Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 113 references

Universal scaling framework for parameterized quantum evolutions at criticality

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every parameterized quantum evolution has an emergent correlation length $\xi_D \propto D^\kappa$, with $\kappa$ from about 1 to about 3, yielding a universal benchmark for critical-state preparation.

desk verdict A useful framework with a load-bearing fitting caveat: the κ≈3 for exponential ansätze needs an explicit test against exponential growth before the benchmark claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22863 v1 pith:WPHVO6AK submitted 2026-07-24 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th

Jan T. Schneider , Cristian Tabares , Alejandro González-Tudela , Luca Tagliacozzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords parameterizedquantumevolutionsemergentcorrelationlengthfinite-resourcescalingcriticalgroundstatestransverse-fieldIsingmodelvariationalansatzlong-rangeinteractionsconformalperturbationtheory
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

Parameterized quantum evolutions — layered unitary circuits — become benchmarkable resources. The paper assigns each ansatz an emergent correlation length $\xi_D$, the longest distance over which it faithfully captures critical correlations, and shows it grows algebraically with circuit depth, $\xi_D \propto D^\kappa$. For the critical transverse-field Ising chain, fitted exponents range from $\kappa\simeq1$ for nearest-neighbor and power-law generators to $\kappa\simeq3$ for exponential-range generators, so exponential kernels convert depth into long-distance correlations most efficiently. A quasiparticle analysis shows finite depth leaves an unresolved momentum window of width $\xi_D^{-1}$. The framework provides a universal finite-resource scaling benchmark for critical-state preparation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the emergent correlation length $\xi_D$, operationally defined from the exponential envelope of the chord-corrected spin correlator: $C_{XX}(r)\,d_{\mathrm{chord}}(r,L)^{1/4} \propto \exp(-r/\xi_D)$. The argument rests on the RG hypothesis that the optimized finite-depth state is the critical target theory perturbed by the leading Z2-even operator ($\Delta_\epsilon=1$), which fixes $\nu=1$ and yields the energy-error scaling $L\,\delta E_{\mathrm{abs}}=P L^2 D^{-2\kappa}(\kappa\ln D+Q)$. In the fermionic quasiparticle basis, occupation errors collapse with the same $\xi_D$, making the infrared cutoff visible on each mode.

What would settle it

Repeat the correlation- and energy-based scaling extractions for the exponential-combined ansatz at system sizes $L=2048$ and $L=4096$ over depths $D$ up to 12. If $\kappa_C$ and $\kappa_E$ cease to agree within their error bars, or if $\xi_D$ stops growing as a pure power law in $D$, the single-emergent-length claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a finite-depth parameterized quantum evolution targeting a critical ground state is governed by a single emergent length scale: the optimized state behaves at long distances as the critical transverse-field Ising theory perturbed by the only symmetry-allowed relevant operator, the Z2-even energy operator of scaling dimension $\Delta_\epsilon=1$. This perturbation opens a correlation length $\xi_D$ that cuts off critical correlations, and the algebraic growth law $\xi_D=A_\xi D^\kappa$ holds for every ansatz studied. Two independent extractions — the exponential envelope of the chord-corrected spin correlator and the conformal-perturbation scaling of the energy error — give consistent $\kappa$ values, from about 1 to about 3. Quasiparticle occupations collapse as a function of $|k-N|\xi_D/L$, showing that finite depth leaves an unresolved window of width $\xi_D^{-1}$ at the Fermi surface. The paper thereby establishes $\kappa$ as a common, ansatz-independent figure of merit for converting depth into long-range correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scaling analysis collapses if the optimized finite-depth state is not, at long distances, the critical ground state perturbed by just its energy-density operator; slowly decaying power-law couplings may break that assumption, as the paper itself notes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Architectures with larger $\kappa$ need polynomially fewer layers to reach a given correlation length, making $\kappa$ a practical benchmark for critical-state preparation.
  • Exponential-range generators are the most depth-efficient family studied, while power-law and nearest-neighbor generators sit near $\kappa\approx1$, so long-range connectivity alone does not create an advantage.
  • Combining non-commuting generators inside a single layer generally yields larger $\kappa$ than separable HVA layers, making layer organization a genuine design axis alongside interaction range.
  • Finite depth leaves an unresolved momentum window of width $\xi_D^{-1}$ around the gap-closing modes, so the variational problem reduces to resolving the non-analytic Fermi step of the critical ground state.
  • The correlation-envelope and energy-collapse extraction protocols, together with the bulk-energy finite-depth filter, transfer to any ansatz with a refinement parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-observable protocol could produce a catalog of $\kappa$ for interacting and higher-dimensional critical models, turning finite-resource scaling into a practical benchmark for hardware-native ansätze.
  • The exponential-kernel advantage suggests a design heuristic: variational generators should expose several independently tunable decay scales, as exponential kernels do, rather than a single scale-free profile.
  • The unresolved-window picture predicts that circuit resources are best spent on degrees of freedom near the gap-closing point, a testable hypothesis for fixed-depth optimization budgets.
  • An analytic link between $\kappa$ and the generator algebra, such as the dynamical Lie algebra rank and quantum Fisher information conditioning, could predict exponents before optimization; the paper lists this as a future direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a finite-resource scaling framework for parameterized quantum evolutions at criticality, in which each variational architecture is assigned an emergent correlation length ξ_D and an efficiency exponent κ defined by ξ_D = A_ξ D^κ. The framework is applied to the critical transverse-field Ising model using exact fermionic-Gaussian numerics for a range of ansätze: separable and combined layers with nearest-neighbor, exponential, and power-law generators. The authors report that all ansätze are compatible with algebraic growth in the accessible depth window, with fitted exponents ranging from κ ≈ 1 to κ ≈ 3, that exponential kernels give the largest exponents, and that combined layers generally outperform separable HVA layers. A quasiparticle-occupation analysis is used to interpret ξ_D as an infrared resolution scale. The paper is careful about many of its own limitations, but the central quantitative claims rest on fits over very narrow depth windows and on functional-form assumptions that are not independently tested.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the framework would provide a useful, architecture-independent benchmark for critical-state preparation and a practical guide for designing layered variational ansätze. The paper has clear strengths: the numerics are exact within the fermionic-Gaussian representation, the two extraction routes (correlations and energy) agree for the TFIM HVA, and the quasiparticle interpretation is physically appealing and testable. However, the stress-test concern that the headline EXP exponents may be a finite-window artifact of fitting D^κ to data that are also consistent with exponential growth is real and lands. The algebraic-growth hypothesis is asserted rather than discriminated from alternatives, and the energy-based determination is not fully independent of the correlation-based one because it assumes the same functional form and borrows the amplitude A_ξ. For a paper whose main claim is a universal scaling law with architecture-dependent exponents, these are load-bearing issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Section IVC2, EXP rows] The central claim of algebraic growth, ξ_D = A_ξ D^κ, is never tested against non-algebraic alternatives. For the EXP combined ansatz the energy fit uses only depths D = 2–5 (n≥3_D = 4), and the correlation-length fit covers a similarly narrow window. Over four depths an exponential growth ξ_D ∝ exp(cD) is nearly linear in log-log coordinates and can masquerade as D^κ with a small jackknife error, so the reported κ = 3.07 may be a finite-window artifact. Because the headline separation between the exponential and power-law families rests on these values, the authors should add a quantitative model-selection step, for example fitting ξ_D to D^κ, exp(cD), and a stretched form, with reported residuals or an information criterion, and should extend the accessible range so that at least six to eight depths satisfy L ≫ ξ_D. The statement in the conclusions that the largest exponents 'should be confirmed at larger system sizes' does not resolve the issue for the present claims.
  2. [Section IVC1, Eq. (C9), and Fig. 2] The correlation-length extraction defines ξ_D through the assumed exponential envelope exp(−r/ξ_D), applied to binned maxima over r/L ∈ [5%, 40%], and the deepest TFIM HVA point is excluded because it 'falls outside the observed scaling trend.' This means that Eq. (3), ξ_D = A_ξ D^κ, is not an independent observation but an inference from the same exponential model used to define ξ_D, and the exclusion rule is not specified in advance. I ask the authors to diagnose the envelope shape without assuming it, for example by computing the local logarithmic slope of the chord-corrected correlator as a function of r, and to report the sensitivity of κ_C to the binning window, to the fitting range, and to inclusion or exclusion of the deepest circuit. A transparent, prespecified criterion for dropping depths is needed.
  3. [Section IIB, Eqs. (36)–(37), and Appendix C2b] The energy-based exponent κ_E is not an independent determination of κ. The fit assumes ξ_D = A_ξ D^κ inside Eq. (37), and the physical constraint on the logarithmic-cutoff constant Q is imposed using A_ξ and D_min taken from the correlation-length analysis. The agreement between κ_C and κ_E therefore partly reflects a shared algebraic hypothesis and shared input data rather than a confirmation from two fully independent observables. This is especially consequential for the EXP ansätze, where only four depths enter the energy fit. The authors should quantify how much κ_E changes when the constraint on Q is relaxed or when A_ξ is varied within its uncertainty, and should present the energy analysis as a consistency check conditional on the same scaling hypothesis rather than as an independent route to κ.
  4. [Section IVC2, POW caveat and Table I] The paper correctly warns that sufficiently slowly decaying power-law couplings may drive the ansatz outside the short-range Ising universality class, in which case the Δ_ε = 1 energy scaling used in Eq. (37) is not valid. Nevertheless, Table I reports κ_E for POW HVA and POW combined on the same footing as the other ansätze, and the abstract's conclusion that power-law interactions remain close to nearest-neighbor behavior draws on those energy exponents. The authors should either restrict the energy analysis to the range of α where the Ising CFT description is justified, or provide an explicit validation of the Δ_ε = 1 assumption, for example by checking the L/ξ_D collapse of the bulk energy density with an independently determined ξ_D that does not presuppose the same scaling form.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] Both POW HVA and POW combined are labeled with Eq. (31) (and similarly Eq. (32) for the two EXP rows); please append the kernel family to the equation label or state it explicitly in the ansatz column to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section IVC2] The criterion behind the statement that 'all ansätze are compatible with algebraic growth' is not quantitative; please specify a threshold or goodness-of-fit measure used for compatibility so that the claim is reproducible.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (34)] The caption of Fig. 2(b) reports the fit as (0.786 ± 0.028) D^(1.03 ± 0.027), while the text quotes κ_C = 1.03 ± 0.03; the non-universal amplitude A_ξ should be defined and reported consistently, since Appendix C2b uses A_ξ to constrain Q.
  4. [Appendix C2b] The variable-projection description should state explicitly that the least-squares weights are w ∝ y^(−2) and that the jackknife resampling deletes all system sizes belonging to one depth at a time; this is already implied but should be stated in the main fitting protocol.
  5. [Figures 6–9] Several log-axis tick labels are rendered ambiguously (e.g., '100' and '100.5' can be read as powers of ten or as decimal numbers); please use consistent exponent notation such as 10^0, 10^0.5.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Energy-based exponent is fitted inside the same algebraic-growth ansatz and shares Aξ with the correlation fit; the claimed independence of κ_E is therefore partial.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IVC1b, Eq. (37) and Appendix C2b, Eqs. (C32)–(C36)]
    "Assuming ξD = AξDκ, this prediction turns the energy error into a second, independent fit of κ. ... The cutoff-dependent constant is constrained to its physical range using the independently extracted correlation-length amplitude Aξ."

    Eq. (37), LδEabs = P L^2 D^(−2κ)(κ ln D + Q), is obtained by substituting the algebraic hypothesis ξD = Aξ D^κ into the conformal-perturbation result. The energy collapse therefore does not independently test algebraic versus non-algebraic growth; it fits κ within the same ansatz it is supposed to support. The claimed independence is further weakened because Q = ln(Aξ/aE) is constrained using Aξ from the correlation-length fit, with the allowed range −κ ln Dmin ≤ Q ≤ ln Aξ. Thus the energy determination shares a fitted input with κC, and the observed agreement κC ≈ κE demonstrates internal consistency of the assumed scaling form rather than an independent derivation of the growth law.

full rationale

The correlation-based exponent κC is an empirical fit of ξD versus D to the assumed algebraic form ξD = Aξ D^κ; this is a measurement protocol, not a circular derivation, because ξD is independently defined through the exponential envelope of the chord-corrected correlator. The main circularity is limited to the energy analysis: Eq. (37) embeds the algebraic-growth hypothesis and imports Aξ from the correlation fit, so κE is not a fully independent check. The paper is candid about this limitation in its caveats that the largest exponents are 'estimates within the accessible scaling window rather than as final asymptotic numbers' and should be 'confirmed at larger system sizes.' The quasiparticle analysis explicitly disclaims independence. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [55], [68]) are not load-bearing as unique external facts; the conformal-perturbation formulas are also attributed to Cardy and other established references. The skeptic's concern that exponential-kernel ansätze may actually exhibit ξD ∼ e^{cD} masquerading as D^κ over D=2–5 is a model-selection and finite-window inference risk, not a circularity, and is therefore not counted in the score beyond the partial dependence already noted.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its central theoretical objects, the emergent correlation length xi_D and the exponent kappa, are defined operationally and fitted numerically. The load-bearing assumptions are the RG perturbation hypothesis, the exponential envelope model, and the stationarity of the variational optimum.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa_C per ansatz = 1.03 to 3.07
    Scaling exponent extracted from correlation-length versus depth fits, Table I. Central output of the paper, fitted rather than derived.
  • kappa_E per ansatz = 1.02 to 3.26
    Scaling exponent from energy-error collapse fits, Eq. (37), Table I.
  • A_xi non-universal amplitude = not reported numerically
    Amplitude in xi_D = A_xi D^kappa from correlation fits; used to constrain the logarithmic cutoff constant in the energy fit.
  • Q logarithmic cutoff constant = constrained range [-kappa ln D_min, ln A_xi]
    Fitted within a physical range in the VARPRO procedure; encodes the ultraviolet cutoff a_E and is partially degenerate with kappa.
  • P energy amplitude = projected analytically
    Non-universal amplitude in L delta E = P L^2 D^{-2 kappa} (kappa ln D + Q); determined by weighted linear least squares.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Critical TFIM is described by Ising CFT with central charge 1/2 and relevant operators order parameter and energy operator, with exact ground-state energy Eq. (20).
    Standard conformal-field-theory input used for scaling forms and finite-size energy expressions, invoked in Sections IVA and Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Finite variational resources act as an effective relevant perturbation of the critical fixed point, so the optimized state is the ground state of H_D = H_T + g_D integral Phi dx, Eq. (4).
    Central RG hypothesis underlying the entire framework; borrowed from tensor-network finite-resource scaling but not independently proven for parameterized evolutions.
  • ad hoc to paper The long-distance correlation envelope is exponential, exp(-r/xi_D), after removing the chord factor, Eq. (C9), despite observed non-equilibrium oscillations.
    Operational definition of xi_D; the authors bin data and take maxima to isolate an envelope, a modeling choice rather than a derived form.
  • domain assumption The optimized variational state is stationary within the variational manifold, so the leading energy error is second order in the perturbation strength g, Eq. (C12)-(C13).
    Standard variational-principle argument, requiring that the natural-gradient optimization reaches a local stationary point.
  • domain assumption Only the Z2-even energy operator is allowed as the leading perturbation, fixing Delta_Phi = 1 and nu = 1 in the energy scaling form.
    Follows from the Z2 symmetry of generators and initial state, but the identification of the leading infrared perturbation relies on the RG hypothesis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal scaling framework for parameterized quantum evolutions at criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPHVO6AK

@misc{pith2026260722863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal scaling framework for parameterized quantum evolutions at criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPHVO6AK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22863}
}
abstract

Variational ans\"atze are a cornerstone of quantum many-body physics, providing compact approximations to complex ground states using finite resources. Recent quantum-technology advances have introduced a new class based on layered parameterized evolutions. Assessing whether they can represent critical ground states is challenging: correlations span all length scales, while finite circuit depth limits how far they extend. Building on finite-resource scaling from tensor networks, we assign each ansatz an emergent correlation length $\xi_D$, the longest range over which it faithfully captures critical correlations. Its growth with refinement parameter $D$, $\xi_D \propto D^\kappa$, defines an exponent $\kappa$ measuring how efficiently an architecture converts resources into long-distance correlations. Applying this framework to the critical transverse-field Ising model, with $D$ the circuit depth of parameterized evolutions, we compare ans\"atze with nearest-neighbor and long-range generators, and layers where generators act separately or combined. All ans\"atze are compatible with algebraic growth, but fitted exponents range from $\kappa\simeq1$ to $\kappa\simeq3$. Exponential interactions give the largest exponents, while power-law interactions stay close to nearest-neighbor behavior, showing long-range support alone gives no scaling advantage. Combined-generator layers generally outperform separable ones, so layer organization matters alongside interaction range. Finally, a quasiparticle analysis shows finite depth leaves an unresolved window of width $\xi_D^{-1}$ around the low-energy modes responsible for long-distance correlations. The emergent correlation length thus acts as an infrared resolution scale, providing a benchmark for critical-state preparation and a guide for designing resource-efficient variational architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual overview of the universal scaling framework. The search for the ground state |EGS⟩ of a target many-body Hamiltonian HT can be viewed as a two-dimensional problem, where the system size L competes with a finite resource that limits the accessible correlation length ξ. (a) In the imaginary-time formulation, |EGS⟩ ∝ limβ→∞ e −βHT |ψ0⟩ is represented by a partition function with spatial extent L and imaginar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation-length extraction for the TFIM HVA. (a) Chord-corrected spin–spin correlation function for a chain of length L = 512 at different circuit depths D (color-coded). The solid lines are exponential fits to the extracted correlation envelope, from which the finite-depth correlation length ξD is obtained. (b) Extracted correlation length as a function of depth. Over the scaling window used in the fit, the data… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Quasiparticle occupation analysis for the TFIM HVA. Occupation numbers νk(Γvar) of the vari￾ational state in the eigenbasis of the target Hamiltonian, plotted as a function of the normalized mode index k/N for a chain of length L = 64. The solid blue curve denotes the exact ground-state occupation, while the red curve corresponds to the initial product state |↑⟩⊗N . Increasing the circuit depth progressively reconst… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Extraction of the scaling exponent from the variational energy for the TFIM HVA. (a) Abso￾lute energy error δEabs(L, D) as a function of system size for different circuit depths D. Black-edged markers indicate calculations classified as finite-size dominated and exclud…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimized variational parameters after natural-gradient optimization. Optimization parameters for the representative system size L = 128a, with colors indicating the total circuit depth D and the horizontal axis showing the layer index d ∈ [1, . . . , D]. The rows corr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Complete scaling analysis for the nearest-neighbor TFIM variational ansätze. Columns correspond to the TFIM HVA (23), TFIM combined (24) from left to right. Throughout, the circuit depth D is color-coded according to the corresponding color bar, while different marker …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Complete scaling analysis for the nearest-neighbor Kitaev variational ansätze. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complete scaling analysis for the exponentially long-range variational ansätze. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Complete scaling analysis for the power-law long-range variational ansätze. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Representative analysis: TFIM HVA We now illustrate the extraction procedure in detail for the separable TFIM HVA(23) targeting the critical TFIM (19). a. Scaling exponent from correlation functions. Following the procedure introduced in Section IIB, we first determine the finite-depth correlation length ξD from the decay of the spin–spin correlation func...

  2. [2]

    Comparison across variational ansätze Having established the scaling analysis in detail for the TFIM HVA, we now apply the same protocol to the remaining variational ansätze introduced in Sec- tion IVB. The purpose of the comparison is to demon- strate how the above detailedscaling frameworkquanti- tatively distinguishes different variational architecture...

    2024

  3. [3]

    D. R. Hartree, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society24, 89 (1928)

    1928

  4. [4]

    Fock, Zeitschrift für Physik61, 126 (1930)

    V. Fock, Zeitschrift für Physik61, 126 (1930)

    1930

  5. [5]

    Jastrow, Physical Review98, 1479 (1955)

    R. Jastrow, Physical Review98, 1479 (1955)

    1955

  6. [6]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Physical Review108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  7. [7]

    S.-J. Ran, E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, L. Taglia- cozzo, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein,Tensor Network Contractions: Methods and Applications to Quantum Many-Body Systems, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 964 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09213

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    J. I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 045003 (2021), arxiv:2011.12127

    arXiv 2021

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    M. C. Bañuls, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 173 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Berezutskii, M

    A. Berezutskii, M. Liu, A. Acharya, R. Ellerbrock, J. Gray, R. Haghshenas, Z. He, A. Khan, V. Kuzmin, D. Lyakh, D. Lykov, S. Mandrà, C. Mansell, A. Mel- nikov, A. Melnikov, V. Mironov, D. Morozov, F. Neukart, A. Nocera, M. A. Perlin, M. Perelshtein, M.Steinberg, R.Shaydulin, B...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Kandala, A

    A. Kandala, A. Mezzacapo, K. Temme, M. Takita, M. Brink, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, Nature 549, 242 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Ben- jamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Bravo-Prieto, J

    C. Bravo-Prieto, J. Lumbreras-Zarapico, L. Taglia- cozzo, and J. I. Latorre, Quantum4, 272 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    B.Jobst, A.Smith, andF.Pollmann, PhysicalReview Research4, 033118 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Tabares, A

    C. Tabares, A. Muñoz de las Heras, L. Tagliacozzo, D. Porras, and A. González-Tudela, Physical Review Letters131, 073602 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    C. Lyu, X. Tang, J. Li, X. Xu, M.-H. Yung, and A. Bayat, New Journal of Physics25, 053022 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Tabares, A

    C. Tabares, A. M. d. l. Heras, J. T. Schneider, and A. González-Tudela, Programming long-range interactions in analog quantum simulators (2026), version Number: 1, arXiv:2604.22483 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wei and K

    H.-T. Wei and K. R. A. Hazzard, A universal and ef- ficient hybrid digital-analog fermionic quantum simu- lator (2026), arXiv:2606.05517 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. K. Joshi, C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, F. Kranzl, T. V. Zache, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Nature624, 539 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    T. I. Andersen, N. Astrakhantsev, A. H. Karamlou, J. Berndtsson, J. Motruk, A. Szasz, J. A. Gross, A. Schuckert, T. Westerhout, Y. Zhang, E. Fo- rati, D. Rossi, B. Kobrin, A. D. Paolo, A. R. Klots, I. Drozdov, V. Kurilovich, A. Petukhov, L. B. Ioffe, A. Elben, A. Rath, V. Vita...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Islam, E

    R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, K. Kim, S. Korenblit, C. Noh, H. Carmichael, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C.-C. Joseph Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, Nature Communications2, 377 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    B. P. Lanyon, C. Hempel, D. Nigg, M. Müller, R. Ger- ritsma, F. Zähringer, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Rambach, G. Kirchmair, M. Hennrich, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Science334, 57 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Physics8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Schneider, D

    C. Schneider, D. Porras, and T. Schaetz, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 024401 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Bermudez, L

    A. Bermudez, L. Tagliacozzo, G. Sierra, and P. Richerme, Physical Review B95, 024431 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    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, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Chomaz, I

    L. Chomaz, I. Ferrier-Barbut, F. Ferlaino, B. Laburthe-Tolra, B. L. Lev, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 026401 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. Müller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. Büchler, Nature Physics6, 382 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Schauß, M

    P. Schauß, M. Cheneau, M. Endres, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, A. Omran, T. Pohl, C. Gross, S. Kuhr, and I. Bloch, Nature491, 87 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Browaeys, D

    A. Browaeys, D. Barredo, and T. Lahaye, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 152001 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberhar- ter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. Läuchli, and A. Browaeys, Nature595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin,...

    2024

  26. [34]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arxiv:2403.12021

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, S.-P. Yu, J. D. Hood, J. A. Muniz, J. H. Lee, M. J. Martin, A. C. McClung, K. S. Choi, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimblemblrm, Nat. Commun.5, 3808 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. D. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. A. Muniz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 63601 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    J. D. Hood, A. Goban, A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Lu, S.-P. Yu, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 10507 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Samutpraphoot, P

    P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, C. Senko, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 063602 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Laucht, S

    A. Laucht, S. Pütz, T. Günthner, N. Hauke, R. Saive, S. Frédérick, M. Bichler, M.-C. Amann, A. W. Holleitner, M. Kaniber, and J. J. Finley, Phys. Rev. X2, 11014 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Science362, 662 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    M. H. Appel, A. Tiranov, A. Javadi, M. C. Löbl, Y. Wang, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, R. J. Warburton, and P. Lodahl, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 013602 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Tiranov, V

    A. Tiranov, V. Angelopoulou, C. J. Van Diepen, B. Schrinski, O. A. D. Sandberg, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Science379, 389 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    MacHielse, S

    B. MacHielse, S. Bogdanovic, S. Meesala, S. Gauthier, M. J. Burek, G. Joe, M. Chalupnik, Y. I. Sohn, J. Holzgrafe, R. E. Evans, C. Chia, H. Atikian, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, L. Shao, S. Maity, M. D. Lukin, and M. Lončar, Phys. Rev. X9, 031022 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    A. E. Rugar, C. Dory, S. Aghaeimeibodi, H. Lu, S. Sun, S. D. Mishra, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vučković, ACS Photonics7, 2356 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vučković, Phys. Rev X11, 031021 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Liu and A

    Y. Liu and A. A. Houck, Nat. Phys.13, 48 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Mirhosseini, E

    M. Mirhosseini, E. Kim, V. S. Ferreira, M. Kalaee, A. Sipahigil, A. J. Keller, and O. Painter, Nat. Com- mun.9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    N. M. Sundaresan, R. Lundgren, G. Zhu, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. X9, 011021 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Scigliuzzo, G

    M. Scigliuzzo, G. Calajò, F. Ciccarello, D. Perez Lozano, A. Bengtsson, P. Scarlino, A. Wallraff, D. Chang, P. Delsing, and S. Gas- parinetti, Phys. Rev. X12, 031036 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Kim, D. K. Mark, S. Choi, and O. Painter, Science379, 278 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Krinner, M

    L. Krinner, M. Stewart, A. Pazmino, J. Kwon, and D. Schneble, Nature559, 589 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    J.Kwon, Y.Kim, A.Lanuza, andD.Schneble, Nature Physics 2022 18:618, 657 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    J. S. Douglas, H. Habibian, C.-L. Hung, A. V. Gorshkov, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Nature Photon9, 326 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    González-Tudela, C.-L

    A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, D. E. Chang, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Nature Photon9, 320 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    C.-L. Hung, A. González-Tudela, J. Ignacio Cirac, and H. Kimble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.113, 10.1073/pnas.1603777113 (2016)

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Nishino, K

    T. Nishino, K. Okunishi, and M. Kikuchi, Physics Letters A213, 69 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    Tagliacozzo, Thiago

    L. Tagliacozzo, Thiago. R. de Oliveira, S. Iblisdir, and J. I. Latorre, Physical Review B78, 024410 (2008). 13

    2008

  50. [58]

    Pollmann, S

    F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. M. Turner, and J. E. Moore, Physical Review Letters102, 255701 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    Tagliacozzo, G

    L. Tagliacozzo, G. Evenbly, and G. Vidal, Physical Review B80, 235127 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Pirvu, G

    B. Pirvu, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and L. Tagliacozzo, Physical Review B86, 075117 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, inStrongly Correlated Sys- tems: Numerical Methods, edited by A. Avella and F. Mancini (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 99–130

    2013

  54. [62]

    Corboz, P

    P. Corboz, P. Czarnik, G. Kapteijns, and L. Tagli- acozzo, Phys. Rev. X8, 031031 (2018), arxiv:1803.08445

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Rader and A

    M. Rader and A. M. Läuchli, Physical Review X8, 031030 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Czarnik and P

    P. Czarnik and P. Corboz, Physical Review B99, 245107 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Vanhecke, J

    B. Vanhecke, J. Hasik, F. Verstraete, and L. Van- derstraeten, Physical Review Letters129, 200601 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Ueda and M

    A. Ueda and M. Oshikawa, Physical Review E106, 014104 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  60. [68]

    K. G. Wilson, Reviews of Modern Physics47, 773 (1975)

    1975

  61. [69]

    Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  62. [70]

    J. T. Schneider, A. Ueda, Y. Liu, A. Läuchli, M. Os- hikawa, and L. Tagliacozzo, SciPost Physics18, 142 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Privman and M

    V. Privman and M. E. Fisher, Physical Review B 30, 322 (1984)

    1984

  64. [72]

    J. L. Cardy, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General17, L385 (1984)

    1984

  65. [73]

    J. L. Cardy, Nuclear Physics B270, 186 (1986)

    1986

  66. [74]

    Y. Liu, H. Shimizu, A. Ueda, and M. Oshikawa, Sci- Post Physics17, 099 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Affleck, Physical Review Letters56, 746 (1986)

    I. Affleck, Physical Review Letters56, 746 (1986)

    1986

  68. [76]

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

    2022

  69. [77]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    S. Endo, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan90, 032001 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S.Alperin-Lea, A.Anand, M.Degroote, H.Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Tilly, H

    J. Tilly, H. Chen, S. Cao, D. Picozzi, K. Setia, Y. Li, E. Grant, L. Wossnig, I. Rungger, G. H. Booth, and J. Tennyson, Physics Reports The Variational Quantum Eigensolver: A Review of Methods and Best Practices,986, 1 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Wecker, M

    D. Wecker, M. B. Hastings, and M. Troyer, Physical Review A92, 042303 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    J. M. Reiner, F. Wilhelm-Mauch, G. Schön, and M. Marthaler, Quantum Science and Technology4, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    A. A. Mele, G. B. Mbeng, G. E. Santoro, M. Collura, and P. Torta, Phys. Rev. A106, L060401 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Wiersema, C

    R. Wiersema, C. Zhou, Y. De Sereville, J. F. Car- rasquilla, Y. B. Kim, and H. Yuen, PRX Quantum 1, 020319 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Park and N

    C.-Y. Park and N. Killoran, Quantum8, 1239 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Farhi, J

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, A Quan- tum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (2014), arXiv:1411.4028 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    P. Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  80. [88]

    T. W. Burkhardt and I. Guim, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General18, L33 (1985)

    1985

  81. [89]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  82. [90]

    Argüello-Luengo, A

    J. Argüello-Luengo, A. González-Tudela, T. Shi, P. Zoller, and J. Cirac, Nature574, 10.1038/s41586- 019-1614-4 (2019)

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    Argüello-Luengo, A

    J. Argüello-Luengo, A. González-Tudela, T. Shi, P. Zoller, and J. Ignacio Cirac, Quantum simulation of 2D quantum chemistry in optical lattices (2020), publication Title: arXiv

    2020

  84. [92]

    Argüello-Luengo, T

    J. Argüello-Luengo, T. Shi, and A. González-Tudela, Physical Review A103, 043318 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    Argüello-Luengo, A

    J. Argüello-Luengo, A. González-Tudela, and D. González-Cuadra, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 083401 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    Surace and L

    J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  87. [95]

    Beylkin and L

    G. Beylkin and L. Monzón, Applied and Computa- tional Harmonic Analysis19, 17 (2005)

    2005

  88. [96]

    Koffel, M

    T. Koffel, M. Lewenstein, and L. Tagliacozzo, Physi- cal Review Letters109, 267203 (2012)

    2012

  89. [97]

    Vodola, L

    D. Vodola, L. Lepori, E. Ercolessi, A. V. Gorshkov, and G. Pupillo, Physical Review Letters113, 156402 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    J. T. Schneider, S. J. Thomson, and L. Sanchez- Palencia, Physical Review B106, 014306 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macrì, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  92. [100]

    Larocca, P

    M. Larocca, P. Czarnik, K. Sharma, G. Muraleedha- ran, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Quantum6, 824 (2022)

    2022

  93. [101]

    Larocca, N

    M. Larocca, N. Ju, D. García-Martín, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Nature Computational Science3, 542 (2023)

    2023

  94. [102]

    Larocca, S

    M. Larocca, S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, K. Sharma, J. Bi- amonte, P. J. Coles, L. Cincio, J. R. McClean, Z. Holmes, and M. Cerezo, Nature Reviews Physics 7, 174 (2025)

    2025

  95. [103]

    A. D. McLachlan, Molecular Physics 10.1080/00268976400100041 (1964)

    1964 doi

  96. [104]

    P. P. Popov, M. Meth, M. Lewenstein, P. Hauke, M. Ringbauer, E. Zohar, and V. Kasper, Physical Review Research6, 013202 (2024)

    2024

  97. [105]

    Calvo, J

    M. Calvo, J. Montijano, and L. Randez, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics29, 91 (1990)

    1990

  98. [106]

    Süli and D

    E. Süli and D. F. Mayers,An Introduction to Numer- ical Analysis(Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    2003

  99. [107]

    C. F. J. Wu, The Annals of Statistics14, 10.1214/aos/1176350142 (1986)

    1986

  100. [108]

    G. H. Golub and V. Pereyra, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis10, 413 (1973). Appendix A: Renormalization-group perspective on finite-resource scaling This appendix summarizes the renormalization- group (RG) arguments underlying the finite-resource scaling analysis used in Sec...

    1973

  101. [109]

    Natural-gradient optimization Anyvariationalansatzdefinesamanifoldofquantum states parameterized by a set of variational parameters θ, M={|ψ(θ)⟩}.(B1) To optimize these parameters we employ variational imaginary-time evolution based on the McLachlan vari- ational principle [10...

  102. [110]

    Consequently, ev- ery variational state remains a fermionic Gaussian state throughout the evolution and can be represented exactly by its correlation matrix

    Efficient implementation for fermionic Gaussian states The optimization described above becomes numer- ically efficient because both the target Hamiltonian and all variational generators considered in this work are quadratic fermionic operators. Consequently, ev- ery variation...

  103. [111]

    5 shows the optimized variational parameters obtained after convergence for all ansätze at the representative system sizeL = 128a

    Optimized variational parameters As an illustration of the optimization procedure de- scribed above, Fig. 5 shows the optimized variational parameters obtained after convergence for all ansätze at the representative system sizeL = 128a. Beyond providing a concrete example of t...

  104. [112]

    Correlation functions We first derive the observable used to extract the finite-depth correlation length, namely the longitudinal spin–spin correlation function Cxx(m,n) =⟨σ x mσx n⟩.(C2) For the transverse-field Ising chain, the Jordan–Wigner transformation maps the spin oper...

  105. [113]

    Energy shift We now derive the finite-depth scaling of the varia- tional energy error used in the main text. The observ- able ofinterestin this section is the absolute variational energy error, δEabs =⟨ψ|H T|ψ⟩−E 0(L),(C11) whereE0(L)is the exactfinite-size ground-state energy...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.