4.2 Article

Phase transitions in the frustrated Ising ladder with stoquastic and nonstoquastic catalysts

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW RESEARCH
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043013

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [17J09218]
  2. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)
  3. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), via the U.S. Army Research Office [W911NF-17-C-0050]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17J09218] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of nonstoquasticity in affecting topological phase transitions in quantum annealing and adiabatic quantum computing has been studied using a quantum Ising model, revealing that nonstoquastic catalysts are generally insufficient for removing topological obstacles.
The role of nonstoquasticity in the field of quantum annealing and adiabatic quantum computing is an actively debated topic. We study a strongly-frustrated quasi-one-dimensional quantum Ising model on a two-leg ladder to elucidate how a first-order phase transition with a topological origin is affected by interactions of the +/- XX-type. Such interactions are sometimes known as stoquastic (negative sign) and nonstoquastic (positive sign) catalysts. Carrying out a symmetry-preserving real-space renormalization group analysis and extensive density-matrix renormalization group computations, we show that the phase diagrams obtained by these two methods are in qualitative agreement with each other and reveal that the first-order quantum phase transition of a topological nature remains stable against the introduction of both XX-type catalysts. This is the first study of the effects of nonstoquasticity on a first-order phase transition between topologically distinct phases. Our results indicate that nonstoquastic catalysts are generally insufficient for removing topological obstacles in quantum annealing and adiabatic quantum computing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据