arXiv:2610.38059
Exact Positive-P Simulation of Open Quantum Spin Systems with Generalized Density Matrix Formalism
Alex Ferrier, Yi Shi, Marzena H. Szymańska, Piotr Deuar
Abstract
The positive-P representation for bosons allows scalable exact simulations of many-body open quantum systems, provided dissipation is strong enough to stabilise stochastic trajectories. Designing analogous methods for spin systems, relevant to quantum technologies, remains challenging, as previous spin positive-P formulations can exhibit systematic errors even when simulations are numerically stable. Here, we develop a phase-space representation that maps spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ degrees of freedom onto parameters of a local generalized density matrix (GDM), rather than SU(2) coherent states. In all stable regimes, we observe no deviations from exact solutions, restoring the positive-P property: stable solutions are exact up to stochastic sampling noise. The GDM representation combines seamlessly with bosonic positive-P, enabling highly scalable treatment of coupled spin-boson systems. We map simulation stability versus spin and boson dissipation in the Jaynes-Cummings model and apply the method to a Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard quasi-Lieb lattice, showing how spin dissipation and driving can destroy or restore excitation incompressibility.
AI Summary
Positive-P simulations of dissipative spin systems can exhibit systematic errors even when trajectories appear numerically stable. This paper investigates whether replacing SU(2) coherent-state kernels with a nonsingular local kernel can avoid this problem while retaining compatibility with bosonic positive-P simulations. The proposed generalized density matrix kernel is $\Lambda_S=\begin{pmatrix}x&z\\w&1-x\end{pmatrix}$, with three independent complex variables per spin. Operator correspondences yield stochastic differential equations for driven-dissipative Jaynes–Cummings–Hubbard models, using five complex variables per spin–boson site. A diffusion gauge redistributes noise between spin and boson variables without changing the formal ensemble means. Single-site benchmarks against direct master-equation solutions use 1,000 trajectories per parameter set, generally through $gt=100$ and sometimes $gt=1000$. No statistically significant discrepancies are observed before noise instability. For gauge $G=1$, simulations broadly remain stable over the tested times when spin decay satisfies $\Gamma_\downarrow>g$; choosing $G=10$ stabilizes some cases with stronger bosonic loss, while destabilizing others. A lattice demonstration treats 20 periodic unit cells containing 40 bosonic modes and 20 spins. Strong spin decay removes a previously reported excitation plateau versus bosonic drive; direct spin driving produces a low-bosonic-drive plateau and correlations absent from mean field. Accessible times remain limited by stochastic noise amplification, and sustained stability requires sufficient dissipation. Accuracy in stable regimes is supported by benchmarks rather than a general guarantee. Pure interacting spin lattices and optimized, variable-dependent gauges are proposed extensions, not demonstrated applications.
Central claim may not hold: The claim that numerical stability guarantees exact GDM simulation is stronger than the demonstrated benchmarks, because the required boundary behavior and sampling convergence are not established generally. The displayed estimator for K=Var(N)/<N> omits a bosonic normal-ordering correction equal to average[tilde n]/average[tilde n+x]. The assertion that K vanishes at mean-field level contradicts its displayed variance-to-mean definition, which gives K=1 for coherent bosons without spin excitations. The printed SU(2) operator correspondences omit scalar terms required by the normalized kernel, although this alone does not invalidate the final SU(2) stochastic equations.
Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the paper's full text. Automated: it can be wrong.
- Comments
- 18 pages, 11 figures