Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Characterization of an operational quantum resource in a critical many-body system

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 In the XY spin chain, magic appears just past the critical point and reaches its ceiling at a factorizable point, where the ground state is a product of H states.

desk verdict Solid first map of magic in the XY chain: Eq. (8) is correct, the FGS H-state source is the main prize, but Appendix A needs a patch and fitted exponents need error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08058 v3 pith:RX64O7YM submitted 2019-08-21 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Saubhik Sarkar , Chiranjib Mukhopadhyay , Abolfazl Bayat This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords robustnessofmagicstatesXYspinchainquantumphasetransitionfactorizablegroundstateHcriticalregionthermalsuddendeath
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 studies robustness of magic (RoM), the resource behind magic-state quantum computation, in the ground and thermal states of the transverse-field anisotropic XY spin chain. It establishes that in the symmetry-broken ground state, the single-qubit RoM is $\max\left[\langle\sigma_x\rangle+\langle\sigma_z\rangle-1,0\right]$, so magic is absent throughout the disordered phase and turns on sharply at a magic pseudocritical point just inside the ordered phase, at $\lambda\approx1.00015$ for the Ising chain. At the factorizable point $\gamma=1/3$, $\lambda\approx1.06$, the ground state becomes a product of $H$ states, each carrying the maximal single-qubit RoM $\sqrt{2}-1$; this means a critical spin system can supply many unencoded magic states for injection schemes. The paper also shows that two-qubit magic survives over long distances, unlike bipartite entanglement, and that its temperature behaviour locates the quantum critical region. The result turns an operational resource for fault-tolerant computation into a long-range probe of critical many-body physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the robustness of magic (RoM), defined as the minimal $\ell^1$ excess over a stabilizer-state pseudo-mixture: $R(\rho)=\inf\{\sum_k|X_k|-1 : AX=B\}$ after fixing the Bloch-vector data. The paper's central device is a reduction valid for qubit states with $\langle\sigma_y\rangle=0$: the optimal pseudo-mixture is assumed to involve only the four stabilizer states lying in the $xz$-plane, turning the RoM into the closed form $R_\gamma(\lambda)=\max[\langle\sigma_x\rangle+\langle\sigma_z\rangle-1,0]$. That identity, combined with the exact Toeplitz-determinant solutions for the one- and two-point functions, converts the resource-theoretic problem into a one-dimensional scaling analysis. For two qubits the same reduced density matrix is fed into the RoM linear program, and the difference $Q_R=\log(1+R(\rho_{12}))-\log(1+R(\rho_1\otimes\rho_2))$ isolates the correlation-borne part of the magic.

What would settle it

Compute the RoM of a single-site reduced density matrix of the XY ground state near $\lambda^*_c$ by solving the full linear program over all six single-qubit stabilizer states, with no restriction to the $xz$-plane. If for any $\gamma$ and $\lambda$ the full optimum is strictly below $\max[\langle\sigma_x\rangle+\langle\sigma_z\rangle-1,0]$, then Eq. (8) is false and the location of the magic pseudocritical point and the extracted exponents change accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the single-qubit robustness of magic in the symmetry-broken ground state of the XY chain is governed by $R_\gamma(\lambda)=\max[\langle\sigma_x\rangle+\langle\sigma_z\rangle-1,0]$. Because $\langle\sigma_x\rangle$ is the order parameter and vanishes in the disordered phase, all magic sits on the ordered side of the transition and starts at a pseudocritical point $\lambda^*_c(\gamma)$ that moves toward $\lambda_c=1$ as $\gamma\to0$. Using the exact correlation functions, the paper locates the maximal single-qubit magic at $\gamma_0=1/3$, $\lambda_0\approx1.06$, exactly the factorizable point, where the ground state is a product of $H$ states with RoM $\sqrt{2}-1$. For two qubits it defines a global magic $Q_R=\log(1+R(\rho_{12}))-\log(1+R(\rho_1\otimes\rho_2))$, whose peak is at $\lambda^*_c$ for every inter-site distance, and it shows that the two-qubit RoM persists over long distances. In the symmetry-unbroken thermal state, the first derivative of two-qubit RoM diverges logarithmically at criticality, the magic undergoes finite-temperature sudden death with $T_c\propto r^\kappa$, and the crossover at $T^*=a\,T_{\mathrm{cross}}$ delineates the quantum critical region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for a qubit with $\langle\sigma_y\rangle=0$, the optimal RoM pseudo-mixture never needs the $\left|+i\right\rangle$ and $\left|-i\right\rangle$ stabilizer states; if including them lowered the $\ell^1$ norm, the closed-form RoM and every single-qubit scaling law built on it would have to be revised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the factorizable point $\gamma_0=1/3$, $\lambda_0\approx1.06$, a spin chain in its symmetry-broken ground state yields an extensive number of unencoded $H$-type magic states, each with the maximal single-qubit RoM $\sqrt{2}-1$, and small mistuning of the Hamiltonian costs less than about 0.1 percent in fidelity.
  • Magic does not flag the quantum critical point itself but a nearby magic pseudocritical point $\lambda^*_c$ slightly inside the ordered phase; the offset falls with anisotropy roughly as $\gamma^{5.55}$, so the effect is most pronounced near the Ising limit.
  • The correlation-borne part of two-qubit magic, $Q_R$, peaks exactly at $\lambda^*_c$ for every inter-qubit distance and decays only slowly with distance, providing a long-range quantum-correlation probe where bipartite entanglement dies after the second neighbour.
  • In the symmetry-unbroken thermal state, the first derivative of two-qubit RoM diverges logarithmically at criticality, two-qubit magic suffers sudden death at finite temperature with $T_c\propto r^\kappa$, and derivatives of the RoM collapse as functions of $T/T_{\mathrm{cross}}$, tracing out the quantum critical region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The restricted-decomposition assumption behind the single-qubit formula is checkable with a small semidefinite program; if it holds, the same closed-form device may apply to any qubit-state model whose Bloch vector lies in a single plane, not only the XY chain.
  • Because the factorizable point supplies pure $H$ states without any entanglement, the mechanism gives a concrete preparation recipe: tune an interacting spin chain to its factorizing point to mass-produce magic-state ancillae, a purpose for which such points were previously avoided.
  • The distance-independent location of the global-magic maximum hints that $Q_R$ behaves like a connected correlation function of the order parameter; testing its scaling in finite-size systems could connect magic to standard critical exponents.
  • The finite-temperature sudden death of magic implies a hard temperature ceiling for using condensed-matter sources as magic-state factories, and the crossover scaling $T^*=a\,T_{\mathrm{cross}}$ gives a quantitative operating bound for such sources.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the robustness of magic (RoM) in single- and two-qubit reduced states of the transverse-field anisotropic XY spin chain. For the symmetry-broken ground state, it claims a simple closed-form expression for single-qubit RoM, R(λ) = max[⟨σx⟩ + ⟨σz⟩ − 1, 0], valid when ⟨σy⟩ = 0, and uses this to show that magic vanishes in the disordered phase, emerges at a 'magic pseudocritical point' (MPP) just inside the ordered phase, and reaches the maximal equatorial value √2−1 at the factorizable point (γ0 = 1/3, λ0 ≈ 1.06), where the ground state is a product of H states. The paper further investigates two-qubit RoM, demonstrating long-range persistence, a sharp maximum of a 'global magic' quantity at the MPP, scaling laws near criticality, finite-size scaling behavior, thermal sudden death of magic, and detection of the quantum critical region via the Gruneisen parameter. The results are obtained through a combination of analytic formulas, linear programming, and DMRG numerics.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives an operational resource-theoretic perspective on a classic integrable model, showing that factorizable ground states can serve as sources of pure H-type magic states for fault-tolerant quantum computation and that magic can act as a long-range probe of quantum criticality, complementing entanglement and discord. The analytic formula Eq. (8) is a useful simplification, and the identification of the factorizable point as a magic-state factory is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. The paper also provides extensive numerical evidence, including machine-checkable linear programs and DMRG data, for the scaling and thermal properties. However, the proof of the central formula in Appendix A is incomplete as written, and several numerical exponents are extracted without quantitative error estimates, which tempers the strength of the quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.1)] The proof of Eq. (8) assumes that the optimal RoM pseudo-mixture for states with ⟨σy⟩ = 0 uses only the four stabilizer states |0⟩, |1⟩, |+⟩, |−⟩, without justifying why the |+i⟩ and |−i⟩ states cannot yield a lower L1 norm. This is a genuine gap in the derivation of the central formula. The result is nevertheless correct: for any decomposition that includes |±i⟩ with equal weight t (required by ⟨σy⟩ = 0), replacing them by t/2 of each of the four xz-plane states preserves the state and, by the triangle inequality, does not increase the L1 norm. Please add this argument or a reference to a complete proof.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4(b) and 4(c)] The claim that the global magic QR attains its maximum exactly at the MPP for all inter-site distances r is stated as an exact result, but it is supported only by DMRG numerics and a qualitative derivative-kink observation. Since this is a central result of the paper, please provide either an analytic argument for the coincidence or a more extensive numerical verification with error estimates and a scan over anisotropy γ.
  3. [Section 3.1.3 and Figs. 1(d), 2(b), 2(c), 3] The finite-size scaling exponents μ and ν, as well as the infinite-chain exponents μ and the power law δλc ∼ γ^5.55, are determined by visual fits without quantitative uncertainties. Because these exponents are used to support the analytic prediction μ ≈ 1 − βx (Eq. (11)), please provide a systematic collapse analysis with error bars or at least quantitative fit-quality measures.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (13)] The 'global magic' QR = log(1 + R(ρ12)) − log(1 + R(ρ1⊗ρ2)) is proposed as a correlation measure, but the paper does not establish that QR is nonnegative for correlated states or discuss conditions under which it could be negative. If QR can be negative, its interpretation as a measure of correlation needs qualification. Please clarify this point, either by proving nonnegativity for the states considered or by discussing the sign behavior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the the factorizable ground state' contains a typo and should read 'the factorizable ground state'.
  2. [Appendix A] The sentence 'We assume thst, the optimal decomposition...' contains a typo; it should read 'We assume that'.
  3. [Appendix A, case (ii)] In the argument for reducing a one-negative-coefficient decomposition, the stated RoM of the new decomposition is '2|1−µ| + 2ϵ', which appears to omit a factor of |a4|. The conclusion is unaffected, but the expression should be corrected for accuracy.
  4. [Section 2.1, Eq. (3)] The function g(λ) is defined as 1 in the ordered phase and 0 in the disordered phase; explicitly writing g(λ) = Θ(λ − 1) would improve clarity.
  5. [Section 4.2, Eq. (16)] The sudden death temperature scaling Tc ∝ r^κ is presented with fitted κ values but no error bars; adding uncertainties would strengthen the quantitative claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central RoM formula and scaling laws are derived from explicit LP and independent analytic inputs, not from fitted or self-cited conclusions.

full rationale

The central single-qubit formula, Eq. (8), is derived through the robustness-of-magic linear program in Eq. (7) over the single-qubit stabilizer polytope. Appendix A restricts the pseudo-mixture to the four real stabilizer states, and this restriction is not proved in the text; however, it is not circular. For any state with zero y-magnetization the weights on the |+i> and |-i> stabilizer states must be equal, and those two weights can be redistributed equally among the four real states without changing normalization or the x and z expectations and without increasing the L1 norm. Hence the four-state restriction is inessential, and Eq. (8) is not equivalent to its own conclusion by construction. The magic pseudocritical point and the scaling laws in Eqs. (9)-(11) follow algebraically from the independent Barouch-McCoy expression for <sigma_x> in Eq. (3), with the externally known exponent beta_x=1/8, together with a numerically computed <sigma_z>; the fitted exponent mu about 0.88 is then compared with the independent value 1-beta_x=0.875 rather than being imposed. The factorized-state claim uses the known factorization point from the literature and computes the resulting single-qubit RoM, while the two-qubit maxima are compared with the published Howard-Campbell bound. Citations to the authors' own earlier work are background references and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The many fitted exponents, such as beta_z, mu, nu, and kappa, are characterizations of the computed quantities rather than fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and the finite-size collapse is a consistency check against the infinite-chain behavior. The only substantive weakness is the incomplete proof of the four-state restriction in Appendix A, which is an exposition or completeness gap and not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The main independent inputs are the exact solution of the XY model and the resource theory of magic. The paper adds numerical fits for scaling exponents and one unproven restriction in Appendix A. No new physical entity is proposed.

free parameters (6)
  • beta_z (transverse magnetization scaling exponent) = 0.854 for gamma=1 to 0.892 for gamma=0.25
    Extracted from linear fits to numerical <sigma_z> data near lambda_c in Appendix B and used in Eqs. (9)-(10) for single-qubit RoM scaling.
  • K_z (transverse magnetization scaling prefactor) = not reported numerically
    Extracted along with beta_z in Appendix B; enters the prefactor T_gamma in Eq. (10).
  • mu (derivative-of-RoM scaling exponent) = 0.88 for gamma=1, 0.86 for gamma=0.5
    Fitted from log-log slopes in Fig. 1(d) and Fig. 2(c); compared with the theoretical prediction 1 - beta_x = 0.875.
  • nu (finite-size correlation length exponent) = 1.00 for gamma=1, 1.09 for gamma=0.5
    Obtained by finite-size data collapse in Fig. 3; used to assert the scaling form of the derivative of RoM.
  • c1, c2 in |mu| about c1 tanh(c2 r) r^0.8 = c1 in 0.13 to 0.30, c2 in 0.25 to 0.30 depending on gamma
    Heuristic fit to the distance dependence of the scaling exponent in Fig. 5(c); no derivation is provided.
  • kappa (sudden death temperature exponent) = decreases with gamma; strongest for the Ising case
    Fitted from scaling of T_c with distance r in Fig. 6(b); used to quantify thermal destruction of magic.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Barouch-McCoy solution: thermodynamic-limit two-point functions of the XY chain are Toeplitz determinants, and <sigma_z> is given by an elliptic integral.
    The density matrices and all thermal results in Secs. 2, 4.1, and 4.2 rest on these analytic forms from Refs. [59,60].
  • standard math The set of single-qubit stabilizer states forms an octahedron, and RoM is the solution of the linear program in Eq. (7).
    This is the standard resource-theoretic definition used throughout the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal RoM decomposition for states with <sigma_y>=0 uses only |0>, |1>, |+>, and |->, with no +/-i stabilizer states.
    Appendix A assumes this restricted form without proving that the full stabilizer set cannot improve the L1 norm.
  • domain assumption Near criticality, <sigma_x> = K_x (lambda - lambda_c)^beta_x with beta_x = 1/8 from Ref. [14], and <sigma_z> is approximately <sigma_z>_c + K_z (lambda - lambda_c)^beta_z with fitted beta_z.
    These algebraic forms are the basis for Eqs. (9)-(11) and the MPP scaling claims in Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption The finite-size scaling ansatz in Sec. 3.1.3 and the quantum-critical scaling ansatze in Eqs. (18)-(19) hold for derivatives of RoM.
    These standard critical-phenomena scaling forms are imported and applied to magic without an independent derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Global magic Q_R
    purpose: Separates two-qubit magic that depends on correlations from magic already present in the local marginals, by subtracting log(1 + R) of the product state.
    This is a defined measure, not a physical entity; no falsifiable prediction outside the paper's own numerical data is attached to it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of an operational quantum resource in a critical many-body system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RX64O7YM

@misc{pith2026190808058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of an operational quantum resource in a critical many-body system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RX64O7YM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08058}
}
abstract

Quantum many-body systems have been extensively studied from the perspective of quantum technology, and conversely, critical phenomena in such systems have been characterized by operationally relevant resources like entanglement. In this paper, we investigate robustness of magic (RoM), the resource in magic state injection based quantum computation schemes in the context of the transverse field anisotropic XY model. We show that the the factorizable ground state in the symmetry broken configuration is composed of an enormous number of highly magical $H$ states. We find the existence of a point very near the quantum critical point where magic contained explicitly in the correlation between two distant qubits attains a sharp maxima. Unlike bipartite entanglement, this persists over very long distances, capturing the presence of long range correlation near the phase transition. We derive scaling laws and extract corresponding exponents around criticality. Finally, we study the effect of temperature on two-qubit RoM and show that it reveals a crossover between dominance of quantum and thermal fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08058 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Infinite transverse Ising chain. (a) RoM for the ground state of infinite transverse Ising chain plotted with λ. (b) RoM rises at the MPP which is slightly after λc. (c) Linear scaling of RoM near the MPP. (d) The derivative of RoM plotted against deviation from criticality in a log-log plot. in the ordered phase. Note that the existence of an MPP is a consequence of the definition of RoM in Eq. (8), and does not im… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Infinite transverse XY chain. (a) Density plot of RoM at ground state as a function of λ and γ. (b) Deviation of the MPP λ ∗ c from actual critical point λc for different anisotropy parameters (red circles), which shows a scaling behaviour with exponent ≈ 5.55 (gray dashed fitting line). (c) Critical exponent µ calculated for different γ’s. (d) Maximum RoM attainable vs. γ. (e) The values λmax (red solid line) and λ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Finite size scaling. Finite size scaling of derivative of RoM for: (a) transverse Ising and (b) transverse XY chain with γ = 0.5. factorized [22–24]. This is a particularly remarkable result, since the single-qubit factorized ground state (FGS) is pure, the ground state for this parameter value is demonstrably a pure H-state. A large number of H-state qubits are therefore obtainable at this point in the phase diagra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global magic for two qubits. (a) RoM for two qubits at different distances in the symmetry-broken ground state for the transverse XY chain with γ = 1/3. (b) Comparison of behavior of global magic QR, mutual information (MI), and concurrence, for the nearest neighbour b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magic in thermal ground state. (a) RoM and MRP for TI Model at T = 0. (b) Logarithmic divergence of derivative of RoM for TI model for distances r = 1 and r = 10. Insets show the scaling of derivative of RoM which is plotted against ln |λ − λc|. (c) Scaling of scaling …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magic in thermal equilibrium. (a) Sudden death of RoM at criticality with increasing temperature for the transverse Ising chain. (b) Scaling of sudden death temperature of RoM at criticality. (c) Logarithmic divergence for RoM at criticality of the form ∂λR = c + ξ ln …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Critical region for transverse Ising chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sachdev S 2007 Handbook of Magnetism and Advanced Magnetic Materials

    2007

  2. [2]

    Amico L, Fazio R, Osterloh A and Vedral V 2008 Rev. Mod. Phys. 80(2) 517–576

    2008

  3. [3]

    Bose S 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(20) 207901

    2003

  4. [4]

    Bose S 2007 Contemporary Physics 48 13–30

    2007

  5. [5]

    Zanardi P, Paris M G A and Campos Venuti L 2008 Phys. Rev. A 78(4) 042105

    2008

  6. [6]

    Invernizzi C, Korbman M, Campos Venuti L and Paris M G A 2008 Phys. Rev. A 78(4) 042106

    2008

  7. [7]

    Fr ´erot I and Roscilde T 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121(2) 020402

    2018

  8. [8]

    Degen C L, Reinhard F and Cappellaro P 2017 Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(3) 035002

    work page 2017

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Yao N Y , Jiang L, Gorshkov A V , Gong Z X, Zhai A, Duan L M and Lukin M D 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(4) 040505

    2011

  2. [10]

    Banchi L, Bayat A, Verrucchi P and Bose S 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(14) 140501

    2011

  3. [11]

    Correa L A, Palao J P, Adesso G and Alonso D 2013 Phys. Rev. E 87(4) 042131

    2013

  4. [12]

    Mohammady M H, Choi H, Trusheim M E, Bayat A, Englund D and Omar Y 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97(4) 042124

    2018

  5. [13]

    Osterloh A O F G and Fazio R 2002 Nature 416(6881) 608

    2002

  6. [14]

    Osborne T J and Nielsen M A 2002 Phys. Rev. A 66(3) 032110

    2002

  7. [15]

    Vidal G, Latorre J I, Rico E and Kitaev A 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90(22) 227902

    2003

  8. [16]

    Bayat A, Bose S, Sodano P and Johannesson H 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(6) 066403

    2012

  9. [17]

    Bayat A 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(3) 036102

    2017

  10. [18]

    Sun Z, Ma J, Lu X M and Wang X 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82(2) 022306

    2010

  11. [19]

    Le Hur K, Doucet-Beaupr ´e P and Hofstetter W 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(12) 126801

    2007

  12. [20]

    Sørensen E S, Chang M S, Laflorencie N and A ffleck I 2007 Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2007 P08003–P08003

    2007

  13. [21]

    Bayat A, Johannesson H, Bose S and Sodano P 2014 Nature Communications 5 3784

    2014

  14. [22]

    Giampaolo S M, Adesso G and Illuminati F 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100(19) 197201

    2008

  15. [23]

    Giampaolo S M, Adesso G and Illuminati F 2009 Phys. Rev. B 79(22) 224434

    2009

  16. [24]

    Tomasello B, Rossini D, Hamma A and Amico L 2011 EPL (Europhysics Letters) 96 27002

    2011

  17. [25]

    Cui J, Gu M, Kwek L C, Santos M F, Fan H and Vedral V 2012 Nature Communications 3 812

    2012

  18. [26]

    Horodecki M 2001 Quantum Information & Computation 1 3–26

    2001

  19. [27]

    Plenio M B and Virmani S S 2014 An introduction to entanglement theory Quantum Information and Coherence (Springer) pp 173–209

    2014

  20. [28]

    Amico L and Patan `e D 2007 Europhysics Letters (EPL) 77 17001

    2007

  21. [29]

    Bravyi S and Kitaev A 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71(2) 022316

    2005

  22. [30]

    Ollivier H and Zurek W H 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 017901

    2001

  23. [31]

    Henderson L and Vedral V 2001 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34 6899–6905

    2001

  24. [32]

    Baumgratz T, Cramer M and Plenio M B 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113(14) 140401 Characterization of an operational quantum resource in a critical many-body system 21

    2014

  25. [33]

    Marvian I and Spekkens R W 2014 Nature Communications 5 3821

    2014

  26. [34]

    Veitch V , Hamed Mousavian S A, Gottesman D and Emerson J 2014New Journal of Physics 16 013009

  27. [35]

    Ahmadi M, Dang H B, Gour G and Sanders B C 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97(6) 062332

    2018

  28. [36]

    Campbell E and Browne D 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(3) 030503

    2010

  29. [37]

    Howard M and Campbell E 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(9) 090501

    2017

  30. [38]

    T ´oth G and G¨uhne O 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72(2) 022340

    2005

  31. [39]

    Audenaert K M R and Plenio M B 2005 New Journal of Physics 7 170–170

    2005

  32. [40]

    Mukhopadhyay C, Sazim S and Pati A K 2018 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51 414006

    2018

  33. [41]

    Zhan X, Zhang X, Li J, Zhang Y , Sanders B C and Xue P 2016Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(9) 090401

  34. [42]

    Howard M, Wallman J, Veitch V and Emerson J 2014 Nature 510 351–355

    2014

  35. [43]

    Albarelli F, Genoni M G, Paris M G A and Ferraro A 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98(5) 052350

    2018

  36. [44]

    Takagi R and Zhuang Q 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97(6) 062337

    2018

  37. [45]

    Veitch V , Ferrie C, Gross D and Emerson J 2012New Journal of Physics 14 113011

  38. [46]

    Mari A and Eisert J 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(23) 230503

    2012

  39. [47]

    Jones C 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87(4) 042305

    2013

  40. [48]

    Zheng W, Yu Y , Pan J, Zhang J, Li J, Li Z, Suter D, Zhou X, Peng X and Du J 2015 Phys. Rev. A 91(2) 022314

    2015

  41. [49]

    Campbell E T, Anwar H and Browne D E 2012 Phys. Rev. X 2(4) 041021

    2012

  42. [50]

    O’Gorman J and Campbell E T 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95(3) 032338

    2017

  43. [51]

    Campbell E T and Howard M 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95(2) 022316

    2017

  44. [52]

    Bravyi S and Haah J 2012 Phys. Rev. A 86(5) 052329

    2012

  45. [53]

    Hastings M B and Haah J 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(5) 050504

    2018

  46. [54]

    Krishna A and Tillich J P 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(7) 070507

    2019

  47. [55]

    Campbell E T 2011 Phys. Rev. A 83(3) 032317

    2011

  48. [56]

    Dawkins H and Howard M 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(3) 030501

    2015

  49. [57]

    Lieb E, Schultz T and Mattis D 1961 Annals of Physics 16 407 – 466 ISSN 0003-4916

    1961

  50. [58]

    Dutta A, Aeppli G, Chakrabarti B K, Divakaran U, Rosenbaum T F and Sen D 2015 Quantum Phase Transitions in Transverse Field Spin Models: From Statistical Physics to Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Barouch E, McCoy B M and Dresden M 1970 Phys. Rev. A 2(3) 1075–1092

    1970

  52. [60]

    Barouch E and McCoy B M 1971 Phys. Rev. A 3(2) 786–804

    1971

  53. [61]

    Pfeuty P 1970 Annals of Physics 57 79 – 90 ISSN 0003-4916

    1970

  54. [62]

    Lidar D and Brun T 2013 Quantum Error Correction (Cambridge University Press)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Briegel H J 2009 Cluster States (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg) pp 96–105 ISBN 978-3- 540-70626-7

    2009

  56. [64]

    Gottesman D 1998 arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Heinrich M and Gross D 2019 Quantum 3 132 ISSN 2521-327X

    2019

  58. [66]

    White S R 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69(19) 2863–2866

    1992

  59. [67]

    Pirvu B, Murg V , Cirac J I and Verstraete F 2010New Journal of Physics 12 025012

  60. [68]

    Schollw ¨ock U 2011 Ann. Phys. 326 96–192

    2011

  61. [69]

    ITensor Library (version 3.0.0) http://itensor.org

  62. [70]

    Domb and J.L

    Barber M 1983 Finite size scaling (Phase Transitions and critical phenomena, edited by C. Domb and J.L. Leibovitz vol 8) (Academic Press, London)

    1983

  63. [71]

    McCulloch I P 2008 arXiv e-prints arXiv:0804.2509

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Grant M and Boyd S 2014 CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.1

    2014

  65. [73]

    Grant M and Boyd S 2008 Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs Recent Advances in Learning and Control Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences ed Blondel V , Boyd S and Kimura H (Springer-Verlag Limited) pp 95–110

    2008

  66. [74]

    Radhakrishnan C, Parthasarathy M, Jambulingam S and Byrnes T 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(15) 150504

    2016

  67. [75]

    Dillenschneider R 2008 Phys. Rev. B 78(22) 224413 Characterization of an operational quantum resource in a critical many-body system 22

    2008

  68. [76]

    Sarandy M S 2009 Phys. Rev. A 80(2) 022108

    2009

  69. [77]

    Krutitsky K V , Osterloh A and Sch¨utzhold R 2017 Scientific Reports 7 3634 ISSN 2045-2322

    2017

  70. [78]

    Sachdev S 1999 Quantum phase transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

    1999

  71. [79]

    Fr ´erot I and Roscilde T 2019 Nature Communications 10 577

    2019

  72. [80]

    Continentino M 2001 Quantum Scaling in Many Body Systems (World Scientific, Singapore)

    2001

  73. [81]

    Zhu L, Garst M, Rosch A and Si Q 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(6) 066404

    2003

  74. [82]

    Maziero J, Guzman H C, C ´eleri L C, Sarandy M S and Serra R M 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82(1) 012106

    2010

  75. [83]

    Maziero J, Cleri L, Serra R and Sarandy M 2012 Physics Letters A 376 1540 – 1544 ISSN 0375-9601

    2012

  76. [84]

    Auccaise R, C ´eleri L C, Soares-Pinto D O, deAzevedo E R, Maziero J, Souza A M, Bonagamba T J, Sarthour R S, Oliveira I S and Serra R M 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 107(14) 140403

    2011

  77. [85]

    Cornelio M F, Far ´ıas O J, Fanchini F F, Frerot I, Aguilar G H, Hor-Meyll M O, de Oliveira M C, Walborn S P, Caldeira A O and Ribeiro P H S 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(19) 190402

    2012

  78. [86]

    Paula F M, Silva I A, Montealegre J D, Souza A M, deAzevedo E R, Sarthour R S, Saguia A, Oliveira I S, Soares-Pinto D O, Adesso G and Sarandy M S 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(25) 250401

    2013

  79. [87]

    Wang X, Wilde M M and Su Y 2019 New Journal of Physics 21 103002

    2019

Pith tools

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