SciPost Submission Page
Generalized hydrodynamics of integrable quantum circuits
by Friedrich Hübner, Eric Vernier, Lorenzo Piroli
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Lorenzo Piroli |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00474v3 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | Sept. 17, 2024, 8:52 a.m. |
| Submitted by: | Piroli, Lorenzo |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
Quantum circuits make it possible to simulate the continuous-time dynamics of a many-body Hamiltonian by implementing discrete Trotter steps of duration $\tau$. However, when $\tau$ is sufficiently large, the discrete dynamics exhibit qualitative differences compared to the original evolution, potentially displaying novel features and many-body effects. We study an interesting example of this phenomenon, by considering the integrable Trotterization of a prototypical integrable model, the XXZ Heisenberg spin chain. We focus on the well-known bipartition protocol, where two halves of a large system are prepared in different macrostates and suddenly joined together, yielding non-trivial nonequilibrium dynamics. Building upon recent results and adapting the generalized hydrodynamics (GHD) of integrable models, we develop an exact large-scale description of an explicit one-dimensional quantum-circuit setting, where the input left and right qubits are initialized in two distinct product states. We explore the phenomenology predicted by the GHD equations, which depend on the Trotter step and the gate parameters. In some phases of the parameter space, we show that the quantum-circuit large-scale dynamics is qualitatively different compared to the continuous-time evolution. In particular, we find that a single microscopic defect at the junction, such as the addition of a single qubit, may change the nonequilibrium macrostate appearing at late time.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #3 by Anonymous (Referee 3) on 2025-3-9 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2408.00474v3, delivered 2025-03-09, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.10802
Report
The Authors have assessed that two conditions for SciPost physics are met: (1) Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas; (2) Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery. I am not convinced that (2) is true, but I cannot argue that (1) is not (although, as pointed out by Referee 2, the »synergetic link« has essentially been done in ref. [33]). All in all, I would lean more towards the recommendation of Referee 2, that the paper might be more suitable for SciPost Physics Core. However, since my arguments against the claim that criterion (1) is met might not be deemed really strong, I am not strongly opposed to publication in SciPost Physics either. In any case, below I provide three remarks that can slightly improve the otherwise clear and well-written paper.
Requested changes
(1) At the end of section 2.1 the Authors remark on two families of conserved quantities which break the single-site translation symmetry. They claim that the latter maps one family into the other, referring to ref. [29]. Looking at eqs. (10), (11) in the latter, their statement does not seem obvious to me. Looking at those two eqs. in the reference, for example, the densities of the first two charges are indeed translated w.r.t. each other for one site, but they have a \pm sign difference in one of the terms. Could the Authors comment on this?
(2) After eq. (59), the Authors mention a global prefactor to the eigenvalue of the propagator. I assume that prefactor is not just a phase (-1)^L, otherwise it could have been written down. Where does is come from? Looking at Faddeev’s notes, eq. (412) in arXiv:hep-th/9605187, there is no L-dependent prefactor in the definition of the quasienergy, for example.
(3) The Authors mention refs. [99-101] as examples of local perturbation evolving into a macroscopic change of the system’s state. Some other examples of such non-dispersing localized perturbations: arXiv:1207.0862, arXiv:1909.02841, arXiv:2111.06325.
Recommendation
Accept in alternative Journal (see Report)
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2024-12-30 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2408.00474v3, delivered 2024-12-30, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.10403
Strengths
-
the paper is clear
-
the paper is correct
-
integrable quantum circuits are interesting in the context of quantum computing and quantum simulations
-
section 2 contains a useful review of TBA formulas for integrable quantum circuits
Weaknesses
-
comparison with numerics limited to non-interacting cases
-
rather incremental results
Report
Among all the works on Generalized Hydrodynamics that followed, many have focused on the so-called bipartition protocol, where two semi-infinite systems are suddenly put together, and where the predictions of Generalized Hydrodynamics are simple (because the results depend on a simple scaling variable $x/t$) and asymptotically exact.
Recently, 'integrable trotterizations' or 'integrable quantum circuits' have been introduced. These circuits are built from the 'diagonal-to-diagonal transfer matrices' known from the old algebraic Bethe Ansatz literature, with spectral parameters taken so that the transfer matrix is unitary and can be interpreted as an evolution operator. These integrable trotterizations have attracted a lot of interest recently in the context of digital quantum computation or simulation. In particular, the thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz for these systems was derived very recently ( by other people in Refs. [36-38] and by some of the authors in the Supplemental Material of Ref. [33]), as is nicely reviewed in Section 2 of this new paper.
No paper had yet looked at the bipartition protocol in integrable quantum circuits with Generalized Hydrodynamics. Now this is done, thanks to this new paper. The paper is correct, it can be published as it is.
Requested changes
Typos:
-page 4: 'Hamitlonian'
-page 5: 'masless'
-page 15: 'These points correspond to the either one of following choices'
Recommendation
Publish (easily meets expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 50%)
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2024-10-30 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2408.00474v3, delivered 2024-10-30, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.10002
Report
As stated above, the paper addresses a timely topic at the interface between different research areas. The results are interesting and clearly presented. I am not an expert on integrability and GHD, and, therefore, I find it hard to judge whether the paper is groundbreaking in terms of developing new techniques. However, my impression is that the foundations for the present work were laid in Ref. [33], which diminishes the claims to novelty of this work. Therefore, I believe that the paper is better suited for a less selective journal such as SciPost Physics Core.
Requested changes
1- As the authors explain, a domain wall between the Néel and anti-Néel states can be interpreted as a single localized defect, and such a defect does typically not lead to a change in the macroscopic nonequilibrium state for systems with single-site translation symmetry. In the model under consideration, this symmetry is broken due to the Trotterization. This observation, however, raises the question, whether the observed phenomenology is unique to Trotterized dynamics or could also be seen in autonomous systems with broken single-site translation symmetry.
2- I would welcome a discussion of micromotion. Do the calculated nonequilibrium states apply only at stroboscopic times? If that is the case, how do, e.g., the profiles of the staggered magnetization shown in Fig. 1 change during one driving period?
3- The paper is clearly written and overall accessible even to non experts. However, I have found the transition from the Bethe equations (9) to the TBA in Eq. (12) rather hard to follow. As far as I understand, the Bethe equations determine the spectrum of the Floquet operator, i.e., these equations are not specific to any state of the system. However, the distribution functions appearing in Eq. (12) describe a macrostate of the system. Which state is that and how did it appear in the Bethe equations?
4- The + sign in Eq. (54) should presumably be an =.
Recommendation
Accept in alternative Journal (see Report)