arxiv: 2604.15616 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Overcoming the Lamb Shift in System-Bath Models via KMS Detailed Balance: High-Accuracy Thermalization with Time-Bounded Interactions

Hongrui Chen , Zhiyan Ding , Ruizhe Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 09:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum thermalizationsystem-bath modelsKMS detailed balanceLamb shiftGibbs state preparationLindbladian dynamicsweak coupling limitopen quantum systems

0 comments

The pith

If the transition part of the system-bath Lindbladian is made to obey KMS detailed balance, its fixed point can be driven arbitrarily close to the Gibbs state in the weak-coupling limit no matter what the Lamb shift does.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that engineering the interaction between a quantum system and its bath so the transition rates satisfy the KMS condition forces the long-time state of the dynamics to approach the desired thermal Gibbs state as coupling strength vanishes. This holds even when the full effective generator deviates from the ideal Davies form and when the Lamb shift fails to commute with the target state. The authors combine the fixed-point guarantee with a perturbation argument to bound the mixing time and obtain an end-to-end preparation cost that scales as one over the desired accuracy. The result applies to any system Hamiltonian for which the corresponding KMS Lindbladian is already known to mix rapidly.

Core claim

In the weak-coupling regime, when the transition part of the approximate Lindbladian generator satisfies the KMS detailed balance condition, the unique fixed point of the open-system dynamics can be made arbitrarily close to the Gibbs state of the system Hamiltonian, irrespective of the structure or commutativity properties of the Lamb shift term. This remains true even if the approximate generator differs substantially from the ideal Davies generator. The same condition, together with a general perturbation framework, yields an O(ε^{-1}) end-to-end complexity bound for preparing the Gibbs state whenever the corresponding KMS-detailed-balance Lindbladian is known to mix rapidly.

What carries the argument

The KMS detailed balance condition imposed on the transition part of the approximate Lindbladian generator; it forces the stationary distribution to satisfy a detailed-balance relation with the target Gibbs state that is independent of the Lamb shift.

If this is right

The steady state converges to the Gibbs state in the weak-coupling limit independently of the Lamb shift.
Mixing-time bounds follow from a general perturbation argument around the ideal KMS generator.
The overall preparation cost is O(ε^{-1}) for any accuracy ε whenever the ideal KMS Lindbladian mixes rapidly.
The guarantee applies to arbitrary system Hamiltonians that admit a rapidly mixing KMS Lindbladian.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

KMS balance on transition rates may serve as a design principle for constructing other approximate dissipative maps whose fixed points remain thermal even under uncontrolled coherent corrections.
The same engineering step could be tested in digital quantum simulators by programming jump operators that obey KMS while deliberately adding non-commuting Lamb-shift terms.
If similar balance conditions can be imposed at stronger coupling, the weak-coupling restriction might be relaxed while preserving the insensitivity to shifts.

Load-bearing premise

The KMS-detailed-balance Lindbladian for the target Hamiltonian is assumed to mix rapidly.

What would settle it

Compute the exact fixed point of the approximate generator for a small finite-dimensional system whose KMS-detailed-balance version mixes fast, then check whether its distance to the true Gibbs state fails to approach zero as the coupling strength is lowered while the Lamb shift remains nonzero and non-commuting.

read the original abstract

We investigate quantum thermal state preparation algorithms based on system-bath interactions and uncover a surprising phenomenon in the weak-coupling regime. We rigorously prove that, if the system-bath interaction is engineered so that the transition part of the approximate Lindbladian generator satisfies the KMS detailed balance condition, then the unique fixed point of the dynamics can be made arbitrarily close to the Gibbs state in the weak-coupling limit, regardless of the structure of the Lamb shift term. Importantly, this remains true even when the approximate Lindbladian differs substantially from the ideal Davies generator and the Lamb shift term does not commute with the thermal state. Our result shows that the role of the KMS detailed balance condition extends well beyond standard Lindbladian dynamics, serving as a general principle for a broader class of dissipative systems. Furthermore, by combining this with a general perturbation framework, we bound the mixing time of the dynamics and establish an end-to-end complexity of $O(\varepsilon^{-1})$ for Gibbs state preparation. These guarantees apply to any Hamiltonian for which the corresponding KMS-detailed-balance Lindbladian is known to mix rapidly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

KMS on the rates pins the fixed point but the O(ε²) scaling of both dissipator and Lamb shift still needs explicit handling in their time-bounded setup.

read the letter

The paper claims that enforcing KMS detailed balance just on the transition rates is enough to drive the fixed point arbitrarily close to the Gibbs state in the weak-coupling limit, no matter what the Lamb shift does. They back this with a perturbation argument and get an end-to-end O(ε^{-1}) runtime for thermal state preparation on any Hamiltonian whose KMS Lindbladian mixes fast enough. That is the core new observation: the condition does more than just guarantee the right stationary state in the ideal Davies case; it apparently works even when the generator deviates and the shift does not commute with the thermal state. If the proof is tight, this removes a practical engineering headache for open-system thermalization methods. They also give a clean mixing-time bound that turns the fixed-point result into a usable algorithm. That part is useful and worth having on record. The main soft spot is the scaling. Both the dissipative rates and the Lamb-shift term enter at the same perturbative order, so first-order perturbation around the kernel of the dissipator normally leaves an O(1) deviation in the stationary state. The title flags time-bounded interactions as the fix, but the abstract does not show how those bounds change the relative size of the two terms or suppress the effective shift. The stress-test note is therefore on point until the explicit error analysis is checked. The rapid-mixing assumption for the KMS generator is also left as a black box for the target Hamiltonian. This is aimed at people building quantum simulation algorithms for chemistry and materials who already work with system-bath models. A reader who needs a new thermalization primitive with fewer engineering constraints will get value if the orders check out. It deserves a serious referee because the claim is non-obvious and the potential payoff is concrete, even though the scaling details will probably require revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates quantum thermal state preparation algorithms based on system-bath interactions in the weak-coupling regime. It rigorously proves that engineering the system-bath interaction so the transition part of the approximate Lindbladian satisfies the KMS detailed balance condition makes the unique fixed point arbitrarily close to the Gibbs state in the weak-coupling limit, regardless of the Lamb shift structure (even when non-commuting). It further combines this with a perturbation framework to bound the mixing time, establishing an O(ε^{-1}) end-to-end complexity for Gibbs state preparation whenever the corresponding KMS Lindbladian mixes rapidly.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would meaningfully extend the applicability of KMS detailed balance beyond standard Davies generators to a broader class of approximate Lindbladians, potentially simplifying the engineering of system-bath couplings for thermalization. The O(ε^{-1}) complexity bound, if valid, would represent a notable improvement over typical weak-coupling scalings and could impact quantum simulation algorithms; the manuscript's emphasis on rigorous proof and general perturbation framework are strengths worth crediting.

major comments (2)

The central claim that the fixed point approaches the Gibbs state arbitrarily closely in the weak-coupling limit (abstract and main theorem) appears to conflict with standard first-order perturbation theory for the kernel of a Lindblad generator. Both the KMS-detailed-balance dissipator D and the Lamb-shift term λ(−i[H_LS, ·]) arise at the same O(ε²) order from the system-bath coupling; the deviation ||ρ* − π|| is then O(λ/γ) = O(1) and does not vanish as ε → 0. Please identify the precise equation or step in the fixed-point derivation that overcomes this scaling via the KMS condition alone.
The O(ε^{-1}) end-to-end complexity (abstract and mixing-time section) requires the effective gap of the dynamics to be at least O(ε). Standard weak-coupling derivations yield a gap γ ∼ O(ε²) for the dissipator. Please specify the section deriving the mixing-time bound and clarify how the time-bounded interaction or KMS engineering improves the gap scaling beyond the usual O(ε²) while preserving the fixed-point guarantee.

minor comments (2)

Clarify the precise definition of the 'approximate Lindbladian' and its relation to the standard second-order perturbative expansion early in the manuscript to aid readability.
Ensure all scaling statements (e.g., orders in ε) are accompanied by explicit references to the relevant equations in the derivation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate clarifications where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the fixed point approaches the Gibbs state arbitrarily closely in the weak-coupling limit (abstract and main theorem) appears to conflict with standard first-order perturbation theory for the kernel of a Lindblad generator. Both the KMS-detailed-balance dissipator D and the Lamb-shift term λ(−i[H_LS, ·]) arise at the same O(ε²) order from the system-bath coupling; the deviation ||ρ* − π|| is then O(λ/γ) = O(1) and does not vanish as ε → 0. Please identify the precise equation or step in the fixed-point derivation that overcomes this scaling via the KMS condition alone.

Authors: The referee raises an important point about the perturbation scaling. In our derivation, the approximate Lindbladian is obtained from a time-bounded system-bath interaction model, and the KMS condition is applied directly to the transition operators in the integrated generator. This leads to a fixed-point equation where the deviation from the Gibbs state is suppressed beyond the naive O(1) scaling. The key step is in the main theorem's proof, where we demonstrate using the KMS detailed balance that the action of the Lamb shift on the deviation is balanced by the dissipative part in such a way that the steady-state deviation vanishes in the weak-coupling limit. We will add an explanatory paragraph in the revised version to contrast this with standard perturbation theory and highlight the role of the underlying Hamiltonian structure. revision: yes
Referee: The O(ε^{-1}) end-to-end complexity (abstract and mixing-time section) requires the effective gap of the dynamics to be at least O(ε). Standard weak-coupling derivations yield a gap γ ∼ O(ε²) for the dissipator. Please specify the section deriving the mixing-time bound and clarify how the time-bounded interaction or KMS engineering improves the gap scaling beyond the usual O(ε²) while preserving the fixed-point guarantee.

Authors: We appreciate this comment on the complexity scaling. The mixing-time bound is derived in the mixing-time section using a perturbation framework applied to the effective generator from the time-bounded interaction. The time-bounded nature allows the effective dissipative rate to scale as O(ε) rather than O(ε²), while the KMS condition on the transition part ensures the fixed point remains close to the Gibbs state independently of the Lamb shift. This is achieved by choosing the interaction duration appropriately in the weak-coupling regime. We will revise the mixing-time section to explicitly state the gap lower bound and provide a comparison to standard continuous weak-coupling results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is a self-contained mathematical proof

full rationale

The paper presents an explicit construction of system-bath interactions that enforce KMS detailed balance on the transition (dissipative) part of the approximate Lindbladian, then applies standard first-order perturbation theory for the kernel of Lindblad generators to bound the deviation of the unique fixed point from the Gibbs state. No step equates a derived quantity to its own input by definition, renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, or relies on a load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The mixing-time bound is invoked from known rapid mixing of KMS-detailed-balance Lindbladians (an external assumption, not derived here), and the O(ε^{-1}) complexity follows from combining the fixed-point guarantee with that mixing result. All steps are independent of the target claim and use externally verifiable perturbation bounds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard assumptions of open quantum systems (weak coupling, Markovian limit, existence of a unique fixed point) plus the external fact that the ideal KMS Lindbladian mixes rapidly; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Weak-coupling and Markovian approximations are valid for the engineered system-bath interaction.
Invoked to justify the Lindbladian form and the weak-coupling limit in which the fixed-point result holds.
domain assumption The KMS-detailed-balance Lindbladian mixes rapidly for the Hamiltonians under consideration.
Used to convert the fixed-point guarantee into an O(ε^{-1}) end-to-end complexity bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1610 out tokens · 27006 ms · 2026-05-10T09:53:11.923982+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Rigorous error bounds for dissipative thermal state preparation from weak system-bath coupling
quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

The unitary contribution from weak system-bath coupling in collision-model thermal state preparation tightens the fixed-point error bound, scaling rigorously as J² where J is the coupling strength.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

[1]

•We set ˜β= 2β 2−β 2/(4σ2) , g(ω) = βp 2π(2−β 2/(4σ2)) exp − (βω+ 1) 2 2 (2−β 2/(4σ2)) , f(t) = e−t2/(4σ2) p σ √ 2π

End-to-end Complexity Analysis of End-to-End Efficient Quantum Thermal State Preparation [12] Following the discussion in Section II D, we give additional assumptions to the Setup II.6: Assumption III.3.•We set the Gaussian widthσ= Ω(β)and the coupling strengthα=o(1). •We set ˜β= 2β 2−β 2/(4σ2) , g(ω) = βp 2π(2−β 2/(4σ2)) exp − (βω+ 1) 2 2 (2−β 2/(4σ2)) ,...
[2]

Applications to the algorithms in [15, 21] In this section, we focus on the algorithms proposed in [15, 21], reviewed in Section II D. In both setups, it is straightforward to verify that the transition part ofDVAS ,f,T (ρ)exactly satisfiesthe KMS detailed balance condition, and therefore admits an expansion of the same form as Eq. (3). Consequently, Theo...
[3]

Rapid thermalization of spin chain commuting Hamiltonians.Phys

Ivan Bardet, ´Angela Capel, Li Gao, Angelo Lucia, David P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Rapid thermalization of spin chain commuting Hamiltonians.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130(6):060401, 2023. 18

2023
[4]

Bergamaschi and C.-F

Thiago Bergamaschi and Chi-Fang Chen. Fast mixing of quantum spin chains at all temperatures.arXiv/2510.08533, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[5]

Chi-Fang Chen and Fernando G. S. L. Brand˜ ao. Fast thermalization from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. arXiv:2112.07646, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

Chi-Fang Chen, Michael Kastoryano, Fernando G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and Andr´ as Gily´ en. Efficient quantum thermal simulation. Nature, 646(8085):561–566, 10 2025

2025
[7]

Quantum thermal state preparation

Chi-Fang Chen, Michael J Kastoryano, Fernando GSL Brand˜ ao, and Andr´ as Gily´ en. Quantum thermal state preparation. arXiv:2303.18224, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[8]

Chen, M.J

Chi-Fang Chen, Michael J Kastoryano, and Andr´ as Gily´ en. An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler.arXiv:2311.09207, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[9]

Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution

Richard Cleve and Chunhao Wang. Efficient quantum algorithms for simulating Lindblad evolution. InICALP 2017, volume 80, pages 17:1–17:14, 2017

2017
[10]

Single-ancilla ground state preparation via Lindbladians.Phys

Zhiyan Ding, Chi-Fang Chen, and Lin Lin. Single-ancilla ground state preparation via Lindbladians.Phys. Rev. Research, 6:033147, 2024

2024
[11]

Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger detailed balance condition.Commun

Zhiyan Ding, Bowen Li, and Lin Lin. Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger detailed balance condition.Commun. Math. Phys., 406(3):67, 2025

2025
[12]

Polynomial-time preparation of low-temperature Gibbs states for 2d toric code,

Zhiyan Ding, Bowen Li, Lin Lin, and Ruizhe Zhang. Polynomial-time preparation of low-temperature Gibbs states for 2D Toric Code.arXiv:2410.01206, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[13]

Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations.PRX Quantum, 5:020332, 2024

Zhiyan Ding, Xiantao Li, and Lin Lin. Simulating open quantum systems using Hamiltonian simulations.PRX Quantum, 5:020332, 2024

2024
[14]

End-to-end efficient quantum thermal and ground state preparation made simple.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05703,

Zhiyan Ding, Yongtao Zhan, John Preskill, and Lin Lin. End-to-end efficient quantum thermal and ground state preparation made simple.arXiv:2508.05703, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

Mixing time of open quantum systems via hypocoercivity.Phys

Di Fang, Jianfeng Lu, and Yu Tong. Mixing time of open quantum systems via hypocoercivity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134:140405, Apr 2025

2025
[16]

The thermodynamic cost of ignorance: Thermal state preparation with one ancilla qubit.arXiv:2502.03410, 2025

Matthew Hagan and Nathan Wiebe. The thermodynamic cost of ignorance: Thermal state preparation with one ancilla qubit.arXiv:2502.03410, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

Dominik Hahn, S. A. Parameswaran, and Benedikt Placke. Towards efficient quantum thermal state preparation via local driving: Lindbladian simulation with provable guarantees.arXiv:2505.22816, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[18]

Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing.J

Michael J Kastoryano and Kristan Temme. Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing.J. Math. Phys., 54(5):1–34, 2013

2013
[19]

Rapid thermalization of dissipative many-body dynamics of commuting Hamiltonians.Commun

Jan Kochanowski, Alvaro M Alhambra, Angela Capel, and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Rapid thermalization of dissipative many-body dynamics of commuting Hamiltonians.Commun. Math. Phys., 2024

2024
[20]

Josias Langbehn, George Mouloudakis, Emma King, Rapha¨ el Menu, Igor Gornyi, Giovanna Morigi, Yuval Gefen, and Christiane P. Koch. Universal cooling of quantum systems via randomized measurements.arXiv:2506.11964, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[21]

Speeding up quantum markov processes through lifting.arXiv:2505.12187, 2025

Bowen Li and Jianfeng Lu. Speeding up quantum markov processes through lifting.arXiv:2505.12187, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Simulating Markovian open quantum systems using higher-order series expansion

Xiantao Li and Chunhao Wang. Simulating Markovian open quantum systems using higher-order series expansion. In ICALP 2023, volume 261, pages 87:1–87:20, 2023

2023
[23]

Jerome Lloyd and Dmitry A. Abanin. Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors. arXiv:2506.21318, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Quantum simulation of lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions

Matthew Pocrnic, Dvira Segal, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum simulation of lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 58(30):305302, jul 2025

2025
[25]

Thermal state preparation via rounding promises.Quantum, 7:1132, 2023

Patrick Rall, Chunhao Wang, and Pawel Wocjan. Thermal state preparation via rounding promises.Quantum, 7:1132, 2023

2023
[26]

Thermal state preparation by repeated interactions at and beyond the Lindblad limit.arXiv:2506.12166, 2025

Carlos Ramon-Escandell, Alessandro Prositto, and Dvira Segal. Thermal state preparation by repeated interactions at and beyond the Lindblad limit.arXiv:2506.12166, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Optimal quantum algorithm for gibbs state preparation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04885,

Cambyse Rouz´ e, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, and´Alvaro M Alhambra. Optimal quantum algorithm for Gibbs state preparation. arXiv:2411.04885, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

Alhambra

Cambyse Rouz´ e, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, and´Alvaro M. Alhambra. Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum gibbs samplers. InSTOC 25, page 1488–1495, 2025

2025
[29]

Alhambra

Matteo Scandi and ´Alvaro M. Alhambra. Thermalization in open many-body systems and KMS detailed balance. arXiv:2505.20064, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Trace inequalities for matrices.Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 87(1):139–148, 2013

Khalid Shebrawi and Hussien Albadawi. Trace inequalities for matrices.Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 87(1):139–148, 2013

2013
[31]

Shtanko and R

Oles Shtanko and Ramis Movassagh. Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quantum processors. arXiv:2112.14688, 2021

work page arXiv 2021
[32]

Slezak, M

Samuel Slezak, Matteo Scandi, ´Alvaro M. Alhambra, Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca, and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Polynomial-time ther- malization and gibbs sampling from system-bath couplings.arXiv/2601.16154, 2026

work page arXiv 2026
[33]

Theχ 2- divergence and mixing times of quantum Markov processes.J

Kristan Temme, Michael James Kastoryano, Mary Beth Ruskai, Michael Marc Wolf, and Frank Verstraete. Theχ 2- divergence and mixing times of quantum Markov processes.J. Math. Phys., 51(12), 2010

2010
[34]

Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature.PRX Quantum, 6:030301, Jul 2025

Yu Tong and Yongtao Zhan. Fast mixing of weakly interacting fermionic systems at any temperature.PRX Quantum, 6:030301, Jul 2025

2025
[35]

Wang and Z

Ke Wang and Zhiyan Ding. Beyond lindblad dynamics: Rigorous guarantees for thermal and ground state preservation under system bath interactions.arXiv/2512.03457, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Rapid quantum 19 ground state preparation via dissipative dynamics.arXiv/2503.15827, 2025

Yongtao Zhan, Zhiyan Ding, Jakob Huhn, Johnnie Gray, John Preskill, Garnet Kin-Lic Chan, and Lin Lin. Rapid quantum 19 ground state preparation via dissipative dynamics.arXiv/2503.15827, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[37]

Polynomial time quantum Gibbs sampling for Fermi-Hubbard model at any temperature.arXiv:2501.01412, 2025

ˇStˇ ep´ anˇSm´ ıd, Richard Meister, Mario Berta, and Roberto Bondesan. Polynomial time quantum Gibbs sampling for Fermi-Hubbard model at any temperature.arXiv:2501.01412, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Rapid Mixing of Quantum Gibbs Samplers for Weakly-Interacting Quantum Systems

ˇStˇ ep´ anˇSm´ ıd, Richard Meister, Mario Berta, and Roberto Bondesan. Rapid mixing of quantum gibbs samplers for weakly- interacting quantum systems.arXiv/2510.04954, 2025. APPENDIX. The appendix collects the technical details deferred from the main text and is organized as follows: •In Section A, we give a self-contained proof of the general integer mi...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[39]

The asymptotic expansion from the informal discus- sion Section IV suggests looking for a correction of the form ρ∗ =ρ β +α 2E

Auxiliary operator construction and approximation to the Gibbs state We first explain how the auxiliary operatorρ ∗ is constructed. The asymptotic expansion from the informal discus- sion Section IV suggests looking for a correction of the form ρ∗ =ρ β +α 2E. We will first define the correction termE, then use it to control∥ρ ∗ −ρ β∥1, and finally show th...
[40]

Auxiliary operator approximating the fixed point We next give a rigorous verification that the same construction also makesρ ∗ an approximate fixed point of the full channel. The informal asymptotic expansion already indicates that the averaged order-α 2 term should cancel, so the task here is to turn that heuristic cancellation into a quantitative estima...
[41]

Fixed point approximating the Gibbs state It remains to show that the fixed point of the quantum channel Φ α is close to the Gibbs stateρ β. According to Corollary C.7, we have constructed an auxiliary operatorρ ∗ that is close toρ β, and we have shown that one application of Φ α movesρ ∗ only by a higher-order term: ∥Φα(ρ∗)−ρ ∗∥1 ≤ O σβlog(σ)α 4 ,(C8) Th...
[42]

To do so, we begin by defining the following weighted L2-distance between quantum states

Mixing time of the ideal channel We first prove the first part (D1) of Proposition D.1. To do so, we begin by defining the following weighted L2-distance between quantum states. Definition D.2.For two quantum statesρandσ, define theρ β-weighted distance as dβ(ρ, σ) := ρ−1/4 β (ρ−σ)ρ −1/4 β 2 . 29 Note the spectral gap ofL KMS implies the contraction ofL K...
[43]

We will use the following stability argument for the mixing time of quantum channels, which is part of the [12, Theorem 8]

From the ideal channel to the implemented channel Next, we transfer the contraction of Φα stated in Lemma D.3 to the mixing time of the implemented channel Φ α, which will establish the second part of Proposition D.1. We will use the following stability argument for the mixing time of quantum channels, which is part of the [12, Theorem 8]. For completenes...
[44]

Proof of Theorem III.4.LetL ε := log 8∥ρ−1/2 β ∥2 ε =O(β∥H∥+ log(1/ε))

Proof of Theorem III.4 and Corollary III.5 We now combine Propositions C.1 and D.1 to prove Theorem III.4 and Corollary III.5. Proof of Theorem III.4.LetL ε := log 8∥ρ−1/2 β ∥2 ε =O(β∥H∥+ log(1/ε)). By Proposition D.1, one can choose σ= ckβ2 λgap , α 2 =c α ελgap σβlog(σ) log−1 4∥ρ−1/2 β ∥2 ε ! , T 0 ≥2σ p log((α2βlog(σ)) −1), so that tmix,Φα(2ε)≤ O 1 λga...