Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Many-body localization in XY spin chains with long-range interactions: An exact diagonalization study

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A disordered XY spin chain with interactions decaying as $1/r^\alpha$ stops being many-body localized below $\alpha_c \simeq 1.16$.

desk verdict A solid, honest ED study whose qualitative conclusion—no MBL at sufficiently small alpha—holds up, but the headline alpha_c is an extrapolated power-law fit, not a measured divergence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04031 v2 pith:F7AIKOSI submitted 2019-08-12 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Sebastian Schiffer , Jia Wang , Xia-Ji Liu , Hui Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords many-bodylocalizationXYspinchainpower-lawinteractionsexactdiagonalizationfinite-sizescalingrandomtransversefieldentanglemententropycriticalexponent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a one-dimensional XY spin chain with interactions decaying as $V_{ij}\propto 1/|i-j|^\alpha$ and a random transverse field can still exhibit many-body localization (MBL), the absence of thermalization in a disordered quantum system. Using exact diagonalization for chains of up to 18 spins, the authors extract the critical disorder strength $W_c(\alpha)$ and the correlation-length exponent $\nu(\alpha)$ from finite-size scaling of gap statistics, half-chain entanglement entropy, and entropy uncertainty. Both $W_c$ and $\nu$ diverge as $\alpha$ decreases toward $\alpha_c\simeq 1.16\pm 0.17$, which they interpret as the disappearance of MBL for $\alpha<\alpha_c$ in the thermodynamic limit. The result matters because it sits between two prior predictions, $\alpha_c=3/2$ from a perturbative argument and $\alpha_c\approx 1$ from quantum dynamics, and because trapped-ion experiments realize the same model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-size scaling collapse of the normalized half-chain entanglement entropy $S_E/L$ through the ansatz $S_E(L,W)=L f[(W-W_c)L^{1/\nu}]$, where the correlation length behaves as $\xi(W)\propto |W-W_c|^{-\nu}$. For each exponent $\alpha$, the paper locates the transition by collapsing data at chain lengths $L=12,14,16,18$; the same $W_c$ and $\nu$ also collapse the averaged gap ratio $\langle r\rangle$. The extrapolated $W_c(\alpha)$ and $\nu(\alpha)$ are then fitted to a power-law divergence $\eta=A_\eta(\alpha-\alpha_{c,\eta})^{-\gamma_\eta}$, with the lower cutoff $\alpha_f$ chosen by minimizing fitting error and uncertainties handled by bootstrap resampling. This two-stage machinery turns finite-size crossing data into a critical interaction exponent $\alpha_c$.

What would settle it

Compute $W_c(\alpha)$ and $\nu(\alpha)$ with exact diagonalization or tensor-network methods for larger chains and for $\alpha=1.0,1.1,1.15,1.2$: if the scaling-collapse estimates saturate or fail to keep increasing, the inferred $\alpha_c$ is a fitting artifact. A direct time-evolution probe at $\alpha=1.1$ with strong disorder on a chain comparable to trapped-ion experiments would also settle the matter, since persistent density imbalance or logarithmic entanglement growth would indicate MBL below the claimed threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the finite-size scaling ansatz $S_E(L,W)=L f[(W-W_c)L^{1/\nu}]$ for the normalized half-chain entanglement entropy, together with matching collapses for the spectral gap ratio, the authors obtain $W_c$ and $\nu$ for interaction exponents from $\alpha=1.0$ to $2.5$. Fitting those results to $\eta(\alpha)=A_\eta(\alpha-\alpha_{c,\eta})^{-\gamma_\eta}$, with a lower cutoff on the fitted range chosen to minimize errors, gives $\alpha_{c,W_c}=1.16\pm 0.17$ and $\alpha_{c,\nu}=1.17\pm 0.14$; the paper reports these conservatively as $\alpha_c=1.16\pm 0.17$. It finds no singular behavior at $\alpha=3/2$ and concludes that below $\alpha_c$ the system cannot be many-body localized at any disorder strength in the limit $L\to\infty$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $W_c(\alpha)$ and $\nu(\alpha)$ truly diverge according to the fitted power law down to $\alpha_c\simeq 1.16$, even though every measured point has $\alpha\ge 1.0$ and the fits use only data above $\alpha_f=1.3$ (for $W_c$) or $1.2$ (for $\nu$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a disordered one-dimensional XY chain with $1/r^\alpha$ interactions has no MBL phase in the thermodynamic limit for any disorder strength when $\alpha<\alpha_c\simeq 1.16$.
  • The predicted $\alpha_c=3/2$ from resonant spin-pair arguments is ruled out, since the paper sees $W_c(\alpha)$ and $\nu(\alpha)$ vary smoothly across $\alpha=1.5$.
  • The earlier quantum-dynamics estimate $\alpha_c\approx 1$ is supported by an independent equilibrium, spectrum-based exact-diagonalization method.
  • At large $\alpha$ the extracted exponent $\nu\approx 1$ matches finite-size studies of short-range MBL, suggesting the long-range transition lies in the same universality class.
  • At small $\alpha$ (for example $\alpha=0.5$) the peak of the entropy uncertainty grows at least linearly with system size, pointing to $W_c\to\infty$ and hence no MBL transition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The divergence of $W_c$ and $\nu$ is inferred from fitted data with $\alpha\ge 1.2$; if larger-system calculations find that $W_c(\alpha)$ bends over instead of diverging below $\alpha\approx 1.2$, the true threshold could be lower or absent altogether.
  • A direct scaling collapse in $\alpha$ at fixed strong disorder, using the form $S_E/L = h[L^{1/\nu}(\alpha-\alpha_c)]$, would provide a second, independent route to $\alpha_c$ that does not rely on the power-law fit to $W_c$.
  • The same finite-size scaling pipeline could be applied to Heisenberg chains with power-law interactions, where a separate prediction sets $\alpha_c=2$, testing whether the mechanism behind $\alpha_c\simeq 1.16$ is specific to the XY symmetry.
  • Trapped-ion experiments at $\alpha\sim 1$ could test the thermodynamic-limit claim directly: observing persistent density imbalance or slow entanglement growth at strong disorder would contradict the predicted absence of MBL below $\alpha_c$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports exact diagonalization results for a disordered one-dimensional XY spin chain with power-law interactions V_ij ∝ |i-j|^{-α}, for chain lengths up to L=18. Using three diagnostics (gap statistics, half-chain entanglement entropy, and its uncertainty), the authors perform finite-size scaling to extract the critical disorder W_c(α) and correlation-length exponent ν(α). They then fit these quantities to a power-law divergence, Eq. (3), obtaining a common critical interaction exponent α_c = 1.16 ± 0.17, and conclude that for α < α_c many-body localization is absent for any disorder strength. This result is presented as resolving a discrepancy between a perturbative prediction α_c = 3/2 and a recent dynamics simulation suggesting α_c ≈ 1.

Significance. If correct, the result would provide the first exact-diagonalization-based determination of α_c for the long-range XY chain and would support the dynamics-based value α_c ≈ 1 over the perturbative 3/2. The paper's strengths are its systematic use of three independent diagnostics, the transparent description of the finite-size scaling and the bootstrap error analysis in Appendix C, and the honest discussion of the difficulties at small α (e.g., the lack of a crossing for α=0.5). The main weakness is that the headline quantity α_c is not measured directly but is an extrapolated zero of a power-law fit over a restricted range, so the load-bearing assumption must be tested more thoroughly before the thermodynamic claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (3)] The central result α_c = 1.16 ± 0.17 is obtained by fitting the assumed power-law form η(α) = A_η (α - α_c)^{-γ_η} to W_c(α) and ν(α). This fit cannot by itself establish that a divergence occurs at a finite α_c, since the functional form already contains a divergence as an input. The authors should present a comparison with alternative models (e.g., an exponential divergence, a divergence at α=1, or a sharp crossover to a finite W_c) and demonstrate that α_c is robust, or alternatively soften the conclusion that MBL is absent for all α < α_c.
  2. [Sec. IV and Appendix B] The fit is performed only over the data with α > α_f, with α_f chosen to minimize fitting errors (α_f = 1.3 for W_c and 1.2 for ν). This choice excludes the α = 1.2 point for W_c (W_c = 21 ± 8) and means that no measured point lies within the fitted range of the inferred α_c ≈ 1.16. The divergence is therefore an extrapolation beyond the data, not a direct observation. The authors should show the sensitivity of α_c to the choice of α_f and discuss whether the excluded points are consistent with the fitted form.
  3. [Appendix C] The bootstrap resampling propagates the statistical errors in W_c(α) and ν(α) through the assumed power-law form, but it does not test the validity of that form or the systematic errors in the finite-size scaling at marginal parameters such as α = 1.2, where W_c = 21 ± 8 and ν = 4.2 ± 1.1. The very large uncertainties near the putative α_c should be interpreted as a warning that the data are nearly insensitive to the divergence; the discussion should explicitly acknowledge that the bootstrap errors do not include model-form uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, paragraph on universality class] The citation placeholder '[ ? ]' is unresolved and should be replaced with a proper reference.
  2. [Sec. III, text near Eq. (2)] The word 'Poisson' is misspelled as 'Possion' in the phrase defining the localized limit.
  3. [Ref. [30]] The word 'enegenstates' should be 'eigenstates'.
  4. [Appendix C] The notation α_{c,W} and α_{c,ν} is inconsistent with the main text's α_{c,Wc} and α_{c,ν}; please use a uniform notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: alpha_c is a transparently fitted extrapolation of finite-size scaling data, not a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is data-driven and self-contained: exact-diagonalization eigenstates feed gap statistics and entanglement indicators, finite-size scaling collapse (Eq. 2) yields Wc(alpha) and nu(alpha), and a power-law fit (Eq. 3) yields alpha_c. No load-bearing step is defined in terms of the target conclusion. The paper openly states that it fits Wc(alpha) and nu(alpha) with eta(alpha) = A_eta (alpha - alpha_c,eta)^(-gamma_eta), and it reports alpha_c = 1.16 +/- 0.17 as the fitted central result. The claim that Wc and nu diverge as alpha approaches alpha_c is an extrapolation of the assumed scaling form, not an independent measurement; the paper explicitly concedes that the divergence 'can not fully manifest itself' and therefore restricts the fit to alpha > alpha_f with alpha_f = 1.3 for Wc and 1.2 for nu. This is a robustness or correctness caveat about extrapolating beyond the fitted range, but it is not circularity: the data are not constructed from the fitted pole, and the bootstrap (Appendix C) only propagates the stated uncertainties through the same assumed form. The finite-size scaling values Wc and nu are genuine outputs of the ED analysis, and no measured quantity is simultaneously used as input and output. Self-citations (Refs. [8], [13], [28]) are peripheral to the central argument and are not load-bearing. The agreement with the independent dynamics simulation (Ref. [31]) is presented as corroboration, not as the source of the result. The central alpha_c value is thus an extrapolated empirical estimate whose validity could be tested by future studies with larger L or alternative functional forms, but the paper's reasoning does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new entities. The central estimate alpha_c is derived entirely from fitted parameters: Wc and nu come from finite-size scaling, and the power-law fit to those quantities produces alpha_c. The main burden is the assumed scaling and divergence forms, plus the data-dependent cutoff alpha_f.

free parameters (4)
  • Critical disorder Wc(alpha) = e.g., 2.4 ± 0.3 at alpha=2.5; 21 ± 8 at alpha=1.2
    Obtained from the finite-size scaling collapse of SE/L and r; drives the divergence fit in Eq. (3).
  • Critical exponent nu(alpha) = e.g., 1.0 ± 0.1 at alpha=2.5; 4.2 ± 1.1 at alpha=1.2
    Together with Wc, fitted in the data collapse; enters the power-law fit to determine alpha_c.
  • Power-law coefficients and exponents (A, gamma, alpha_c) = gamma_Wc=0.78 ± 0.06, alpha_c,Wc=1.16 ± 0.03; gamma_nu=0.38 ± 0.02, alpha_c,nu=1.17 ± 0.01
    Parameters of Eq. (3) fitted to the Wc(alpha) and nu(alpha) data; their extrapolation is the central result.
  • Lower cutoff alpha_f = 1.3 for Wc, 1.2 for nu
    Data below alpha_f are discarded in the power-law fit; alpha_f is selected by minimizing fit errors, which changes the extrapolation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eigenstates near zero energy represent the infinite-temperature properties of the model.
    Sec. II states that 50 eigenstates closest to zero energy are used; infinite-temperature MBL is inferred from these states.
  • domain assumption The r-ratio, normalized half-chain entanglement entropy, and entropy uncertainty are valid MBL diagnostics with GOE and Poisson limits.
    Sec. III relies on the standard interpretation of r approaching 0.5307 or 0.3863 and on Page-value normalization.
  • domain assumption The scaling ansatz SE(L,W)=L f[(W-Wc)L^(1/nu)] holds for L=12-18 at alpha in [1.0, 2.5].
    Eq. (2) is the basis for extracting Wc and nu; no microscopic derivation is given, and MBL finite-size scaling is known to be delicate.
  • ad hoc to paper Wc(alpha) and nu(alpha) diverge as a power law with a single critical alpha_c.
    Eq. (3) is imposed to extrapolate the finite-size data; the divergence is not directly observed and the form determines the value of alpha_c.
  • standard math Bootstrap resampling with normally distributed noise around each data point measures the statistical uncertainty.
    Appendix C assumes normal noise and uses N_boot ~ 10^5; this is a standard statistical procedure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Many-body localization in XY spin chains with long-range interactions: An exact diagonalization study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7AIKOSI

@misc{pith2026190804031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Many-body localization in XY spin chains with long-range interactions: An exact diagonalization study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7AIKOSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04031}
}
abstract

We investigate the transition from the many-body localized phase to the ergodic thermalized phase at an infinite temperature in an $XY$ spin chain with $L$ spins, which experiences power-law decaying interactions in the form of $V_{ij}\propto1/\left|i-j\right|^{\alpha}$ ($i,j=1,\cdots,L$) and a random transverse field. By performing large-scale exact diagonalization for the chain size up to $L=18$, we systematically analyze the energy gap statistics, half-chain entanglement entropy, and uncertainty of the entanglement entropy of the system at different interaction exponents $\alpha$. The finite-size critical scaling allows us to determine the critical disorder strength $W_{c}$ and critical exponent $\nu$ at the many-body localization phase transition, as a function of the interaction exponent $\alpha$ in the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$. We find that both $W_{c}$ and $\nu$ diverge when $\alpha$ decreases to a critical power $\alpha_{c}\simeq1.16\pm0.17$, indicating the absence of many-body localization for $\alpha<\alpha_{c}$. Our result is useful to resolve the contradiction on the critical power found in two previous studies, $\alpha_{c}=3/2$ from scaling argument in Phys. Rev. B \textbf{92}, 104428 (2015) and $\alpha_{c}\approx1$ from quantum dynamics simulation in Phys. Rev. A \textbf{99}, 033610 (2019).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Contour plot of the half-chain entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Averaged ratio of successive gaps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Finite-size critical scaling collapse for the data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Critical disorder strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The size dependence of the peak position of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The critical scaling collapse for the data sets of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of Diffusion in Certain Ran- dom Lattices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  2. [2]

    Fleishman and P

    L. Fleishman and P. W. Anderson, Interactions and the Anderson transition, Phys. Rev. B 21, 2366 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Interact- ing Electrons in Disordered Wires: Anderson Localiza- tion and Low-T Transport, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 206603 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Basko, I

    D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Metal-insulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states, Ann. Phys. (Amster- dam) 321, 1126 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Altman and R

    E. Altman and R. Vosk, Universal dynamics and renor- malization in many body localized systems , Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 383 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and en- tanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Wang, X.-J

    J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Time evolution of quan- tum entanglement of an EPR pair in a localization envi- ronment, New J. Phys. 20, 053015 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    M. V. Feigel’man, L. B. Ioffe, and M. M´ ezard, Superconductor-insulator transition and energy localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. B 82, 184534 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature , Phys. Rev. B 75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization phase transition, Phys. Rev. B 82, 174411 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, F. Alet, Many-body local- ization edge in the random-field Heisenberg chain , Phys. Rev. B 91, 081103(R) (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Hu, A.-B

    H. Hu, A.-B. Wang, S. Yi, and X.-J. Liu, Fermi polaron in a one-dimensional quasi-periodic optical lattice: the simplest many-body localization challenge , Phys. Rev. A 93, 053601 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Khemani, D

    V. Khemani, D. N. Sheng, D. A. Huse, Two Universality Classes for the Many-Body Localization Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 075702 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Monthus and T

    C. Monthus and T. Garel, Many-body localization transi- tion in a lattice model of interacting fermions: Statistics of renormalized hoppings in configuration space , Phys. Rev. B 81, 134202 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Pekker, G

    D. Pekker, G. Refael, E. Altman, E. Demler, and V. Oganesyan, Hilbert-Glass Transition: New Universality of Temperature-Tuned Many-Body Dynamical Quantum Criticality, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011052 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    A. C. Potter, R. Vasseur, and S. A. Parameswaran, Uni- versal Properties of Many-Body Delocalization Transi- tions, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031033 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    S. P. Lim and D. N. Sheng, Many-body localization and transition by density matrix renormalization group and exact diagonalization studies , Phys. Rev. B 94, 045111 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    P. T. Dumitrescu, R. Vasseur, and A. C. Potter, Scaling Theory of Entanglement at the Many-Body Localization Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 110604 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Zhang and H

    S.-X. Zhang and H. Yao, Universal Properties of Many- Body Localization Transitions in Quasiperiodic Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 206601 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Y. B. Lev and D. R. Reichman, Dynamics of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B 89, 220201(R) (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Prelovˇ sek and J

    P. Prelovˇ sek and J. Herbrych, Self-consistent approach to many-body localization and subdiffusion, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035130 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Pekker, B

    D. Pekker, B. K. Clark, V. Oganesyan, and G. Refael, Fixed Points of Wegner-Wilson Flows and Many-Body Localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 075701 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    A. L. Burin, Energy Delocalization in Strongly Disordered Systems Induced by the Long-Range Many-Body Interac- tion, arXiv:cond-mat/0611387

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. Y. Yao, C. R. Laumann, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, M. M¨ uller, E. A. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Many-Body Localization in Dipolar Systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 243002 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    A. L. Burin, Localization in a random XY model with long-range interactions: Intermediate case between single-particle and many-body problems, Phys. Rev. B92, 104428 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Hauke and M

    P. Hauke and M. Heyl, Many-body localization and quan- tum ergodicity in disordered long-range Ising models , Phys. Rev. B 92, 134204 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    H. Li, J. Wang, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Many-body localiza- tion in Ising models with random long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063625 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    R. M. Nandkishore, and S. L. Sondhi, Many-Body Lo- calization with Long-Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041021 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    These nice predictions, un- fortunately, have not been rigorously examined by exten- sive numerical calculations

    for a Heisenberg chain. These nice predictions, un- fortunately, have not been rigorously examined by exten- sive numerical calculations. This seems necessary, as the breakdown of perturbation expansion is not equivalent to the breakdown of localization [29]. In a recent quant...

    1908 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Many-body localiza- tion transition with power-law interactions: Statistics of engenstates, Phys. Rev. B 97, 214205 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Safavi-Naini, M

    A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, O. L. Acevedo, A. M. Rey, and R. M. Nandkishore, Quantum dynamics of disordered spin chains with power-law interactions, Phys. Rev. A99, 033610 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    N. Roy, A. Sharma, and R. Mukherjee, Quantum simu- lation of long-range XY quantum spin glass with strong area-law violation using trapped ions , Phys. Rev. A 99, 052342 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    J. Z. Imbrie, Diagonalization and Many-Body Localiza- tion for a Disordered Quantum Spin Chain , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 027201 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing R´ enyi entanglement entropy via random- ized measurements, Science 364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin,Local Conserva- 9 tion Laws and the Structure of the Many-Body Localized States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 127201 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    D. N. Page, Average Entropy of a Subsystem , Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    J. A. Kj¨ all, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Many- Body Localization in a Disordered Quantum Ising Chain , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 107204 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    A. B. Harris, Effect of random defects on the critical be- haviour of Ising models , J. Phys. C 7, 1671 (1974)

    1974

  32. [40]

    J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, D. S. Fisher, and T. Spencer, Finite-Size Scaling and Correlation Lengths for Disor- dered Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2999 (1986)

    1986

  33. [41]

    Chandran, C

    A. Chandran, C. R. Laumann, and V. Oganesyan, Fi- nite Size Scaling Bounds on Many-Body Localized Phase Transitions, arXiv:1509.04285

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.