then L2_j leaves the defect component invariant. Therefore the induction 'repeat until the dark subspace is reached' is unjustified, and the claimed analytical proof of uniqueness in Section VI collapses. Since the uniqueness/stability claim is a central advertised result and the principal analytical differentiator from the FKPP literature, this is load-bearing. The proof should
  2. [Section VI] The conclusion that the present results 'speak against the impact ionization scenario also on analytical grounds' relies on the invalid Appendix B proof and on mean-field equations that are specific to the authors' model. Even if the numerical data are convincing for finite systems up to N=60, they do not by themselves exclude a competing stationary state in the thermodynamic limit. The authors should clearly separate the finite-size numerical evidence from the (currently unsupported) rigorous uniqueness statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13) and Sec. II A] The nonlinearity coefficient in Eq. (13) is denoted β, but β is also used for inverse temperature earlier in the paper. Rename one of them to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Appendix B] The displayed formula for M is typographically garbled: 'M=L 2_{jk′} ik Y i=jk′ +1 L1_i' should be rewritten with explicit product limits and operator ordering.
  3. [Table I / Sec. III A 1] The DMRG calculations do not report the maximum bond dimension or the convergence criterion. The claim that DMRG results are verified to 2% would be easier to assess with this information.
  4. [Fig. 6] The exact-diagonalization data points in Fig. 6 are shown without error bars. Please state whether the errors are smaller than the symbol size.
  5. [Sec. V B 2] The generalized random-walk model initializes defect numbers with weights p_m ∝ dim H^(m). This ad hoc choice is not discussed; a brief justification or a sensitivity check would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quadratic cooling-time scaling is derived from the microscopic jump operators via an independent random-walk model, and the uniqueness claim rests on a general external theorem rather than on the paper's own fitted outputs.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is the quadratic scaling tau ~ N^2. The random-walk model derives tau = L^2/4 from the engineered Lindblad operators' action on single particle-hole pairs: the jump frequency is obtained from ||psi(t)|| = exp(-kappa t), and the hitting-time calculation gives E[n] = L^2/2, so tau = L^2/4. This prefactor is not fitted to the numerical cooling times; the comparison in Fig. 7 is a genuine prediction (0.0625 N^2) versus the numerical fit (0.057 N^2). Similarly, the mean-field diffusion coefficient D_+ = kappa a^2/4 is obtained from the commutator equations (Eqs. E1-E4) and Wick's theorem, not from the target gap. The finite-size term |lambda_L| A is explicitly flagged as 'introduced for numerical comparisons' and is an input, not a predicted quantity; it does not by itself produce the N^2 scaling. The uniqueness/stability claim does invoke Theorem 2 of Ref. [41], whose author list overlaps with the present work. However, that theorem is a general, parameter-free statement about dark states and jump sequences, not a result that presupposes the model or the numerical outputs of this paper. Appendix B supplies the required jump-sequence construction; whether that construction is fully rigorous (e.g., the 'minimal distance' and Pauli-blocking lemma) is a correctness risk rather than a circularity risk. Thus I find no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fit or to a self-referential definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard GKSL dynamics, physically motivated thermal-bath assumptions, a Gaussian closure for the mean-field theory, and one imported uniqueness theorem. The only hand-inserted numerical ingredient is the finite-size gap |λL|A in the mean-field equations; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • inverse temperature β = 10 (thermal protocol)
    Set to β=10 to approximate the low-temperature regime; the paper argues scaling is insensitive for β≳5, so it is a modeling choice rather than a fitted constant.
  • thermal scaling prefactor c_th = 0.21
    Obtained by fitting τ=c N² to ED/trajectory data in Fig. 6 (Davies and ULE); used to exhibit quadratic scaling, not derived from first principles.
  • engineered scaling prefactor c_eng = 0.057 (DMRG); random walk predicts 0.0625
    Fitted to DMRG data in Fig. 7; random-walk prediction L²/4 = N²/16 ≈0.0625N² is close but the quoted value is a numerical fit.
  • finite-size gap insertion λ_L = not quoted; taken from Liouvillian spectrum
    Added by hand to the mean-field reaction-diffusion equation (Eq. 13, Eq. E16) to reproduce finite-size exponential decay; vanishes in the thermodynamic limit and does not set the asymptotic scaling.
  • spectral density shape J(ω;β) = Gaussian with normalization 1/2+ln(1+βΛ0)
    Chosen to satisfy KMS detailed balance; the paper asserts other KMS-compliant choices give comparable results, so this is a modeling input rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math GKSL/Lindblad master equation is the correct open-system dynamics
    Used throughout Eq. (4); standard for Markovian weak-coupling open quantum systems.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and local independent baths for the thermal protocol
    Sec. II A: bath assumed local, fast-relaxing, weakly coupled; this is a physical modeling assumption, not derived.
  • domain assumption KMS condition on the spectral density, Eq. (10)
    Required for thermal detailed balance; all spectral densities used satisfy it.
  • domain assumption Wick's theorem and Gaussianity at late times for the mean-field closure
    App. E: four-point correlators factorized; justified by 'approximately Gaussian' late-time states, not rigorously proven.
  • domain assumption Neglect of off-diagonal spatial correlations G(u,v), u≠v in the continuum limit
    SM Sec. I.B and Fig. 1: numerically motivated; used to obtain the reaction-diffusion equations.
  • standard math Theorem 2 of Ref. [41] as the uniqueness criterion
    App. B: existence of jump sequences connecting every state to the dark state implies unique steady state; theorem imported from published literature.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling extrapolates to the thermodynamic limit
    Claims about N→∞ stability are based on trend of DMRG/ED data up to N=60 and the analytic proof for finite N; no rigorous infinite-size certificate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion in quantum state preparation: From passive cooling to system-bath engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKCOMY37

@misc{pith2026260118894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion in quantum state preparation: From passive cooling to system-bath engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKCOMY37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.18894}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate and compare two particle number-conserving protocols for the preparation of a topologically nontrivial state. The first is derived from thermally coupling the system to a cold bath, while the second is based on engineered dissipation. We numerically study the time required to reach the target state as well as its robustness against physically important perturbations. Crucially, in both protocols, the cooling capability is limited by dissipatively induced diffusion processes. The resulting quadratic scaling of the cooling time with system size is also corroborated analytically using mean-field approximations and a purely classical random-walk model. Furthermore, we find that the engineered protocol admits a unique and stable dark state, which contributes to an ongoing discussion regarding the applicability of dissipative state preparation to many-body systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Parent Hamiltonian H from Eq. (1) with yellow a (green b) sub-lattice sites, and inter-cell hoping t. (b) Generic cooling protocol based on local system-bath couplings with a system governed by the parent Hamiltonian and a cold thermal environment inducing intra-cell (inter-cell) cooling L ↑↓ (L ⇄ a,b). (c) Engineered dissipative state preparation protocol targeting the ground state of a specific parent Hamilton… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the spectral density J(ω; β) in Eq. (9) for different values of β in units of the typical energy scales of the model Λ0. For small temperatures T ≲ Λ0/5 (βΛ0 ≳ 5), for which the ground state constitutes a macroscopic portion of the steady state, the contributions increasing energy at ω = −Λ0 are heavily suppressed. for each system-bath interaction, which incoherently over￾lays the different energy transition… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cost function C(λ˜) for the engineered dissipation Liouvillian with N = 8. The eigenvalues are marked by stars, which coincide perfectly with the minima of the cost function. Crucially, this landscape is absent of anomalous minima which motivates the spectral gradient search strategy. There, we start with the trust region (α, β) and successively shrink the interval using binary search. the preconditioning outlin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The excited population fraction ν = tr(ρ∞N+)/⟨N ⟩ in the steady state ρ∞ for both thermal protocols at different inverse temperatures β for system size N = 12. Around β ≈ 4, the excited population is effectively described by the detailed balance with respect to the lev…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of the cooling time τ on the number of sites N using site-switching system operators in Eq. (6) at β = 10. The data with error bars represents results from quantum trajectories. Both truncated Hilbert space (Ht;1) and quantum trajectory calculations conform …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of the cooling time τ on system size N for the engineered dissipation protocol in Eq. (11). The inset confirms the agreement between cooling times obtained from DMRG and quantum trajectory simulations with m = 10 000 samples (m = 2000 samples at N = 22, 24 w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In (a), we show the time evolution of the fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the random walk dynamics exhibited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The cooling time τ predicted by the more sophisti￾cated random walk model run for 100 000 samples with the maximum number of excitations being K, i.e., K = ∞ means there are no restrictions. With more excitations included, the cooling time increases. We include the fi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The first eigenvalue of the Lindbladian L + j,a and tL+ j,b. Here, N = 8. Appendix B: On the Uniqueness of the Steady State Proving that the dark state |◦⟩ is a unique dark state of the engineered dissipation given by the Lindblad operators in Eq. (11) is done using t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Fig. 6 but with the system operators in Eq. (6) restricted to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The impact ionization rate r and the added defect count ∆ηimp for time evolution starting from |ι6⟩ on an L = 6 system averaged over m = 10000 trajectories. While roughly 40% of the jumps are ionizing events, the amount of defects created by it decreases significantly…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution (cf. Fig. 14 for state and parameters) of the fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as Fig. 15 but with an additional non-vanishing impact ionization term [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The fields G++, G−− and G+− evaluated for the state |ι6i (introduced in the main text) at different sites (colors). Crucially, for all fields the non-diagonal components (dashed) are small and vanish extremely fast compared to the diagonal components (solid). This moti…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    High-temperature regime As illustrated in Fig. 4, while the share of non- equilibrated particles ν in the steady state is the same for the Davies and ULE formulation, it is very heavily dependent on the choice of inverse temperature β. While the drop begins subexponentially, at β≳ 4 it becomes proportional to e−∆β, where ∆ is the difference between energy...

  2. [2]

    Low-temperature regime When setting β = 10 for the bath to allow the system to reach the ground state, by the KMS condition, almost only transitions decreasing the number of excitations are 7 (a) Davies equation, β = 10 0 0.2 0.4 data mean (b) ULE, β = 10 0 100 200 300 4000 0.2 0.4 t/κ excited population ν 1σ region 2σ region (c) Engineered dissipation Im...

  3. [3]

    Dependence of the cooling time τ on the number of sites N using site-switching system operators in Eq

    On the concrete form of the thermal equation To verify that the diffusive behavior τ∝N 2 holds irrespective of our arbitrary choice of system operators, we implement a very asymmetric choice for the directionality 0 50 100 (a) Davies 0.21N 2 cooling timeτ ED Trajectories Ht;1 0 5 10 15 200 50 100 (b) ULE 0.21N 2 sitesN cooling timeτ Figure 6. Dependence o...

  4. [4]

    Thus, the exponential damping exp(−i ˜Ht) does not change the state but merely decreases its amplitude

    Analytical Prediction of Cooling Rates The operators Aµ = L† µLµ (with µ enumerating all Lindblad operators) forming the terms of the effective Hamiltonian ˜H=− i 2 P µ Aµ are A+ j,γ ≡(L + j,γ)†L+ j,γ =κx † j,+(1−n j,γ)xj,+, A− j,γ ≡(L − j,γ)†L− j,γ =κx j,−nj,γx† j,−,(16) where γ = a, bthe wire index. Thus, the exponential damping exp(−i ˜Ht) does not cha...

  5. [5]

    Fur- thermore, it makes ad hoc assumptions about the initial spatial extend of the defect

    Generalized Model While the above random walk model correctly captures the classical dynamics giving rise to the diffusive cooling, 11 it is restricted to only one defect living in H(1). Fur- thermore, it makes ad hoc assumptions about the initial spatial extend of the defect. In the following, we pro- vide a generalized model which relaxes these assumpti...

    2004

  6. [6]

    R. P. Feynman, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  7. [7]

    Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    S. Lloyd, Science273, 1073 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature464, 45 (2010)

    2010

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Danos, E

    V. Danos, E. Kashefi, and P. Panangaden, J. ACM54, 8–es (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Fortschritte der Physik48, 771 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature Physics8, 264 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

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

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, SIAM Journal on Computing35, 1070 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Aharonov, D

    D. Aharonov, D. Gottesman, S. Irani, and J. Kempe, Communications in Mathematical Physics287, 41 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Preskill, inFeynman Lectures on Computation(CRC Press, 2023) pp

    J. Preskill, inFeynman Lectures on Computation(CRC Press, 2023) pp. 193–244

    2023

  10. [18]

    Watrous, Quantum computational complexity, inEn- cyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, edited by R

    J. Watrous, Quantum computational complexity, inEn- cyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, edited by R. A. Meyers (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2009) pp. 7174–7201

    2009

  11. [19]

    Buluta and F

    I. Buluta and F. Nori, Science326, 108 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    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....

    2021

  14. [22]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, B. P. Marsh, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Nature599, 211 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    V. D. Vaidya, Y. Guo, R. M. Kroeze, K. E. Ballantine, A. J. Koll´ ar, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X8, 011002 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Dreon, A

    D. Dreon, A. Baumg¨ artner, X. Li, S. Hertlein, T. Esslinger, and T. Donner, Nature608, 494 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kongkhambut, J

    P. Kongkhambut, J. Skulte, L. Mathey, J. G. Cosme, A. Hemmerich, and H. Keßler, Science377, 670 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Landig, L

    R. Landig, L. Hruby, N. Dogra, M. Landini, R. Mottl, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Nature532, 476 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Klinder, H

    J. Klinder, H. Keßler, M. R. Bakhtiari, M. Thorwart, and A. Hemmerich, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 230403 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Z. Wu, J. Fan, X. Zhang, J. Qi, and H. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 243401 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Zwettler, G

    T. Zwettler, G. Del Pace, F. Marijanovic, S. Chattopad- hyay, T. B¨ uhler, C.-M. Halati, L. Skolc, L. Tolle, V. Hel- son, G. Bolognini, A. Fabre, S. Uchino, T. Giamarchi, E. Demler, and J. P. Brantut, Phys. Rev. X15, 021089 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Smith, Nature600, 630 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    D. J. Young, A. Chu, E. Y. Song, D. Barberena, D. Well- nitz, Z. Niu, V. M. Sch¨ afer, R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Nature625, 679 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sauerwein, F

    N. Sauerwein, F. Orsi, P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Mattiotti, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, G. Pupillo, P. Hauke, and J.-P. Brantut, Nature Physics19, 1128 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    A. A. Houck, H. E. T¨ ureci, and J. Koch, Nature Physics 8, 292 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Mazurenko, C

    A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, M. F. Parsons, M. Kan´ asz-Nagy, R. Schmidt, F. Grusdt, E. Demler, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Nature545, 462 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    M¨ uller, S

    T. M¨ uller, S. F¨ olling, A. Widera, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 200405 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Kar- man, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature607, 677 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Pagano, P

    G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, H. B. Kaplan, W. L. Tan, P. Richerme, P. Becker, A. Kyprianidis, J. Zhang, E. Bir- ckelbaw, M. R. Hernandez, Y. Wu, and C. Monroe, Quantum Science and Technology4, 014004 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Magnard, S

    P. Magnard, S. Storz, P. Kurpiers, J. Sch¨ ar, F. Marxer, J. L¨ utolf, T. Walter, J.-C. Besse, M. Gabureac, K. Reuer, A. Akin, B. Royer, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 260502 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Monroe, W

    C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    G¨ arttner, J

    M. G¨ arttner, J. G. Bohnet, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Nature Physics13, 781 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Chang and J

    H. Chang and J. Zhang, Chip2, 100054 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Chen, H.-Y

    C.-F. Chen, H.-Y. Huang, J. Preskill, and L. Zhou, Na- ture Physics21, 654 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Verstraete, M

    F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Nature Physics5, 633 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Kraus, H

    B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, S. Diehl, A. Kantian, A. Micheli, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A78, 042307 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    M¨ uller, S

    M. M¨ uller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 61, edited by P. Berman, E. Arimondo, and C. Lin (Academic Press, 2012) pp. 1–80

    2012

  40. [48]

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

    2022

  41. [49]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    A. J. Daley, Advances in Physics63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Duan and G.-C

    L.-M. Duan and G.-C. Guo, Phys. Rev. A57, 737 (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    DiVincenzo and B

    D. DiVincenzo and B. Terhal, Physics World11, 53 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Gyongyosi and S

    L. Gyongyosi and S. Imre, Computer Science Review31, 51 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Daffer, K

    S. Daffer, K. W´ odkiewicz, and J. K. McIver, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics67, 13 (2003)

    2003

  47. [55]

    Zanardi, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A57, 3276 (1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Pichler, A

    H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A82, 063605 (2010). 14

    2010

  49. [57]

    Griessner, A

    A. Griessner, A. J. Daley, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 220403 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Griessner, A

    A. Griessner, A. J. Daley, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and P. Zoller, New Journal of Physics9, 44 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    Albash and D

    T. Albash and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A91, 062320 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Molpeceres, S

    D. Molpeceres, S. Lu, J. I. Cirac, and B. Kraus, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033162 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Lloyd, A

    J. Lloyd, A. A. Michailidis, X. Mi, V. Smelyanskiy, and D. A. Abanin, PRX Quantum6, 010361 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    X. Mi, A. A. Michailidis, S. Shabani, K. C. Miao, P. V. Klimov, J. Lloyd, E. Rosenberg, R. Acharya, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. As- faw, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, B. B....

    2024

  56. [64]

    Tonielli, J

    F. Tonielli, J. C. Budich, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 240404 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Z. Liu, E. J. Bergholtz, and J. C. Budich, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043119 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    P. A. Nosov, D. S. Shapiro, M. Goldstein, and I. S. Burmistrov, Physical Review B107(2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    A. A. Lyublinskaya and I. S. Burmistrov, JETP Letters 118, 524–530 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    A. A. Lyublinskaya, P. A. Nosov, and I. S. Burmistrov, Physical Review B111(2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    O. I. Baburin and I. S. Burmistrov, Minimal veloc- ity of the travelling wave solutions in two coupled fkpp equations with the global conservation law (2025), arXiv:2509.14833 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2025

  62. [70]

    M. S. Shustin, S. V. Aksenov, and I. S. Burmistrov, Dissipation-induced steady states in topological super- conductors: Mechanisms and design principles (2025), arXiv:2508.11242 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  64. [72]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  65. [73]

    Shiraishi, M

    K. Shiraishi, M. Nakagawa, T. Mori, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B111, 184311 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    E. B. Davies, Communications in Mathematical Physics 39, 91 (1974)

    1974

  67. [75]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Phys. Rev. B102, 115109 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    For the ULE, we then assume a diagonal spectral density function Jµν ∝δ µν

    In the case of the Davies equation, this will render the power spectrum diagonal as γµν (ω) ∝δ µν . For the ULE, we then assume a diagonal spectral density function Jµν ∝δ µν

  69. [77]

    Mozgunov and D

    E. Mozgunov and D. Lidar, Quantum4, 227 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Davidovi´ c, Quantum4, 326 (2020)

    D. Davidovi´ c, Quantum4, 326 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    D. D. Awschalom, L. C. Bassett, A. S. Dzurak, E. L. Hu, and J. R. Petta, Science339, 1174 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    Altland, M

    A. Altland, M. Fleischhauer, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021037 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    P. A. Nosov, D. S. Shapiro, M. Goldstein, and I. S. Burmistrov, Phys. Rev. B107, 174312 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Guo, Z.-T

    Z. Guo, Z.-T. Xu, M. Li, L. You, and S. Yang, Variational matrix product state approach for non-hermitian system based on a companion hermitian hamiltonian (2022), arXiv:2210.14858 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Zhong, W

    P. Zhong, W. Pan, H. Lin, X. Wang, and S. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 106502 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    Yamamoto, M

    K. Yamamoto, M. Nakagawa, M. Tezuka, M. Ueda, and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. B105, 205125 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    G. Chen, F. Song, and J. L. Lado, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 100401 (2023)

    2023

  78. [86]

    Westhoff, M

    P. Westhoff, M. Moroder, U. Schollw¨ ock, and S. Paeckel, A tensor network framework for lindbladian spectra and steady states (2025), arXiv:2509.07709 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [87]

    G. Chen, J. L. Lado, and F. Song, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043182 (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    Sander, M

    A. Sander, M. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Eigel, J. Eisert, P. Gelß, M. Hinterm¨ uller, R. M. Milbradt, R. Wille, and C. B. Mendl, Large-scale stochastic simulation of open quan- tum systems (2025), arXiv:2501.17913 [quant-ph]

    2025

  81. [89]

    Causer, M

    L. Causer, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. B111, L060303 (2025)

    2025

  82. [90]

    Mascarenhas, H

    E. Mascarenhas, H. Flayac, and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. A92, 022116 (2015)

    2015

  83. [91]

    L¨ owdin (Academic Press, 1970) pp

    P.-O. L¨ owdin (Academic Press, 1970) pp. 185–199

    1970

  84. [92]

    Albert, Y

    N. Albert, Y. Zhang, and H.-H. Tu, Truncated gaus- sian basis approach for simulating many-body dynamics (2025), arXiv:2410.04204 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    This follows from a counting argument noticing thatPL m=0 L m 2 = 2L L = N L = dimH

  86. [94]

    The jump operator matrix elements are provided in the Supplementary Material

  87. [95]

    Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    A. Kamenev,Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  88. [96]

    U. C. T¨ auber,Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Ap- proach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Be- havior(Cambridge University Press, 2014). 15

    2014

  89. [97]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P04010 (2005)

    2005

  90. [98]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, Communications Physics3(2020)

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Communications Physics3(2020)

    2020

  91. [99]

    The full description of the system operators in this basis is provided in the Supplementary Material

  92. [100]

    Huang, X.-Q

    Z.-M. Huang, X.-Q. Sun, and S. Diehl, Physical Review B106, 10.1103/physrevb.106.245204 (2022)

    2022 doi

  93. [101]

    Mittal, T

    R. Mittal, T. Zander, J. Lang, and S. Diehl, Fermion quantum criticality far from equilibrium (2025), arXiv:2507.14318 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2025

  94. [102]

    Iemini, D

    F. Iemini, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, S. Diehl, and L. Mazza, Physical Review B93(2016)

    2016

  95. [103]

    Pokart, L

    T. Pokart, L. K¨ onig, S. Diehl, and J. C. Budich, 10.5281/zenodo.18379558 (2026)

    2026 doi

  96. [105]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  97. [106]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, The Journal of Open Research Software5(2017)

    2017

  98. [107]

    Haegeman, Krylovkit (2025)

    J. Haegeman, Krylovkit (2025)

    2025

  99. [108]

    Verzani, Roots.jl: Root finding functions for julia, https://github.com/JuliaMath/Roots.jl(2020)

    J. Verzani, Roots.jl: Root finding functions for julia, https://github.com/JuliaMath/Roots.jl(2020)

    2020

  100. [109]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep-...

    2020

  101. [110]

    Crucially, we find that they do not contain impact ionization terms, and thus do not corroborate the instability scenario

    Linear Deviation from the Steady State Equations (E1) to (E4) can be formulated as field equations to allow for a comparison to previous literature [ 63]. Crucially, we find that they do not contain impact ionization terms, and thus do not corroborate the instability scenario....

  102. [111]

    [ 63] have been linked to the occurence of impact ionization

    Measuring Impact Ionization The destabilizing terms ∝τ −1A in Ref. [ 63] have been linked to the occurence of impact ionization. This impact ionization and its implied instability of the ground state corresponds to a process in which an excitation ( x+) hops and thus excites a...

  103. [112]

    MEAN-FIELD MODEL OF THE ENGINEERED DISSIP A TION DYNAMICS

    Comparing to Numerical Data Lastly, we compare the time evolution of the fields A and B to those obtained by implementing Eqs. (E13) and (E14). In Fig. 15 we show the results of this simulation (second column) against data (first column). While the time evolutions agree initia...

Pith tools

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