betaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Learning Quantum Hamiltonians from the Dynamical Structure Factor

Abstract

Identifying the microscopic interactions governing a quantum system is essential for developing predictive theories of materials and validating quantum technologies. Despite considerable progress, learning Hamiltonians from realistic experimental data remains a challenge. Motivated by neutron scattering and quantum simulations, we study the problem of learning a quantum Hamiltonian from the dynamical structure factor (DSF), which captures two-point correlation data in quantum magnets. We show that the DSF encodes sufficient information to efficiently reconstruct broad classes of quantum Hamiltonians. Our approach exploits simple relations between low-order spectral moments of the DSF and microscopic couplings, giving rise to three complementary Hamiltonian tomography protocols based on the high-temperature expansion, strong-field polarization, and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, respectively. The framework we introduce establishes practical and robust Hamiltonian learning from common experimental data, with potentially immediate application to neutron scattering experiments.

Introduction

Quantum systems are typically well-described by a local Hamiltonian, specified by a small number of couplings, from which rich collective phenomena such as symmetry breaking, topological order, and quantum criticality can emerge. Constraining and characterizing the Hamiltonian from experimental data presents a recurring challenge across physics, from particle phenomenology to quantum materials. This task of Hamiltonian learning enables one to extract effective models governing the quantum system over energy and length scales of interest, informing theoretical analyses and subsequent experimental refinements. In condensed matter, Hamiltonian learning facilitates the design of quantum materials with targeted properties [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; in quantum simulation and device engineering, it is essential for benchmarking, calibration, and building scalable platforms with verifiable performance [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Hamiltonian learning has prompted many empirical and theoretical approaches, drawing on tools from quantum information and machine learning [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. A common empirical approach, applied successfully to certain quantum magnets [28, 29, 30], falls into the framework of model fitting, involving iteratively updating a model prediction and classical simulation until convergence to experiment. For generic quantum systems, however, model fitting is computationally prohibitive to scale to large system size, leaving open the existence of a general, scalable approach under realistic experimental measurement constraints. More systematic theoretical approaches often presuppose global digital access to arbitrary measurements. Experimental platforms nevertheless typically operate with far more limited control: Measurements in quantum materials are usually limited to observables characterizing responses to external probe fields, while in quantum simulators, access can be restricted to a few native local observables or correlation functions due to architectural and resource constraints.

Can one learn the Hamiltonian from limited, realistic experimental outputs? This fundamentally and practically important question has drawn significant recent attention [31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. In this work, we address the problem for a broadly accessible and physically illuminating observable in quantum experiments: the dynamical structure factor (DSF). This quantity [Eq. (II.2)] is directly measurable via inelastic neutron scattering in quantum magnetism and has been extracted in programmable quantum simulators using its simple relation to two-point correlation functions [36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. The DSF offers experimental fingerprints of complex quantum phases which can potentially enable the reconstruction of underlying Hamiltonian parameters, as perhaps best exemplified by the quest for Kitaev spin liquid materials [41, 42, 43, 44].

It is a priori far from clear that the DSF alone provides sufficient information to recover the entire Hamiltonian. Indeed, while the DSF contains information on magnon dispersions and other spinful excitations, it encodes only a slice of two-point correlation data—a small portion of all observables. Although several machine-learning studies provide empirical evidence of this task’s tractability, at least for specific models with a few free parameters [45, 46], the well-posedness of this inverse problem has not been theoretically established. Indeed, building on known hardness bounds for learning from Gibbs states [19], we rigorously demonstrate that it can be ill-posed: We identify continuous families of few-body Hamiltonians that exhibit identical DSFs. Moreover, even when the inverse problem is in principle well-posed, the DSF potentially depends on Hamiltonian couplings in a highly complex fashion that can in practice stymie finding the inversion needed to learn the Hamiltonian.

In this work, we develop a versatile framework for Hamiltonian tomography from the DSF [Figure 1a]. Our framework does not require simulation of the Hamiltonian and comes with rigorous guarantees for general classes of Hamiltonians across several broad experimentally relevant regimes, thus providing strong evidence that the aforementioned challenges do not impede practical learnability. Our central insight is that the microscopic Hamiltonian parameters can be extracted from explicit relations, or sum rules, among integrated frequency moments of the DSF [Figure 1b]. In particular, we provide three scalable Hamiltonian learning algorithms that we dub high-temperature, strong-field, and fluctuation-dissipation protocols—each taming the complex dependence of the DSF on Hamiltonian parameters in complementary regimes [Figure 1c]; see Table I for an executive summary]. These protocols respectively rely on a high-temperature expansion, perturbation theory around a strong polarizing Zeeman field, and nontrivial exact identities satisfied by the DSF due to stationarity of thermal states and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. For the concrete case of translation-invariant spin-12\frac{1}{2} Hamiltonians in arbitrary dimensions with one- and two-body interactions, we establish end-to-end learning guarantees and in several instances reduce Hamiltonian learning to solving a simple linear system. Extensive numerical tests across one- and two-dimensional Hamiltonian families demonstrate appreciable robustness of our protocols to measurement noise and experimental imperfections. Together, these results establish a direct, practical, and scalable route to learning Hamiltonians from limited, physically relevant output of quantum experiments.

Hamiltonian learning from DSF

Figure 1. Hamiltonian learning from DSF. (a) Illustration of Hamiltonian learning from the dynamical structure factor (DSF). The DSF is experimentally accessible in quantum materials through neutron scattering or quantum simulators through two-point functions. Assuming access to the DSF at varying temperature and/or external global magnetic field, we study the learnability of a Hamiltonian H(λ)H(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) with unknown couplings λ\boldsymbol{\lambda}. (b) High-level idea of Hamiltonian learning protocols. We prove integrated frequency moments and Fourier harmonics of the DSF encode λ\boldsymbol{\lambda} through efficiently solvable means. (c) Schematic of favorable regimes for protocols, in the temperature and magnetic field plane.

ProtocolHigh-temperature (HT)Strong-field (SF)Fluctuation–dissipation (FD)
Executive summaryLeverages a high-TT expansion of DSF spectral moments to construct a low-degree polynomial system for the Hamiltonian couplings [Sec. III].Leverages strong-field polarization and a 1/B1/B expansion of DSF spectral moments to construct a low-degree polynomial system for the couplings [Sec. V].Uses exact DSF identities derived from FD theorem to construct a linear system for the couplings, without requiring high temperatures or strong fields [Sec. VI].
Experimental requirementsQuantum materials: DSF measurements (e.g., neutron scattering) at multiple high temperatures (T≫T \gg couplings). Quantum simulators: Tunable high-TT Gibbs state preparation and short-time two-point correlation data.Quantum materials: DSF measurements at strong fields (B≫TB \gg T, couplings), with tunable field strength & orientation. Quantum simulators: Polarized state preparation with a tunable global field, short-time two-point correlation data.Quantum materials: DSF measurements without requiring high temperatures or strong applied fields, one- and two-body Hamiltonian. Quantum simulators: Short-time two-point correlation data in a stationary state (e.g., Gibbs state), one- and two-body Hamiltonian.

Table I. Summary of Hamiltonian learning protocols. Overview of protocols and their experimental requirements in quantum materials and programmable quantum simulators.

Hamiltonians and spectral moments

Consider a translation-invariant quantum spin system (see §VII for an extension to the disordered case lacking translation symmetry). On a lattice Λ\Lambda of NN sites, the Hamiltonian reads

H(λ)=∑j=1pλjHj.(1)H(\lambda) = \sum_{j=1}^{p} \lambda^{j} H^{j}. \tag*{(1)}

Here each Hj=∑r∈ΛhrjH^{j} = \sum_{r\in\Lambda} h^{j}_{r} is an extensive interaction term—e.g., involving exchange or Zeeman fields—arising from a sum of translated local operators hrjh^{j}_{r} with O(1)O(1) magnitudes ∥hrj∥∞\lVert h^{j}_{r}\rVert_{\infty}. We take λ∈[−1,1]p\lambda\in[-1,1]^{p} to be the unknown parameters to be learned. The number of independent couplings pp and the interaction range are fixed as NN increases. For a local spin operator OrαO^{\alpha}_{r}, define Qqa=N−1/2∑r∈Λe−iq⋅rOraQ^a_q = N^{-1/2} \sum_{r\in\Lambda} e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}} O^a_r. Below, a,b,ca,b,c indices run over x,y,zx,y,z with repeated indices summed. The DSF at inverse temperature β\beta is then

Sab(q,ω)=∫dt eiωt⟨Oqa(t)O−qb⟩β,(2)S^{ab}(\mathbf{q},\omega) = \int dt\, e^{i\omega t} \langle O^a_{\mathbf{q}}(t) O^b_{-\mathbf{q}}\rangle_\beta, \tag*{(2)}

where ⟨A⟩β:=Tr⁡(e−βHA)/Tr⁡(e−βH)\langle A\rangle_\beta:= \operatorname{Tr}(e^{-\beta H}A)/\operatorname{Tr}(e^{-\beta H}) indicates a thermal quantum average. At later stages, we distinguish access to the full tensor SabS^{ab} from diagonal access to SaaS^{aa}. In either case, the task is to recover λ\boldsymbol{\lambda} from the DSF at known temperatures in a manner robust to noise and scaling efficiently in NN and β\beta.

Next, define DSF spectral moments

mnab(q)=∫−∞∞dω ωnSab(q,ω),(3)m^{ab}_n(\mathbf{q}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega\, \omega^n S^{ab}(\mathbf{q},\omega), \tag*{(3)}

which are equivalent to short-time derivatives of the two-point spin correlation function: mnab(q)=2πin∂tn⟨Oqa(t)O−qb⟩β∣t=0m^{ab}_n(\mathbf{q}) = 2\pi i^n \partial_t^n\langle O^a_{\mathbf{q}}(t)O^b_{-\mathbf{q}}\rangle_\beta|_{t=0}, with m0ab(q)/2πm^{ab}_0(\mathbf{q})/2\pi the static spin structure factor. Additionally Fourier transforming back to real space yields the particularly useful quantities

mn,dab=∫BZdqvol⁡(BZ)e−iq⋅dmnab(q)=2πin∂tn⟨O0a(t)Odb⟩β∣t=0.(4)m^{ab}_{n,d} = \int_{\mathrm{BZ}} \frac{d\mathbf{q}}{\operatorname{vol}(\mathrm{BZ})}e^{-i\mathbf{q}\cdot d}m^{ab}_n(\mathbf{q}) = 2\pi i^n\partial_t^n\langle O^a_0(t)O^b_d\rangle_\beta|_{t=0}. \tag*{(4)}

Equivalently, mn,dab=2π⟨[[⋯[O0a,H],H],⋯ ,H]Odb⟩βm^{ab}_{n,d} = 2\pi\langle[[\cdots[O^a_0,H],H],\cdots,H]O^b_d\rangle_\beta, with the right-hand comprising nn commutators. For a finite-range Hamiltonian, mn,dabm^{ab}_{n,d} at fixed nn depends only on interactions within a finite neighborhood of 0. Each time derivative introduces one factor of HH, and the remaining dependence on λ\boldsymbol{\lambda} lies in the thermal expectation value, which in general does not take a simple form. Our three protocols will render the dependence of the mn,dabm^{ab}_{n,d} on λ\boldsymbol{\lambda} learnable in three distinct but complementary ways, as illustrated in Figure 1c.

High-temperature tomography

Our high-temperature (HT) protocol leverages the fact that Eq. (II.4) depends more mildly on Hamiltonian parameters as temperature increases and the Gibbs state approaches a featureless infinite-temperature mixed state. This trend forms the basis of the high-temperature series expansion in quantum lattice models [47] and existing digital quantum algorithms for learning Hamiltonians from high-temperature Gibbs states [19], and here allows us to tame the complexity of Hamiltonian learning. In particular, a high-temperature expansion allows us to derive low-degree polynomial relations between Hamiltonian couplings and DSF spectral moments. At small β\beta, we expand Eq. (II.4) as

mn,dab(β,λ)=∑i=0∞βimn,d,iab(λ),(5)m^{ab}_{n,d}(\beta,\boldsymbol{\lambda}) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \beta^i m^{ab}_{n,d,i}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}), \tag*{(5)}

with each nonzero coefficient mn,d,iab(λ)m^{ab}_{n,d,i}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}) a homogeneous polynomial of degree n+in+i in the couplings. For our choice of bounded, finite-range interactions, truncating Eq. (III.1) at order RR incurs a controlled O((β/βc)R+1)O((\beta/\beta_c)^{R+1}) error as β/βc→0\beta/\beta_c \to0, where βc>0\beta_c > 0 is an O(1)O(1) threshold determined by Hamiltonian details. The λ\boldsymbol{\lambda}-dependent coefficients on the right side of Eq. (III.1) can be evaluated efficiently using local operator algebra without full many-body simulation [App. B].

We collect a finite set of nfn_f theoretically derived coefficients mn,d,iab(λ)m^{ab}_{n,d,i}(\lambda) and denote the resulting collection by Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda), which comprises different spin channels (ab)(ab), moment orders (n)(n), spatial harmonics (d)(d), and high-TT expansion orders (i)(i). We refer to Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda) as the feature map. The experimental data corresponding to the feature map, which we denote by FexpF_{\mathrm{exp}}, is extracted from the measured DSF, assumed to be available across multiple high temperatures and the full Brillouin zone. The HT protocol entails solving the polynomial system Fexp=Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{exp}}=F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda). Crucially, for fixed feature map, interaction range and parameter count, the size and degree of this polynomial system does not scale with NN. Hence the computational cost of the HT protocol is independent of system size, in contrast to model fitting approaches requiring repeated simulations of the DSF [48].

The remaining question is whether the polynomial system Fexp=Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{exp}}=F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda) uniquely determines the Hamiltonian couplings. We identify three possible scenarios analyzed in detail in App. § 0.10. First, the system may be underdetermined—e.g., if the feature map includes fewer than pp components—and admit a continuously infinite set of solutions. Expanding the feature set can remedy this non-solvability. Second, the system may admit a discrete set of solutions—a case we call locally solvable. Local solvability can arise from spurious solutions or unavoidable degeneracy that we term measurement equivalence arising from distinct Hamiltonians which are indistinguishable under Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda). A powerful property of polynomial feature maps is that local solvability can be certified for almost all couplings by checking that the Jacobian of Fth(λ)F_{\mathrm{th}}(\lambda) has full rank at a random λ\lambda [34]. Third, the system may have a unique solution, in which case we say it is globally solvable. Instances of both global solvability and local solvability with measurement equivalence are discussed below.

To illustrate the HT protocol concretely, let us specialize to spin-12\frac{1}{2} Hamiltonians with arbitrary one- and two-body interactions in any dimension. Consider, for a finite set of bond vectors R\mathcal{R},

H(λ)=∑rbaσra+∑r,d∈Rλdabσraσr+db(6)H(\lambda)=\sum_{r} b^{a}\sigma_{r}^{a}+\sum_{r,d\in\mathcal{R}}\lambda_{d}^{ab}\sigma_{r}^{a}\sigma_{r+d}^{b} \tag*{(6)}

where σa\sigma^{a} are Pauli matrices. Direct calculation of the feature map FthF_{\mathrm{th}} reveals ba=14πεabcm0,0,1bcb^{a}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\varepsilon_{abc}m_{0,0,1}^{bc} and λdab=−12πm0,d,1ab\lambda_{d}^{ab}=-\frac{1}{2\pi}m_{0,d,1}^{ab}. Therefore, spatial harmonics of the static structure factor (n=0n=0) alone, expanded to first order in β\beta, contain the information of all one- and two-qubit couplings.

Frequently in neutron scattering experiments, access is limited to unpolarized neutron beams, whereby only the diagonal DSF is available [49]. In such cases, we may still learn diagonal exchange interactions using λdaa=−12πm0,d,1aa\lambda_{d}^{aa}=-\frac{1}{2\pi}m_{0,d,1}^{aa}. However, the off-diagonal exchanges λdab\lambda_{d}^{ab} and fields bab^{a} must be inferred from higher DSF moments. For instance, direct calculation shows

12πm2,d,0aa=−8(λdbbλdcc−λdbcλdcb),\frac{1}{2\pi}m_{2,d,0}^{aa}=-8\left(\lambda_{d}^{bb}\lambda_{d}^{cc}-\lambda_{d}^{bc}\lambda_{d}^{cb}\right),

References

  1. [1]L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016).DOI
  2. [2]E. Y. Andrei, D. K. Efetov, P. Jarillo-Herrero, A. H. MacDonald, K. F. Mak, T. Senthil, E. Tutuc, A. Yazdani, and A. F. Young, The marvels of moiré materials, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 201 (2021).DOI
  3. [3]A. K. Geim and I. V. Grigorieva, Van der waals heterostructures, Nature 499, 419 (2013).DOI
  4. [4]M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010).
  5. [5]M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Phenomenological theory of unconventional superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 239 (1991).DOI
  6. [6]I. M. Georges, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014).
  7. [7]J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9914139
  8. [8]H. Lee, P. Kok, and J. P. Dowling, A quantum rosetta stone for interferometry, Journal of Modern Optics 49, 2325 (2002).DOI
  9. [9]N. Boulant, T. F. Havel, M. A. Pravia, and D. G. Cory, Robust method for estimating the lindblad operators of a dissipative quantum process from measurements of the density operator at multiple time points, Physical Review A 67, 042322 (2003).DOI
  10. [10]E. Ben Av, Y. Shapira, N. Akerman, and R. Ozery, Direct reconstruction of the quantum-master-equation dynamics of a trapped-ion qubit, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062305 (2020).DOI
  11. [11]M. D. Shulman, S. P. Harvey, J. M. Nichol, S. D. Bartlett, A. C. Doherty, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Suppressing qubit dephasing using real-time Hamiltonian estimation, Nature communications 5, 5156 (2014).DOI
  12. [12]N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. Cory, Quantum hamiltonian learning using imperfect quantum resources, Physical Review A 89, 042314 (2014).DOI
  13. [13]J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gentile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’Brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, et al., Experimental quantum hamiltonian learning, Nature Physics 13, 551 (2017).DOI
  14. [14]N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Hamiltonian learning and certification using quantum resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190501 (2014).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24877920
  15. [15]A. Gu, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Practical hamiltonian learning with unitary dynamics and gibbs states, Nature Communications 15, 312 (2024).DOI
  16. [16]D. Burghart and A. Ajoy, Evolution-free hamiltonian parameter estimation through zeeman markers, Physical Review Letters 119, 030402 (2017).
  17. [17]E. Bairey, I. Arad, and N. H. Lindner, Learning a local hamiltonian from local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 020504 (2019).DOI
  18. [18]A. Anshu, S. Arunachalam, T. Kuwahara, and M. Soleimanifar, Sample-efficient learning of interacting quantum systems, Nature Physics 17, 931 (2021).DOI
  19. [19]J. Haah, R. Kothari, and E. Tang, Learning quantum hamiltonians from high-temperature gibbs states and real-time evolutions, Nature Physics 20, 1027 (2024).DOI
  20. [20]A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, Learning quantum hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comput. 10.1137/24M1690965 (2026).
  21. [21]H.-Y. Huang, Y. Tong, D. Fang, and Y. Su, Learning many-body hamiltonians with heisenberg-limited scaling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200403 (2023).DOI
  22. [22]J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Identification of open quantum systems from observable time traces, Physical Review A 91, 052121 (2015).DOI
  23. [23]D. Hangleiter, I. Roth, J. Fuksa, J. Eisert, and P. Roushan, Robustly learning the hamiltonian dynamics of a superconducting quantum processor, Nature Communications 15, 9595 (2024).
  24. [24]W. Yu, J. Sun, Z. Han, and X. Yuan, Robust and efficient hamiltonian learning, Quantum 7, 1045 (2023).DOI
  25. [25]D. Stilck França, L. A. Markovich, V. V. Dobrovitski, A. H. Werner, and J. Borregaard, Efficient and robust estimation of many-qubit hamiltonians, Nature Communications 15, 311 (2024).
  26. [26]A. Zubida, E. Yitzhaki, N. H. Lindner, and E. Bairey, Optimal short-time measurements for hamiltonian learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08824 10.48550/arXiv.2108.08824 (2021).arxiv.org/abs/2108.08824
  27. [27]A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, Learning quantum hamiltonians at any temperature in polynomial time, in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2024) pp. 1470–1477.
  28. [28]R. Coldea, S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, T. G. Perring, C. D. Frost, T. E. Mason, S.-W. Cheong, and Z. Fisk, Spin waves and electronic interactions in la₂cuo₄, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5377 (2001), arXiv:cond-mat/0006384.DOI
  29. [29]R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, C. Walters, and Z. Tylczynski, Direct measurement of the spin hamiltonian and observation of condensation of magnons in the 2d frustrated quantum magnet cs₂cucl₄, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137203 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0111079.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11955122
  30. [30]K. A. Ross, L. Savary, B. D. Gaulin, and L. Balents, Quantum excitations in quantum spin ice, Physical Review X 1, 021002 (2011).DOI
  31. [31]J. Zhang and M. Sarovar, Quantum hamiltonian identification from measurement time traces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 080401 (2014).DOI
  32. [32]A. Sone and P. Cappellaro, Hamiltonian identifiability assisted by a single-probe measurement, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022335 (2017).DOI
  33. [33]T. Schuster, M. Niu, J. Cotler, T. O’Brien, J. R. McClean, and M. Mohseni, Learning quantum systems via out-of-time-order correlators, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043284 (2023).
  34. [34]S. Chen, J. Cotler, and H.-Y. Huang, Quantum probe tomography, arXiv:2510.08499 10.48550/arXiv.2510.08499 (2025).arxiv.org/abs/2510.08499
  35. [35]W. Gong, M. Ma, S. Chen, J. Cotler, and H.-Y. Huang, Out-of-control hamiltonian learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2610.06709 10.48550/arXiv.2610.06709 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2610.06709
  36. [36]A. Chiesa, F. Tacchino, M. Grossi, P. Santini, I. Tavernelli, D. Gerace, and S. Carretta, Quantum hardware simulating four-dimensional inelastic neutron scattering, Nature Physics 15, 455 (2019).DOI
  37. [37]Y.-T. Lee, K. Kumaran, B. Pokharel, A. Scheie, C. L. Sarkis, D. A. Tennant, T. Humble, A. Schleife, A. Kandala, and A. Banerjee, Benchmarking quantum simulation with neutron-scattering experiments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15608 10.48550/arXiv.2603.15608 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2603.15608
  38. [38]E. Granet, K. Murota, H. Dreyer, K. Yamamoto, J. Pederson, and H. Suwa, Dynamical structure factor with a pumping approach on a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.07138 10.48550/arXiv.2607.07138 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2607.07138
  39. [39]E. Kokkas, N. Bauer, J. Provazza, M. E. Nowakowski, K. Hamilton, G. Buchs, A. Sornborger, T. S. Humble, A. Kaushik, and M. Roetteler, Quantum simulation of field-tunable spin spectroscopy of the quantum magnet cs2cocl4 on a trapped-ion quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2610.03671 10.48550/arXiv.2610.03671 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2610.03671
  40. [40]X. Sun, Y. Le, S. Naus, R. B.-S. Tsai, L. R. B. Picard, S. Murciano, M. Knap, J. Alicea, and M. Endres, Observation of conformal field theory spectra in a quantum simulator, Nature 657, 98 (2026).DOI
  41. [41]S.-H. Do, S.-Y. Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. Adroja, D. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.-H. Jang, et al., Majorana fermions in the kitaev quantum spin system α-rucl3, Nature Physics 13, 1079 (2017).
  42. [42]A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, et al., Excitations in the field-induced quantum spin liquid state of α-rucl3, npj Quantum Materials 3, 8 (2018).DOI
  43. [43]M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the kitaev model: Fractionalization, dynamic correlations, and material connections, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018).
  44. [44]A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Neutron tomography of magnetic majorana fermions in a proximate quantum spin liquid, Science 356, 1055 (2017).DOI
  45. [45]S. R. Chitturi, Z. Ji, A. Petsch, C. Peng, et al., Capturing dynamical correlations using implicit neural representations, Nature Communications 14, 4138 (2023).DOI
  46. [46]A. M. Samarakoon, K. Barros, Y. W. Li, M. Eisenbach, Q. Zhang, F. Ye, V. Sharma, Z. Dun, H. Zhou, S. A. Grigera, et al., Machine-learning-assisted insight into spin ice dy2ti2o7, Nature communications 11, 892 (2020).
  47. [47]J. Oitmaa, C. Hamer, and W. Zheng, Series expansion methods for strongly interacting lattice models (Cambridge University Press, 2006).DOI
  48. [48]A. M. Samarakoon, P. Laurell, C. Balz, A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Okamoto, and D. A. Tennant, Extraction of interaction parameters for α-rucl 3 from neutron data using machine learning, Physical Review Research 4, L022061 (2022).DOI
  49. [49]G. L. Squires, Introduction to the theory of thermal neutron scattering (Courier Corporation, 1996).
  50. [50]A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006).DOI
  51. [51]L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, nature 464, 199 (2010).
  52. [52]D. Yarotsky, Uniqueness of the ground state in weak perturbations of non-interacting gapped quantum lattice systems, Journal of statistical physics 118, 119 (2005).DOI
  53. [53]D. Yarotsky, Ground states in relatively bounded quantum perturbations of classical lattice systems, Communications in mathematical physics 261, 799 (2006).DOI
  54. [54]P. C. Hohenberg and W. F. Brinkman, Sum rules for the frequency spectrum of linear magnetic chains, Phys. Rev. B 10, 128 (1974).DOI
  55. [55]K. W. Plumb, H. J. Changlani, A. Scheie, S. Zhang, J. W. Krizan, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, Y. Qiu, B. Winn, R. J. Cava, and C. L. Broholm, Continuum of quantum fluctuations in a three-dimensional s = 1 heisenberg magnet, Nat. Phys. 15, 54 (2019).DOI
  56. [56]P. Park, G. Sala, D. M. Pajerowski, A. F. May, J. A. Kolopus, D. Dahlbom, M. B. Stone, G. B. Halász, and A. D. Christianson, Quantum and classical spin dynamics across temperature scales in the s = 1/2 heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033184 (2024).DOI
  57. [57]L. Woodland, D. Macdougal, I. M. Cabrera, J. D. Thompson, D. Prabhakaran, R. I. Bewley, and R. Coldea, Tuning the confinement potential between spinons in the ising chain compound CoNb2O6 using longitudinal fields and quantitative determination of the microscopic hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184416 (2023).DOI
  58. [58]D. Schmidiger, P. Bouillot, S. Mühlbauer, S. Gvasaliya, C. Kollath, T. Giamarchi, and A. Zheludev, Spectral and thermodynamic properties of a strong-leg quantum spin ladder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 167201 (2012).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22680751
  59. [59]S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-q incommensurate magnetic structures, Journal of Condensed Matter 27, 166002 (2015).DOI
  60. [60]D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, D. Pajerowski, S. Johnston, Z. Wang, H. Lane, Y. W. Li, X. Bai, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros, Sunny.jl: A Julia package for spin dynamics, J. Open Source Softw. 10, 8138 (2025), arXiv:2501.13095.arxiv.org/abs/2501.13095
  61. [61]A. Scheie, P. Laurell, P. A. McClarty, G. E. Granroth, M. B. Stone, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Spin-exchange hamiltonian and topological degeneracies in elemental gadolinium, Phys. Rev. B 105, 104402 (2022).DOI
  62. [62]J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic spin model for the honeycomb iridates beyond the kitaev limit, Physical Review Letters 112, 077202 (2014).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24579632
  63. [63]W. Fulton, Algebraic Curves: An Introduction to Algebraic Geometry (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969) reprinted by Addison-Wesley, Advanced Book Classics, 1989.
  64. [64]Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev quantum spin liquids, Reviews of Modern Physics 97, 045000 (2025).DOI
  65. [65]J. Haah, R. Kothari, and E. Tang, Optimal learning of quantum hamiltonians from high-temperature gibbs states, in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 135–146.DOI
  66. [66]P. Coleman, Introduction to many-body physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015).DOI
  67. [67]A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, Structure learning of hamiltonians from real-time evolution, in 2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) (IEEE, 2024) pp. 1037–1050.DOI
  68. [68]A. Zhao, Learning the structure of any hamiltonian from minimal assumptions, in Proceedings of the 57th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2025) pp. 1201–1211.DOI
  69. [69]H.-Y. Hu, M. Ma, W. Gong, Q. Ye, Y. Tong, S. T. Flammia, and S. F. Yelin, Ansatz-free hamiltonian learning with heisenberg-limited scaling, PRX Quantum 6, 040315 (2025).DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_327bfw36
Version
v1 · latest
Published
Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days
Added
License
CC BY 4.0
Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

  • Physics and Astronomy

Claude, Codex, ChatGPT \le6.1, ChatGPT 5.6

View statement
Looking for related papers…
Contents