MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411986733 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/adebc4

Quantum simulation of Lindbladian dynamics via repeated interactions

2025· article· en· W4411986733 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Pocrnic, Dvira Segal, Nathan Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDynamics (music)QuantumStatistical physicsComputer sciencePhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Lindblad equation generalizes the Schrödinger equation to quantum systems that undergo dissipative dynamics. The quantum simulation of Lindbladian dynamics is therefore non-unitary, preventing a naive application of state-of-the-art quantum algorithms. Here, we make use of an approximate correspondence between Lindbladian dynamics and evolution based on repeated interaction (RI) CPTP maps to write down a Hamiltonian formulation of the Lindblad dynamics and derive a rigorous error bound on the master equation. Specifically, we show that the number of interactions needed to simulate the Liouvillian <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi class="MJX-tex-calligraphic">L</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> within error ε scales in most physical scenarios as <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ν</mml:mi> <mml:mo>∈</mml:mo> <mml:mi>O</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msup> <mml:mo fence="false" stretchy="false">‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi class="MJX-tex-calligraphic">L</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mo fence="false" stretchy="false">‖</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">→</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ϵ</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . This is significant because the error in the Lindbladian approximation to the dynamics is not explicitly bounded in existing quantum algorithms for open system simulations. We then provide quantum algorithms to simulate RI maps using an iterative qubitization approach and Trotter–Suzuki formulas, and specifically show that for iterative qubitization the number of operations needed to simulate the dynamics (for a fixed value of ν ) scales as <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>O</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>α</mml:mi> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:msub> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mi>ν</mml:mi> <mml:mi>log</mml:mi> <mml:mo>⁡</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ϵ</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>log</mml:mi> <mml:mo>⁡</mml:mo> <mml:mi>log</mml:mi> <mml:mo>⁡</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mi>ϵ</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> in the limit where α 0 (the coefficient 1-norm for the system and bath Hamiltonians) asymptotically dominates over the corresponding factor for the interaction Hamiltonian, which is often the case in weak coupling. This scaling would appear to be optimal if the complexity of ν is not considered, which underscores the importance of considering the error in the Liouvillian that we reveal in this work.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207