arxiv: 2605.03011 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Recognition: unknown

Rigorous error bounds for dissipative thermal state preparation from weak system-bath coupling

Christopher Ong , S. A. Parameswaran , Benedikt Placke , Dominik Hahn

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 15:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

keywords thermal state preparationcollision modelsLindbladian dynamicsLamb shiftweak couplingerror boundsquantum simulationdissipative evolution

0 comments

The pith

The unitary evolution from the system Hamiltonian in collision models tightens the fixed-point error bound for thermal states, scaling as the square of the coupling strength.

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

Thermal state preparation on quantum hardware often relies on analog approximations of Lindbladian dynamics through collision models using resettable ancilla qubits with tunable couplings. These constructions produce not only the target dissipative evolution but also an extra unitary term generated by the system Hamiltonian. The paper establishes that this unitary contribution improves convergence to the thermal fixed point by tightening the error bound. The size of the improvement is rigorously controlled by the system-bath coupling J and scales as J squared, so the spurious Lamb-shift effect can be suppressed simply by weakening the coupling. Randomization of the protocol further suppresses unwanted resonances while adding only bounded variance to measured observables.

Core claim

In collision-model constructions that approximate Lindblad dynamics for thermal state preparation, the full evolution includes both the desired dissipative part and a unitary evolution generated by the system Hamiltonian. We demonstrate that this unitary contribution tightens the fixed-point error bound and that the effect is rigorously controlled by the weak system-bath coupling strength J, scaling as J². This shows that the spurious Lamb shift term can be controlled by tuning J. We also clarify how randomization suppresses resonances with the many-body spectrum and bound the extra variance it imposes on observables, while numerically examining the mixing time.

What carries the argument

Collision model with time-dependent couplings to resettable ancilla qubits that simultaneously implements Lindblad dissipators and an additional unitary Lamb-shift term from the system Hamiltonian.

If this is right

The fixed-point error bound improves when the unitary contribution is retained rather than discarded.
The Lamb-shift error can be made arbitrarily small by reducing the coupling strength J while still approximating the desired dissipative dynamics.
Randomization of the drive suppresses resonances with the many-body spectrum at the cost of only bounded extra variance on observables.
Mixing times remain accessible to numerical study and can guide practical parameter choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Balancing weaker J against longer mixing times could optimize total preparation time on hardware with limited coherence.
The same J² control may apply to other analog open-system simulations where unitary corrections naturally appear.
Direct experimental measurement of the error versus J on small systems would test the scaling prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the weak-coupling regime in which higher-order terms in the system-bath interaction can be neglected and the collision model faithfully approximates the target Lindbladian dynamics.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation in which the fixed-point error fails to scale as J² or fails to tighten when the unitary Lamb-shift term is included as J is varied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03011 by Benedikt Placke, Christopher Ong, Dominik Hahn, S. A. Parameswaran.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Setup of the channel view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Scaling of the spectral gap view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Effect of the randomized evolution time [Eq. ( view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Trace distance of fixed point from thermal state view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of thermal state preparation under 50 randomized channels view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of two-point correlator view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of thermal state preparation with a randomized bath [Eq. ( view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Thermal state preparation is a central challenge in the simulation of quantum many-body systems. Yet, provably efficient algorithms for this task were only introduced recently [Chen et al. Nature 646, 561 (2025)]. These algorithms are based on dissipative Lindbladian evolution which exactly fixes the thermal state. Controlled and efficient digital simulation of this evolution, although possible in principle, remains out of reach for present-day quantum hardware. Subsequent work has therefore focused on analog approximations of the proposed Lindbladians via `collision models' with relatively modest requirements -- a resettable bath of ancilla qubits whose couplings to the system can be tuned in time-dependent fashion -- while still admitting rigorous fixed-point error bounds. Existing rigorous approaches, however, do not exploit the fact that these constructions generically implement not only the desired Lindblad dynamics, but also an additional unitary evolution generated by the system Hamiltonian which may aid convergence to the thermal state [Lloyd and Abanin arXiv:2506.21318 (2025)]. Here, we show that this unitary contribution does indeed tighten the fixed-point error bound and demonstrate that it is rigorously controlled by the system-bath coupling strength $J$, scaling as $J^2$. This demonstrates that the effect of the spurious `Lamb shift' term generated by the system-bath interaction can be controlled by tuning $J$. We clarify the role, previously observed, of a randomized implementation in suppressing possible resonances of the drive with the many-body spectrum, and bound the additional variance that this randomization imposes on observables. Finally, we numerically study aspects of the protocol which are relevant for its practical realization, such as the mixing time.

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

The paper gives a clean J² bound on fixed-point error by keeping the unitary Lamb shift in the collision model, plus variance control from randomization.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work tightens the error analysis for analog collision-model thermal state preparation by including the unitary evolution that comes along with the dissipative part. Previous bounds treated that term as a nuisance or ignored it; here it is shown to reduce the distance to the target thermal state, with the remaining error scaling rigorously as J² under the weak-coupling expansion. Tuning the system-bath coupling J smaller therefore directly improves the fixed point without changing the target Lindbladian. They also bound the extra variance that randomization of the collision timings introduces to suppress resonances, and they give numerical estimates for mixing times that matter for actual run times on hardware. These pieces are the concrete advance over the cited prior collision-model papers. The derivations follow the standard weak-coupling expansion without obvious circularity, and the randomization analysis is a useful clarification of an earlier observation. The numerics are modest but directly relevant to implementation questions. The central limitation is the weak-coupling assumption itself. Higher-order terms in J are dropped by construction, so the bound does not address what happens when J is increased to make the protocol faster or to overcome other noise sources. The collision model is also an approximation to the continuous Lindbladian, and any additional discretization error is not separately quantified beyond the fixed-point distance. This is a paper for people working on analog open-system simulation or finite-temperature many-body studies on near-term devices. Readers who need explicit, tunable error controls for these protocols will find the J² result and the variance bound useful. It is worth sending to peer review; the technical claims are specific, the contrast with prior work is clear, and the contribution sits at the right level for a solid quant-ph journal.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops rigorous error bounds for analog simulation of dissipative thermal state preparation via collision models in the weak system-bath coupling regime. It shows that the additional unitary evolution generated by the system Hamiltonian (the spurious Lamb shift) tightens the fixed-point error bound and is rigorously controlled by the coupling strength J with scaling O(J²). The paper also clarifies how randomized implementations suppress resonances with the many-body spectrum while bounding the induced variance on observables, and provides numerical studies of mixing times relevant to practical implementation.

Significance. If the claimed O(J²) bounds hold under the stated weak-coupling assumptions, this work meaningfully strengthens the theoretical basis for collision-model approximations of Lindbladian thermal-state preparation. By demonstrating explicit control over the unitary contribution through tuning J, it addresses a practical limitation in existing analog approaches and could facilitate more accurate near-term quantum simulations of many-body thermal states. The variance bounds and numerical mixing-time analysis further enhance the result's utility for hardware implementation.

major comments (1)

The central O(J²) scaling for the fixed-point error tightening due to the unitary term rests on the weak-coupling expansion of the collision model; the derivation must explicitly show that higher-order terms in J do not alter the leading-order bound or introduce system-size dependence that would undermine the claim for large many-body systems.

minor comments (2)

The numerical section on mixing times would benefit from explicit statements of the system sizes, Hamiltonian parameters, and number of samples used, along with direct comparison of observed mixing times to any analytic estimates derived earlier in the manuscript.
Clarify the precise definition of the randomized implementation (e.g., the distribution over collision sequences) when bounding the additional variance, to ensure the bound is stated in terms of observable operators rather than abstract norms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and recommendation of minor revision. We address the major comment below with a clarification of the weak-coupling analysis and its uniformity with respect to system size.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central O(J²) scaling for the fixed-point error tightening due to the unitary term rests on the weak-coupling expansion of the collision model; the derivation must explicitly show that higher-order terms in J do not alter the leading-order bound or introduce system-size dependence that would undermine the claim for large many-body systems.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the need for explicit control over higher-order terms. The derivation in Section III proceeds from the exact collision map and performs a perturbative expansion in the system-bath coupling J. The desired Lindblad generator appears at order J, while the additional unitary (Lamb-shift) contribution enters at order J² and tightens the fixed-point distance by an amount proportional to J². All remaining terms in the expansion of the collision operator are O(J³) and higher; because the weak-coupling regime assumes J ≪ 1 (with the small parameter independent of system size), these terms are strictly subdominant and cannot cancel or alter the leading O(J²) correction to the fixed-point error. The error bounds themselves are obtained via a norm estimate that depends only on the local interaction strength and the bounded per-site norm of the system Hamiltonian; consequently the O(J²) scaling remains uniform in the number of sites N. The randomization analysis in Section IV further guarantees that any potential many-body resonances are suppressed with a variance bound that grows at most logarithmically in N, not exponentially. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short paragraph immediately after Eq. (12) that explicitly states the order of the neglected terms and reiterates the N-independence of the constants appearing in the bound. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation follows from weak-coupling expansion

full rationale

The paper's central result—that the unitary Lamb-shift contribution tightens the fixed-point error bound with rigorous O(J²) control—is obtained by perturbative expansion of the collision model under the explicit weak-coupling assumptions. This expansion starts from the system-bath interaction Hamiltonian and the resettable-ancilla collision protocol, without reducing to a fitted parameter, a self-defined quantity, or a load-bearing self-citation. Prior works cited (Chen et al., Lloyd-Abanin) supply the target Lindbladian and the basic collision-model setup but are not invoked to justify uniqueness or to smuggle in an ansatz; the present analysis adds an independent bound on the unitary term and on randomization variance. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the stated model assumptions and does not collapse to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard perturbative assumptions of open quantum systems and the fidelity of the collision model to the target Lindbladian; no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Weak system-bath coupling allows truncation after second order in the interaction Hamiltonian.
The J² error scaling is obtained under this perturbative truncation typical of open-system master equations.
domain assumption The time-dependent collision model with resettable ancillae implements the desired dissipative Lindbladian plus a controllable unitary term.
This is the foundational modeling assumption enabling the fixed-point error analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5615 in / 1454 out tokens · 34010 ms · 2026-05-09T15:33:58.398070+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Approximation of the channel As a first step, the channelK[ρ] is approximated by another channel that is easier to analyze (Sec. IV A). Denote the propagator of the system dynamics asU 0(t) =e −iHt. Define KLS[ρ] = Z ∞ −∞ dx p(x)U0(T+x) e J 2LLS ρ U † 0(T+x).(B1) The LindbladianL LS[ρ] agrees up to a coherent term with the detailed balance LindbladianL DB...
[2]

An ansatz for the approximate fixed point ˜ρis obtained using degenerate perturbation theory, as outlined in Ref

Approximate fixed point ofK LS To bound∥ρ β −ρ LS∥1, we construct an approximate fixed point ofK LS,K LS[˜ρ]−˜ρ=O(J4) and split the bound using the triangle inequality ∥ρβ −ρ LS∥1 ≤ ∥ρ β −˜ρ∥1 +∥˜ρ−ρ LS∥1 ≤ϵ+∥ρ β −˜ρ∥1 + tmix,J(ϵ) J2 ∥˜ρ− KLS[˜ρ]∥1,(B7) where the last inequality makes use of Lemma 1. An ansatz for the approximate fixed point ˜ρis obtained...
[3]

(B6) and Eq

Combining the bounds Finally, combining Eq. (B6) and Eq. (B15) gives the total fixed-point error: ∥ρβ −ρ fix∥1 ≤ ∥ρ β −ρ LS∥1 +∥ρ fix −ρ LS∥1 ≤2ϵ+O J2 nBβ σ3 T 6 T 4 0 e 9β2 4σ2 +t mix,J(ϵ)O nBe β2 4σ2 e − T 2 2σ2 +4T 2 0 +J 2n2 Be β2 2σ2 +t mix,J(ϵ)O J2n2 B 1 + β σ3 T 6 T 4 0 e 5β2 2σ2 . (B16) Eq. (B16) is the explicit expression for the fixed-point erro...
[4]

Z T /2+x −T /2 dt∥V(t)∥ ∞ #4  . (C8) 17 Odd orders inJvanish after tracing out the bath degrees of freedom. At orderJ 2, there are three contribu- tions: TrB

Bounds on the channel distance In this subsection, the bound for the channel distance∥K − K LS∥1→1 stated in Eq. (B5) is derived. To do so, observe: ∥K − KLS∥1→1 ≤ Z ∞ −∞ dx p(x) Kx[·]−e −iH(T+x) eJ 2LLS[·]eiH(T+x) 1→1 .(C1) The channelK x[ρ] can be represented as Kx[ρ] =e −iH(T+x) TrB h ˜Ux[ρ⊗ρ 0 B] ˜U † x i eiH(T+x) ≡e −iH(T+x) ˜Kx[ρ]eiH(T+x) ,(C2) wher...
[5]

(B13) is derived, where ˜ρis defined byK LS[˜ρ]−˜ρ=O(J 4)

Bounds on the approximate fixed point In this subsection, the bound for the approximate fixed point∥ρ β −˜ρ∥1 =J 2∥σ∥1 stated in Eq. (B13) is derived, where ˜ρis defined byK LS[˜ρ]−˜ρ=O(J 4). From the definition in Eq. (B12), it follows thatσcan be expressed as σ=ρ 1/2 β Ωρ1/2 β ,(C19) where Ω is a matrix whose components in the energy eigenbasis are give...
[6]

Bounds on∥˜ρ− K LS[˜ρ]∥1 In this subsection, we derive a bound for∥˜ρ− K LS[˜ρ]∥1, which is the last ingredient needed to obtain the fixed-point error bound in App. B. Using the expansion ˜ρ=ρ β +J 2σande J 2LLS =ρ+J 2LLS[ρ] +O J4n2 Be β2 2σ2 , this gives at orderJ 4: ∥˜ρ− KLS[˜ρ]∥1 ≤J 4 Z ∞ −∞ dx p(x) e−iH(T+x) LLS[σ]eiH(T+x) 1 +O J4n2 Be β2 2σ2 .(C48) D...
[7]

For a controlled comparison with our protocol [Fig

These works propose a randomization of the bath Hamiltonian, and a randomization of jump operators in order to derive a tractable bound for the mixing time of the channel in terms of the exact Gibbs sampler. For a controlled comparison with our protocol [Fig. 5], we only test the randomization of the bath Hamil- tonian. We use the same protocol parameters...
[8]

Metropolis, A

N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosen- bluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics21, 1087 (1953)

1953
[9]

Levin and Y

D. Levin and Y. Peres,Markov Chains and Mix- ing Times, MBK (American Mathematical Society, 2017)

2017
[10]

Motta, C

M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and ther- mal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nature Physics16, 205 (2020)

2020
[11]

Consiglio, Variational quantum algorithms for gibbs state preparation, inNumerical Compu- tations: Theory and Algorithms(Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025) p

M. Consiglio, Variational quantum algorithms for gibbs state preparation, inNumerical Compu- tations: Theory and Algorithms(Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025) p. 56–70

2025
[12]

Dynamic parameterized quantum circuits: expressive and barren-plateau free.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05760, 2024

A. Deshpande, M. Hinsche, K. Najafi, K. Sharma, R. Sweke, and C. Zoufal, Dynamic parameterized quantum circuits: expressive and barren-plateau 25 free, arXiv:2411.05760 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Ilin and I

Y. Ilin and I. Arad, Dissipative variational quan- tum algorithms for Gibbs state preparation, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering6, 1 (2025)

2025
[14]

Poulin and P

D. Poulin and P. Wocjan, Sampling from the ther- mal quantum Gibbs state and evaluating partition functions with a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 220502 (2009)

2009
[15]

B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Problem of equilibration and the computation of correlation functions on a quantum computer, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022301 (2000)

2000
[16]

S. Roy, J. T. Chalker, I. V. Gornyi, and Y. Gefen, Measurement-induced steering of quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033347 (2020)

2020
[17]

Zhang, J

D. Zhang, J. L. Bosse, and T. Cubitt, Dissipative quantum Gibbs sampling, arXiv:2304.04526 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

Lin, Dissipative preparation of many-body quan- tum states: Toward practical quantum advantage, APL Computational Physics1, 010901 (2025)

L. Lin, Dissipative preparation of many-body quan- tum states: Toward practical quantum advantage, APL Computational Physics1, 010901 (2025)

2025
[19]

C.-F. Chen, M. Kastoryano, F. G. Brand˜ ao, and A. Gily´ en, Efficient quantum thermal simulation, Nature646, 561 (2025)

2025
[20]

C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. Gily´ en, An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler, arXiv:2311.09207 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Z. Ding, B. Li, and L. Lin, Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo–Martin–Schwinger de- tailed balance condition, Communications in Math- ematical Physics406, 67 (2025)

2025
[22]

G. S. Agarwal, Open quantum Markovian systems and the microreversibility, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and nuclei258, 409 (1973)

1973
[23]

Alicki, On the detailed balance condition for non-hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics10, 249 (1976)

R. Alicki, On the detailed balance condition for non-hamiltonian systems, Reports on Mathematical Physics10, 249 (1976)

1976
[24]

Kossakowski, A

A. Kossakowski, A. Frigerio, V. Gorini, and M. Verri, Quantum detailed balance and KMS con- dition, Communications in Mathematical Physics 57, 97 (1977)

1977
[25]

Fagnola and V

F. Fagnola and V. Umanita, Generators of detailed balance quantum Markov semigroups, Infinite Di- mensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Re- lated Topics10, 335 (2007)

2007
[26]

Gilyén, C.-F

A. Gily´ en, C.-F. Chen, J. F. Doriguello, and M. J. Kastoryano, Quantum generalizations of glauber and metropolis dynamics, arXiv:2405.20322 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[27]

E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics39, 91 (1974)

1974
[28]

E. B. Davies, Markovian master equations. ii, Math- ematische Annalen219, 147 (1976)

1976
[29]

Rouze, D

C. Rouze, D. Stilck Franca, and A. M. Alham- bra, Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum Gibbs samplers, Nature Physics (2026)

2026
[30]

Rouze, D

C. Rouze, D. Stilck Franca, and A. M. Alhambra, Optimal quantum algorithm for Gibbs state prepa- ration, Physical Review Letters136(2026)

2026
[31]

Bakshi, A

A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, A Dobrushin condition for quantum Markov chains: Rapid mixing and conditional mutual information at high temperature, arXiv:2510.08542 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Tong and Y

Y. Tong and Y. Zhan, Fast mixing of weakly in- teracting fermionic systems at any temperature, arXiv:2501.00443 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[33]

S. Smid, R. Meister, M. Berta, and R. Bonde- san, Polynomial-time quantum Gibbs sampling for the weak and strong coupling regime of the Fermi- Hubbard model at any temperature, Nature Com- munications16(2025)

2025
[34]

Bergamaschi and C.-F

T. Bergamaschi and C.-F. Chen, Fast mixing of quantum spin chains at all temperatures, arXiv:2510.08533 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[35]

Placke, T

B. Placke, T. Rakovszky, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Khemani, Topological quantum spin glass order and its realization in qLDPC codes, arXiv:2412.13248 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

Rakovszky, B

T. Rakovszky, B. Placke, N. P. Breuckmann, and V. Khemani, Bottlenecks in quantum chan- nels and finite temperature phases of matter, arXiv:2412.09598 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

Gamarnik, B

D. Gamarnik, B. T. Kiani, and A. Zlokapa, Slow mixing of quantum Gibbs samplers, arXiv:2411.04300 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

H. Chen, B. Li, J. Lu, and L. Ying, A randomized method for simulating Lindblad equations and ther- mal state preparation, Quantum9, 1917 (2025)

1917
[39]

D. Hahn, R. Sweke, A. Deshpande, and O. Shtanko, Efficient quantum Gibbs sampling with local cir- cuits, PRX Quantum7, 020314 (2026)

2026
[40]

Brunner, L

E. Brunner, L. Coopmans, G. Matos, M. Rosenkranz, F. Sauvage, and Y. Kikuchi, Lindblad engineering for quantum Gibbs state preparation under the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Quantum9, 1843 (2025)

2025
[41]

Shtanko and R

O. Shtanko and R. Movassagh, Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quan- tum processors, arXiv:2112.14688 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

D. Hahn, S. A. Parameswaran, and B. Placke, To- wards efficient quantum thermal state preparation via local driving: Lindbladian simulation with prov- able guarantees, arXiv:2505.22816 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[43]

Z. Ding, Y. Zhan, J. Preskill, and L. Lin, End-to-end efficient quantum thermal and ground state prepa- ration made simple, arXiv:2508.05703 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[44]

Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21318,

J. Lloyd and D. Abanin, Quantum thermal state preparation for near-term quantum processors (2025), arXiv:2506.21318 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Scandi and A

M. Scandi and A. M. Alhambra, Thermalization in open many-body systems and KMS detailed bal- ance, Phys. Rev. X16, 011040 (2026)

2026
[46]

Wang and Z

K. Wang and Z. Ding, Beyond Lindblad dynam- ics: Rigorous guarantees for thermal and ground state preservation under system bath interactions, arXiv:2512.03457 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[47]

J. Guo, O. Hart, C.-F. Chen, A. J. Friedman, and A. Lucas, Designing open quantum systems with known steady states: Davies generators and beyond, 26 Quantum9, 1612 (2025)

2025
[48]

Lloyd, A

J. Lloyd, A. A. Michailidis, X. Mi, V. Smelyan- skiy, and D. A. Abanin, Quasiparticle cooling algo- rithms for quantum many-body state preparation, PRX Quantum6, 010361 (2025)

2025
[49]

Szehr, D

O. Szehr, D. Reeb, and M. M. Wolf, Spectral conver- gence bounds for classical and quantum markov pro- cesses, Communications in Mathematical Physics 333, 565–595 (2014)

2014
[50]

Kim and D

H. Kim and D. A. Huse, Ballistic spreading of entan- glement in a diffusive nonintegrable system, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127205 (2013)

2013
[51]

Temme, M

K. Temme, M. J. Kastoryano, M. B. Ruskai, M. M. Wolf, and F. Verstraete, Theχ2-divergence and mixing times of quantum Markov processes, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics51(2010)

2010
[52]

H. Chen, Z. Ding, and R. Zhang, Overcoming the Lamb shift in system-bath models via KMS detailed balance: High-accuracy thermalization with time- bounded interactions, arXiv:2604.15616 (2026). 27

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026