affil0affil0affiliationtext: California Institute of Technology

Mixing time of quantum Gibbs sampling
for random sparse Hamiltonians

Akshar Ramkumar Mehdi Soleimanifar
(November 7, 2024)
Abstract

Providing evidence that quantum computers can efficiently prepare low-energy or thermal states of physically relevant interacting quantum systems is a major challenge in quantum information science. A newly developed quantum Gibbs sampling algorithm [CKG23] provides an efficient simulation of the detailed-balanced dissipative dynamics of non-commutative quantum systems. The running time of this algorithm depends on the mixing time of the corresponding quantum Markov chain, which has not been rigorously bounded except in the high-temperature regime. In this work, we establish a polylog(n)polylog𝑛\mathrm{polylog}(n)roman_polylog ( italic_n ) upper bound on its mixing time for various families of random n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n sparse Hamiltonians at any constant temperature. We further analyze how the choice of the jump operators for the algorithm and the spectral properties of these sparse Hamiltonians influence the mixing time. Our result places this method for Gibbs sampling on par with other efficient algorithms for preparing low-energy states of quantumly easy Hamiltonians.

1 Introduction

One of the main anticipated applications of quantum computers is the simulation and characterization of quantum systems in condensed matter physics [WHW+15], quantum chemistry [MEAG+20], and high-energy physics [Pre18, BDB+23]. The problem of simulating the dynamics (time evolution) of an interacting quantum system under a local or sparse Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H has largely been addressed, with efficient algorithms [HHKL18, LC17, BCC+15, LC19, GSLW19] that scale well with the number of particles, simulation time, and required precision. However, the ability of quantum computers to evaluate the static features of quantum systems, such as their ground state or thermal properties, is less understood.

In this work, we focus on preparing the Gibbs (thermal) state 𝝆β=eβ𝑯Tr(eβ𝑯)subscript𝝆𝛽superscript𝑒𝛽𝑯Trsuperscript𝑒𝛽𝑯\bm{\rho}_{\beta}=\frac{e^{-\beta\bm{H}}}{\mathrm{Tr}(e^{-\beta\bm{H}})}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β bold_italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Tr ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β bold_italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG of a quantum system, which represents the equilibrium state when the system is in contact with a thermal bath at a fixed temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This computational problem, known as Gibbs sampling or “cooling,” is valuable not only for simulating thermodynamic properties but also as a subroutine in quantum algorithms for optimization and learning [BS17, vAG19, BKL+19]. However, to prepare the Gibbs state, quantum computers face challenges. In general, it is not believed that estimating the low-temperature properties of quantum systems can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer in the worst-case [KKR05]. Fortunately, it has been hypothesized that this worst-case hardness of finding low-temperature states implied by arguments from complexity theory is due to pathological Hamiltonians, which are not apparent in many physical systems that normally occur in nature. This hypothesis is substantiated by the empirical success of natural cooling, such as using refrigerators, in reaching thermal equilibrium.

Quantum Gibbs sampling. Aiming to mimic nature’s cooling processes, a series of recent works have introduced quantum Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, or quantum Gibbs samplers [CKG23, CKBG23, SM21, WT23, RWW23, JI24, ZBC23, DLL24, GCDK24], as promising alternatives for tackling a range of classically intractable low-temperature simulation tasks on quantum computers. These algorithms are designed to replicate the success of classical Markov chains in preparing Gibbs states for classical Hamiltonians. The analysis of classical MCMC algorithms relies on the principle of detailed balance; however, achieving this in the quantum setting has been challenging and was only recently addressed by an algorithm in [CKG23]. Part of the difficulty arises from a conflict between the finite energy resolution σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT achievable by efficient quantum algorithms and the seemingly strict requirement to precisely distinguish energy levels to satisfy detailed balance. In this work, we focus primarily on this algorithm, referring to it as the CKG algorithm or the quantum Gibbs sampler when the context is clear. We give a detailed review of this algorithm in Section 4.1.3 and Appendix 7.1.1.

The Gibbs sampling algorithm provides a fully general method for preparing Gibbs states by evolving an initial state 𝝆0subscript𝝆0\bm{\rho}_{0}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT under a Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is efficiently implementable on a quantum computer and produces the state

𝝆t=eβt[𝝆0]subscript𝝆𝑡superscript𝑒subscript𝛽𝑡delimited-[]subscript𝝆0\bm{\rho}_{t}=e^{\mathcal{L}_{\beta}t}[\bm{\rho}_{0}]bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]

after time t𝑡titalic_t. The runtime of the quantum Gibbs sampler is governed by the mixing time of the corresponding quantum Markov chain, which is roughly the time required for 𝝆tsubscript𝝆𝑡\bm{\rho}_{t}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to approach the Gibbs state 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This in turn is bounded by the spectral gap λgap(β)subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of the Lindbladian by

tmix(β)𝒪(β𝑯+log(n))λgap(β).subscript𝑡mixsubscript𝛽𝒪𝛽norm𝑯𝑛subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽t_{\text{mix}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})\leq\frac{\mathcal{O}(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|+% \log(n))}{\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})}.italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT mix end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ divide start_ARG caligraphic_O ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ + roman_log ( italic_n ) ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG .

The mixing time varies based on the quantum system in question. Bounding this mixing time is challenging without access to fault-tolerant quantum computers, as we cannot run and benchmark the algorithm directly, making theoretical analysis essential. However, such analysis is hindered by a lack of technical tools for two key reasons. Firstly, the theory of convergence of quantum Markov chains is new, unlike the very mature twin field for classical Markov chains. Secondly, the Markov chain described by the algorithm is considerably complex, and depends on several parameters that we will discuss in more detail shortly: an energy resolution σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a series of jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for a[M]𝑎delimited-[]𝑀a\in[M]italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ], and the inverse temperature β𝛽\betaitalic_β. The space of possibilities makes the algorithm’s performance more difficult to characterize.

This motivates the identification of quantum systems whose mixing times are tractable for analysis yet exhibit rich features that provide insights into the performance of the quantum Gibbs sampler for more general non-commuting Hamiltonians. In line with this, the mixing time of the CKG algorithm has recently been bounded for local Hamiltonians, showing a polynomial scaling with system size at high enough temperatures [RFA24].

Mixing time of sparse Hamiltonians. In this work, we consider an alternative approach by characterizing the mixing time of a family of sparse Hamiltonians of the following form: which can be understood as the Hamiltonian on a graph G=(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G=(V,E)italic_G = ( italic_V , italic_E ) with n=|V|𝑛𝑉n=|V|italic_n = | italic_V | vertices indexed by basis states \ketei\ketsubscript𝑒𝑖\ket{e_{i}}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i[n]𝑖delimited-[]𝑛i\in[n]italic_i ∈ [ italic_n ] and a set of edges E𝐸Eitalic_E connecting vertices with Hij0subscript𝐻𝑖𝑗0H_{ij}\neq 0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ 0. When non-zero entries Hijsubscript𝐻𝑖𝑗H_{ij}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are all equal to 1111, the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H corresponds to the n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n adjacency matrix of the n𝑛nitalic_n-vertex graph. We define the degree d𝑑ditalic_d of the graph G𝐺Gitalic_G as the sparsity of the underlying Hamiltonian and refer to Hamiltonians with constant or slowly increasing degrees d=polylog(n)𝑑polylog𝑛d=\mathrm{polylog}(n)italic_d = roman_polylog ( italic_n ) as sparse. Note that any log(n)𝑛\log(n)roman_log ( italic_n )-qubit Hamiltonian that consists of m=polylog(n)𝑚polylog𝑛m=\mathrm{polylog}(n)italic_m = roman_polylog ( italic_n ) terms each acting locally on κ=O(1)𝜅𝑂1\kappa=O(1)italic_κ = italic_O ( 1 ) qubits is a sparse Hamiltonian with degree dm2κpolylog(n)𝑑𝑚superscript2𝜅polylog𝑛d\leq m2^{\kappa}\leq\mathrm{polylog}(n)italic_d ≤ italic_m 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_κ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ roman_polylog ( italic_n ). However, not all sparse Hamiltonians admit local qubit encodings.

Having defined sparse Hamiltonians, we now consider the dissipative dynamics of this system induced by a set of M𝑀Mitalic_M jump operators expressed as follows:

𝑨a=i,j[n]Aija\ketei\braej,a[M].formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝑖𝑗delimited-[]𝑛superscriptsubscript𝐴𝑖𝑗𝑎\ketsubscript𝑒𝑖\brasubscript𝑒𝑗𝑎delimited-[]𝑀\displaystyle\bm{A}^{a}=\sum_{i,j\in[n]}A_{ij}^{a}\ket{e_{i}}\bra{e_{j}},\quad% \quad a\in[M].bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j ∈ [ italic_n ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] . (1)

We will soon explain how the jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT relate to the Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Briefly, the resulting dynamics can be understood as a combination of two processes: a continuous-time quantum walk of a single particle on the graph of states due to the coherent evolution of the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H, which is combined with stochastic jumps on the graph determined by the jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Our interest in bounding the mixing time of the sparse Hamiltonians is multifaceted:

  • (1)

    Single-particle dynamics. As stated earlier, bounding the mixing time of general interacting multipartite Hamiltonians is a challenging task. However, for simple choices of graphs G𝐺Gitalic_G, the mixing time of the quantum Gibbs sampler may be easier to analyze, potentially leading to relevant techniques for tackling the case of interacting particles. In fact, we can think of the dynamics induced by the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H (LABEL:eq:sparseH) as the dynamics of a single-particle hopping on the graph G𝐺Gitalic_G. This single-particle evolution on path graphs or grids is commonly analyzed in the tight-binding model in condensed matter physics. That being said, even in the simplified case of a single particle, the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H is non-commuting, characterizing a continuous-time quantum walk that can yield exponential quantum advantage for certain oracular problem on graphs such as the glued tress [CCD+03].

  • (2)

    Chaotic Hamiltonians. Our additional motivation for studying random sparse Hamiltonians stems from the fact that their spectra exhibit many of the same characteristics as chaotic Hamiltonians, such as the SYK model [SY93, Kit15a, Kit15b] and random p𝑝pitalic_p-spin models [SW24, WBB+22]. Understanding whether chaotic Hamiltonians have a fast mixing time as they approach their thermal and low-energy states is a fundamental question in the study of quantum chaos [CB21, ACKK24]. As a concrete step toward addressing this problem, we identify key spectral properties of random sparse Hamiltonians that can ensure a fast mixing time.

  • (3)

    Algorithmic applications. Preparing quantum Gibbs states, and more broadly computing the matrix exponential of sparse matrices such as the adjacency or Laplacian of a graph, is a fundamental subroutine in solving various graph and optimization problems. For instance, the Estrada index—defined as the trace of the matrix exponential of a graph’s adjacency matrix—measures subgraph centrality and provides structural insights [ERV05]. Computing the matrix exponential is also related to matrix inversion and linear system solvers [SV13]. Moreover, quantum Gibbs sampling has been applied to solving semidefinite programs (SDPs) in optimization problems [GLBKSF22, BS17, BKL+19, vAGGdW20], offering quantum speedups for these problems.

2 Our main results

Motivated by these considerations, we investigate the mixing time of quantum Gibbs samplers for sparse Hamiltonians and different choices of jump operators. Our study addresses two key questions regarding the performance of the quantum Gibbs sampler for sparse Hamiltonians. First, we ask

What choices of jump operators leads to a fast mixing time?

After exploring the effects of different jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we then focus on the spectral properties of sparse Hamiltonians to understand:

What spectral property of the Hamiltonian determines its mixing time?

Answering these questions allows us to provide a broad and intuitive insights of how the quantum Gibbs sampler operates for general families of sparse Hamiltonians.

2.1 Choice of jumps: graph-local vs unitary design

A natural set of jump operators for a given n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonian on a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G are 𝑨a=1n|eaea|superscript𝑨𝑎1𝑛ketsubscript𝑒𝑎brasubscript𝑒𝑎\bm{A}^{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}|e_{a}\rangle\!\langle e_{a}|bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_ARG | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | or similar operators supported on a few neighboring vertices of G𝐺Gitalic_G. Importantly, these are not “local” in the sense of multi-particle Hamiltonians, which refers to being composed of terms that act on a small number of qubits—often also geometrically close to one another. Utilizing graph-local jump operators also significantly simplifies the structure of the Lindbladian and the analysis of mixing times for certain graph families.

Moving beyond graph-local jumps, the Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the quantum Gibbs sampler can still be efficiently implemented on a quantum computer with certain non-local jumps. This is possible as long as each jump 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is efficiently implementable, the set of jumps M𝑀Mitalic_M includes both 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and its adjoint 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and a[M]𝑨a𝑨a=1subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀subscriptnormsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎1\sum_{a\in[M]}\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|_{\infty}=1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 (due to this normalization condition, we will sometimes speak of the jumping distribution 𝒜𝒜\mathcal{A}caligraphic_A, from which the jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are sampled with probability 𝑨a𝑨anormsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥). This raises the question of whether there is an advantage in using non-local jumps that have a bounded spectral norm, or if more structured local jumps are sufficient to achieve a fast-mixing quantum MCMC. After all, classical continuous-time random walks are typically considered with local jumps on the graph vertices. However, in the context of graphs, we will see that the structured nature of local jumps offers no advantage, but rather seems to cause a slowdown of the resulting algorithm.

Graph-local jumps. To this end, in the next theorem, we establish tight bounds on the spectral gap of the Lindbladian for cyclic graphs for graph-local jumps 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with an approach similar to the one used in [Tem13] to bound the spectral gap of a Davies generator.

Theorem 2.1 (Spectral gap of cyclic graphs with local jumps).

Fix temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. There exists some constant energy resolution σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for which the spectral gap of the CKG Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for a cyclic graph with n𝑛nitalic_n vertices with jump operators 𝐀a=1n|eaea|superscript𝐀𝑎1𝑛ketsubscript𝑒𝑎brasubscript𝑒𝑎\bm{A}^{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}|e_{a}\rangle\!\langle e_{a}|bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG end_ARG | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | is asymptotically Θ(n3)Θsuperscript𝑛3\Theta(n^{-3})roman_Θ ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

In addition to theoretical analysis, we also generated data for cyclic graphs, path graphs, and random d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graphs with n𝑛nitalic_n vertices, as shown in Figure 1. These numerical results suggest spectral gaps of o(n1)𝑜superscript𝑛1o(n^{-1})italic_o ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for generic sparse graphs with graph-local jumps. We observed that increasing the constant d𝑑ditalic_d does improve the spectral gap decay, though it never improved past the asymptotic decay O(n1)𝑂superscript𝑛1O(n^{-1})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

These results are all suboptimal, since for an n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H, we expect an efficient result would be polynomial in the number of qubits, i.e. polylog(n)polylog𝑛\mathrm{polylog}(n)roman_polylog ( italic_n ) rather than poly(n)poly𝑛\mathrm{poly}(n)roman_poly ( italic_n ). The poor performance can be attributed to two factors: (1) The operators 𝑨a𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT norm 1n1𝑛\frac{1}{n}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG. (2) In the energy basis, many entries of 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are highly correlated.

The first drawback effectively scales the Lindbladian down by 1n1𝑛\frac{1}{n}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG, since the L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT norm of 𝑨𝑨superscript𝑨𝑨\bm{A}^{\dagger}\bm{A}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A can be as high as 1111 when the operator norm 𝑨𝑨=1nnormsuperscript𝑨𝑨1𝑛\|{\bm{A}^{\dagger}\bm{A}}\|=\frac{1}{n}∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∥ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG. However, the chosen jump operators are projectors, so their L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and operator norms are equal. In both Theorem 2.1 and in the data, a spectral gap even worse than 1n1𝑛\frac{1}{n}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG is observed. This is due to the second drawback. The aforementioned correlations lead to off-diagonal terms in the Lindbladian, which in general have the potential to dampen the spectral gap, and in the case of the cyclic graph provably do so. It appears that more generally, the biases of an ensemble of local jumps can introduce off-diagonal terms to the Lindbladian that decrease the spectral gap. The same harmful correlations appears to exist in higher degree graphs in addition to cyclic ones, though to a lesser extent as evidenced by the improved spectral gap.

CKG Lindbladian Spectral Gap Data

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Linear (above) and log-log (below) graphs of spectral gap with respect to system size. Gaps of ten random 4-regular graphs were averaged for each data point. For the cyclic graphs (one-dimensional lattices), the proven asymptotic decay aligns closely with the data.

Unitary design jumps. To address some of these shortcomings, we next consider non-local jump operators, each independently drawn (along with its adjoint pair) according to a unitary 1111-design 𝒟(U(n))𝒟𝑈𝑛\mathcal{D}(U(n))caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices. More precisely, we define

Definition 2.1.

A set of jump operators {𝐀a:a[M]}conditional-setsuperscript𝐀𝑎𝑎delimited-[]𝑀\{\bm{A}^{a}:a\in[M]\}{ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] } is drawn from a 11\mathbf{1}bold_1-design jumping distribution if it is obtained by sampling M/2𝑀2M/2italic_M / 2 jump operators i.i.d from a unitary 1111-design 𝒟(U(n))𝒟𝑈𝑛\mathcal{D}(U(n))caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ), normalizing each by 1M1𝑀\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_M end_ARG end_ARG, and including these operators along with their adjoint.

We include the adjoint of each randomly chosen jump since the CKG Lindbladian requires the set of jump operators to be closed under adjoint, {𝑨a:a[M]}={𝑨a:a[M]}conditional-setsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝑎delimited-[]𝑀conditional-setsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝑎delimited-[]𝑀\{\bm{A}^{a}:a\in[M]\}=\{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}:a\in[M]\}{ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] } = { bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] }. When n𝑛nitalic_n is a power of 2222, the unitary 1111-design can be constructed as a tensor product of random Pauli operators on log2(n)subscript2𝑛\log_{2}(n)roman_log start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n ) qubits, in which case the jumps are self-adjoint and can be sampled and implemented efficiently. The efficiency of our results on a general system relies on the ability to efficiently implement some unitary 1-design.

As we will see, in our application, this 1-design sampling is effectively equivalent to sampling from a Haar-random distribution. This approach improves on the results given for graph-local jumps, and is able to achieve an efficient algorithm in the number of qubits for a graph (running time polylog(n)polylog𝑛\mathrm{polylog}(n)roman_polylog ( italic_n )) for Gibbs sampling. This improved performance is in part because all the eigenvalues of a Haar random unitary have magnitude 1. Hence, it avoids the problem of 𝑨𝑨superscript𝑨𝑨\bm{A}^{\dagger}\bm{A}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A having a relatively small L1superscript𝐿1L^{1}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT norm given the constraint on its operator norm 𝑨𝑨normsuperscript𝑨𝑨\|{\bm{A}^{\dagger}\bm{A}}\|∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∥. These jumps also avoid the second problem encountered for the graph-local jumps: Since the number of degrees of freedom of randomness is very large over the ensemble, any form of bias is mitigated. Indeed, the resulting Lindbladian over the full ensemble has no off-diagonal terms resulting from correlated elements of the jump operator.

Our results extend beyond cyclic graphs to any graph of bounded degree d=O(1)𝑑𝑂1d=O(1)italic_d = italic_O ( 1 ) where 𝑯dnorm𝑯𝑑\|{\bm{H}}\|\leq d∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ≤ italic_d at constant temperature, or more generally when β𝑯=O(1)𝛽norm𝑯𝑂1\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|=O(1)italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ = italic_O ( 1 ). We refer to these sparse Hamiltonians as bounded degree and formally define them as:

Definition 2.2.

A bounded degree system is a sequence of temperatures β(n)1𝛽superscript𝑛1\beta(n)^{-1}italic_β ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Hamiltonians 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) for which β(n)𝐇(n)𝛽𝑛norm𝐇𝑛\beta(n)\|{\bm{H}(n)}\|italic_β ( italic_n ) ∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) ∥ is bounded from above by a constant independent of system size.

Theorem 2.2 (Constant spectral gap of Lindbladian in bounded degree systems).

Let β(n)1𝛽superscript𝑛1\beta(n)^{-1}italic_β ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a sequence of temperatures and 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) a sequence of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonians such that β(n)𝐇(n)=O(1)𝛽𝑛norm𝐇𝑛𝑂1\beta(n)\|{\bm{H}(n)}\|=O(1)italic_β ( italic_n ) ∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) ∥ = italic_O ( 1 ).

With any constant probability 1ξ1𝜉1-\xi1 - italic_ξ, the spectral gap of a Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and M𝑀Mitalic_M jump operators sampled from a 1-design jumping distribution for some M=Θ(log(n))𝑀Θ𝑛M=\Theta(\log(n))italic_M = roman_Θ ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ), is bounded below by a constant, i.e. λgap=Ω(1)subscript𝜆gapΩ1\lambda_{\text{gap}}=\Omega(1)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Ω ( 1 ).

As a consequence and in the same setup, the Gibbs state of 𝐇𝐇\bm{H}bold_italic_H can be prepared with error ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ in diamond distance, in time poly(log(n),log(ϵ1))poly𝑛superscriptitalic-ϵ1\mathrm{poly}(\log(n),\log(\epsilon^{-1}))roman_poly ( roman_log ( italic_n ) , roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ).

While the examples of bounded degree Hamiltonians we consider are mostly graphs, the above theorem applies to preparing the Gibbs state for any Hamiltonian at a temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that β1=O(𝑯)superscript𝛽1𝑂norm𝑯\beta^{-1}=O(\|{\bm{H}}\|)italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_O ( ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ).

2.2 Mixing time from spectral profile

Theorem 2.2 demonstrates that bounded-degree Hamiltonians with non-local jumps exhibit fast mixing times. However, it leaves open the case of Hamiltonians with unbounded degrees, such as those with dpolylog(n)𝑑polylog𝑛d\leq\mathrm{polylog}(n)italic_d ≤ roman_polylog ( italic_n ). More formally, we define

Definition 2.3.

An unbounded degree system is a sequence of temperatures β(n)1𝛽superscript𝑛1\beta(n)^{-1}italic_β ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Hamiltonians 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) for which limnβ(n)𝐇(n)subscript𝑛𝛽𝑛norm𝐇𝑛\lim_{n\to\infty}\beta(n)\|{\bm{H}(n)}\|\to\inftyroman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β ( italic_n ) ∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) ∥ → ∞. However, we still assume that β𝐇=polylog(n)𝛽norm𝐇polylog𝑛\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|=\mathrm{polylog}(n)italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ = roman_polylog ( italic_n ), polynomial in the number of qubits.

In our next result, we show that again selecting the jumping distribution (including adjoints) to be M𝑀Mitalic_M samples from a unitary 1-design for sufficiently large M𝑀Mitalic_M and choosing the energy resolution σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT yields an algorithm whose efficiency depends on its low-energy spectrum. In particular, the runtime scales inverse polynomially with the fraction of eigenvalues δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) of 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H that are within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the minimum eigenvalue.

Theorem 2.3 (Spectral gap of Lindbladian in unbounded degree systems).

Let β(n)1𝛽superscript𝑛1\beta(n)^{-1}italic_β ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a sequence of temperatures and 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) a sequence of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonians, and let δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) be the fraction of eigenvalues of 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of λminsubscript𝜆min\lambda_{\text{min}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

With any constant probability 1ξ1𝜉1-\xi1 - italic_ξ, the spectral gap of a Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and M𝑀Mitalic_M jump operators sampled from a 1-design jumping distribution for some M=Θ(δ(n)2log(n)log(β𝐇))𝑀Θ𝛿superscript𝑛2𝑛𝛽norm𝐇M=\Theta(\delta(n)^{-2}\log(n)\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|))italic_M = roman_Θ ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( italic_n ) roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ), is lower bounded by Ω(δ(n))Ω𝛿𝑛\Omega(\delta(n))roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) ).

As a consequence, and in the same setup, the Gibbs state of 𝐇𝐇\bm{H}bold_italic_H can be prepared with error ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ in diamond distance, in time poly(δ(n)1,log(n),log(ϵ1))poly𝛿superscript𝑛1𝑛superscriptitalic-ϵ1\mathrm{poly}(\delta(n)^{-1},\log(n),\log(\epsilon^{-1}))roman_poly ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_log ( italic_n ) , roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ).

Note that if β𝑯𝛽norm𝑯\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ is bounded, then δ(n)=1𝛿𝑛1\delta(n)=1italic_δ ( italic_n ) = 1. This result therefore generalizes Theorem 2.2.

2.3 Explicit examples of random sparse Hamiltonians

Having established a sufficient spectral condition for the fast mixing of random ensembles of sparse Hamiltonians, we now give explicit examples that satisfy this criterion. We also give one example, the hypercube, which does not, and for which local jumps in place of unitary design jumps achieve an exponential speedup. This example elucidates the potential of structured local jumps for speedups, in contrast to the case of the cyclic graph in which structured graph-local jumps yielded a slowdown.

Random regular graphs. The first example is when 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H is the adjacency matrix of a randomly selected log(n)𝑛\log(n)roman_log ( italic_n )-regular graph, with polylog(n)polylog𝑛\mathrm{polylog}(n)roman_polylog ( italic_n ) random 1-design jumps. In Section 4.3.1, we prove using Theorem 2.3 that this ensemble has a Lindbladian spectral gap of Ω(log(n)3/4)\Omega(\log(n)^{-3/4})roman_Ω ( roman_log ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) at constant temperature. This yields a polynomial algorithm to prepare the Gibbs state.

Random signed Pauli ensemble. The second example is the family of sparse Hamiltonians considered in [CDB+24], composed of random Pauli strings with random sign coefficients given by

𝑯PS=j=1mrjm𝝈jsubscript𝑯𝑃𝑆superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑟𝑗𝑚subscript𝝈𝑗\bm{H}_{PS}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\frac{r_{j}}{\sqrt{m}}\bm{\sigma}_{j}bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_m end_ARG end_ARG bold_italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where 𝝈𝝈\bm{\sigma}bold_italic_σ is a random Pauli string on n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT qubits (such that the size of Hamiltonian is n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n for n=2n0𝑛superscript2subscript𝑛0n=2^{n_{0}}italic_n = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT), each rjsubscript𝑟𝑗r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is sampled randomly from {1,1}11\{-1,1\}{ - 1 , 1 }, and m=O(n05ϵ4)𝑚𝑂superscriptsubscript𝑛05superscriptitalic-ϵ4m=O(\frac{n_{0}^{5}}{\epsilon^{4}})italic_m = italic_O ( divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) for a parameter 1ϵ2o(n0)1italic-ϵsuperscript2𝑜subscript𝑛01\geq\epsilon\geq 2^{-o(n_{0})}1 ≥ italic_ϵ ≥ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_o ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We show in Section 4.3.2 that the CKG Lindbladian has a spectral gap of Ω(ϵ3/2)Ωsuperscriptitalic-ϵ32\Omega(\epsilon^{-3/2})roman_Ω ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) when we choose M=O~(n02ϵ3)𝑀~𝑂superscriptsubscript𝑛02superscriptitalic-ϵ3M=\widetilde{O}\left(n_{0}^{2}\epsilon^{-3}\right)italic_M = over~ start_ARG italic_O end_ARG ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) unitary 1-design jumps, inverse temperature β=O(ϵ1)𝛽𝑂superscriptitalic-ϵ1\beta=O(\epsilon^{-1})italic_β = italic_O ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Hypercubes. The final example is the family of hypercubes. A hypercube with 2dsuperscript2𝑑2^{d}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT vertices and degree d𝑑ditalic_d can be interpreted as a Hamiltonian on d𝑑ditalic_d qubits i𝑿isubscript𝑖subscript𝑿𝑖\sum_{i}\bm{X}_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. At constant temperature, only an exponentially small fraction of eigenvalues lie near the minimum eigenvalue. As a result, the spectral profile implies a poor mixing time with unitary design jumps.

However, we show in Theorem 4.4 that by choosing local jumps 1d𝒁i1𝑑subscript𝒁𝑖\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\bm{Z}_{i}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_d end_ARG end_ARG bold_italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the spectral gap is 1d1𝑑\frac{1}{d}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG, yielding an efficient algorithm for Gibbs sampling. Hypercubes therefore provide an example where not graph-local jumps, but rather local jumps on the qubits, ensure fast mixing. The crucial feature of local jumps that improves mixing time is that a local jump 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on a local Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H satisfies [𝑨a,𝑯]=O(1)normsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝑯𝑂1\|{[\bm{A}^{a},\bm{H}]}\|=O(1)∥ [ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , bold_italic_H ] ∥ = italic_O ( 1 )—i.e., the jump operator only jumps between nearby eigenstates. This property is not held by graph-local jumps in general, so they displayed no improvement in the studied cases. In general, local jumps are the strongest candidates for fast-mixing on local Hamiltonians, though for which classes of local Hamiltonians fast-mixing can be achieved is still largely open.

3 Proof sketch

3.1 Graph-local jumps

The proof of the mixing time for graph-local jumps in the cyclic graph involves two steps: First, in Appendix 7.1.3, we derive a general expression for the CKG Lindbladian in the energy basis given by equation (13).

We then utilize this expression along with the fully known spectrum of the cyclic graph to show that the Lindbladian is block-diagonal in the energy basis of this graph, as demonstrated in Appendix 7.2. One of these blocks corresponds to a classical Markov chain on the diagonal entries of the state in the energy basis, for which we establish a spectral gap lower bound using the canonical path method. For the remaining n1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1 blocks, we apply the Gershgorin circle theorem to bound their eigenvalues.

3.2 Unitary design jumps

Bounded-degree systems. To establish a lower bound on the spectral gap of the Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with unitary 1111-design jumps, we consider a decomposition of the form:

β=μ+δ,subscript𝛽subscript𝜇𝛿\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\mathcal{L}_{\mu}+\delta\mathcal{L},caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ caligraphic_L , (2)

where μ=𝔼𝑨𝒟(U(n))[β]subscript𝜇subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝒟𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{D}(U(n))}[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}]caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] is the expected Lindbladian with the expectation taken over a single jump operator sampled from a unitary 1111-design distribution 𝒟(U(n))𝒟𝑈𝑛\mathcal{D}(U(n))caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ), and δ𝛿\delta\mathcal{L}italic_δ caligraphic_L represents the remainder term. Due the quadratic form of the Lindbladian given in expression (7) we see that 𝔼𝑨(U(n))[β]=𝔼𝑨𝒟(U(n))[β]subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝒟𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{H}(U(n))}[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}]=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{% A}\sim\mathcal{D}(U(n))}[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}]blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_H ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. Here, (U(n))𝑈𝑛\mathcal{H}(U(n))caligraphic_H ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) is a Haar random distribution over jump operators.

Note that a CKG Lindbladian must have jump operators in adjoint pairs, so a Lindbladian with a single jump operator will not satisfy detailed balance. However, the expected Lindbladian over one Haar random jump operator is equal to the expected Lindbladian over the adjoint pair of a Haar random jump operator, by linearity of expectation.

The proof of Theorem 2.2 proceeds by first showing that this expected Lindbladian 𝔼𝑨(U(n))[β]subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{H}(U(n))}[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}]blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_H ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] has a constant spectral gap, as long as β(n)𝑯(n)𝛽𝑛norm𝑯𝑛\beta(n)\|{\bm{H}(n)}\|italic_β ( italic_n ) ∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) ∥ is bounded by a constant as a function of system size. As before, we call such systems bounded degree, since for constant β𝛽\betaitalic_β bounded degree graphs satisfy the required property. Indeed, if such a system has degree bounded by d𝑑ditalic_d, it must have spectrum in [d,d]𝑑𝑑[-d,d][ - italic_d , italic_d ] by Gershgorin’s circle theorem, since every row consists of zeros and at most d𝑑ditalic_d ones. Adding phases to the edges of these bounded degree graphs remains feasible by a similar argument, so there is no constraint of stoquasticity.

The result is stated formally as follows:

Lemma 3.1 (Constant spectral gap of average Lindbladian for bounded degree systems).

Let β(n)1𝛽superscript𝑛1\beta(n)^{-1}italic_β ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a sequence of temperatures and 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) be a sequence of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonians such that β𝐇=O(1)𝛽norm𝐇𝑂1\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|=O(1)italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ = italic_O ( 1 ). The spectral gap of μ=𝔼𝐀𝒟(U(n))[β]subscript𝜇subscript𝔼similar-to𝐀𝒟𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{D}(U(n))}\left[\mathcal{L}_{% \beta}\right]caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], the expected CKG Lindbladian with energy resolution σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over the ensemble of one jump operator sampled from a unitary 1-design, is asymptotically Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ).

To establish Lemma 3.1, we show that for any system, the average Lindbladian over a Haar random ensemble of jump operators decomposes as μ=classical+dephasingsubscript𝜇subscriptclassicalsubscriptdephasing\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{classical}}+\mathcal{L}_{\text{dephasing}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT classical end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT dephasing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For a density matrix in the energy basis, the evolution of classicalsubscriptclassical\mathcal{L}_{\text{classical}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT classical end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a classical continuous Markov chain of the diagonal. The evolution of this classical Lindbladian maps the diagonal, in the limit, to the Gibbs distribution. The spectral gap of classicalsubscriptclassical\mathcal{L}_{\text{classical}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT classical end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be analyzed with the large suite of techniques for classical Markov chains.

Meanwhile, dephasingsubscriptdephasing\mathcal{L}_{\text{dephasing}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT dephasing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT damps the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix. In the limit as t𝑡t\to\inftyitalic_t → ∞, the state therefore converges to a classical distribution on the diagonal in the energy basis, with no off-diagonal terms, as desired. The operator dephasingsubscriptdephasing\mathcal{L}_{\text{dephasing}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT dephasing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT diagonalizes in the energy basis of density matrices, with each off-diagonal element decaying at an independent rate. It is therefore simple to analyze as well. In summary, Lemma 3.1 establishes that the λgap(μ)=min(λgap(classical),λmin(dephasing))=Ω(1)subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝜇subscript𝜆gapsubscriptclassicalsubscript𝜆minsubscriptdephasingΩ1\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\mu})=\min(\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_% {\text{classical}}),\lambda_{\text{min}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{dephasing}}))=% \Omega(1)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_min ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT classical end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT dephasing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = roman_Ω ( 1 ).

However, this result does not imply that any given jump sampled from the unitary 1-design (with its adjoint pair) would yield a gapped Lindbladian. As a result, it does not yet yield an efficient Gibbs sampling algorithm. To obtain such a result in Theorem 2.2, we demonstrate that the remainder term δ𝛿\delta\mathcal{L}italic_δ caligraphic_L in (2) has a small spectral norm when a Lindbladian is constructed from a sufficiently large number of jumps M𝑀Mitalic_M, rather than just one. In particular, a Lindbladian sampled with Θ(log(n))Θ𝑛\Theta(\log(n))roman_Θ ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ) normalized jumps from any 1-design concentrates closely to its expectation, thereby establishing a spectral gap lower bound. Since this lower bound applies to any graph at constant temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with bounded degree, it applies to the periodic lattices, path graphs, and k𝑘kitalic_k-regular graphs discussed in the previous section.

Unbounded degree systems. In the context of unbounded degree systems, 1-design unitaries can no longer, in general, achieve an algorithm that is efficient in log(n)𝑛\log(n)roman_log ( italic_n ). Indeed, μ=𝔼𝑨𝒟(U(n))[β]=classical+dephasingsubscript𝜇subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝒟𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽subscriptclassicalsubscriptdephasing\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{D}(U(n))}\left[\mathcal{L}_{% \beta}\right]=\mathcal{L}_{\text{classical}}+\mathcal{L}_{\text{dephasing}}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT classical end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT dephasing end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not necessarily have a constant spectral gap in general, as it did in the case of bounded degree systems. However, we may establish a condition on the spectrum of 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H, with which we can recover a lower bound for the spectral gap:

Lemma 3.2 (Spectral gap of average Lindbladian for unbounded systems).

Let 𝐇(n)𝐇𝑛\bm{H}(n)bold_italic_H ( italic_n ) be a sequence of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n Hamiltonians. For some C𝐶Citalic_C, let δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) be the proportion of eigenvalues λjsubscript𝜆𝑗\lambda_{j}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of 𝐇𝐇\bm{H}bold_italic_H such that β1(λjλmin)Csuperscript𝛽1subscript𝜆𝑗subscript𝜆min𝐶\beta^{-1}(\lambda_{j}-\lambda_{\text{min}})\leq Citalic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ italic_C. The spectral gap of μ=𝔼𝐀𝒟(U(n))[β]subscript𝜇subscript𝔼similar-to𝐀𝒟𝑈𝑛delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{D}(U(n))}\left[\mathcal{L}_{% \beta}\right]caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ], the expected CKG Lindbladian over the Haar random unitary ensemble of its jump operator at temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with σE=Θ(β1)subscript𝜎𝐸Θsuperscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\Theta(\beta^{-1})italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Θ ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), is asymptotically Ω(δ(n))Ω𝛿𝑛\Omega\left(\delta(n)\right)roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) ).

The lemma expresses that if λminsubscript𝜆min\lambda_{\text{min}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) of the eigenvalues, the spectral gap is at least δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ). Similarly to Theorem 2.2, using this result to obtain an efficient Gibbs sampling algorithm amounts to showing that a Lindbladian with enough independently sampled jump operators shares a similar asymptotic spectral gap to the average Lindbladian, using a concentration bound. When the average spectral gap from the above lemma is δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ), the number of jump operators to concentrate around the expectation increases to δ(n)2𝛿superscript𝑛2\delta(n)^{-2}italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, along with an overhead of log(n)log(β𝑯)2\log(n)\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|)^{2}roman_log ( italic_n ) roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This result is captured in Theorem 2.3, and results in an algorithm with runtime poly(δ(n)1,log(n),log(ϵ1))poly𝛿superscript𝑛1𝑛superscriptitalic-ϵ1\mathrm{poly}(\delta(n)^{-1},\log(n),\log(\epsilon^{-1}))roman_poly ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_log ( italic_n ) , roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) for Gibbs sampling, where ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ is the error in diamond distance. This runtime bound relies on the standing assumption in this paper that log(β𝑯)=poly(log(n))𝛽norm𝑯poly𝑛\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|)=\mathrm{poly}(\log(n))roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) = roman_poly ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ).

4 Technical details

4.1 The quantum Gibbs sampler

4.1.1 Lindbladian evolution

The recently proposed CKG quantum MCMC algorithm addresses the problem of finding thermal states by imitating natural thermodynamic processes [CKG23, CKBG23]. In this process, a system of particles evolve in contact with a thermal bath at some fixed temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Due to the interactions with the bath, the state of the system is described by a probabilistic mixture of quantum states 𝝆𝝆\bm{\rho}bold_italic_ρ. This state evolves in time, by approximation, with Markovian dissipative dynamics

d𝝆dt=β[𝝆],d𝝆d𝑡subscript𝛽delimited-[]𝝆\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{\rho}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\bm{\rho}],divide start_ARG roman_d bold_italic_ρ end_ARG start_ARG roman_d italic_t end_ARG = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ ] , (3)

given in terms of an operator βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT known as the Lindbladian. This operator involves a coherent term 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B that describes the interaction among the particles in the system. There is also a term in βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that is specified by a series of Lindblad operators 𝑳jsuperscript𝑳𝑗\bm{L}^{j}bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that drive the dissipative transitions. The dynamics of the coherent term 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B are reversible, while the dissipative transitions drive all states toward some “stationary state”. These transitions can be understood as perturbations from the bath, and as all states converge to the Gibbs state, the information of the system is leaking via these perturbations to the bath. The expression, in terms of 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B and 𝑳jsuperscript𝑳𝑗\bm{L}^{j}bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, is:

β[]=i[𝑩,]+j(𝑳j()𝑳j12{𝑳j𝑳j,}).subscript𝛽delimited-[]𝑖𝑩subscript𝑗superscript𝑳𝑗superscript𝑳𝑗12superscript𝑳𝑗superscript𝑳𝑗\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=-i[\bm{B},\cdot]+\sum_{j}\left(\bm{L}^{j}(\cdot)\bm% {L}^{j{\dagger}}-\frac{1}{2}\{\bm{L}^{j{\dagger}}\bm{L}^{j},\cdot\}\right).caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = - italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋅ } ) .

The summands 𝑳j()𝑳jsuperscript𝑳𝑗superscript𝑳𝑗\bm{L}^{j}(\cdot)\bm{L}^{j{\dagger}}bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are termed the transition part of the Lindbladian, and 12{𝑳j𝑳j,}12superscript𝑳𝑗superscript𝑳𝑗-\frac{1}{2}\{\bm{L}^{j{\dagger}}\bm{L}^{j},\cdot\}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ⋅ } are the decay part of the Lindbladian. The choice of the Lindbladian operator βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can vary depending on the precise nature of interactions between the system and the bath. However, to prepare the Gibbs (thermal) state at temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the Lindbladian should be designed to satisfy

d𝝆βdt=β[𝝆β]=0where𝝆β:=eβ𝑯/Tr(eβ𝑯),formulae-sequencedsubscript𝝆𝛽d𝑡subscript𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝝆𝛽0assignwheresubscript𝝆𝛽superscripte𝛽𝑯Trsuperscripte𝛽𝑯\displaystyle\frac{\mathrm{d}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\mathcal{L}_{% \beta}[\bm{\rho}_{\beta}]=0\quad\text{where}\quad\bm{\rho}_{\beta}:=\mathrm{e}% ^{-\beta\bm{H}}/\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{e}^{-\beta\bm{H}}),divide start_ARG roman_d bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_d italic_t end_ARG = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0 where bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β bold_italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / roman_Tr ( roman_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β bold_italic_H end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (4)

and moreover 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT should be the unique stationary state of the Lindbladian. The long-term evolution of the system under this Lindbladian, as a result, would converge to the Gibbs state of the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H at temperature 1/β1𝛽1/\beta1 / italic_β.

4.1.2 Detailed balance

To ensure that the Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges to a state 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, [CKG23] designs a Lindbladian that satisfies Kubo-Martin-Schwinger (KMS) detailed balance with respect to 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. KMS detailed balance is one of several ways of quantizing the notion of classical detailed balance for Markov chains. KMS detailed balance of βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is self-adjointness with respect to the inner product

σ1,σ2ρβ1=Tr(σ1𝝆β1/2σ2𝝆β1/2).subscriptsubscript𝜎1subscript𝜎2superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1Trsuperscriptsubscript𝜎1superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝜎2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\langle\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}=\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma_{1}% ^{\dagger}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}\sigma_{2}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}).⟨ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . (KMS Inner Product)

In particular, it is equivalent to the relation that

β[]=𝝆β1/2β[𝝆β1/2()𝝆β1/2]𝝆β1/2subscript𝛽delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝛽delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger% }\left[\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}(\cdot)\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}\right]\bm{\rho}% _{\beta}^{1/2}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (Detailed Balance)

where βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the adjoint Lindbladian with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product σ1,σ2=Tr(σ1σ2)subscript𝜎1subscript𝜎2Trsuperscriptsubscript𝜎1subscript𝜎2\langle\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}\rangle=\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma_{1}^{\dagger}\sigma_{2})⟨ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = roman_Tr ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). The adjoint operator βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, in the Heisenberg picture, describes the dynamics of observables under evolution by βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The Lindbladian evolution is described by some quantum channel and therefore the observable I𝐼Iitalic_I must always be fixed by exp(β)superscriptsubscript𝛽\exp(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger})roman_exp ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). This implies that β[I]=0superscriptsubscript𝛽delimited-[]𝐼0\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}[I]=0caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ italic_I ] = 0. The detailed balance formula thereby implies that β[𝝆β]=0subscript𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝝆𝛽0\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\bm{\rho}_{\beta}]=0caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0, as desired. Note that KMS detailed balance can be dually described as the self-adjointness of βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with respect to the inner product σ1,σ2ρβ=Tr(σ1𝝆β1/2σ2𝝆β1/2)subscriptsubscript𝜎1subscript𝜎2subscript𝜌𝛽Trsuperscriptsubscript𝜎1superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝜎2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\langle\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}}=\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma_{1}^{% \dagger}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\sigma_{2}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2})⟨ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

4.1.3 Construction and parameters

The quantum Gibbs sampler in [CKG23] constructs a Lindbladian that satisfies the following two properties:

  1. 1.

    βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies detailed balance with respect to 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and therefore β[𝝆β]=0subscript𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝝆𝛽0\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\bm{\rho}_{\beta}]=0caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0.

  2. 2.

    The dynamics of βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be efficiently implemented.

Their Lindbladian, which we term the CKG Lindbladian, can be simulated on a quantum computer with a cost per unit time t=1𝑡1t=1italic_t = 1 roughly equal to that of simulating the Hamiltonian dynamics of 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H. The CKG Lindbladian is closely related to the Davies generator, which is a physically motivated Lindbladian that satisfies detailed balance, but that is not efficiently implementable in general. A full description of both Lindbladians are given in the Appendix.

The Gibbs sampling algorithm evolves an initial state 𝝆0subscript𝝆0\bm{\rho}_{0}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT according to the efficiently implemented Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and produces the state

𝝆t=eβt[𝝆0]subscript𝝆𝑡superscript𝑒subscript𝛽𝑡delimited-[]subscript𝝆0\bm{\rho}_{t}=e^{\mathcal{L}_{\beta}t}[\bm{\rho}_{0}]bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]

after time period t𝑡titalic_t. The mixing time is roughly the time that it takes for the state 𝝆tsubscript𝝆𝑡\bm{\rho}_{t}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to approach the Gibbs state 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. That is,

eβtmix[𝝆0]𝝆β.superscriptesubscript𝛽subscript𝑡mixdelimited-[]subscript𝝆0subscript𝝆𝛽\displaystyle\mathrm{e}^{\mathcal{L}_{\beta}t_{\text{mix}}}[\bm{\rho}_{0}]% \approx\bm{\rho}_{\beta}.roman_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT mix end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ≈ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (5)

The efficiency of the algorithm therefore scales linearly with the unit time simulation cost and the mixing time. The algorithm has several parameters in the Lindbladian’s construction. In addition to the inverse temperature β𝛽\betaitalic_β, the algorithm specifies an energy resolution σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. A salient feature of [CKG23]’s construction is that it can achieve detailed balance even though the algorithm only probes the energies of the Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H with approximate precision. σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT quantifies this level of precision. The cost of the Lindbladian simulation depends linearly on σE1superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸1\sigma_{E}^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, but increasing the precision may also improve the mixing time. Taking σE0subscript𝜎𝐸0\sigma_{E}\rightarrow 0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 for absolute precision recovers the Davies generator—when distinguishing the energies of the system exactly is infeasible, this Lindbladian cannot be simulated efficiently.

A set of jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must also be specified for the Lindbladian. These operators are decomposed by frequency and reassembled in a particular way to construct the Lindblad operators that help βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfy detailed balance. They must appear in adjoint pairs: i.e., if 𝑨{𝑨a}𝑨superscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}\in\{\bm{A}^{a}\}bold_italic_A ∈ { bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }, then 𝑨{𝑨a}superscript𝑨superscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{\dagger}\in\{\bm{A}^{a}\}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ { bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }. The cost of simulation scales with the cost of implementing the oracle \keta\keta𝑨a\ket𝑎tensor-product\ket𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎\ket{a}\rightarrow\ket{a}\otimes\bm{A}^{a}italic_a → italic_a ⊗ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In particular, the jump operators must be normalized when implemented for the algorithm, satisfying a𝑨a𝑨a1subscript𝑎normsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎1\sum_{a}\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|\leq 1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≤ 1. CKG Lindbladians are linear in their jump operators—if 1subscript1\mathcal{L}_{1}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has one jump operator 𝑨1superscript𝑨1\bm{A}^{1}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 2subscript2\mathcal{L}_{2}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has one jump operator 𝑨2superscript𝑨2\bm{A}^{2}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then a Lindbladian \mathcal{L}caligraphic_L with jump operators 𝑨1superscript𝑨1\bm{A}^{1}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝑨2superscript𝑨2\bm{A}^{2}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies =1+2subscript1subscript2\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{1}+\mathcal{L}_{2}caligraphic_L = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT was constructed from jumps 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then jump operators s𝑨a𝑠superscript𝑨𝑎\sqrt{s}\bm{A}^{a}square-root start_ARG italic_s end_ARG bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT produce the Lindbladian sβ𝑠subscript𝛽s\mathcal{L}_{\beta}italic_s caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, scaling the mixing time by s𝑠sitalic_s. So we may therefore assume that a𝑨a𝑨a=1subscript𝑎normsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎1\sum_{a}\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|=1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ = 1 exactly, since renormalizing can only improve the spectral gap. In its normalized form, the set of jump operators can be understood as a jumping distribution over 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which we will notate a𝒜similar-to𝑎𝒜a\sim\mathcal{A}italic_a ∼ caligraphic_A, where each is sampled with probability 𝑨a𝑨anormsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥.

4.2 Spectral gap

Since the quantum MCMC algorithm was proposed recently, numerical and analytic characterizations of algorithm are limited. As for classical Markov chains, it has been shown that the mixing time of the algorithm can be characterized by the spectral gap λgap(β)subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of the Lindbladian. If the first eigenvalue λ1=0subscript𝜆10\lambda_{1}=0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 corresponds to eigenvector ρβsubscript𝜌𝛽\rho_{\beta}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then the spectral gap is λgap(β)=minj>1|λj|subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽subscript𝑗1subscript𝜆𝑗\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})=\min_{j>1}|\lambda_{j}|italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j > 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | [CKG23]. Lindbladians are in general negative semidefinite like classical Markov chain generators, so λgap(β)=minj(λj)subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽subscript𝑗subscript𝜆j\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})=\min_{j}(-\lambda_{\text{j}})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). More precisely, it holds that

Ω(1)λgap(β)tmix()log(ρβ1/2)λgap(β)𝒪(β𝑯+log(dim(𝑯)))λgap(β).Ω1subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽subscript𝑡mixnormsuperscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽12subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽𝒪𝛽norm𝑯dim𝑯subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝛽\displaystyle\frac{\Omega(1)}{\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})}\leq t% _{\text{mix}}(\mathcal{L})\leq\frac{\log\left(\left\|\rho_{\beta}^{-1/2}\right% \|\right)}{\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{\beta})}\leq\frac{\mathcal{O}(% \beta\|{\bm{H}}\|+\log(\text{dim}(\bm{H})))}{\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_% {\beta})}.divide start_ARG roman_Ω ( 1 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≤ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT mix end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L ) ≤ divide start_ARG roman_log ( ∥ italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG caligraphic_O ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ + roman_log ( dim ( bold_italic_H ) ) ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG . (6)

In particular, analytically bounding this spectral gap from below is sufficient for obtaining an upper bound on the mixing time. For so-called rapid mixing, in which the mixing time is logarithmic in the number of qubits, the spectral gap bound often does not suffice. For our purposes of proving efficiency in the number of qubits, however, this issue is moot.

4.3 Unbounded degree systems

In this section, we further explore and prove efficient Gibbs sampling results for certain classes of unbounded degree sparse Hamiltonians.

4.3.1 Random log(𝐧)𝐧\mathbf{(n)}( bold_n )-regular graphs

With high probability at constant temperature, a randomly selected d=log(n)𝑑𝑛d=\log(n)italic_d = roman_log ( italic_n )-regular graph, with poly(d)poly𝑑\mathrm{poly}(d)roman_poly ( italic_d ) random 1-design jumps, has a Lindbladian spectral gap of Ω(d3/4)Ωsuperscript𝑑34\Omega(d^{-3/4})roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). This gives a polynomial algorithm to prepare the Gibbs state for most such graphs at constant temperature.

The gap of Ω(d3/4)Ωsuperscript𝑑34\Omega(d^{-3/4})roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) arises because a random d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graph, for d𝑑d\to\inftyitalic_d → ∞, has one eigenvalue at d𝑑ditalic_d and the rest distributed from 2d12𝑑1-2\sqrt{d-1}- 2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG to 2d12𝑑12\sqrt{d-1}2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG in a distribution that converges to a (normalized) semicircle. This semicircular distribution frequently appears in random matrix theory, for instance in the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE), which models the spectrum of many chaotic quantum systems. When the spectrum of a quantum system indeed follows this distribution, it implies that δ(n)=Ω(d3/4)𝛿𝑛Ωsuperscript𝑑34\delta(n)=\Omega(d^{-3/4})italic_δ ( italic_n ) = roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the eigenvalues lie within a constant of the minimum eigenvalue.

Theorem 4.1.

With any constant probability 1ξ1𝜉1-\xi1 - italic_ξ, for a randomly selected d=log(n)𝑑𝑛d=\log(n)italic_d = roman_log ( italic_n )-regular graph, there are δ=Ω(d3/4)𝛿Ωsuperscript𝑑34\delta=\Omega(d^{-3/4})italic_δ = roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) eigenvalues within O(1)𝑂1O(1)italic_O ( 1 ) of the minimum eigenvalue.

As an immediate result of Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 2.3, we obtain an algorithm polynomial in d𝑑ditalic_d to prepare the Gibbs state of a d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graph. To prove the corollary, we use Theorem 2 in [DP12]. For this context, the following statement suffices.

Theorem 4.2.

Let degree d=log(n)𝑑𝑛d=\log(n)italic_d = roman_log ( italic_n ). For sufficiently large n𝑛nitalic_n, there exists some D>0𝐷0D>0italic_D > 0 such that for any interval I𝐼I\subset\mathbb{R}italic_I ⊂ blackboard_R, 0<α<10𝛼10<\alpha<10 < italic_α < 1, and 0<ϵ<α0italic-ϵ𝛼0<\epsilon<\alpha0 < italic_ϵ < italic_α such that |I|>Ddα+ϵ𝐼𝐷superscript𝑑𝛼italic-ϵ|I|>Dd^{-\alpha+\epsilon}| italic_I | > italic_D italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_α + italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with probability 1o(n1)1𝑜superscript𝑛11-o(n^{-1})1 - italic_o ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) over all random d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graphs,

|δ(n)μ|<dϵ|I|,𝛿𝑛𝜇superscript𝑑italic-ϵ𝐼\left|\delta(n)-\mu\right|<d^{-\epsilon}|I|,| italic_δ ( italic_n ) - italic_μ | < italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_I | ,

where μ=Iρsc(x)𝑑x𝜇subscript𝐼subscript𝜌𝑠𝑐𝑥differential-d𝑥\mu=\int_{I}\rho_{sc}(x)dxitalic_μ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x and δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) is the fraction of eigenvalues of the d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graph in Id1𝐼𝑑1I\sqrt{d-1}italic_I square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG.

In the above, ρscsubscript𝜌𝑠𝑐\rho_{sc}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the asymptotic distribution as d𝑑d\to\inftyitalic_d → ∞ of a random d𝑑ditalic_d-regular graph is the semicircular distribution with radius 2d12𝑑12\sqrt{d-1}2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG:

ρsc(x)=12π(d1)4(d1)x2.subscript𝜌𝑠𝑐𝑥12𝜋𝑑14𝑑1superscript𝑥2\rho_{sc}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi(d-1)}\sqrt{4(d-1)-x^{2}}.italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π ( italic_d - 1 ) end_ARG square-root start_ARG 4 ( italic_d - 1 ) - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

We may now prove Theorem 4.1:

Proof.

Writing T=2d1𝑇2𝑑1T=-2\sqrt{d-1}italic_T = - 2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG, we calculate the mass of ρscsubscript𝜌𝑠𝑐\rho_{sc}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from T𝑇Titalic_T to T+C𝑇𝐶T+Citalic_T + italic_C:

μ=TT+Cρsc(x)𝑑x𝜇superscriptsubscript𝑇𝑇𝐶subscript𝜌𝑠𝑐𝑥differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\mu=\int_{T}^{T+C}\rho_{sc}(x)dxitalic_μ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T + italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) italic_d italic_x TT+C4(d1)x22π(d1)𝑑xabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑇𝑇𝐶4𝑑1superscript𝑥22𝜋𝑑1differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\leq\int_{T}^{T+C}\frac{\sqrt{4(d-1)-x^{2}}}{2\pi(d-1)}dx≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T + italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 4 ( italic_d - 1 ) - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π ( italic_d - 1 ) end_ARG italic_d italic_x
TT+C4(d1)x22π(d1)𝑑xabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝑇𝑇𝐶4𝑑1superscript𝑥22𝜋𝑑1differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\leq\int_{T}^{T+C}\frac{\sqrt{4(d-1)-x^{2}}}{2\pi(d-1)}dx≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T + italic_C end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 4 ( italic_d - 1 ) - italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π ( italic_d - 1 ) end_ARG italic_d italic_x
=Ω(d3/4).absentΩsuperscript𝑑34\displaystyle=\Omega(d^{-3/4}).= roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

The C𝐶Citalic_C above is some positive constant, for which we now try to bound the fraction of eigenvalues δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) within C𝐶Citalic_C of the minimum eigenvalue. The final equality holds because the first ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ fraction of a semicircle has mass ϵ3/2similar-toabsentsuperscriptitalic-ϵ32\sim\epsilon^{3/2}∼ italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and in this case the circle has radius 2d12𝑑12\sqrt{d-1}2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG, and we integrate a fraction of size C2d1=Θ(d1/2)𝐶2𝑑1Θsuperscript𝑑12\frac{C}{2\sqrt{d-1}}=\Theta(d^{-1/2})divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG end_ARG = roman_Θ ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

We now apply Theorem 4.2 for the interval I=[2,2+C2d1]𝐼22𝐶2𝑑1I=[-2,-2+\frac{C}{2\sqrt{d-1}}]italic_I = [ - 2 , - 2 + divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG end_ARG ] choosing α=1112𝛼1112\alpha=\frac{11}{12}italic_α = divide start_ARG 11 end_ARG start_ARG 12 end_ARG and ϵ=13italic-ϵ13\epsilon=\frac{1}{3}italic_ϵ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 3 end_ARG. Since the length of I𝐼Iitalic_I is C2d1𝐶2𝑑1\frac{C}{2\sqrt{d-1}}divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_d - 1 end_ARG end_ARG, we have that

|I|>Ddα+ϵlog(d)=Dd7/12log(d)𝐼𝐷superscript𝑑𝛼italic-ϵ𝑑𝐷superscript𝑑712𝑑|I|>Dd^{-\alpha+\epsilon}\log(d)=Dd^{-7/12}\log(d)| italic_I | > italic_D italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_α + italic_ϵ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( italic_d ) = italic_D italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 7 / 12 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( italic_d )

for some D>0𝐷0D>0italic_D > 0 and sufficiently large d𝑑ditalic_d. The theorem therefore applies that with probability 1o(n1)1𝑜superscript𝑛11-o(n^{-1})1 - italic_o ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), implying that |δ(n)μ|<d1/3|I|=O(d5/6)=o(d3/4)𝛿𝑛𝜇superscript𝑑13𝐼𝑂superscript𝑑56𝑜superscript𝑑34|\delta(n)-\mu|<d^{-1/3}|I|=O(d^{-5/6})=o(d^{-3/4})| italic_δ ( italic_n ) - italic_μ | < italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_I | = italic_O ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 / 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_o ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Since μ=Ω(d3/4)𝜇Ωsuperscript𝑑34\mu=\Omega(d^{-3/4})italic_μ = roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), we conclude that δ(n)=Ω(d3/4)𝛿𝑛Ωsuperscript𝑑34\delta(n)=\Omega(d^{-3/4})italic_δ ( italic_n ) = roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). ∎

4.3.2 Pauli String Ensemble

We now mention another ensemble of Hamiltonians studied by [CDB+24] in the context of low-energy state preparation.

In [CDB+24], efficient low energy state preparation with phase estimation is demonstrated under the same conditions as our efficient Gibbs sampling in Theorem 2.3. Indeed, if many eigenvectors are close to the ground state energy, as we require, then performing phase estimation on the maximally mixed state has a high probability of measuring a low-energy state, so low-energy state preparation is possible as well. They study the following ensemble of Hamiltonians on n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT qubits:

𝑯PS=j=1mrjm𝝈jsubscript𝑯𝑃𝑆superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑟𝑗𝑚subscript𝝈𝑗\bm{H}_{PS}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\frac{r_{j}}{\sqrt{m}}\bm{\sigma}_{j}bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_m end_ARG end_ARG bold_italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where 𝝈𝝈\bm{\sigma}bold_italic_σ is a random Pauli string on n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT qubits, each rjsubscript𝑟𝑗r_{j}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is sampled randomly from {1,1}11\{-1,1\}{ - 1 , 1 }, and m=c2n05ϵ4𝑚subscript𝑐2superscriptsubscript𝑛05superscriptitalic-ϵ4m=\left\lfloor{c_{2}\frac{n_{0}^{5}}{\epsilon^{4}}}\right\rflooritalic_m = ⌊ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ⌋. The parameter ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ satisfies ϵ2n0/c1italic-ϵsuperscript2subscript𝑛0subscript𝑐1\epsilon\geq 2^{-n_{0}/c_{1}}italic_ϵ ≥ 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and c1,c2subscript𝑐1subscript𝑐2c_{1},c_{2}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are absolute constants. The resulting spectrum is again close enough to a semicircular distribution to obtain an efficient Gibbs sampler for certain temperatures that depend on ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ. As ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ decreases, Gibbs sampling becomes efficient for even larger values of β𝛽\betaitalic_β (lower temperatures), since the ensemble’s spectrum converges closer to a perfect semicircular distribution at the edge of the spectrum.

Using the results in their paper, we establish that Gibbs sampling is efficient in n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for certain values of ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ and corresponding temperatures β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Theorem 4.3.

Say that 𝐇(n0)𝐇subscript𝑛0\bm{H}(n_{0})bold_italic_H ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is sampled from the ensemble 𝐇PSsubscript𝐇𝑃𝑆\bm{H}_{PS}bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT qubits, with ϵ=2o(n0)italic-ϵsuperscript2𝑜subscript𝑛0\epsilon=2^{-o(n_{0})}italic_ϵ = 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_o ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ϵ1italic-ϵ1\epsilon\leq 1italic_ϵ ≤ 1. With any constant probability 1ξ1𝜉1-\xi1 - italic_ξ, for sufficiently large n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, δ=Ω(ϵ3/2)𝛿Ωsuperscriptitalic-ϵ32\delta=\Omega(\epsilon^{3/2})italic_δ = roman_Ω ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) fraction of the eigenvalues lie within O(ϵ)𝑂italic-ϵO(\epsilon)italic_O ( italic_ϵ ) of the minimum eigenvalue.

Proof.

We utilize two results from [CDB+24]. Firstly, they argue that Pr[𝑯(n0)2(1+ϵ)]exp(c2n0)Prnorm𝑯subscript𝑛021italic-ϵsubscript𝑐2subscript𝑛0\Pr[\|{\bm{H}(n_{0})}\|\geq 2(1+\epsilon)]\leq\exp(-c_{2}n_{0})roman_Pr [ ∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ ≥ 2 ( 1 + italic_ϵ ) ] ≤ roman_exp ( - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) when mn03ϵ4𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑛03superscriptitalic-ϵ4m\geq\frac{n_{0}^{3}}{\epsilon^{4}}italic_m ≥ divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, which is satisfied in this case. With an arbitrary constant probability for sufficiently large n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, therefore, 𝑯(n0)4norm𝑯subscript𝑛04\|{\bm{H}(n_{0})}\|\leq 4∥ bold_italic_H ( italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∥ ≤ 4, since ϵ1italic-ϵ1\epsilon\leq 1italic_ϵ ≤ 1. The second result is that with probability 1exp(c3n01/3)1subscript𝑐3superscriptsubscript𝑛0131-\exp(-c_{3}n_{0}^{1/3})1 - roman_exp ( - italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), at least Ω(ϵ3/2)Ωsuperscriptitalic-ϵ32\Omega(\epsilon^{3/2})roman_Ω ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the eigenvalues satisfy λi(1ϵ)λminsubscript𝜆𝑖1italic-ϵsubscript𝜆min\lambda_{i}\leq(1-\epsilon)\lambda_{\text{min}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ( 1 - italic_ϵ ) italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT where c3subscript𝑐3c_{3}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an absolute constant. With any large constant probability, we therefore have that

|λiλmin|ϵλmin4ϵ=O(ϵ)subscript𝜆𝑖subscript𝜆minitalic-ϵsubscript𝜆min4italic-ϵ𝑂italic-ϵ|\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{\text{min}}|\leq\epsilon\lambda_{\text{min}}\leq 4% \epsilon=O(\epsilon)| italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ italic_ϵ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 4 italic_ϵ = italic_O ( italic_ϵ )

for Ω(ϵ3/2)Ωsuperscriptitalic-ϵ32\Omega(\epsilon^{-3/2})roman_Ω ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the eigenvalues. ∎

By Theorem 2.3, we obtain a Gibbs sampling algorithm that is poly(ϵ1,n0)polysuperscriptitalic-ϵ1subscript𝑛0\mathrm{poly}(\epsilon^{-1},n_{0})roman_poly ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) to prepare the Gibbs state at inverse temperature ϵ1superscriptitalic-ϵ1\epsilon^{-1}italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We may rephrase this result in terms of β𝛽\betaitalic_β. For any polynomially large β𝛽\betaitalic_β, it provides a Pauli string ensemble of Hamiltonians, HPSsubscript𝐻𝑃𝑆H_{PS}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P italic_S end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ϵ=β1italic-ϵsuperscript𝛽1\epsilon=\beta^{-1}italic_ϵ = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, for which with high likelihood preparing the Gibbs state is efficient in n0subscript𝑛0n_{0}italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, assuming access to a block-encoding of the Hamiltonian of interest.

4.3.3 Hypercube graphs

For hypercube with varying dimension at a constant temperature, using unitary 1-design jumps would yield an exponentially large runtime. The spectrum of a hypercube with dimension d𝑑ditalic_d and 2dsuperscript2𝑑2^{d}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT vertices consists of the integers d,d+2,d2,d𝑑𝑑2𝑑2𝑑-d,-d+2\dots,d-2,d- italic_d , - italic_d + 2 … , italic_d - 2 , italic_d. The eigenvalue j𝑗jitalic_j has multiplicity (dd+j2)binomial𝑑𝑑𝑗2\binom{d}{\frac{d+j}{2}}( FRACOP start_ARG italic_d end_ARG start_ARG divide start_ARG italic_d + italic_j end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG ). In particular, for any constant C𝐶Citalic_C, only an exponentially small fraction of the eigenvalues δ(d)𝛿𝑑\delta(d)italic_δ ( italic_d ) lie below d+C𝑑𝐶-d+C- italic_d + italic_C. This leads to a naive algorithm with at worst exponential complexity in d𝑑ditalic_d.

However, a better result can be obtained by considering the hypercube as a system of d𝑑ditalic_d qubits. The graph with dimension d𝑑ditalic_d has 2dsuperscript2𝑑2^{d}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT vertices, which can be considered length d𝑑ditalic_d bitstrings. With this representation, the adjacency matrix is then the sum of Pauli X𝑋Xitalic_X operators on each qubit, i=1dXisuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑑subscript𝑋𝑖\sum_{i=1}^{d}X_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, since the hypercube has an edge between any two bitstrings of Hamming distance 1. Choosing d𝑑ditalic_d jump operators as 1dZa1𝑑subscript𝑍𝑎\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}Z_{a}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_d end_ARG end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the mixing time can therefore be improved to poly(d,log(ϵ1))poly𝑑superscriptitalic-ϵ1\mathrm{poly}(d,\log(\epsilon^{-1}))roman_poly ( italic_d , roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ):

Theorem 4.4 (Spectral Gap for Hypercube with Local Jumps).

For fixed β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, there exists some energy resolution σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that the spectral gap of the CKG Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for a d𝑑ditalic_d-dimensional hypercube with jump operators 𝐀a=1dZasuperscript𝐀𝑎1𝑑subscript𝑍𝑎\bm{A}^{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}Z_{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_d end_ARG end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, is asymptotically Ω(d1)Ωsuperscript𝑑1\Omega(d^{-1})roman_Ω ( italic_d start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

In the case of the hypercube, the local jump operators 1dZi1𝑑subscript𝑍𝑖\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}Z_{i}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_d end_ARG end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT only jump between eigenstates whose eigenvalues differ by 1. This vastly improves the performance of the classical Markov chain and dephasing Markov chain within the Lindbladian. However, the Lindbladian does not consist only of these two terms, as it did in the limit of independently sampled 1-design jumps. Off-diagonal terms do exist, and the presence of Zasubscript𝑍𝑎Z_{a}italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for every index is necessary to ensure that these off-diagonal terms do not completely eliminate the spectral gap. In some way, there must be “enough uncorrelated” local energy jumps to dampen these off-diagonal terms. For more complicated local Hamiltonians, it is not clear what the corresponding constraint the jump operators might be to guarantee fast mixing. However, in general the choice of jump operators for local Hamiltonians seems to include a compromise between locality and suppression of correlations.

5 Connection to previous work

Our results show that for a Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H with temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that some δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) fraction of the eigenstates are within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the ground state energy, the CKG quantum Gibbs sampler with 1-design jumps efficiently prepares the Gibbs state with diamond distance error at most ϵitalic-ϵ\epsilonitalic_ϵ. The running time scales polynomially with δ(n)1𝛿superscript𝑛1\delta(n)^{-1}italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, β𝑯𝛽norm𝑯\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥, log(ϵ1)superscriptitalic-ϵ1\log(\epsilon^{-1})roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and the complexity of the block encoding of 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H.

This result is a baseline test that shows the CKG algorithm performs as well as other methods for preparing low-energy states of Hamiltonians. Indeed our spectral condition is precisely the same as a condition that ensures easy quantum phase estimation of a near-ground state. Namely, performing quantum phase estimation on the maximally mixed state can prepare a random eigenstate with its measured energy, and with probability δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) it must be within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the minimum eigenvalue. Obtaining O(δ(n)1)𝑂𝛿superscript𝑛1O(\delta(n)^{-1})italic_O ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) samples and taking the minimum energy can therefore prepare a near ground-state eigenvector. This approach is the basis of the previous analysis of random sparse Hamiltonians in [CDB+24].

Moreover, in [CS17], a quantum algorithm is presented that prepares the Gibbs state with a complexity that scales as poly(n𝒵(β),log(ϵ1))poly𝑛𝒵𝛽superscriptitalic-ϵ1\mathrm{poly}(\frac{n}{\mathcal{Z}(\beta)},\log(\epsilon^{-1}))roman_poly ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG caligraphic_Z ( italic_β ) end_ARG , roman_log ( italic_ϵ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ). If δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) of the eigenstates are within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of the ground state energy, then n𝒵(β)=Ω(δ(n)1)𝑛𝒵𝛽Ω𝛿superscript𝑛1\frac{n}{\mathcal{Z}(\beta)}=\Omega(\delta(n)^{-1})divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG caligraphic_Z ( italic_β ) end_ARG = roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and therefore under such conditions, this algorithm efficiently prepares the Gibbs states as well. Effectively, the CKG Gibbs sampler with “generic” 1-design jumps performs the same as previously developed algorithms—a potential advantage in cooling must arise from a smart (i.e., local and unbiased) choice of jump operators.

Finally, our conditions on the spectrum and the structure of random unitary design jumps resemble previous works on chaotic Hamiltonians that apply the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH) to prove the fast mixing of dissipative dynamics [CB21, DCL24]. In particular, in [CB21], the proposed algorithm implements a “rounded” Davies generator, yielding a physical Lindbladian that block-diagonalizes into components consisting of small-energy transitions. They propose their own version of ETH that relies on jump operators, for small Bohr frequencies ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω, having independent Gaussian-distributed entries. The assumption that these entries are independent for the result is very strong, allowing them to conclude that their jump operators are both local and that distinct energy transitions are completely uncorrelated.

Our work shows fast mixing unconditionally for quantumly easy Hamiltonians, replacing these local jumps and ETH assumption for the rounded Davies generator with 1-design jump operators for the newer CKG Lindbladian. A similar ETH assumption to [CB21] would also yield fast-mixing for the CKG Lindbladian with local jumps, but more generally some approach must be taken to characterize how correlations induced by implementing local jumps (in contrast with 1-design jump operators) can be mitigated to ensure fast-mixing for certain local Hamiltonians.

It is an interesting future direction to extend our analysis to unconditionally establish fast mixing of chaotic Hamiltonians such as the SYK model [SY93, Kit15a, Kit15b] under the CKG Lindbladian.

6 Acknowledgments

We thank Jiaoyang Huang, Luca Nashabeh, John Preskill, and Yongtao Zhan for valuable discussions. We are grateful to Chi-Fang Chen for insightful discussions and proposing this project in its early stages. MS is supported by AWS Quantum Postdoctoral Scholarship and funding from the National Science Foundation NSF CAREER award CCF-2048204. Institute for Quantum Information and Matter is an NSF Physics Frontiers Center. AR acknowledges the Caltech SURF program and Zhuang Tang and Gebing Yi for their generous support.

7 Appendix

7.1 Preliminaries

We begin with a description of the Davies generator, which is the limit of the CKG Lindbladian as σE0subscript𝜎𝐸0\sigma_{E}\to 0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0. This generator was developed from a physical approximation of an open thermalizing quantum system, but at low temperatures it is unphysical, and as a result in general it is hard to implement. We then proceed to generalize the notions to the efficiently implementable CKG Lindbladian.

7.1.1 Davies generator

In the description of the Davies generator for a given system 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H, there is a coherent term and there are Lindblad operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT terms must appear in adjoint pairs in the construction of the Davies generator. The dissipative part of the Lindbladian is expressed as follows:

β[]=a[M]γ(ω)(𝑨ωa()𝑨ω12{𝑨ω𝑨ω,})𝑑ω,subscript𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝜔superscriptsubscript𝑨𝜔12superscriptsubscript𝑨𝜔subscript𝑨𝜔differential-d𝜔\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}% \gamma(\omega)\left(\bm{A}^{a}_{\omega}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\omega}^{\dagger}-\frac{% 1}{2}\{\bm{A}_{\omega}^{\dagger}\bm{A}_{\omega},\cdot\}\right)d\omega,caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋅ } ) italic_d italic_ω , (7)

where 𝑨ωasubscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝜔\bm{A}^{a}_{\omega}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the Operator Fourier Transform (OFT) of jump operator 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝑨ωa=12πei𝑯t𝑨aei𝑯teiωt𝑑t.subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝜔12𝜋superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡superscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡differential-d𝑡\bm{A}^{a}_{\omega}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\bm{H}t}% \bm{A}^{a}e^{-i\bm{H}t}e^{-i\omega t}dt.bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t .

The Davies’ generator chooses Lindblad operators γ(ω)𝑨ωa𝛾𝜔subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝜔\sqrt{\gamma(\omega)}\bm{A}^{a}_{\omega}square-root start_ARG italic_γ ( italic_ω ) end_ARG bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, each of which selects the energy transitions, or Bohr frequencies, in 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are precisely ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω. Because it requires certainty in energy, by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle of energy and time, in the general case simulating the evolution of the Davies generator efficiently is infeasible. In the above, γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ is some function satisfying γ(ω)=γ(ω)=eβωγ(ω)𝛾𝜔𝛾𝜔superscript𝑒𝛽𝜔𝛾𝜔\gamma(\omega)=\gamma(\omega)=e^{-\beta\omega}\gamma(-\omega)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( - italic_ω ). The Lindblad operators are scaled by γ(ω)𝛾𝜔\gamma(\omega)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) precisely to satisfy KMS detailed balance. Since Aωasubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝜔A^{a}_{\omega}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT represents jumps with Bohr frequency ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω, the functional equation of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ ensures a desired ratio of jumps with Bohr frequency ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω and ω𝜔-\omega- italic_ω. We choose the Metropolis filter, γ(ω)=min(1,eβω)𝛾𝜔1superscript𝑒𝛽𝜔\gamma(\omega)=\min(1,e^{-\beta\omega})italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = roman_min ( 1 , italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), though another common filter γ(ω)=11+eβω𝛾𝜔11superscript𝑒𝛽𝜔\gamma(\omega)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-\beta\omega}}italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_β italic_ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG for “Glauber dynamics” could also be used for the same results.

The Davies generator satisfies detailed balance with respect to 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the thermal state. In some presentations of the Davies generator, it contains a coherent term i[𝑯,]𝑖𝑯-i[\bm{H},\cdot]- italic_i [ bold_italic_H , ⋅ ]. If this term is included, the generator does not satisfy detailed balance, so we do not follow this convention. However, the term does not affect the fixed point of the generator, since 𝝆βsubscript𝝆𝛽\bm{\rho}_{\beta}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT commutes with 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H and therefore i[𝑯,𝝆β]=0𝑖𝑯subscript𝝆𝛽0-i[\bm{H},\bm{\rho}_{\beta}]=0- italic_i [ bold_italic_H , bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0.

7.1.2 CKG Lindbladian

The CKG Lindbladian is defined almost identically to the Davies generator, but is altered slightly so that it still obeys detailed balance, but is efficiently implementable.

β[]=i[𝑩,]coherent term+a[M]γ(ω)(𝑨^a(ω)()𝑨^a(ω)transition term12{𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω),}decay term)𝑑ω,subscript𝛽delimited-[]subscript𝑖𝑩coherent termsubscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsuperscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔transition termsubscript12superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔decay termdifferential-d𝜔\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=\underbrace{-i[\bm{B},\cdot]}_{\text{coherent term}% }+\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(\underbrace{\hat{% \bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)(\cdot)\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}}_{\text{% transition term}}-\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\{\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}% \hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega),\cdot\}}_{\text{decay term}}\right)d\omega,caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = under⏟ start_ARG - italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT coherent term end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( under⏟ start_ARG over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT transition term end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - under⏟ start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) , ⋅ } end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT decay term end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω ,

where 𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) is now the Gaussian-supported OFT of jump operator 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

𝑨^a(ω)=12πei𝑯t𝑨aei𝑯teiωtf(t)𝑑t.superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔12𝜋superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡superscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡𝑓𝑡differential-d𝑡\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\bm{H% }t}\bm{A}^{a}e^{-i\bm{H}t}e^{-i\omega t}f(t)dt.over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t .

To ensure that the jump operators do not have infinite precision in energy, a Gaussian supported OFT is performed instead to obtain 𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ), which selects a Gaussian band energies of around ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω.

Here, f(t)=eσE2t2σE2/π𝑓𝑡superscript𝑒superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2superscript𝑡2subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋f(t)=e^{-\sigma_{E}^{2}t^{2}}\sqrt{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2/\pi}}italic_f ( italic_t ) = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 / italic_π end_ARG end_ARG, with Fourier transform f^(ω)=1σE2πexp(ω24σE2)^𝑓𝜔1subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscript𝜔24superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\hat{f}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}}\exp(-\frac{\omega^{2}}{% 4\sigma_{E}^{2}})over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG italic_ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ). As a result, the operator 𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) can be shown to be equal to νf^(ων)𝑨νasubscript𝜈^𝑓𝜔𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝜈\sum_{\nu}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu)\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The function f(t)𝑓𝑡f(t)italic_f ( italic_t ) was chosen so that its squared Fourier transform f^2(ω)superscript^𝑓2𝜔\hat{f}^{2}(\omega)over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) is a Gaussian with standard deviation σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which features prominently in the Lindbladian (since it consists of quadratic terms in 𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω )). Taking σE=Θ(β1)subscript𝜎𝐸Θsuperscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\Theta(\beta^{-1})italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Θ ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) yields an efficient simulation algorithm with the assumption of a block-encoding of 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H and a block-encoding for the jump operators a[M]\keta𝑨asubscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀tensor-product\ket𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎\sum_{a\in[M]}\ket{a}\otimes\bm{A}^{a}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ⊗ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, so σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is taken to be on the order of β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in this paper.

Since 𝑨a(ω)superscript𝑨𝑎𝜔\bm{A}^{a}(\omega)bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) is a noisy decomposition of 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT into frequencies, it is not immediately clear whether there is a choice of function γ(ω)𝛾𝜔\gamma(\omega)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) for which they can be recombined to achieve detailed balance. Indeed, as shown in [CKG23], there is! The choice of γ(ω)𝛾𝜔\gamma(\omega)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) is such that the the transition part of βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the summand a[M]γ(ω)𝑨^a(ω)()𝑨^a(ω)𝑑ωsubscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔differential-d𝜔\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)(% \cdot)\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}d\omega∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω, still satisfies KMS detailed balance. [CKG23] proved that there is a unique choice of 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B, up to translation by a scalar, such that i[𝑩,]12a[M]γ(ω){𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω),}𝑑ω𝑖𝑩12subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔differential-d𝜔-i[\bm{B},\cdot]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega% )\{\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega),\cdot\}d\omega- italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) { over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) , ⋅ } italic_d italic_ω also satisfies detailed balance. For the Davies generator, this coherent term 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B is simply 00 (or corresponds to a Lamb shift that commutes with the Hamiltonian), and the decay term by itself already satisfies detailed balance. 𝑩𝑩\bm{B}bold_italic_B can be expressed in general as:

𝑩=a[M]ν1,ν2tanh(β(ν1ν2)/4)2i(𝑨ν2a)𝑨ν1a.𝑩subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀subscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈242𝑖superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈2subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈1\bm{B}=\sum_{a\in[M]}\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\frac{\tanh(-\beta(\nu_{1}-\nu_{2})% /4)}{2i}(\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{2}})^{\dagger}\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{1}}.bold_italic_B = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_tanh ( - italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The choice of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ for this algorithm, for which the filter is efficiently implementable, is γ(ω)=exp(βmax(ω+βσE22,0))𝛾𝜔𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸220\gamma(\omega)=\exp\left(-\beta\max\left(\omega+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2},% 0\right)\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ) ). As σE0subscript𝜎𝐸0\sigma_{E}\to 0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 it converges to the Metropolis filter of the Davies generator. In particular, this γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ is precisely Metropolis filter for the Davies generator shifted by βσE2𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The following lemma asserts that this is no coincidence.

Lemma 7.1.

If γ~~𝛾\widetilde{\gamma}over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG satisfies the functional equation γ~(ω)=γ~(ω)exp(βω)~𝛾𝜔~𝛾𝜔𝛽𝜔\widetilde{\gamma}(\omega)=\widetilde{\gamma}(-\omega)\exp(-\beta\omega)over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ( - italic_ω ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ω ), then the transition part of the CKG Lindbladian aγ(ω)(𝐀^a(ω)()𝐀^a(ω))𝑑ωsubscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝐀𝑎𝜔superscript^𝐀𝑎superscript𝜔differential-d𝜔\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)(% \cdot)\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}\right)d\omega∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω satisfies detailed balance for γ(ω)=γ~(ω+βσE22)𝛾𝜔~𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22\gamma(\omega)=\widetilde{\gamma}\left(\omega+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2}\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ).

Proof.

We prove the result for just one jump operators and its adjoint pair, since it extends by linearity to the full result. We can write the operator as follows, grouping together terms with opposite values of ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω for the two jump operators:

t=γ(ω)𝑨^(ω)()𝑨^(ω)+γ(ω)𝑨^(ω)()𝑨^(ω)dω.subscript𝑡superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑨𝜔^𝑨superscript𝜔𝛾𝜔^superscript𝑨𝜔^superscript𝑨superscript𝜔𝑑𝜔\mathcal{L}_{t}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{\bm{A}}(\omega)(% \cdot)\hat{\bm{A}}(\omega)^{\dagger}+\gamma(-\omega)\widehat{\bm{A}^{\dagger}}% (-\omega)(\cdot)\widehat{\bm{A}^{\dagger}}(-\omega)^{\dagger}d\omega.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG ( italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_γ ( - italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( - italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( - italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω .

By the identity 𝑨^(ω)=νf^(ων)𝑨ν^𝑨𝜔subscript𝜈^𝑓𝜔𝜈subscript𝑨𝜈\hat{\bm{A}}(\omega)=\sum_{\nu}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu)\bm{A}_{\nu}over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG ( italic_ω ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, note that 𝑨^(ω)=νf^(ων)(𝑨)ν=νf^(ω+ν)𝑨ν^superscript𝑨𝜔subscript𝜈^𝑓𝜔𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝜈subscript𝜈^𝑓𝜔𝜈subscript𝑨𝜈\widehat{\bm{A}^{\dagger}}(-\omega)=\sum_{\nu}\hat{f}(-\omega-\nu)(\bm{A}^{% \dagger})_{\nu}=\sum_{\nu}\hat{f}(-\omega+\nu)\bm{A}_{\nu}over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( - italic_ω ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω - italic_ν ) ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω + italic_ν ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We may therefore expand the previous expression to

tsubscript𝑡\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =ν1,ν2γ(ω)(f^(ων1)𝑨ν1)()(f^(ων2)𝑨ν2)+γ(ω)(f^(ω+ν1)𝑨ν1)()(f^(ω+ν2)𝑨ν2)dωabsentsubscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈1subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscript^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈2subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscript^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2𝑑𝜔\displaystyle=\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left% (\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{1})\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}\right)(\cdot)\left(\hat{f}(\omega-\nu% _{2})\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}\right)^{\dagger}+\gamma(-\omega)\left(\hat{f}(-\omega+% \nu_{1})\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}^{\dagger}\right)(\cdot)\left(\hat{f}(-\omega+\nu_{2})% \bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}\right)^{\dagger}d\omega= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ⋅ ) ( over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_γ ( - italic_ω ) ( over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( ⋅ ) ( over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω
=ν1,ν2(f^(ων1)f^(ων2)γ(ω)𝑑ω)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2+(f^(ω+ν1)f^(ω+ν2)γ(ω)𝑑ω)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2absentsubscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈2𝛾𝜔differential-d𝜔subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈2𝛾𝜔differential-d𝜔superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2\displaystyle=\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{f}(% \omega-\nu_{1})\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{2})\gamma(\omega)d\omega\right)\bm{A}_{\nu_% {1}}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}+\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{f}(-% \omega+\nu_{1})\hat{f}(-\omega+\nu_{2})\gamma(-\omega)d\omega\right)\bm{A}_{% \nu_{1}}^{\dagger}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_γ ( italic_ω ) italic_d italic_ω ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( - italic_ω + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_γ ( - italic_ω ) italic_d italic_ω ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=ν1,ν2θ(ν1,ν2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2+θ(ν1,ν2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2.absentsubscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2\displaystyle=\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}(% \cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}+\theta(-\nu_{1},-\nu_{2})\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}^{% \dagger}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Throughout the rest of the paper, we denote

θ(ν1,ν2):=f^(ων1)f^(ων2)γ(ω)𝑑ω,andα(ν):=θ(ν,ν).formulae-sequenceassign𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈2𝛾𝜔differential-d𝜔andassign𝛼𝜈𝜃𝜈𝜈\displaystyle\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2}):=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{f}(\omega-% \nu_{1})\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{2})\gamma(\omega)d\omega,\quad\text{and}\quad% \alpha(\nu):=\theta(\nu,\nu).italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) := ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_γ ( italic_ω ) italic_d italic_ω , and italic_α ( italic_ν ) := italic_θ ( italic_ν , italic_ν ) . (8)

Meanwhile, f^(ων)^𝑓𝜔𝜈\hat{f}(\omega-\nu)over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν ) is the square root of a Gaussian distribution around ν𝜈\nuitalic_ν with standard deviation σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This means the function α(ν)𝛼𝜈\alpha(\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) is the convolution of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ and a Gaussian of width σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The function θ(ν1,ν2)𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) has the property that

θ(ν1,ν2)=α(ν1+ν22)exp((ν1ν2)28σE2).𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛼subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22superscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})=\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{1}+\nu_{2}}{2}\right)\exp\left(% -\frac{(\nu_{1}-\nu_{2})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right).italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) .

To verify detailed balance, we must prove that t[]=𝝆β1/2β[𝝆β1/2()𝝆β1/2]𝝆β1/2subscript𝑡delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝛽delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\mathcal{L}_{t}[\cdot]=\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}[% \bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}(\cdot)\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}]\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The adjoint of tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is

t=ν1,ν2θ(ν1,ν2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2+θ(ν1,ν2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2.superscriptsubscript𝑡subscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2\mathcal{L}_{t}^{\dagger}=\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\bm{A}_% {\nu_{1}}^{\dagger}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}+\theta(-\nu_{1},-\nu_{2})\bm{A}_{% \nu_{1}}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

We must therefore prove that

tsubscript𝑡\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =?ν1,ν2θ(ν1,ν2)𝝆β1/2𝑨ν1𝝆β1/2()𝝆β1/2𝑨ν2𝝆β1/2+θ(ν1,ν2)𝝆β1/2𝑨ν1𝝆β1/2()𝝆β1/2𝑨ν2𝝆β1/2superscript?absentsubscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle?}}{{=}}\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\theta(\nu_{% 1},\nu_{2})\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}^{\dagger}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^% {-1/2}(\cdot)\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}+% \theta(-\nu_{1},-\nu_{2})\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}\bm{\rho}_{% \beta}^{-1/2}(\cdot)\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}\bm{\rho% }_{\beta}^{1/2}start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG = end_ARG start_ARG ? end_ARG end_RELOP ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=ν1,ν2θ(ν1,ν2)exp(β(ν1+ν2)2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2+θ(ν1,ν2)exp(β(ν1+ν2)2)𝑨ν1()𝑨ν2.absentsubscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈1subscript𝑨subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22subscript𝑨subscript𝜈1superscriptsubscript𝑨subscript𝜈2\displaystyle=\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\exp\left(\beta% \frac{(\nu_{1}+\nu_{2})}{2}\right)\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}^{\dagger}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu% _{2}}+\theta(-\nu_{1},-\nu_{2})\exp\left(\beta\frac{-(\nu_{1}+\nu_{2})}{2}% \right)\bm{A}_{\nu_{1}}(\cdot)\bm{A}_{\nu_{2}}^{\dagger}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( italic_β divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( italic_β divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The second equality holds because 𝝆β=exp(βvH)Zsubscript𝝆𝛽𝛽𝑣𝐻𝑍\bm{\rho}_{\beta}=\frac{\exp(-\beta vH)}{Z}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_v italic_H ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_Z end_ARG. Therefore, since 𝑨νsuperscriptsubscript𝑨𝜈\bm{A}_{\nu}^{\dagger}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT only makes jumps with ΔE=νΔ𝐸𝜈\Delta E=-\nuroman_Δ italic_E = - italic_ν and 𝑨νsubscript𝑨𝜈\bm{A}_{\nu}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT only makes jumps with ΔE=νΔ𝐸𝜈\Delta E=\nuroman_Δ italic_E = italic_ν, it can be verified that 𝝆β1/2𝑨ν𝝆β1/2=exp(β2ν)superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝑨𝜈superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12𝛽2𝜈\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu}\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}=\exp(-\frac{\beta}% {2}\nu)bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ν ) and likewise 𝝆β1/2𝑨νρβ1/2=exp(β2ν)superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12subscript𝑨𝜈superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽12𝛽2𝜈\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}\bm{A}_{\nu}\rho_{\beta}^{1/2}=\exp(\frac{\beta}{2}\nu)bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_exp ( divide start_ARG italic_β end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ν ).

Inspecting the expression for tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we conclude that to satisfy the above equality it is sufficient to have θ(ν1,ν2)=θ(ν1,ν2)exp(β(ν1+ν2)2)𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})=\theta(-\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\exp(\beta\frac{(\nu_{1}+\nu_{% 2})}{2})italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( italic_β divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) for any pair ν1,ν2subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2\nu_{1},\nu_{2}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In the case that ν=ν1=ν2𝜈subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2\nu=\nu_{1}=\nu_{2}italic_ν = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, this is precisely the condition that α(ν)=α(ν)exp(βν)𝛼𝜈𝛼𝜈𝛽𝜈\alpha(\nu)=\alpha(-\nu)\exp(-\beta\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) = italic_α ( - italic_ν ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ). In fact, this functional equation for α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is not only necessary but sufficient for the general case. Indeed,

θ(ν1,ν2)𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2\displaystyle\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =α(ν1+ν22)exp((ν1ν2)28σE2)absent𝛼subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22superscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\displaystyle=\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{1}+\nu_{2}}{2}\right)\exp\left(-\frac{% \left(\nu_{1}-\nu_{2}\right)^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)= italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG )
=exp(β(ν1+ν22))α((ν1+ν2)2)exp(((ν1)(ν2))28σE2)absent𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22𝛼subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22superscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\displaystyle=\exp\left(-\beta\left(\frac{\nu_{1}+\nu_{2}}{2}\right)\right)% \alpha\left(\frac{-(\nu_{1}+\nu_{2})}{2}\right)\exp\left(-\frac{\left((-\nu_{1% })-(-\nu_{2})\right)^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)= roman_exp ( - italic_β ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ) italic_α ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG )
=θ(ν1,ν2)exp(β(ν1+ν22)).absent𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22\displaystyle=\theta(-\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\exp\left(-\beta\left(\frac{\nu_{1}+\nu_% {2}}{2}\right)\right).= italic_θ ( - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( - italic_β ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ) .

To conclude, we must prove that α𝛼\alphaitalic_α satisfies α(ν)=α(ν)exp(βν)𝛼𝜈𝛼𝜈𝛽𝜈\alpha(\nu)=\alpha(-\nu)\exp(-\beta\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) = italic_α ( - italic_ν ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ), where α=γg𝛼𝛾𝑔\alpha=\gamma*gitalic_α = italic_γ ∗ italic_g and g𝑔gitalic_g is a Gaussian with width σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT around 0. We may write:

exp(βν)α(ν)𝛽𝜈𝛼𝜈\displaystyle\exp(-\beta\nu)\alpha(-\nu)roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ) italic_α ( - italic_ν ) =exp(βν)γ(ω)g(νω)𝑑ωabsent𝛽𝜈superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔𝑔𝜈𝜔differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\exp(-\beta\nu)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)g(-\nu-% \omega)d\omega= roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ) ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) italic_g ( - italic_ν - italic_ω ) italic_d italic_ω
=exp(βν)σE2πγ(ω)exp((ν+ω)22σE2)𝑑ωabsent𝛽𝜈subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript𝜈𝜔22superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\frac{\exp(-\beta\nu)}{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{% \infty}\gamma(\omega)\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu+\omega)^{2}}{2\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right% )d\omega= divide start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d italic_ω
=exp(βν)σE2πγ(ωβσE2)exp(β(ω+βσE22))exp((ν+ω)22σE2)𝑑ωabsent𝛽𝜈subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22superscript𝜈𝜔22superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\frac{\exp(-\beta\nu)}{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{% \infty}\gamma(-\omega-\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})\exp\left(-\beta\left(\omega+\frac{% \beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2}\right)\right)\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu+\omega)^{2}}{2% \sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)d\omega= divide start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( - italic_ω - italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( - italic_β ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d italic_ω
=1σE2πγ(ωβσE2)exp[β(ω+ν+βσE22)(ν+ω)22σE2]𝑑ωabsent1subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝛽𝜔𝜈𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22superscript𝜈𝜔22superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(-% \omega-\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})\exp\left[-\beta\left(\omega+\nu+\frac{\beta\sigma_% {E}^{2}}{2}\right)-\frac{(\nu+\omega)^{2}}{2\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right]d\omega= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( - italic_ω - italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_exp [ - italic_β ( italic_ω + italic_ν + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] italic_d italic_ω

where the third equality holds by utilizing the functional equation for γ~~𝛾\widetilde{\gamma}over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG, which states that γ(ωβσE22)=γ(ωβσE22)exp(βω)𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22𝛽𝜔\gamma(\omega-\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2})=\gamma(-\omega-\frac{\beta\sigma_% {E}^{2}}{2})\exp\left(-\beta\omega\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω - divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) = italic_γ ( - italic_ω - divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ω ) and therefore γ(ω)=γ(ωβσE2)exp(β(ω+βσE22))𝛾𝜔𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22\gamma(\omega)=\gamma(-\omega-\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})\exp\left(-\beta\left(\omega% +\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2}\right)\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = italic_γ ( - italic_ω - italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( - italic_β ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ). Now, we express α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, writing

α(ν)𝛼𝜈\displaystyle\alpha(\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) =γ(ω)g(νω)𝑑ωabsentsuperscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔𝑔𝜈𝜔differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)g(\nu-\omega)d\omega= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) italic_g ( italic_ν - italic_ω ) italic_d italic_ω
=1σE2πγ(ω)exp((νω)22σE2)𝑑ωabsent1subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript𝜈𝜔22superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(% \omega)\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu-\omega)^{2}}{2\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)d\omega= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν - italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d italic_ω
=1σE2πγ(ωβσE2)exp((ν+ω+βσE2)22σE2)𝑑ωabsent1subscript𝜎𝐸2𝜋superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2superscript𝜈𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸222superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sigma_{E}\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(-% \omega-\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu+\omega+\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})^{% 2}}{2\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)d\omega= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( - italic_ω - italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω + italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_d italic_ω

where in the third step we replace ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω by ωβσE2𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\omega-\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}italic_ω - italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. By calculation, we see that (ν+ω+βσE2)22σE2=β(ω+ν+βσE22)(ν+ω)22σE2superscript𝜈𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸222superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝛽𝜔𝜈𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22superscript𝜈𝜔22superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2-\frac{(\nu+\omega+\beta\sigma_{E}^{2})^{2}}{2\sigma_{E}^{2}}=-\beta\left(% \omega+\nu+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2}\right)-\frac{(\nu+\omega)^{2}}{2% \sigma_{E}^{2}}- divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω + italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = - italic_β ( italic_ω + italic_ν + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν + italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, and therefore our expressions for α(ν)𝛼𝜈\alpha(\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) and exp(βν)α(ν)𝛽𝜈𝛼𝜈\exp(-\beta\nu)\alpha(-\nu)roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ) italic_α ( - italic_ν ) are equal, completing the proof. ∎

The CKG Lindbladian requires a choice of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ for which α=γg𝛼𝛾𝑔\alpha=\gamma*gitalic_α = italic_γ ∗ italic_g satisfies the functional equation that was originally satisfied by γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ in the Davies generator. Fortunately, if γ~(ω)~𝛾𝜔\tilde{\gamma}(\omega)over~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ( italic_ω ) is such a solution to the equation, like the Metropolis filter of the Davies generator, then γ~(ω+βσE22)g~𝛾𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22𝑔\tilde{\gamma}(\omega+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2})*gover~ start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ∗ italic_g does as well. For the rest of this paper, therefore, we use γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ to denote γ(ω)=exp(βmax(ω+βσE22,0))𝛾𝜔𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸220\gamma(\omega)=\exp\left(-\beta\max\left(\omega+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2},% 0\right)\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ) ), and α𝛼\alphaitalic_α to denote γg𝛾𝑔\gamma*gitalic_γ ∗ italic_g.

We also record a result about the operator norm of βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

Lemma 7.2.

Consider the CKG Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with temperature β1superscript𝛽1\beta^{-1}italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, using the Metropolis filter, and with jump operators 𝐀asuperscript𝐀𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for which a𝐀a𝐀a1subscript𝑎normsuperscript𝐀𝑎superscript𝐀𝑎1\sum_{a}\|{\bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}}\|\leq 1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≤ 1. This Lindbladian satisfies

β=O(log(β𝑯)),subscriptnormsubscript𝛽𝑂𝛽norm𝑯\displaystyle\|{\mathcal{L}_{\beta}}\|_{\infty\to\infty}=O(\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}% }\|)),∥ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ) , (9)

where \|{\cdot}\|_{\infty\to\infty}∥ ⋅ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the operator norm of βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with respect to the operator norm on the input and output vector spaces.

Proof.

Proposition B.2 in [CKG23] implies that the coherent term of the Lindbladian B𝐵Bitalic_B has operator norm O(log(β𝑯))𝑂𝛽norm𝑯O(\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|))italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ), which implies immediately that

i[𝑩,𝝆]𝑩𝝆+𝝆𝑩2𝑩𝝆.norm𝑖𝑩𝝆norm𝑩𝝆norm𝝆𝑩2norm𝑩norm𝝆\|{-i[\bm{B},\bm{\rho}]}\|\leq\|{\bm{B}\bm{\rho}}\|+\|{\bm{\rho}\bm{B}}\|\leq 2% \|{\bm{B}}\|\|{\bm{\rho}}\|.∥ - italic_i [ bold_italic_B , bold_italic_ρ ] ∥ ≤ ∥ bold_italic_B bold_italic_ρ ∥ + ∥ bold_italic_ρ bold_italic_B ∥ ≤ 2 ∥ bold_italic_B ∥ ∥ bold_italic_ρ ∥ .

In particular, i[𝑩,]=O(log(β𝑯))subscriptnorm𝑖𝑩𝑂𝛽norm𝑯\|{-i[\bm{B},\cdot]}\|_{\infty\to\infty}=O\left(\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|)\right)∥ - italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ).

It remains to bound the transition and decay terms of the Lindbladian. The transition term of the Lindbladian can be bounded as

a[M]γ(ω)𝑨^a(ω)𝝆𝑨^a(ω)𝑑ωdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔𝝆superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔differential-d𝜔\displaystyle\left\lVert\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)% \hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)\bm{\rho}\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}d\omega\right\rVert∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) bold_italic_ρ over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω ∥ ργa[M]𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω)𝑑ωabsentdelimited-∥∥𝜌delimited-∥∥𝛾delimited-∥∥subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscriptsuperscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔differential-d𝜔\displaystyle\leq\left\lVert\rho\right\rVert\cdot\left\lVert\gamma\right\rVert% \cdot\left\lVert\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)% \hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}d\omega\right\rVert≤ ∥ italic_ρ ∥ ⋅ ∥ italic_γ ∥ ⋅ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω ∥
|f(t)|2𝑑ta𝑨a𝑨a1.absentsuperscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑓𝑡2differential-d𝑡delimited-∥∥subscript𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎1\displaystyle\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|f(t)|^{2}dt\cdot\left\lVert\sum_{a}% \bm{A}^{a{\dagger}}\bm{A}^{a}\right\rVert\leq 1.≤ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_f ( italic_t ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t ⋅ ∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ ≤ 1 . (10)

In the first line, we applied Lemma K.1 from [CHPZ24]. To reach the second line, we used the fact that maxω|γ(ω)|1subscript𝜔𝛾𝜔1\max_{\omega}|\gamma(\omega)|\leq 1roman_max start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_γ ( italic_ω ) | ≤ 1, applied Operator Parseval’s identity from Lemma K.1 of [CHPZ24] or Proposition A.1 of [CKBG23], and utilized the normalization of the jump operators along with the Gaussian distribution.

A very similar calculation implies that the norm of the decay term can be bounded by

a[M]12γ(ω){𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω),𝝆}𝑑ω1.delimited-∥∥subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript12𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔𝝆differential-d𝜔1\displaystyle\left\lVert\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2}\gamma% (\omega)\{\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega),\bm{\rho}% \}d\omega\right\rVert\leq 1.∥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_γ ( italic_ω ) { over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) , bold_italic_ρ } italic_d italic_ω ∥ ≤ 1 . (11)

Combining these norm bounds on the coherent, transition and decay terms implies (9).

7.1.3 CKG Lindbladian in the energy basis

We consider a quantum system consisting of basis states \ketei\ketsubscript𝑒𝑖\ket{e_{i}}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and a Hamiltonian 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H. We choose some jump operators 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and denote Alma=\bral𝑨a\ketmsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚\bra𝑙superscript𝑨𝑎\ket𝑚A^{a}_{lm}=\bra{l}\bm{A}^{a}\ket{m}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_l bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m. Notate the energy eigenstates as \ketj\ket𝑗\ket{j}italic_j with energy Ejsubscript𝐸𝑗E_{j}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We independently calculate the three parts of the Lindbladian: the transition term tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the decay term dsubscript𝑑\mathcal{L}_{d}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and coherent term csubscript𝑐\mathcal{L}_{c}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT so that β=c+t+dsubscript𝛽subscript𝑐subscript𝑡subscript𝑑\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\mathcal{L}_{c}+\mathcal{L}_{t}+\mathcal{L}_{d}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. First, as mentioned above, the OFT of the jump operator 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is:

𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\displaystyle\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) =12πlmAlmaei𝑯t|lm|ei𝑯teiωtf(t)𝑑tabsent12𝜋subscript𝑙𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡ket𝑙bra𝑚superscript𝑒𝑖𝑯𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡𝑓𝑡differential-d𝑡\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{lm}A^{a}_{lm}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e% ^{i\bm{H}t}|l\rangle\!\langle m|e^{-i\bm{H}t}e^{i\omega t}f(t)dt= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_l ⟩ ⟨ italic_m | italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i bold_italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t
=12πlmAlma|lm|eiνlmtiωtf(t)𝑑tabsent12𝜋subscript𝑙𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚superscriptsubscriptket𝑙bra𝑚superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚𝑡𝑖𝜔𝑡𝑓𝑡differential-d𝑡\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{lm}A^{a}_{lm}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|% l\rangle\!\langle m|e^{i\nu_{lm}t-i\omega t}f(t)dt= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_l ⟩ ⟨ italic_m | italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t - italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t
=lmAlmaf^(ωνlm)|lm|absentsubscript𝑙𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚ket𝑙bra𝑚\displaystyle=\sum_{lm}A^{a}_{lm}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{lm})|l\rangle\!\langle m|= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_l ⟩ ⟨ italic_m |

where νlm=ElEmsubscript𝜈𝑙𝑚subscript𝐸𝑙subscript𝐸𝑚\nu_{lm}=E_{l}-E_{m}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. To represent superoperators as linear maps, we vectorize operators with respect to the basis of operators |m1m2|ketsubscript𝑚1brasubscript𝑚2|m_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_{2}|| italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |. In particular, \ket𝐦\ket𝐦\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_m with 𝐦=(m1,m2)𝐦subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2\mathbf{m}=(m_{1},m_{2})bold_m = ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) will notate the basis operator |m1m2|ketsubscript𝑚1brasubscript𝑚2|m_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_{2}|| italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |. Now, we may expand t[N]=aγ(ω)𝑨^a(ω)M𝑨^i(ω)𝑑ωsubscript𝑡delimited-[]𝑁subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔𝑀superscript^𝑨𝑖superscript𝜔differential-d𝜔\mathcal{L}_{t}[N]=\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{\bm{A}}^{% a}(\omega)M\hat{\bm{A}}^{i}(\omega)^{\dagger}d\omegacaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) italic_M over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω as

aγ(ω)(l1m1Al1m1af^(ωνl1m1)|l1m1|)N(l2m2Al2m2af^(ωνl2m2)|l2m2|)𝑑ω=subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsubscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1ketsubscript𝑙1brasubscript𝑚1𝑁superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2ketsubscript𝑙2brasubscript𝑚2differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(\sum_{l_{1}m_{% 1}}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{1}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})|l_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_% {1}|\right)N\left(\sum_{l_{2}m_{2}}A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{2}% m_{2}})|l_{2}\rangle\!\langle m_{2}|\right)^{\dagger}d\omega=∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_ω =
aγ(ω)(l1m1Al1m2af^(ωνl1m1)|l1m1|)N(l2m2Al2m2a¯f^(ωνl2m2)|m2l2|)𝑑ω=subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsubscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1ketsubscript𝑙1brasubscript𝑚1𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2ketsubscript𝑚2brasubscript𝑙2differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(\sum_{l_{1}m_{% 1}}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{2}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})|l_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_% {1}|\right)N\left(\sum_{l_{2}m_{2}}\overline{A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}}\hat{f}(\omega% -\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})|m_{2}\rangle\!\langle l_{2}|\right)d\omega=∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_d italic_ω =
a,𝐦,𝐥Al1m1aAl2m2a¯(γ(ω)f^(ωνl1m1)f^(ωνl2m2)𝑑ω)(|l1m1|N|m2l2|).subscript𝑎𝐦𝐥subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2differential-d𝜔ketsubscript𝑙1quantum-operator-productsubscript𝑚1𝑁subscript𝑚2brasubscript𝑙2\displaystyle\sum_{a,\mathbf{m},\mathbf{l}}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{% l_{2}m_{2}}}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{% 1}m_{1}})\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})d\omega\right)(|l_{1}\rangle\!\langle m% _{1}|N|m_{2}\rangle\!\langle l_{2}|).∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , bold_m , bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω ) ( | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_N | italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) .

From the equation above, we may describe the elements of tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as

\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m =aAl1m1aAl2m2a¯(γ(ω)f^(ωνl1m1)f^(ωνl2m2)𝑑ω)absentsubscript𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2differential-d𝜔\displaystyle=\sum_{a}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}}\left(% \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})\hat{f}(% \omega-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})d\omega\right)= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω )
=aAl1m1aAl2m2a¯θ(νl1m1,νl2m2)absentsubscript𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\displaystyle=\sum_{a}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}}\theta(% \nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with the notation θ(ν1,ν2)𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) as defined previously. Notice that as σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT tends to zero, θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ is only nonzero when its two inputs are equal. The term \bra𝐥t\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m is therefore only nonzero if νl1m1=νl2m2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}=\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, or equivalently, νl1l2=νm1m2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝜈subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2\nu_{l_{1}l_{2}}=\nu_{m_{1}m_{2}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In the Davies limit, therefore, |m1m2|ketsubscript𝑚1brasubscript𝑚2|m_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_{2}|| italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | can only map to terms |l1l2|ketsubscript𝑙1brasubscript𝑙2|l_{1}\rangle\!\langle l_{2}|| italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | with the same Bohr frequency.

Now, we calculate the decay part dsubscript𝑑\mathcal{L}_{d}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We may expand d[N]=12a𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω)N12aN𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω)subscript𝑑delimited-[]𝑁12subscript𝑎superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔𝑁12subscript𝑎𝑁superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\mathcal{L}_{d}[N]=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}\hat{% \bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)N-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}N\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}% \hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_N ] = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) italic_N - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) and deal with these terms individually. With the benefit of hindsight, we choose different indices for the terms of the jump operators, so that the expression will similarly simplify to yield \bra𝐥d\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m. The first term is:

12aγ(ω)(j1m2Aj1m2af^(ωνj1m2)|j1m2|)(j2l2Aj2l2af^(ωνj2l2)|j2l2|)N𝑑ω=12subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2ketsubscript𝑗1brasubscript𝑚2subscriptsubscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2ketsubscript𝑗2brasubscript𝑙2𝑁differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(% \sum_{j_{1}m_{2}}A^{a}_{j_{1}m_{2}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{1}m_{2}})|j_{1}% \rangle\!\langle m_{2}|\right)^{\dagger}\left(\sum_{j_{2}l_{2}}A^{a}_{j_{2}l_{% 2}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{2}l_{2}})|j_{2}\rangle\!\langle l_{2}|\right)Nd\omega=- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N italic_d italic_ω =
12aγ(ω)(j1m2Aj1m2a¯f^(ωνj1m2)|m2j1|)(j2l2Aj2l2af^(ωνj2l2)|j2l2|)N𝑑ω=12subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗1subscript𝑚2ketsubscript𝑚2brasubscript𝑗1subscriptsubscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗2subscript𝑙2ketsubscript𝑗2brasubscript𝑙2𝑁differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(% \sum_{j_{1}m_{2}}\overline{A^{a}_{j_{1}m_{2}}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{1}m_{2}})% |m_{2}\rangle\!\langle j_{1}|\right)\left(\sum_{j_{2}l_{2}}A^{a}_{j_{2}l_{2}}% \hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{2}l_{2}})|j_{2}\rangle\!\langle l_{2}|\right)Nd\omega=- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N italic_d italic_ω =
12a,l2,m2,jAjm2a¯Ajl2a(γ(ω)f^(ωνjm2)f^(ωνjl2)𝑑ω)(|l2m2|N).12subscript𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙2superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2differential-d𝜔ketsubscript𝑙2brasubscript𝑚2𝑁\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a,l_{2},m_{2},j}\overline{A^{a}_{jm_{2}}}A^{a}_% {jl_{2}}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{jm_{2}}% )\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{jl_{2}})d\omega\right)(|l_{2}\rangle\!\langle m_{2}|N).- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω ) ( | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_N ) .

Similarly, the other term is:

12aγ(ω)(j1l1Aj1l1af^(ωνj1l1)|j1l1|)(j2m1Aj2m1af^(ωνj2m1)|j2m1|)N𝑑ω=12subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1ketsubscript𝑗1brasubscript𝑙1subscriptsubscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1ketsubscript𝑗2brasubscript𝑚1𝑁differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(% \sum_{j_{1}l_{1}}A^{a}_{j_{1}l_{1}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{1}l_{1}})|j_{1}% \rangle\!\langle l_{1}|\right)^{\dagger}\left(\sum_{j_{2}m_{1}}A^{a}_{j_{2}m_{% 1}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{2}m_{1}})|j_{2}\rangle\!\langle m_{1}|\right)Nd\omega=- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N italic_d italic_ω =
12aγ(ω)(j1l1Aj1l1a¯f^(ωνj1l1)|l1j1|)(j2m1Aj2m1af^(ωνj2m1)|j2m1|)N𝑑ω=12subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔subscriptsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗1subscript𝑙1ketsubscript𝑙1brasubscript𝑗1subscriptsubscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈subscript𝑗2subscript𝑚1ketsubscript𝑗2brasubscript𝑚1𝑁differential-d𝜔absent\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(% \sum_{j_{1}l_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{j_{1}l_{1}}}\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{1}l_{1}})% |l_{1}\rangle\!\langle j_{1}|\right)\left(\sum_{j_{2}m_{1}}A^{a}_{j_{2}m_{1}}% \hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{j_{2}m_{1}})|j_{2}\rangle\!\langle m_{1}|\right)Nd\omega=- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ) italic_N italic_d italic_ω =
12a,l1,m1,jAjl1a¯Ajm1a(γ(ω)f^(ωνjl1)f^(ωνjm1)𝑑ω)(|l1m1|N).12subscript𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1^𝑓𝜔subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1differential-d𝜔ketsubscript𝑙1brasubscript𝑚1𝑁\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a,l_{1},m_{1},j}\overline{A^{a}_{jl_{1}}}A^{a}_% {jm_{1}}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(\omega)\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{jl_{1}}% )\hat{f}(\omega-\nu_{jm_{1}})d\omega\right)(|l_{1}\rangle\!\langle m_{1}|N).- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over^ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG ( italic_ω - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_ω ) ( | italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_N ) .

From this expression, we find that

\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦=12(δl1m1a,jAjm2a¯Ajl2aθ(νjm2,νjl2)+δl2m2i,jAjl1a¯Ajm1aθ(νjl1,νjm1)).\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑎𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑖𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚1𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=-\frac{1}{2}\left% (\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jm_{2}}}A^{a}_{jl_{2}}\theta(% \nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\sum_{i,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jl_{1% }}}A^{a}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\right).bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) . (12)

Notice that here in the limit of σE0subscript𝜎𝐸0\sigma_{E}\to 0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0, in both summands Em2=El2subscript𝐸subscript𝑚2subscript𝐸subscript𝑙2E_{m_{2}}=E_{l_{2}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Em1=El1subscript𝐸subscript𝑚1subscript𝐸subscript𝑙1E_{m_{1}}=E_{l_{1}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the θ𝜃\thetaitalic_θ term to be nonzero, so again νl1l2=νm1m2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝜈subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2\nu_{l_{1}l_{2}}=\nu_{m_{1}m_{2}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This reasoning demonstrates that the Davies generator is block-diagonal, where each block corresponds to a Bohr frequency ν𝜈\nuitalic_ν. If the Bohr frequencies νijsubscript𝜈𝑖𝑗\nu_{ij}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for ij𝑖𝑗i\neq jitalic_i ≠ italic_j are all distinct, then the Davies generator consists of a “classical” block for the basis elements \ketm,m\ket𝑚𝑚\ket{m,m}italic_m , italic_m, and the rest of the Lindbladian is diagonal. This Lindbladian can be understood as a combination of an evolution on the diagonal (a classical Markov chain), and the damping of off-diagonal terms (a dephasing channel). Finally, we write the form of the coherent part, csubscript𝑐\mathcal{L}_{c}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It appears very similar to dsubscript𝑑\mathcal{L}_{d}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, since the commutator is taken with B=a[M]ν1,ν2tanh(β(ν1ν2)/4)2i(𝑨ν2a)𝑨ν1a𝐵subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀subscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛽subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈242𝑖superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈2subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈1B=\sum_{a\in[M]}\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}\frac{\tanh(-\beta(\nu_{1}-\nu_{2})/4)}{% 2i}(\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{2}})^{\dagger}\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{1}}italic_B = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_tanh ( - italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_i end_ARG ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, similarly to the anticommutator with 12a[M](𝑨a)𝑨a=12a[M]ν1,ν2(𝑨ν2a)𝑨ν1a12subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑨𝑎12subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀subscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈2subscriptsuperscript𝑨𝑎subscript𝜈1-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a\in[M]}(\bm{A}^{a})^{\dagger}\bm{A}^{a}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a% \in[M]}\sum_{\nu_{1},\nu_{2}}(\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{2}})^{\dagger}\bm{A}^{a}_{\nu_{% 1}}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the decay term.

\bra𝐥c\ket𝐦=12(\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{c}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=\frac{1}{2}\Biggl% {(}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( δl1m1tanh(β(νm2l2)/4)i,jAjm2i¯Ajl2iθ(νjm2,νjl2)limit-fromsubscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛽subscript𝜈subscript𝑚2subscript𝑙24subscript𝑖𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑖𝑗subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑖𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2\displaystyle\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{m_{2}l_{2}})/4)\sum_{i,j}% \overline{A^{i}_{jm_{2}}}A^{i}_{jl_{2}}\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})-italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) -
δl2m2tanh(β(νl1m1)/4)i,jAjl1i¯Ajm1iθ(νjl1,νjm1)).\displaystyle\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})/4)\sum_{i,j}% \overline{A^{i}_{jl_{1}}}A^{i}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\Biggr% {)}.italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .

Summing the descriptions of tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, dsubscript𝑑\mathcal{L}_{d}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and csubscript𝑐\mathcal{L}_{c}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT gives the full Lindbladian. Collecting all the terms obtained above, we find the below formulae. Note that they can all be taken in terms of α(ν)=θ(ν,ν)𝛼𝜈𝜃𝜈𝜈\alpha(\nu)=\theta(\nu,\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) = italic_θ ( italic_ν , italic_ν ) using the identity θ(ν1,ν2)=α(ν1+ν22)exp((ν1ν2)28σE2)𝜃subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈2𝛼subscript𝜈1subscript𝜈22superscriptsubscript𝜈1subscript𝜈228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\theta(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})=\alpha(\frac{\nu_{1}+\nu_{2}}{2})\exp\left(-\frac{(\nu% _{1}-\nu_{2})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ).

\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦=aAl1m1aAl2m2a¯θ(νl1m1,νl2m2),\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦subscript𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=\sum_{a}A^{a}_{l_% {1}m_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}}\theta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}),bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦=12(δl1m1a,jAjm2a¯Ajl2aθ(νjm2,νjl2)+δl2m2a,jAjl1a¯Ajm1aθ(νjl1,νjm1)),\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑎𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑎𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚1𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=-\frac{1}{2}\left% (\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jm_{2}}}A^{a}_{jl_{2}}\theta(% \nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jl_{1% }}}A^{a}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\right),bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ,
\bra𝐥c\ket𝐦=12(δl1m1tanh(βνm2l2/4)a,jAjm2a¯Ajl2aθ(νjm2,νjl2)\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{c}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=\frac{1}{2}\Biggl% {(}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\tanh(\beta\nu_{m_{2}l_{2}}/4)\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_% {jm_{2}}}A^{a}_{jl_{2}}\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})-bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) -
δl2m2tanh(βνl1m1/4)a,jAjl1a¯Ajm1aθ(νjl1,νjm1)).\displaystyle\hskip 65.44142pt\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\tanh(\beta\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}/4% )\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jl_{1}}}A^{a}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_% {1}})\Biggr{)}.italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) . (13)

It is worth noting that restricting to the indices (m,m𝑚𝑚m,mitalic_m , italic_m), the coherent term is zero, since in both nonzero terms l1=m1=m2=l2subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2subscript𝑙2l_{1}=m_{1}=m_{2}=l_{2}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and therefore the tanh\tanhroman_tanh terms vanish. The transition and decay parts of the Lindbladian simplify to:

\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦=a|Alma|2α(νlm),\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦subscript𝑎superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=\sum_{a}|A^{a}_{% lm}|^{2}\alpha(\nu_{lm}),bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦=δlma,j|Ajma|2α(νjm).\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦subscript𝛿𝑙𝑚subscript𝑎𝑗superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗𝑚\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=-\delta_{lm}\sum_% {a,j}|A^{a}_{jm}|^{2}\alpha(\nu_{jm}).bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = - italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

This restriction of the Lindbladian is therefore a classical Markov chain generator, as the columns sum to zero and the off-diagonal terms are nonnegative. We refer to this as the classical part of the Lindbladian—it represents the internal dynamics of the diagonal of the state. This restriction als has stationary state ρjjsubscript𝜌𝑗𝑗\rho_{jj}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT—indeed, the operator satisfies classical detailed balance, precisely because α𝛼\alphaitalic_α satisfies the functional equation α(ν)=α(ν)exp(βν)𝛼𝜈𝛼𝜈𝛽𝜈\alpha(\nu)=\alpha(-\nu)\exp(-\beta\nu)italic_α ( italic_ν ) = italic_α ( - italic_ν ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_ν ). The Lindbladian is not necessarily block-diagonal (i.e., the classical restriction is not necessarily a block), but when it is, this represents a decoupling of the classical dynamics of the diagonal, that tends to the Gibbs distribution over the energy eigenstates, from the dephasing that takes off-diagonal elements to zero as the state converges to the Gibbs state.

7.2 Graph-Local Jumps for Cyclic Graphs

In this section we prove Theorem 2.1. Consider a cyclic graph with n𝑛nitalic_n vertices with adjacency matrix 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H, and eigenvectors \ketj\ket𝑗\ket{j}italic_j.

The eigenbasis of a cyclic graph consists of vectors \ketj=n1/2aζnaj\ketea\ket𝑗superscript𝑛12subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜁𝑛𝑎𝑗\ketsubscript𝑒𝑎\ket{j}=n^{-1/2}\sum_{a}\zeta_{n}^{-aj}\ket{e_{a}}italic_j = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_a italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with eigenvalues 2cos(2πjn)22𝜋𝑗𝑛2\cos\left(\frac{2\pi j}{n}\right)2 roman_cos ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_j end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ). The jump operators on the graph are chosen to be graph-local 𝑨a=n1/2|eaea|superscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑛12ketsubscript𝑒𝑎brasubscript𝑒𝑎\bm{A}^{a}=n^{-1/2}|e_{a}\rangle\!\langle e_{a}|bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT |, and therefore have coefficients Alma=n3/2ζna(lm)subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑚superscript𝑛32superscriptsubscript𝜁𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑚A^{a}_{lm}=n^{-3/2}\zeta_{n}^{a(l-m)}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a ( italic_l - italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Now we observe that aζna(ij)=nδijsubscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜁𝑛𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑛subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗\sum_{a}\zeta_{n}^{a(i-j)}=n\delta_{ij}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a ( italic_i - italic_j ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_n italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We therefore have the relation that

aAl1m1aAl2m2a¯=n3aζna((l1m1)(l2m2))=n2δ(l1m1)(l2m2).subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝐴subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝑎¯superscriptsubscript𝐴subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑎superscript𝑛3subscript𝑎superscriptsubscript𝜁𝑛𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2superscript𝑛2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\sum_{a}A_{l_{1}m_{1}}^{a}\overline{A_{l_{2}m_{2}}^{a}}=n^{-3}\sum_{a}\zeta_{n% }^{a((l_{1}-m_{1})-(l_{2}-m_{2}))}=n^{-2}\delta_{(l_{1}-m_{1})(l_{2}-m_{2})}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a ( ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We compute the components of the Lindbladian with these jump operators:

\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m =aAl1m1aAl2m2a¯θ(νl1m1,νl2m2)\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦absentsubscript𝑎subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\displaystyle=\sum_{a}A^{a}_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A^{a}_{l_{2}m_{2}}}\theta(% \nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{% m}}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m
=n2θ(νl1m1,νl2m2)δ(l1m1)(l2m2).absentsuperscript𝑛2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\displaystyle=n^{-2}\theta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})\delta_{(l_{1}-m_% {1})(l_{2}-m_{2})}.= italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

With a similar computation, we obtain

\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m =12(δl1m1a,jAjm2a¯Ajl2aθ(νjm2,νjl2)+δl2m2i,jAjl1a¯Ajm1aθ(νjl1,νjm1))absent12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑎𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚2subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑖𝑗¯subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑎𝑗subscript𝑚1𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\sum_{a,j}\overline{A^{a}_{% jm_{2}}}A^{a}_{jl_{2}}\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}% \sum_{i,j}\overline{A^{a}_{jl_{1}}}A^{a}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{% 1}})\right)= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=n22δl1m1δl2m2(θ(νjm2,νjl2)+θ(νjl1,νjm1))absentsuperscript𝑛22subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{n^{-2}}{2}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}(\theta(% \nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}}))= - divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=n22δl1m1δl2m2(α(νjm2)+α(νjm1)).absentsuperscript𝑛22subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{n^{-2}}{2}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}(\alpha(% \nu_{jm_{2}})+\alpha(\nu_{jm_{1}})).= - divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .

Finally, we find that the coherent part vanishes:

\bra𝐥c\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑐\ket𝐦\displaystyle\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{c}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m =12(δl1m1tanh(β(νm2l2)/4)i,jAjm2i¯Ajl2iθ(νjm2,νjl2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\Biggl{(}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{m_{2}l_{% 2}})/4)\sum_{i,j}\overline{A^{i}_{jm_{2}}}A^{i}_{jl_{2}}\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},% \nu_{jl_{2}})-= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) -
δl2m2tanh(β(νl1m1)/4)i,jAjl1i¯Ajm1iθ(νjl1,νjm1))\displaystyle\hskip 31.2982pt\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})/% 4)\sum_{i,j}\overline{A^{i}_{jl_{1}}}A^{i}_{jm_{1}}\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm% _{1}})\Biggr{)}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=n22δl1m1δl2m2(tanh(β(νm2l2)/4)θ(νjm2,νjl2)+tanh(β(νl1m1)/4)θ(νjl1,νjm1))absentsuperscript𝑛22subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝛽subscript𝜈subscript𝑚2subscript𝑙24𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2𝛽subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚14𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=\frac{n^{-2}}{2}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}(\tanh(% \beta(\nu_{m_{2}l_{2}})/4)\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\tanh(\beta(\nu_{l% _{1}m_{1}})/4)\theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}}))= divide start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=0.absent0\displaystyle=0.= 0 .

The above formulae imply that the Lindbladian is block diagonal in the eigenbasis. The coherent term vanishes and the decay term is fully diagonal. Setting k=m1m2𝑘subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2k=m_{1}-m_{2}italic_k = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and k=l1l2superscript𝑘subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2k^{\prime}=l_{1}-l_{2}italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the transition term \bra𝐥t\ket𝐦\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m is nonzero only if k=k𝑘superscript𝑘k=k^{\prime}italic_k = italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, due to the factor δ(l1m1)(l2m2)=δ(l1l2)(m1m2)subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2\delta_{(l_{1}-m_{1})(l_{2}-m_{2})}=\delta_{(l_{1}-l_{2})(m_{1}-m_{2})}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. There is therefore one block corresponding to each k𝑘kitalic_k, which we will denote ksuperscript𝑘\mathcal{L}^{k}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The block for k=0𝑘0k=0italic_k = 0 is the classical block of the Markov chain on the diagonal entries of the state. Finding its spectral gap, and then lower bounding the eigenvalues of the remaining n1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1 blocks, yields a bound for the spectral gap of the Lindbladian.

7.2.1 Classical block

We will show that the spectral gap of the classical block is asymptotically Ω(n1)Ωsuperscript𝑛1\Omega(n^{-1})roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). We have that

\bra𝐥t0\ket𝐦=1n2δ(l1m1)(l2m2)θ(νl1m1,νl2m2)=1n2α(νlm).\bra𝐥subscriptsuperscript0𝑡\ket𝐦1superscript𝑛2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚21superscript𝑛2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}^{0}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=\frac{1}{n^{2}}\delta_{(l_% {1}-m_{1})(l_{2}-m_{2})}\theta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})=\frac{1}{n^{% 2}}\alpha(\nu_{lm}).bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Secondly,

\bra𝐥d0\ket𝐦=12n2(δl1m1δl2m2(jα(νjm2)+jα(νjm1)))=1n2δlmjα(νjm).\bra𝐥subscriptsuperscript0𝑑\ket𝐦12superscript𝑛2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚11superscript𝑛2subscript𝛿𝑙𝑚subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗𝑚\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}^{0}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=-\frac{1}{2n^{2}}\left(% \delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\left(\sum_{j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{2}})+\sum_% {j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{1}})\right)\right)=-\frac{1}{n^{2}}\delta_{lm}\sum_{j}% \alpha(\nu_{jm}).bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

It is evident that the columns sum to zero and the off-diagonal terms are nonnegative, so the matrix can be considered a Markov chain generator.

We will repeatedly use the canonical path bound, a standard technique in the theory of classical Markov chains, to establish lower bounds on their spectral gaps. The canonical path lemma states that, fixing a “canonical” path between each pair of vertices on a graph, a corresponding spectral graph bound can be obtained on the Markov chain. For our purposes, every value of the Markov chain generator is nonzero, so it suffices to consider the canonical path between any two vertices to be the edge joining them. The lemma then simplifies to the following statement:

Lemma 7.3.

Say L0superscript𝐿0L^{0}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a Markov chain generator with stationary state σ𝜎\sigmaitalic_σ. Then, the spectral gap satisfies the following bound:

λmin(l,m)Llm0σl.𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚subscriptsuperscript𝐿0𝑙𝑚subscript𝜎𝑙\lambda\geq\min_{(l,m)}\frac{L^{0}_{lm}}{\sigma_{l}}.italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_l , italic_m ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .

Applying this bound in this case, and noting that the stationary state of this Markov chain is ρllsubscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\rho_{ll}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we obtain the lower bound

λminlmα(νlm)n2ρll.𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚superscript𝑛2subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\displaystyle\lambda\geq\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\alpha(\nu_{lm})n^{-2}}{\rho_{ll}}.italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (14)

The first equality holds because every canonical path is length 1, so the only path containing the edge (l,m)𝑙𝑚(l,m)( italic_l , italic_m ) is γlmsubscript𝛾𝑙𝑚\gamma_{lm}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We may upper bound ρllsubscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\rho_{ll}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ρlle2βiEin1e2βe2β=n1e4βsubscript𝜌𝑙𝑙superscript𝑒2𝛽subscript𝑖subscript𝐸𝑖superscript𝑛1superscript𝑒2𝛽superscript𝑒2𝛽superscript𝑛1superscript𝑒4𝛽\rho_{ll}\leq\frac{e^{2\beta}}{\sum_{i}E_{i}}\leq n^{-1}\frac{e^{2\beta}}{e^{-% 2\beta}}=n^{-1}e^{4\beta}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Moreover, |νlm|4subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚4|\nu_{lm}|\leq 4| italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ 4 since all energies lie in [2,2]22[-2,2][ - 2 , 2 ], so α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is bounded below by a positive constant C𝐶Citalic_C that is independent of n𝑛nitalic_n. We conclude that λminlmα(νlm)n2ρllCn2e4βn1=Ω(n1)𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚superscript𝑛2subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙𝐶superscript𝑛2superscript𝑒4𝛽superscript𝑛1Ωsuperscript𝑛1\lambda\geq\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\alpha(\nu_{lm})n^{-2}}{\rho_{ll}}\geq\frac{Cn^% {-2}}{e^{4\beta}n^{-1}}=\Omega(n^{-1})italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≥ divide start_ARG italic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), as desired.

7.2.2 Non-classical blocks

We utilize the Gershgorin bound on the columns of the k𝑘kitalic_kth block of βsubscript𝛽-\mathcal{L}_{\beta}- caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, ksuperscript𝑘-\mathcal{L}^{k}- caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which states that the eigenvalues of ksuperscript𝑘\mathcal{L}^{k}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must be larger than min𝐦[𝐦|k|𝐦𝐥𝐦|𝐥|k|𝐦|]subscript𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐦superscript𝑘𝐦subscript𝐥𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐥superscript𝑘𝐦\min_{\mathbf{m}}\left[\langle\mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle-% \sum_{\mathbf{l}\neq\mathbf{m}}|\langle\mathbf{l}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}% \rangle|\right]roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l ≠ bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟨ bold_l | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ | ]. The approach we follow is very similar to the one outlined in [Tem13] for the Davies generator. For a fixed block k>0𝑘0k>0italic_k > 0, we now evaluate the bound, first establishing the following lemma:

Lemma 7.4.

For sufficiently large energy resolution σE>0subscript𝜎𝐸0\sigma_{E}>0italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that for each non-classical block of the CKG Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT specified above, 𝐦|k|𝐦𝐥𝐦|𝐥|k|𝐦|Cn2𝐥(νl1m1νl2m2)2quantum-operator-product𝐦superscript𝑘𝐦subscript𝐥𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐥superscript𝑘𝐦𝐶superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\langle\mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle-\sum_{\mathbf{l}\neq% \mathbf{m}}|\langle\mathbf{l}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle|\geq\frac{C}{n% ^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l ≠ bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟨ bold_l | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ | ≥ divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some constant C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0.

Proof.

We first expand the term of interest:

𝐦|k|𝐦𝐥𝐦|𝐥|k|𝐦|quantum-operator-product𝐦superscript𝑘𝐦subscript𝐥𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐥superscript𝑘𝐦\displaystyle\langle\mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle-\sum_{\mathbf% {l}\neq\mathbf{m}}|\langle\mathbf{l}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle|⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l ≠ bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟨ bold_l | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ |
=𝐦|tk|𝐦+𝐦|dk|𝐦𝐥𝐦|𝐥|tk|𝐦|absentquantum-operator-product𝐦subscriptsuperscript𝑘𝑡𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐦subscriptsuperscript𝑘𝑑𝐦subscript𝐥𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐥subscriptsuperscript𝑘𝑡𝐦\displaystyle=\langle\mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}_{t}|\mathbf{m}\rangle+\langle% \mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}_{d}|\mathbf{m}\rangle-\sum_{\mathbf{l}\neq\mathbf{m% }}|\langle\mathbf{l}|\mathcal{L}^{k}_{t}|\mathbf{m}\rangle|= ⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ + ⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l ≠ bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟨ bold_l | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ |
=1n2𝐥(α(νl1m1)+α(νl2m2)2α(νl1m1+νl2m22))absent1superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\displaystyle=\frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}\left(\frac{\alpha(\nu_{l_{1}m_{% 1}})+\alpha(\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})}{2}-\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{2% }m_{2}}}{2}\right)\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) )
+1n2𝐥α(νl1m1+νl2m22)(1exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2)).1superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚221superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\displaystyle+\frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1% }}+\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{2}\right)\left(1-\exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{% l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)\right).+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( 1 - roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) .

Note that the sums over 𝐥𝐥\mathbf{l}bold_l above are only for the rows in the k𝑘kitalic_kth block, i.e. l1l2=ksubscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2𝑘l_{1}-l_{2}=kitalic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_k. Now, since 1exp(x)x21𝑥𝑥21-\exp(-x)\geq\frac{x}{2}1 - roman_exp ( - italic_x ) ≥ divide start_ARG italic_x end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG for x1𝑥1x\leq 1italic_x ≤ 1, we have that for |νl1m1νl2m2|8σE2=8σEsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚28superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸28subscript𝜎𝐸|\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}|\leq\sqrt{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}=\sqrt{8}\sigma_{E}| italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ square-root start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = square-root start_ARG 8 end_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

1exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2)(νl1m1νl2m2)216σE2,1superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2216superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸21-\exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}% \right)\geq\frac{(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{16\sigma_{E}^{2}},1 - roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ≥ divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 16 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

and therefore

1n2α(νl1m1+νl2m22)(1exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2))Mn2(νl1m1νl2m2)216σE2.1superscript𝑛2𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚221superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝑀superscript𝑛2superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2216superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\frac{1}{n^{2}}\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{2}\right)% \left(1-\exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^% {2}}\right)\right)\geq\frac{M}{n^{2}}\frac{(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})% ^{2}}{16\sigma_{E}^{2}}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( 1 - roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) ≥ divide start_ARG italic_M end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 16 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

The values of ν𝜈\nuitalic_ν are all bounded in the range [2,2]22[-2,2][ - 2 , 2 ] so α𝛼\alphaitalic_α has some constant lower bound, which we term M>0𝑀0M>0italic_M > 0 above. Moreover, α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is smooth, being the convolution of the smooth Gaussian with another function (the Metropolis-like filter). We therefore also have that

12(α(νl1m1)+α(νl2m2))α((νl1m1+νl1m1)2)C(νl1m1νl2m2)212𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚12superscript𝐶superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})+\alpha(\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})\right)-% \alpha\left(\frac{(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})}{2}\right)\geq-C^{\prime% }(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) - italic_α ( divide start_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ≥ - italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for some C>0superscript𝐶0C^{\prime}>0italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT > 0. Setting σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to a sufficiently small constant that 116σE22C116superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸22superscript𝐶\frac{1}{16\sigma_{E}^{2}}\geq 2C^{\prime}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ≥ 2 italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we may lower bound the expression of interest, taking only the summands 𝐥superscript𝐥\mathbf{l^{\prime}}bold_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with |νl1m1νl2m2|8σEsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚28subscript𝜎𝐸|\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}|\leq\sqrt{8}\sigma_{E}| italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ square-root start_ARG 8 end_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

1n2(116σE2C)𝐥(νl1m1νl2m2)2Cn2𝐥(νl1m1νl2m2)2.1superscript𝑛2116superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2superscript𝐶subscriptsuperscript𝐥superscriptsubscript𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22superscript𝐶superscript𝑛2subscriptsuperscript𝐥superscriptsubscript𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{16\sigma_{E}^{2}}-C^{\prime}\right)% \sum_{\mathbf{l^{\prime}}}(\nu_{l^{\prime}_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l^{\prime}_{2}m_{2}}% )^{2}\geq\frac{C^{\prime}}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l^{\prime}}}(\nu_{l^{\prime}_{1% }m_{1}}-\nu_{l^{\prime}_{2}m_{2}})^{2}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ divide start_ARG italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (15)

For |νl1m1νl2m2|8σEsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚28subscript𝜎𝐸|\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}|\geq\sqrt{8}\sigma_{E}| italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≥ square-root start_ARG 8 end_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2)exp(1)12.superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2112\exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}% \right)\leq\exp(-1)\leq\frac{1}{2}.roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ≤ roman_exp ( - 1 ) ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG .

Note that since the Metropolis-like filter is monotone, so is the Gaussian-blurred α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, and therefore α(νl1m1)+α(νl2m2)α(νl1m1+νl2m22)M𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22𝑀\alpha(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})+\alpha(\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})-\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}% m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{2}\right)\geq Mitalic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ≥ italic_M, where M𝑀Mitalic_M is again the constant lower bound to α𝛼\alphaitalic_α on the region [2,2]22[-2,2][ - 2 , 2 ]. For the summands for these values of 𝐥𝐥\mathbf{l}bold_l, therefore, we obtain the lower bound of

1n2(α(νl1m1)+α(νl2m2)2α(νl1m1+νl2m22)exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2))M2n2.1superscript𝑛2𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2𝑀2superscript𝑛2\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^{2}}\left(\frac{\alpha(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})+\alpha(\nu_{l% _{2}m_{2}})}{2}-\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{2}\right)% \exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}% \right)\right)\geq\frac{M}{2n^{2}}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) ≥ divide start_ARG italic_M end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

This value is at most a constant factor smaller than 1n2(νl1m1νl2m2)21superscript𝑛2superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\frac{1}{n^{2}}(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, since (νl1m1νl2m2)2superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is upper bounded by a constant. As a result, we may finally assert that there exists a constant C𝐶Citalic_C such that

𝐦|k|𝐦𝐥𝐦|𝐥|k|𝐦|Cn2𝐥(νl1m1νl2m2)2.quantum-operator-product𝐦superscript𝑘𝐦subscript𝐥𝐦quantum-operator-product𝐥superscript𝑘𝐦𝐶superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\langle\mathbf{m}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle-\sum_{\mathbf{l}\neq% \mathbf{m}}|\langle\mathbf{l}|\mathcal{L}^{k}|\mathbf{m}\rangle|\geq\frac{C}{n% ^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}.⟨ bold_m | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l ≠ bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟨ bold_l | caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_m ⟩ | ≥ divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Using the above lemma, we can now establish a lower bound on the spectral gap. Note that νl1m1νl2m2=νl1l2νm1m2=(cos(2πl1n)cos(2πl2n))(cos(2πm1n)cos(2πm2n))subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝜈subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚22𝜋subscript𝑙1𝑛2𝜋subscript𝑙2𝑛2𝜋subscript𝑚1𝑛2𝜋subscript𝑚2𝑛\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}=\nu_{l_{1}l_{2}}-\nu_{m_{1}m_{2}}=(\cos(% \frac{2\pi l_{1}}{n})-\cos(\frac{2\pi l_{2}}{n}))-(\cos(\frac{2\pi m_{1}}{n})-% \cos(\frac{2\pi m_{2}}{n}))italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( roman_cos ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) - roman_cos ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) ) - ( roman_cos ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) - roman_cos ( divide start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) ). This value is equal to νl1m1νl2m2=sin(πkn)(sin(π(l1+l2)n)sin(π(m1+m2)n))subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜋𝑘𝑛𝜋subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2𝑛𝜋subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑛\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}=\sin(\frac{\pi k}{n})(\sin(\frac{\pi(l_{1}+l% _{2})}{n})-\sin(\frac{\pi(m_{1}+m_{2})}{n}))italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) ( roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) - roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) ). There is a constant fraction of choices of each l1subscript𝑙1l_{1}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that |sin(π(l1+l2)n)|0.5𝜋subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2𝑛0.5\left|\sin\left(\frac{\pi(l_{1}+l_{2})}{n}\right)\right|\geq 0.5| roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) | ≥ 0.5 and such that the sign of sin(π(l1+l2)n)𝜋subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2𝑛\sin\left(\frac{\pi(l_{1}+l_{2})}{n}\right)roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) is opposite to the sign of sin(π(m1+m2)n)𝜋subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑛\sin\left(\frac{\pi(m_{1}+m_{2})}{n}\right)roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ), so their difference has magnitude at least 0.50.50.50.5. Then, taking this fraction to be f𝑓fitalic_f:

Cn2𝐥(νl1m1νl2m2)2fC4n|sin(πkn)|2𝐶superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22𝑓𝐶4𝑛superscript𝜋𝑘𝑛2\frac{C}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})^{2}\geq% \frac{fC}{4n}\left|\sin\left(\frac{\pi k}{n}\right)\right|^{2}divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ divide start_ARG italic_f italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_n end_ARG | roman_sin ( divide start_ARG italic_π italic_k end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

The minimum value of this for any k𝑘kitalic_k is Ω(n3)Ωsuperscript𝑛3\Omega(n^{-3})roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

7.2.3 Final bound

Now we prove Theorem 2.1. As shown above, βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a block diagonal matrix, with one classical block and n1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1 non-classical blocks. The classical block is a Markov chain generator, and using the canonical path lemma the spectral gap was shown to be Ω(n1)Ωsuperscript𝑛1\Omega(n^{-1})roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Meanwhile, the k𝑘kitalic_kth non-classical block has a minimum eigenvalue that is Ω(n3)Ωsuperscript𝑛3\Omega(n^{-3})roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), so the spectral gap of the full Lindbladian is Ω(n3)Ωsuperscript𝑛3\Omega(n^{-3})roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). To prove the upper bound on the spectral gap, we consider the row vector v𝑣vitalic_v of length n2superscript𝑛2n^{2}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is 1111 on the indices that correspond to the block k=1𝑘1k=1italic_k = 1, and 0 elsewhere. As an operator, it takes the value 1 on one offdiagonal with a fixed l1l2=ksubscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2𝑘l_{1}-l_{2}=kitalic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_k. When calculating (vβ)𝐦=(βv)𝐦subscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝐦subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣𝐦(v\mathcal{L}_{\beta})_{\mathbf{m}}=(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v)_{\mathbf{% m}}( italic_v caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we obtain the same formula as found in the Gershgorin bound calculation above—indeed, the values on the diagonal are all positive, while the off-diagonal values are negative:

(βv)𝐦=subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣𝐦absent\displaystyle(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v)_{\mathbf{m}}=( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1n2𝐥(α(νl1m1)+α(νl2m2)2α(νl1m1+νl2m22))1superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚22\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}\left(\frac{\alpha(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1% }})+\alpha(\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})}{2}-\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}+\nu_{l_{2}% m_{2}}}{2}\right)\right)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG - italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) )
+\displaystyle++ 1n2𝐥α(νl1m1+νl2m22)(1exp((νl1m1νl2m2)28σE2)).1superscript𝑛2subscript𝐥𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚221superscriptsubscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚228superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{\mathbf{l}}\alpha\left(\frac{\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}% }+\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{2}\right)\left(1-\exp\left(\frac{-(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l% _{2}m_{2}})^{2}}{8\sigma_{E}^{2}}\right)\right).divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( divide start_ARG italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) ( 1 - roman_exp ( divide start_ARG - ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ) . (16)

The previous lower bound shows that each of these values is nonnegative. Since l1l2=m1m2=1subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚21l_{1}-l_{2}=m_{1}-m_{2}=1italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1, νl1m1νl2m2=νl1m1νl2m2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}=\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}}-\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is O(n1)𝑂superscript𝑛1O(n^{-1})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The first term in the expression, since it is composed of summands that are second differences in α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, is n𝑛nitalic_n terms that are O(n2)𝑂superscript𝑛2O(n^{-2})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) scaled by n2superscript𝑛2n^{-2}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT—it is therefore O(n3)𝑂superscript𝑛3O(n^{-3})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The summands of the second term can be similarly estimated to be O(n2)𝑂superscript𝑛2O(n^{-2})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), so it is also O(n3)𝑂superscript𝑛3O(n^{-3})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The terms of (βv)𝐦subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣𝐦(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v)_{\mathbf{m}}( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are therefore nonnegative and are at most Cn3𝐶superscript𝑛3Cn^{-3}italic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some constant C𝐶Citalic_C.

To prove the upper bound, we make use of the inner product ,ρβ1\langle\ ,\ \rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}⟨ , ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to which βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is self-adjoint. Note that |i1i2|,|j1j2|ρβ1=δi2j1δi1j2(ρβ)i1i11/2(ρβ)i2i21/20subscriptketsubscript𝑖1brasubscript𝑖2ketsubscript𝑗1brasubscript𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1subscript𝛿subscript𝑖2subscript𝑗1subscript𝛿subscript𝑖1subscript𝑗2superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽subscript𝑖1subscript𝑖112superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽subscript𝑖2subscript𝑖2120\langle|i_{1}\rangle\!\langle i_{2}|,|j_{1}\rangle\!\langle j_{2}|\rangle_{% \rho_{\beta}^{-1}}=\delta_{i_{2}j_{1}}\delta_{i_{1}j_{2}}(\rho_{\beta})_{i_{1}% i_{1}}^{1/2}(\rho_{\beta})_{i_{2}i_{2}}^{1/2}\geq 0⟨ | italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | , | italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟨ italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≥ 0. Hence, when ,ρβ1\langle\ ,\ \rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}⟨ , ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is expressed in the energy basis as vMw𝑣𝑀𝑤vMwitalic_v italic_M italic_w for a matrix M𝑀Mitalic_M, M𝑀Mitalic_M has nonnegative elements. We therefore may upper bound (βv),vρβ1subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣𝑣superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1\langle(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v),v\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}⟨ ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) , italic_v ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by Cn3v,v𝐶superscript𝑛3𝑣𝑣Cn^{-3}\langle v,v\rangleitalic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_v , italic_v ⟩, since the coefficients of (βv)superscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v)( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) and v𝑣vitalic_v are nonnegative and (βv)superscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v)( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) is dominated by Cn3v𝐶superscript𝑛3𝑣Cn^{-3}vitalic_C italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v for some C>0𝐶0C>0italic_C > 0. We conclude that (βv),vρβ1v,vρβ1subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝛽𝑣𝑣superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1subscript𝑣𝑣superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1\frac{\langle(\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}v),v\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}}{% \langle v,v\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}}divide start_ARG ⟨ ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v ) , italic_v ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ⟨ italic_v , italic_v ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG is O(n3)𝑂superscript𝑛3O(n^{-3})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Since βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is self-adjoint with respect to this inner product, we obtain that v𝑣vitalic_v has Rayleigh quotient O(n3)𝑂superscript𝑛3O(n^{-3})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). v𝑣vitalic_v is also orthogonal to I𝐼Iitalic_I, since v,ρβρβ1=Tr(vρβ1/2Iρβ1/2)=Tr(vρβ)=0subscript𝑣subscript𝜌𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1Tr𝑣superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽12𝐼superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽12Tr𝑣subscript𝜌𝛽0\langle v,\rho_{\beta}\rangle_{\rho_{\beta}^{-1}}=\mathrm{Tr}(v\rho_{\beta}^{1% /2}I\rho_{\beta}^{1/2})=\mathrm{Tr}(v\rho_{\beta})=0⟨ italic_v , italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Tr ( italic_v italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_I italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = roman_Tr ( italic_v italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0, where the last equality holds since as an operator v𝑣vitalic_v is zero along the diagonal. v𝑣vitalic_v has no overlap with I𝐼Iitalic_I, the fixed point of βsuperscriptsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and therefore its Rayleigh quotient is an upper bound on the spectral gap. The spectral gap must therefore also be O(n3)𝑂superscript𝑛3O(n^{-3})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

7.3 Bounded Degree Systems with 1-Design Jumps

In this section we prove Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 2.2, demonstrating an improvement over the result in Theorem 2.1 for local jumps in cyclic graphs.

7.3.1 Proof of Lemma 3.1

To prove Lemma 3.1, we make use of the expressions (13) for the transition, decay, and coherent parts of a general Lindbladian, but with simply one Haar random jump (or equivalently any 1-design since the second moments of the operators are equal). The transition term is

\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦=Al1m1Al2m2¯θ(νl1m1,νl2m2).\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦subscript𝐴subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscript𝐴subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}=A_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A_{l_{% 2}m_{2}}}\theta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}}).bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

The expectation of the product Al1m1Al2m2¯subscript𝐴subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1¯subscript𝐴subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2A_{l_{1}m_{1}}\overline{A_{l_{2}m_{2}}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG is zero if l1l2subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2l_{1}\neq l_{2}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or m1m2subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2m_{1}\neq m_{2}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The expectation of the norm squared of an element, on the other hand, is n1superscript𝑛1n^{-1}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. So we obtain

𝔼[\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =δl1l2δm1m2nθ(νl1m1,νl2m2)absentsubscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑛𝜃subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2\displaystyle=\frac{\delta_{l_{1}l_{2}}\delta_{m_{1}m_{2}}}{n}\theta(\nu_{l_{1% }m_{1}},\nu_{l_{2}m_{2}})= divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) (17)
=δl1l2δm1m2nα(νl1m1).absentsubscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑛𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=\frac{\delta_{l_{1}l_{2}}\delta_{m_{1}m_{2}}}{n}\alpha(\nu_{l_{1% }m_{1}}).= divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (18)

Meanwhile,

𝔼[\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =12(δl1m1j𝔼[Ajm2¯Ajl2]θ(νjm2,νjl2)+δl2m2j𝔼[Ajl1¯Ajm1]θ(νjl1,νjm1))absent12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑗𝔼delimited-[]¯subscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝑙2𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2subscript𝑗𝔼delimited-[]¯subscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝐴𝑗subscript𝑚1𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑙1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\sum_{j}\mathbb{E}\left[% \overline{A_{jm_{2}}}A_{jl_{2}}\right]\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})+\delta% _{l_{2}m_{2}}\sum_{j}\mathbb{E}\left[\overline{A_{jl_{1}}}A_{jm_{1}}\right]% \theta(\nu_{jl_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\right)= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=12(δl1m1δl2m2njθ(νjm2,νjm2)+δl1m1δl2m2njθ(νjm1,νjm1))absent12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑛subscript𝑗𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑛subscript𝑗𝜃subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{% n}\sum_{j}\theta(\nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jm_{2}})+\frac{\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l% _{2}m_{2}}}{n}\sum_{j}\theta(\nu_{jm_{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\right)= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )
=12(δl1m1δl2m2nj(α(νjm2)+α(νjm1))),absent12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{% n}\sum_{j}(\alpha(\nu_{jm_{2}})+\alpha(\nu_{jm_{1}}))\right),= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ) ,
𝔼[\bra𝐥c\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑐\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{c}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =12(δl1m1tanh(β(νm2l2)/4)j𝔼[Ajm2¯Ajl2]θ(νjm2,νjl2)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\Biggl{(}\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{m_{2}l_{% 2}})/4)\sum_{j}\mathbb{E}\left[\overline{A_{jm_{2}}}A_{jl_{2}}\right]\theta(% \nu_{jm_{2}},\nu_{jl_{2}})-= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) -
δl2m2tanh(β(νl1m1)/4)j𝔼[Ajl1¯Ajm1]θ(νjl1,νjm1))=0.\displaystyle\hskip 31.2982pt\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}\tanh(\beta(\nu_{l_{1}m_{1}})/% 4)\sum_{j}\mathbb{E}\left[\overline{A_{jl_{1}}}A_{jm_{1}}\right]\theta(\nu_{jl% _{1}},\nu_{jm_{1}})\Biggr{)}=0.italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_tanh ( italic_β ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / 4 ) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E [ over¯ start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_θ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = 0 .

The final Lindbladian μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is therefore completely diagonal except for a “classical block” 0superscript0\mathcal{L}^{0}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of indices \ket(m,m)\ket𝑚𝑚\ket{(m,m)}( italic_m , italic_m ), whose off-diagonal terms are populated by the elements of tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The spectral gap of this Lindbladian is therefore the minimum of the values along the diagonal, which are all positive, and the spectral gap of the classical block.

As in 7.2, we use the Lemma 7.3 to bound the spectral gap of the classical block. Using this lemma, with the canonical path being the edge between a pair of vertices, we obtain the bound

λminlmα(νlm)n1ρll.𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚superscript𝑛1subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\displaystyle\lambda\geq\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\alpha(\nu_{lm})n^{-1}}{\rho_{ll}}.italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (19)

We may upper bound ρllsubscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\rho_{ll}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ρlleEminβiEin1eEminβeEmaxβ=n1eO(1)=O(n1)subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙superscript𝑒subscript𝐸min𝛽subscript𝑖subscript𝐸𝑖superscript𝑛1superscript𝑒subscript𝐸min𝛽superscript𝑒subscript𝐸max𝛽superscript𝑛1superscript𝑒𝑂1𝑂superscript𝑛1\rho_{ll}\leq\frac{e^{-E_{\text{min}}\beta}}{\sum_{i}E_{i}}\leq n^{-1}\frac{e^% {-E_{\text{min}}\beta}}{e^{-E_{\text{max}}\beta}}=n^{-1}e^{-O(1)}=O(n^{-1})italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT max end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_O ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) due to the fact that β𝑯=O(1)𝛽norm𝑯𝑂1\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|=O(1)italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ = italic_O ( 1 ). Similarly, since α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is the convolution of a Gaussian of radius σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with γ(ω)=exp(βmax(ω+βσE22,0))𝛾𝜔𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸220\gamma(\omega)=\exp\left(-\beta\max\left(\omega+\frac{\beta\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2},% 0\right)\right)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) = roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ω + divide start_ARG italic_β italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ) ), the assumption that β𝑯=O(1)𝛽norm𝑯𝑂1\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|=O(1)italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ = italic_O ( 1 ) again yields that α𝛼\alphaitalic_α evaluated at νlmsubscript𝜈𝑙𝑚\nu_{lm}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ). Indeed, within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of any value of νlmsubscript𝜈𝑙𝑚\nu_{lm}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, γ(ω)𝛾𝜔\gamma(\omega)italic_γ ( italic_ω ) is Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ), and as a consequence α(νlm)=Ω(1)𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚Ω1\alpha(\nu_{lm})=\Omega(1)italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_Ω ( 1 ). This yields a lower bound on λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ of minlmΩ(n1)O(n1)=Ω(1)subscript𝑙𝑚Ωsuperscript𝑛1𝑂superscript𝑛1Ω1\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\Omega(n^{-1})}{O(n^{1})}=\Omega(1)roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ω ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG = roman_Ω ( 1 ).

Now, we lower bound the diagonal elements outside of the classical block. Since each such element is of the form

𝔼[\bra𝐦d\ket𝐦]=12(1njα(νjm2)+1njα(νjm1))𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐦subscript𝑑\ket𝐦121𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚21𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{m}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]=-\frac{% 1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{2}})+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\alpha(% \nu_{jm_{1}})\right)blackboard_E [ bold_m caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) )

and we have already established that each α𝛼\alphaitalic_α term is Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ), so the resulting diagonal values are all Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ). We conclude that the spectral gap of the Lindbladian is Ω(1)Ω1\Omega(1)roman_Ω ( 1 ).

7.3.2 Proof of Theorem 2.2

We construct our Lindbladian by sampling M=Θ(log(n))𝑀Θ𝑛M=\Theta(\log(n))italic_M = roman_Θ ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ) unnormalized jumps 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from the 1-design 𝒟(U(n))𝒟𝑈𝑛\mathcal{D}(U(n))caligraphic_D ( italic_U ( italic_n ) ) as in Definition 2.1, each with a corresponding Lindbladian asubscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (which has one jump 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT along with its adjoint, normalized by 2). Then, we want to prove that with high probability, β=2Ma=1M/2asubscript𝛽2𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2subscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\frac{2}{M}\sum_{a=1}^{M/2}\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the Lindbladian with all M𝑀Mitalic_M of these jumps now normalized by the number of jumps, has spectral gap bounded by a constant.

To prove the result, we shall make use of the matrix Bernstein’s inequality for our concentration bound:

Lemma 7.5 (cf. [T+15]).

Say X1,,XNsubscript𝑋1subscript𝑋𝑁X_{1},\dots,X_{N}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are independent random d×d𝑑𝑑d\times ditalic_d × italic_d Hermitian matrices, such that 𝔼[Xi]=0𝔼delimited-[]subscript𝑋𝑖0\mathbb{E}[X_{i}]=0blackboard_E [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0 and XiRnormsubscript𝑋𝑖𝑅\|{X_{i}}\|\leq R∥ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ≤ italic_R. Define Y=1Ni=1NXi𝑌1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑋𝑖Y=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}X_{i}italic_Y = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and say that N𝔼[Y2]T𝑁𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝑌2𝑇N\mathbb{E}[Y^{2}]\leq Titalic_N blackboard_E [ italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_T. Then Pr(Yt)2dexp(32Nt23T+Rt)Prnorm𝑌𝑡2𝑑32𝑁superscript𝑡23𝑇𝑅𝑡\Pr(\|{Y}\|\geq t)\leq 2d\exp(-\frac{3}{2}\frac{Nt^{2}}{3T+Rt})roman_Pr ( ∥ italic_Y ∥ ≥ italic_t ) ≤ 2 italic_d roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_N italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 3 italic_T + italic_R italic_t end_ARG ).

Call δa=aμ𝛿subscript𝑎subscript𝑎subscript𝜇\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}=\mathcal{L}_{a}-\mathcal{L}_{\mu}italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where μ=𝔼𝑨𝒟[β]subscript𝜇subscript𝔼similar-to𝑨𝒟delimited-[]subscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{A}\sim\mathcal{D}}[\mathcal{L}_{\beta}]caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = blackboard_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_A ∼ caligraphic_D end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]. Each of these operators has zero expectation. We have that δ=2Ma=1M/2δa𝛿2𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2𝛿subscript𝑎\delta\mathcal{L}=\frac{2}{M}\sum_{a=1}^{M/2}\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}italic_δ caligraphic_L = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is precisely the discrepancy between our Lindbladian β=2Ma=1M/2asubscript𝛽2𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2subscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\frac{2}{M}\sum_{a=1}^{M/2}\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the expected Lindbladian μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We will apply Bernstein’s inequality for Xa=δasubscript𝑋𝑎𝛿subscript𝑎X_{a}=\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Y=δ𝑌𝛿Y=\delta\mathcal{L}italic_Y = italic_δ caligraphic_L, and N=M2𝑁𝑀2N=\frac{M}{2}italic_N = divide start_ARG italic_M end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG. By Lemma 7.2, the CKG Lindbladian has operator norm O(log(β𝑯))𝑂𝛽norm𝑯O(\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|))italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ), which is O(1)𝑂1O(1)italic_O ( 1 ) in this regime. We denote this upper bound R2𝑅2\frac{R}{2}divide start_ARG italic_R end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG. We can now verify the condition N𝔼[Y2]T𝑁𝔼delimited-[]superscript𝑌2𝑇N\mathbb{E}[Y^{2}]\leq Titalic_N blackboard_E [ italic_Y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ italic_T in the statement of Lemma 7.5, since we have that δaa+μR=Θ(1)norm𝛿subscript𝑎normsubscript𝑎normsubscript𝜇𝑅Θ1\|{\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}}\|\leq\|{\mathcal{L}_{a}}\|+\|{\mathcal{L}_{\mu}}\|% \leq R=\Theta(1)∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ≤ ∥ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ + ∥ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ≤ italic_R = roman_Θ ( 1 ), and

M2𝔼[(a=1M/2δaM/2)2]2Ma=1M/2δa2R2.𝑀2delimited-∥∥𝔼delimited-[]superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2𝛿subscript𝑎𝑀222𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2superscriptnorm𝛿subscript𝑎2superscript𝑅2\frac{M}{2}\left\lVert\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\frac{\sum_{a=1}^{M/2}\delta% \mathcal{L}_{a}}{M/2}\right)^{2}\right]\right\rVert\leq\frac{2}{M}\sum_{a=1}^{% M/2}\|{\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}}\|^{2}\leq R^{2}.divide start_ARG italic_M end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∥ blackboard_E [ ( divide start_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_M / 2 end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ∥ ≤ divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Every operator that satisfies detailed balance is Hermitian in some fixed basis, and therefore each asubscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as well as μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, can be considered Hermitian. By linearity, the same holds true for δa=aμ𝛿subscript𝑎subscript𝑎subscript𝜇\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}=\mathcal{L}_{a}-\mathcal{L}_{\mu}italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The operators δa𝛿subscript𝑎\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT therefore satisfy the conditions of the matrix Bernstein inequality, and so their average δ𝛿\delta\mathcal{L}italic_δ caligraphic_L satisfies

Pr(δt)2n2exp(34Mt23R2+Rt),Prnorm𝛿𝑡2superscript𝑛234𝑀superscript𝑡23superscript𝑅2𝑅𝑡\Pr\left(\left\|\delta\mathcal{L}\right\|\geq t\right)\leq 2n^{2}\exp\left(-% \frac{3}{4}\frac{Mt^{2}}{3R^{2}+Rt}\right),roman_Pr ( ∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L ∥ ≥ italic_t ) ≤ 2 italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_M italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 3 italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_R italic_t end_ARG ) ,

where the n2superscript𝑛2n^{2}italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is due to an overhead of the dimension of the Lindbladian.

For any constant t𝑡titalic_t, there exists an M=Θ(log(n))𝑀Θ𝑛M=\Theta(\log(n))italic_M = roman_Θ ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ) such that the term inside the exponential is at least 3log(n)3𝑛3\log(n)3 roman_log ( italic_n ), since R𝑅Ritalic_R is a constant. The probability that δtnorm𝛿𝑡\|{\delta\mathcal{L}}\|\leq t∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L ∥ ≤ italic_t is then arbitrarily close to 1 for sufficiently large n𝑛nitalic_n and choice of M=Θ(log(n))𝑀Θ𝑛M=\Theta(\log(n))italic_M = roman_Θ ( roman_log ( italic_n ) ). By Lemma 3.1, μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a constant spectral gap bounded below by some C𝐶Citalic_C. By Weyl’s theorem, the eigenvalues of μ+δsubscript𝜇𝛿\mathcal{L}_{\mu}+\delta\mathcal{L}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ caligraphic_L may differ by at most t𝑡titalic_t from those of μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Choosing tC2𝑡𝐶2t\leq\frac{C}{2}italic_t ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG, it follows that asubscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with any constant probability, has constant spectral gap.

7.4 Unbounded Degree Systems with Haar Random Jumps

7.4.1 Proof of Lemma 3.2

We follow the proof of Lemma 3.1. The expected Lindbladian takes the following form:

𝔼[\bra𝐥t\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑡\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{t}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =δl1l2δm1m2nα(νl1m1),absentsubscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2subscript𝛿subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚2𝑛𝛼subscript𝜈subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=\frac{\delta_{l_{1}l_{2}}\delta_{m_{1}m_{2}}}{n}\alpha(\nu_{l_{1% }m_{1}}),= divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
𝔼[\bra𝐥d\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑑\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =12(δl1m1δl2m2njα(νjm2)+δl1m1δl2m2njα(νjm1)),absent12subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2subscript𝛿subscript𝑙1subscript𝑚1subscript𝛿subscript𝑙2subscript𝑚2𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{% n}\sum_{j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{2}})+\frac{\delta_{l_{1}m_{1}}\delta_{l_{2}m_{2}}}{n% }\sum_{j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{1}})\right),= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ,
𝔼[\bra𝐥c\ket𝐦]𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐥subscript𝑐\ket𝐦\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{l}}\mathcal{L}_{c}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]blackboard_E [ bold_l caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] =0.absent0\displaystyle=0.= 0 .

The final Lindbladian μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is diagonal except for a “classical block” 0superscript0\mathcal{L}^{0}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of indices \ket(m,m)\ket𝑚𝑚\ket{(m,m)}( italic_m , italic_m ), whose off-diagonal terms are populated by the elements of tsubscript𝑡\mathcal{L}_{t}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The spectral gap of this Lindbladian is therefore the minimum of the values along the diagonal, which are all positive, and the spectral gap of the classical block.

As in Lemma 3.1, we may obtain the following bound on the classical block:

λminlmα(νlm)n1ρll.𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚superscript𝑛1subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙\displaystyle\lambda\geq\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\alpha(\nu_{lm})n^{-1}}{\rho_{ll}}.italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (20)

Now, note that ρll=nexp(βEl)(1njexp(βEj))subscript𝜌𝑙𝑙𝑛𝛽subscript𝐸𝑙1𝑛subscript𝑗𝛽subscript𝐸𝑗\rho_{ll}=-n\exp(-\beta E_{l})\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\exp(-\beta E_{j})\right)italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_n roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ), so the above expression simplifies

λminlmα(νlm)(1njexp(βEj))exp(βEl).𝜆subscript𝑙𝑚𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚1𝑛subscript𝑗𝛽subscript𝐸𝑗𝛽subscript𝐸𝑙\lambda\geq\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\alpha(\nu_{lm})\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\exp(-% \beta E_{j})\right)}{\exp(-\beta E_{l})}.italic_λ ≥ roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG .

By assumption, δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) of the eigenvalues lie within Cβ1𝐶superscript𝛽1C\beta^{-1}italic_C italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of Eminsubscript𝐸minE_{\text{min}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some constant C𝐶Citalic_C. We may therefore bound

(1njexp(βEj))δ(n)exp(βEminC).1𝑛subscript𝑗𝛽subscript𝐸𝑗𝛿𝑛𝛽subscript𝐸min𝐶\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\exp(-\beta E_{j})\right)\geq\delta(n)\exp(-\beta E_{% \text{min}}-C).( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ≥ italic_δ ( italic_n ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_C ) .

Moreover, α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is a convolution of a Gaussian with a monotone function λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. So, α(νlm)12γ(νlm)=12exp(βmax(ω+βσE22,0))𝛼subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚12𝛾subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚12𝛽𝜔𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸220\alpha(\nu_{lm})\geq\frac{1}{2}\gamma(\nu_{lm})=\frac{1}{2}\exp\left(-\beta% \max\left(\omega+\beta\frac{\sigma_{E}^{2}}{2},0\right)\right)italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_γ ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ω + italic_β divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG , 0 ) ), which for σE=β1subscript𝜎𝐸superscript𝛽1\sigma_{E}=\beta^{-1}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is easily seen to be within a constant D𝐷Ditalic_D of exp(βmax(ω,0))𝛽𝜔0\exp(-\beta\max(\omega,0))roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ω , 0 ) ).

So we write

λ𝜆\displaystyle\lambdaitalic_λ Dexp(C)minlmδ(n)exp(βmax(νlm,0))exp(βEmin)exp(βEl)absent𝐷𝐶subscript𝑙𝑚𝛿𝑛𝛽subscript𝜈𝑙𝑚0𝛽subscript𝐸min𝛽subscript𝐸𝑙\displaystyle\geq D\exp(-C)\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\delta(n)\exp(-\beta\max(\nu_{% lm},0))\exp(-\beta E_{\text{min}})}{\exp(-\beta E_{l})}≥ italic_D roman_exp ( - italic_C ) roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_δ ( italic_n ) roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG
Dexp(C)minlmδ(n)exp(βEmin)exp(βmax(El,Em))absent𝐷𝐶subscript𝑙𝑚𝛿𝑛𝛽subscript𝐸min𝛽subscript𝐸𝑙subscript𝐸𝑚\displaystyle\geq D\exp(-C)\min_{l\neq m}\frac{\delta(n)\exp(-\beta E_{\text{% min}})}{\exp(-\beta\max(E_{l},E_{m}))}≥ italic_D roman_exp ( - italic_C ) roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ≠ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_δ ( italic_n ) roman_exp ( - italic_β italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_β roman_max ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) end_ARG
=Ω(δ(n)).absentΩ𝛿𝑛\displaystyle=\Omega(\delta(n)).= roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) ) .

We now lower bound the diagonal elements outside of the classical block. Each such element is of the form

𝔼[\bra𝐦d\ket𝐦]=12(1njα(νjm2)+1njα(νjm1)).𝔼delimited-[]\bra𝐦subscript𝑑\ket𝐦121𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚21𝑛subscript𝑗𝛼subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\mathbb{E}\left[\bra{\mathbf{m}}\mathcal{L}_{d}\ket{\mathbf{m}}\right]=-\frac{% 1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\alpha(\nu_{jm_{2}})+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j}\alpha(% \nu_{jm_{1}})\right).blackboard_E [ bold_m caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_m ] = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) .

By assumption, we have that δ(n)𝛿𝑛\delta(n)italic_δ ( italic_n ) of eigenvalues are within O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of λminsubscript𝜆min\lambda_{\text{min}}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT min end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For these eigenvalues, νjm1subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚1\nu_{jm_{1}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and νjm2subscript𝜈𝑗subscript𝑚2\nu_{jm_{2}}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are at most O(β1)𝑂superscript𝛽1O(\beta^{-1})italic_O ( italic_β start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and therefore α𝛼\alphaitalic_α is bounded below. The above sum is therefore 1nΩ(δ(n)n)=Ω(δ(n))1𝑛Ω𝛿𝑛𝑛Ω𝛿𝑛\frac{1}{n}\Omega(\delta(n)n)=\Omega(\delta(n))divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) italic_n ) = roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) ), as desired.

7.4.2 Proof of Theorem 2.3

We follow the proof of Theorem 2.2. Defining once again asubscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be the Lindbladian with one jump operator 𝑨asuperscript𝑨𝑎\bm{A}^{a}bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and its adjoint (normalized by 2), and defining δa=aμ𝛿subscript𝑎subscript𝑎subscript𝜇\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}=\mathcal{L}_{a}-\mathcal{L}_{\mu}italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we can apply the matrix Bernstein’s inequality to obtain

Pr(δt)n2exp(34Mt23R2+Rt),Prnorm𝛿𝑡superscript𝑛234𝑀superscript𝑡23superscript𝑅2𝑅𝑡\Pr\left(\left\|\delta\mathcal{L}\right\|\geq t\right)\leq n^{2}\exp\left(-% \frac{3}{4}\frac{Mt^{2}}{3R^{2}+Rt}\right),roman_Pr ( ∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L ∥ ≥ italic_t ) ≤ italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG divide start_ARG italic_M italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 3 italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_R italic_t end_ARG ) ,

since all the conditions of the inequality are again satisfied. Here δ=2Ma=1M/2δa𝛿2𝑀superscriptsubscript𝑎1𝑀2𝛿subscript𝑎\delta\mathcal{L}=\frac{2}{M}\sum_{a=1}^{M/2}\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}italic_δ caligraphic_L = divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_M end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so that β=μ+δsubscript𝛽subscript𝜇𝛿\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\mathcal{L}_{\mu}+\delta\mathcal{L}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ caligraphic_L. R=O(log(β𝑯))𝑅𝑂𝛽norm𝑯R=O(\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|))italic_R = italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ), since δaa+μ=O(log(β𝑯))norm𝛿subscript𝑎normsubscript𝑎normsubscript𝜇𝑂𝛽norm𝑯\|{\delta\mathcal{L}_{a}}\|\leq\|{\mathcal{L}_{a}}\|+\|{\mathcal{L}_{\mu}}\|=O% (\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|))∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ ≤ ∥ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ + ∥ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ = italic_O ( roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) ). This latter equality arises from the operator norm bound of the CKG Lindbladian by Lemma 7.2.

By Lemma 3.1, μsubscript𝜇\mathcal{L}_{\mu}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a constant spectral gap bounded below by some Cδ(n)𝐶𝛿𝑛C\delta(n)italic_C italic_δ ( italic_n ). Selecting t𝑡titalic_t to be C2δ(n)𝐶2𝛿𝑛\frac{C}{2}\delta(n)divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_δ ( italic_n ), there exists an M=Θ(δ(n)2log(β𝑯)2log(n))M=\Theta(\delta(n)^{-2}\log(\beta\|{\bm{H}}\|)^{2}\log(n))italic_M = roman_Θ ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( italic_β ∥ bold_italic_H ∥ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_log ( italic_n ) ) for which the value inside the exponential is at least 3log(n)3𝑛3\log(n)3 roman_log ( italic_n ). The probability that δtnorm𝛿𝑡\|{\delta\mathcal{L}}\|\leq t∥ italic_δ caligraphic_L ∥ ≤ italic_t is therefore above any constant probability for sufficiently large n𝑛nitalic_n. By Weyl’s theorem, the eigenvalues of μ+δsubscript𝜇𝛿\mathcal{L}_{\mu}+\delta\mathcal{L}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_δ caligraphic_L may differ by at most tC2δ(n)𝑡𝐶2𝛿𝑛t\leq\frac{C}{2}\delta(n)italic_t ≤ divide start_ARG italic_C end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_δ ( italic_n ). It follows that asubscript𝑎\mathcal{L}_{a}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with any constant probability, has spectral gap Ω(δ(n))Ω𝛿𝑛\Omega(\delta(n))roman_Ω ( italic_δ ( italic_n ) ).

7.5 Unbounded Degree System with Local Jumps

In this section, we prove the spectral gap bounds on the Lindbladian for a a hypercube, where using well-chosen local jumps achieves polylogarithmic time complexity in the number of vertices (polynomial in the number of qubits), an exponential improvement over naive 1-design jumps.

7.5.1 Proof of Theorem 4.4

The proof is closely related to the spectral gap bound of the non-interacting Hamiltonian in [BCL24]. We first prove the following lemma:

Lemma 7.6.

The CKG Lindbladian βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with Hamiltonian H1I+IH2tensor-productsubscript𝐻1𝐼tensor-product𝐼subscript𝐻2H_{1}\otimes I+I\otimes H_{2}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_I + italic_I ⊗ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and jump operator 𝐀Itensor-product𝐀𝐼\bm{A}\otimes Ibold_italic_A ⊗ italic_I can be decomposed as 1Itensor-productsubscript1𝐼\mathcal{L}_{1}\otimes Icaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ italic_I (i.e., it only acts on the first space).

Proof.

We will rebuild the Lindbladian from its definition to obtain the result. Firstly, the operator Fourier transform of the jump operators yields

𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\displaystyle\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) =12πeiHt(𝑨aI)eiHteiωtf(t)𝑑tabsent12𝜋superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖𝐻𝑡tensor-productsuperscript𝑨𝑎𝐼superscript𝑒𝑖𝐻𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡𝑓𝑡differential-d𝑡\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{iHt}(\bm{A}^{a}% \otimes I)e^{-iHt}e^{-i\omega t}f(t)dt= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_I ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_H italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t
=(12πeiH1t𝑨aeiH1teiωtf(t)𝑑t)I.absenttensor-product12𝜋superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝐻1𝑡superscript𝑨𝑎superscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝐻1𝑡superscript𝑒𝑖𝜔𝑡𝑓𝑡differential-d𝑡𝐼\displaystyle=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{iH_{1}t}\bm% {A}^{a}e^{-iH_{1}t}e^{-i\omega t}f(t)dt\right)\otimes I.= ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 italic_π end_ARG end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_i italic_ω italic_t end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_t ) italic_d italic_t ) ⊗ italic_I .

Then,

β[]=i[𝑩,]+a[M]γ(ω)(𝑨^a(ω)()𝑨^a(ω)12{𝑨^a(ω)𝑨^a(ω),})𝑑ω.subscript𝛽delimited-[]𝑖𝑩subscript𝑎delimited-[]𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛾𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔12superscript^𝑨𝑎superscript𝜔superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔differential-d𝜔\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=-i[\bm{B},\cdot]+\sum_{a\in[M]}\int_{-\infty}^{% \infty}\gamma(\omega)\left(\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)(\cdot)\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(% \omega)^{\dagger}-\frac{1}{2}\{\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)^{\dagger}\hat{\bm{A}}^% {a}(\omega),\cdot\}\right)d\omega.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = - italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a ∈ [ italic_M ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ ( italic_ω ) ( over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) ( ⋅ ) over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG { over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ) , ⋅ } ) italic_d italic_ω .

Since the dissipative part of the Lindbladian only acts on the state with 𝑨^a(ω)superscript^𝑨𝑎𝜔\hat{\bm{A}}^{a}(\omega)over^ start_ARG bold_italic_A end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ω ), it can only act on the the first space. We therefore must only prove that i[𝑩,]𝑖𝑩-i[\bm{B},\cdot]- italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] acts only on the first space. In [CKG23] it is established that there is a unique such operator i[𝑩,]𝑖𝑩-i[\bm{B},\cdot]- italic_i [ bold_italic_B , ⋅ ] such that the sum satisfies detailed balance with repect to ρβsubscript𝜌𝛽\rho_{\beta}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since 𝑯𝑯\bm{H}bold_italic_H is separable, ρβ=ρβ1ρβ2subscript𝜌𝛽tensor-productsuperscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽2\rho_{\beta}=\rho_{\beta}^{1}\otimes\rho_{\beta}^{2}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The form of detailed balance is

β[]=𝝆β1/2β[𝝆β1/2()𝝆β1/2]𝝆β1/2.subscript𝛽delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝛽delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12superscriptsubscript𝝆𝛽12\mathcal{L}_{\beta}[\cdot]=\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1/2}\mathcal{L}_{\beta}^{\dagger% }[\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}(\cdot)\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{-1/2}]\bm{\rho}_{\beta}^{1% /2}.caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ⋅ ] = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT † end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⋅ ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

As ρβsubscript𝜌𝛽\rho_{\beta}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is separable, satisfying detailed balance for two distinct operators 1subscript1\mathcal{L}_{1}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for ρβ1superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1\rho_{\beta}^{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 2subscript2\mathcal{L}_{2}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for ρβ2superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽2\rho_{\beta}^{2}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is sufficient to satisfy the detailed balance for β=12subscript𝛽tensor-productsubscript1subscript2\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\mathcal{L}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{L}_{2}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

We may therefore find some i[𝑩1,]𝑖subscript𝑩1-i[\bm{B}_{1},\cdot]- italic_i [ bold_italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⋅ ] such that the sum with the dissipative Lindbladian satisfies detailed balance with repect to ρβ1superscriptsubscript𝜌𝛽1\rho_{\beta}^{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Taking the tensor product with 2=Isubscript2𝐼\mathcal{L}_{2}=Icaligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_I yields a Lindbladian that satisfies detailed balance with respect to ρβsubscript𝜌𝛽\rho_{\beta}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and therefore by uniqueness 𝑩=𝑩1𝑰𝑩tensor-productsubscript𝑩1𝑰\bm{B}=\bm{B}_{1}\otimes\bm{I}bold_italic_B = bold_italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ bold_italic_I. This completes the proof. ∎

Treating the vertices of a hypercube with 2dsuperscript2𝑑2^{d}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT vertices as bitstrings of length d𝑑ditalic_d, with an edge between two bitstrings of Hamming distance 1, the Hamiltonian can be represented as H=i=1dXi𝐻superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑑subscript𝑋𝑖H=\sum_{i=1}^{d}X_{i}italic_H = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Choosing the jump operators to be 1dZa1𝑑subscript𝑍𝑎\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}Z_{a}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_d end_ARG end_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the resulting CKG Lindbladian can be written as the sum of d𝑑ditalic_d Lindbladians for each jump operator. Since these jump operators only act on one index, by the lemma above we may consider βsubscript𝛽\mathcal{L}_{\beta}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a sum β=i=1disubscript𝛽superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑑subscript𝑖\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\sum_{i=1}^{d}\mathcal{L}_{i}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where each acts on a 4-dimensional space. It follows that the spectral gap of β=miniλgap(i)subscript𝛽subscript𝑖subscript𝜆gapsubscript𝑖\mathcal{L}_{\beta}=\min_{i}\lambda_{\text{gap}}(\mathcal{L}_{i})caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_min start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT gap end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

We may now explicitly write isubscript𝑖\mathcal{L}_{i}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the energy basis (|00|,|11|,|01|,|10|ket0bra0ket1bra1ket0bra1ket1bra0|0\rangle\!\langle 0|,|1\rangle\!\langle 1|,|0\rangle\!\langle 1|,|1\rangle\!% \langle 0|| 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | , | 1 ⟩ ⟨ 1 | , | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 1 | , | 1 ⟩ ⟨ 0 |), using the previous formula (13):

12d[2α(2)2α(2)002α(2)2α(2)0000α(2)α(2)2θ(2,2)002θ(2,2)α(2)α(2)].12𝑑matrix2𝛼22𝛼2002𝛼22𝛼20000𝛼2𝛼22𝜃22002𝜃22𝛼2𝛼2\frac{1}{2d}\begin{bmatrix}-2\alpha(-2)&2\alpha(2)&0&0\\ 2\alpha(-2)&-2\alpha(2)&0&0\\ 0&0&-\alpha(-2)-\alpha(2)&2\theta(2,-2)\\ 0&0&2\theta(2,-2)&-\alpha(-2)-\alpha(2)\end{bmatrix}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - 2 italic_α ( - 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL 2 italic_α ( 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 italic_α ( - 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL - 2 italic_α ( 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_α ( - 2 ) - italic_α ( 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL 2 italic_θ ( 2 , - 2 ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 2 italic_θ ( 2 , - 2 ) end_CELL start_CELL - italic_α ( - 2 ) - italic_α ( 2 ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] .

The first block has rank 1 and the trace is α(2)+α(2)d𝛼2𝛼2𝑑-\frac{\alpha(-2)+\alpha(2)}{d}- divide start_ARG italic_α ( - 2 ) + italic_α ( 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG, giving the eigenvalues as 00 and α(2)+α(2)2d𝛼2𝛼22𝑑-\frac{\alpha(-2)+\alpha(2)}{2d}- divide start_ARG italic_α ( - 2 ) + italic_α ( 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_d end_ARG. Moreover, α(2)α(2)+2θ(2,2)<0𝛼2𝛼22𝜃220-\alpha(-2)-\alpha(2)+2\theta(2,-2)<0- italic_α ( - 2 ) - italic_α ( 2 ) + 2 italic_θ ( 2 , - 2 ) < 0. We conclude that the spectral gap is Ω(1d)Ω1𝑑\Omega(\frac{1}{d})roman_Ω ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG ) for a sufficiently small constant σEsubscript𝜎𝐸\sigma_{E}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given that θ(2,2)=α(0)exp(2σE2)𝜃22𝛼02superscriptsubscript𝜎𝐸2\theta(2,-2)=\alpha(0)\exp(-\frac{2}{\sigma_{E}^{2}})italic_θ ( 2 , - 2 ) = italic_α ( 0 ) roman_exp ( - divide start_ARG 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ).

Since this lower bound holds for each index, this completes the proof that the spectral gap is Ω(1d)Ω1𝑑\Omega(\frac{1}{d})roman_Ω ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_d end_ARG ).

References

  • [ACKK24] Eric R Anshuetz, Chi-Fang Chen, Bobak T Kiani, and Robbie King. Strongly interacting fermions are non-trivial yet non-glassy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15699, 2024.
  • [vAG19] Joran van Apeldoorn and András Gilyén. Improvements in quantum SDP-solving with applications. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 99:1–99:15, 2019. arXiv: 1804.05058
  • [vAGGdW20] Joran van Apeldoorn, András Gilyén, Sander Gribling, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum SDP-solvers: Better upper and lower bounds. Quantum, 4:230, 2020. Earlier version in FOCS’17. arXiv: 1705.01843
  • [BCC+15] Dominic W. Berry, Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Robin Kothari, and Rolando D. Somma. Simulating Hamiltonian dynamics with a truncated Taylor series. Physical Review Letters, 114(9):090502, 2015. arXiv: 1412.4687
  • [BCL24] Thiago Bergamaschi, Chi-Fang Chen, and Yunchao Liu. Quantum computational advantage with constant-temperature Gibbs sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14639, 2024.
  • [BDB+23] Christian W. Bauer, Zohreh Davoudi, A. Baha Balantekin, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Marcela Carena, Wibe A. de Jong, Patrick Draper, Aida El-Khadra, Nate Gemelke, Masanori Hanada, Dmitri Kharzeev, Henry Lamm, Ying-Ying Li, Junyu Liu, Mikhail Lukin, Yannick Meurice, Christopher Monroe, Benjamin Nachman, Guido Pagano, John Preskill, Enrico Rinaldi, Alessandro Roggero, David I. Santiago, Martin J. Savage, Irfan Siddiqi, George Siopsis, David Van Zanten, Nathan Wiebe, Yukari Yamauchi, Kübra Yeter-Aydeniz, and Silvia Zorzetti. Quantum simulation for high-energy physics. PRX Quantum, 4:027001, May 2023.
  • [BKL+19] Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, Amir Kalev, Tongyang Li, Cedric Yen-Yu Lin, Krysta M. Svore, and Xiaodi Wu. Quantum SDP solvers: Large speed-ups, optimality, and applications to quantum learning. In Proceedings of the 46th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 27:1--27:14, 2019. arXiv: 1710.02581
  • [BS17] Fernando G. S. L. Brandão and Krysta M. Svore. Quantum speed-ups for solving semidefinite programs. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 415--426, 2017. arXiv: 1609.05537
  • [CB21] Chi-Fang Chen and Fernando G. S. L. Brandão. Fast thermalization from the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, 2021. arXiv: 2112.07646
  • [CCD+03] Andrew M. Childs, Richard Cleve, Enrico Deotto, Edward Farhi, Sam Gutmann, and Daniel A. Spielman. Exponential algorithmic speedup by a quantum walk. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 59--68. ACM, New York, 2003.
  • [CDB+24] Chi-Fang Chen, Alexander M. Dalzell, Mario Berta, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and Joel A. Tropp. Sparse random Hamiltonians are quantumly easy. Phys. Rev. X, 14:011014, Feb 2024.
  • [CHPZ24] Chi-Fang Chen, Hsin-Yuan Huang, John Preskill, and Leo Zhou. Local minima in quantum systems. In STOC’24---Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1323--1330. ACM, New York, [2024] ©2024.
  • [CKBG23] Chi-Fang Chen, Michael J. Kastoryano, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and András Gilyén. Quantum thermal state preparation. arXiv: 2303.18224, 2023.
  • [CKG23] Chi-Fang Chen, Michael J Kastoryano, and András Gilyén. An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09207, 2023.
  • [CS17] Anirban Narayan Chowdhury and Rolando D. Somma. Quantum algorithms for Gibbs sampling and hitting-time estimation. Quantum Info. Comput., 17(1–2):41–64, February 2017.
  • [DCL24] Zhiyan Ding, Chi-Fang Chen, and Lin Lin. Single-ancilla ground state preparation via Lindbladians. Phys. Rev. Res., 6:033147, Aug 2024.
  • [DLL24] Zhiyan Ding, Bowen Li, and Lin Lin. Efficient quantum Gibbs samplers with Kubo--Martin--Schwinger detailed balance condition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05998, 2024.
  • [DP12] Ioana Dumitriu and Soumik Pal. Sparse regular random graphs: Spectral density and eigenvectors. The Annals of Probability, 40(5), September 2012.
  • [ERV05] Ernesto Estrada and Juan A. Rodríguez-Velázquez. Subgraph centrality in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E, 71:056103, May 2005.
  • [GCDK24] András Gilyén, Chi-Fang Chen, Joao F Doriguello, and Michael J Kastoryano. Quantum generalizations of Glauber and Metropolis dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20322, 2024.
  • [GLBKSF22] Fernando G.S L. Brandão, Richard Kueng, and Daniel Stilck França. Faster quantum and classical SDP approximations for quadratic binary optimization. Quantum, 6:625, January 2022.
  • [GSLW19] András Gilyén, Yuan Su, Guang Hao Low, and Nathan Wiebe. Quantum singular value transformation and beyond: Exponential improvements for quantum matrix arithmetics. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 193--204, 2019. arXiv: 1806.01838
  • [HHKL18] Jeongwan Haah, Matthew B. Hastings, Robin Kothari, and Guang Hao Low. Quantum algorithm for simulating real time evolution of lattice Hamiltonians. In Proceedings of the 59th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 350--360, 2018. arXiv: 1801.03922
  • [JI24] Jiaqing Jiang and Sandy Irani. Quantum Metropolis sampling via weak measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16023, 2024.
  • [Kit15a] A Kitaev. Hidden correlations in the Hawking radiation and thermal noise, talk given at KITP. Santa Barbara, California, 12, 2015.
  • [Kit15b] Alexei Kitaev. A simple model of quantum Holography (part 2). Entanglement in strongly-correlated quantum matter, page 38, 2015.
  • [KKR05] Julia Kempe, Alexei Kitaev, and Oded Regev. The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem. In Kamal Lodaya and Meena Mahajan, editors, FSTTCS 2004: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 372--383, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • [LC17] Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Optimal Hamiltonian simulation by quantum signal processing. Physical Review Letters, 118(1):010501, 2017. arXiv: 1606.02685
  • [LC19] Guang Hao Low and Isaac L. Chuang. Hamiltonian simulation by qubitization. Quantum, 3:163, 2019. arXiv: 1610.06546
  • [MEAG+20] Sam McArdle, Suguru Endo, Alán Aspuru-Guzik, Simon C. Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Quantum computational chemistry. Rev. Mod. Phys., 92:015003, Mar 2020.
  • [Pre18] John Preskill. Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10085, 2018.
  • [RFA24] Cambyse Rouzé, Daniel Stilck França, and Álvaro M Alhambra. Efficient thermalization and universal quantum computing with quantum Gibbs samplers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12691, 2024.
  • [RWW23] Patrick Rall, Chunhao Wang, and Pawel Wocjan. Thermal State Preparation via Rounding Promises. Quantum, 7:1132, October 2023.
  • [SM21] Oles Shtanko and Ramis Movassagh. Preparing thermal states on noiseless and noisy programmable quantum processors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.14688, 2021.
  • [SV13] Sushant Sachdeva and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. Matrix inversion is as easy as exponentiation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0526, 2013.
  • [SW24] Brian Swingle and Mike Winer. Bosonic model of quantum Holography. Physical Review B, 109(9):094206, 2024.
  • [SY93] Subir Sachdev and Jinwu Ye. Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet. Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:3339--3342, May 1993.
  • [T+15] Joel A Tropp et al. An introduction to matrix concentration inequalities. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 8(1-2):1--230, 2015.
  • [Tem13] Kristan Temme. Lower bounds to the spectral gap of Davies generators. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 54(12), December 2013.
  • [WBB+22] Michael Winer, Richard Barney, Christopher L Baldwin, Victor Galitski, and Brian Swingle. Spectral form factor of a quantum spin glass. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(9):1--47, 2022.
  • [WHW+15] Dave Wecker, Matthew B. Hastings, Nathan Wiebe, Bryan K. Clark, Chetan Nayak, and Matthias Troyer. Solving strongly correlated electron models on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. A, 92:062318, Dec 2015.
  • [WT23] Pawel Wocjan and Kristan Temme. Szegedy walk unitaries for quantum maps. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 402(3):3201--3231, 2023.
  • [ZBC23] Daniel Zhang, Jan Lukas Bosse, and Toby Cubitt. Dissipative quantum Gibbs sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04526, 2023.