Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically stable long-range interacting systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that in any quantum lattice system with power-law interactions decaying faster than the spatial dimension, out-of-time-order correlators grow at most polynomially, ruling out exponential fast scrambling.

desk verdict The α>D no-fast-scrambling claim is likely right in substance, but the printed exponents in Theorem 1 and S.47–S.48 are not what the proof actually yields; the stress-test note flags the right spot but miscalculates by missing a square root. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.10124 v3 pith:A6SEG36H submitted 2020-09-21 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP

Tomotaka Kuwahara , Keiji Saito This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords out-of-time-ordercorrelatorsfastscramblinglong-rangeinteractionsLieb-Robinsonboundpolynomiallightconequantummany-bodydynamicspower-lawtime
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 local quantum information can spread exponentially fast in systems where interactions decay as a power law $R^{-\alpha}$ in distance. It argues that the answer is no, provided $\alpha$ exceeds the spatial dimension $D$. The paper proves that in any such thermodynamically stable long-range system, the out-of-time-order correlator, the standard diagnostic of quantum scrambling, grows at most polynomially in time, so scrambling over distance $R$ takes at least an algebraic time $t \gtrsim R^{(2\alpha-2D)/(2\alpha-D+1)}$. This closes a gap: earlier rigorous results only excluded exponential scrambling for $\alpha>2D$, while numerics suggested the true boundary is $\alpha>D$. The proof works by showing that every time-evolved local operator can be approximated, in the Frobenius norm, by an operator supported in a ball around its original site, with an error that decays as a power of the ball radius.

What carries the argument

The central object is the local approximant $W_X(t,X[r])$, obtained by partially tracing the time-evolved operator $W_X(t)$ onto the enlarged region $X[r]$ and extending it by the identity. The load-bearing mechanism is a short-time Lieb-Robinson bound in the Frobenius norm, Theorem 7 of the supplement: for times $|t|\le 1/(2e\tilde{g})$, $$\|W_X(t)-W_X(t,X[r])\|_F \le C_0|t|\, |(\partial X)_{r/2}|\, $r^{{-2\alpha+D+1}}$,$$ where $\tilde{g}$ is an effective one-site interaction strength. This bound is the key because the Frobenius norm replaces the surface factor $|\partial X|$ by the smaller $|(\partial X)_{r/2}|$, which is what lowers the threshold from $\alpha>2D$ to $\alpha>D$. The proof chains this short-time bound over $t/\Delta t$ small time steps while expanding the support by $\Delta r$ at each step, then sums the errors to obtain the global local-approximation estimate.

What would settle it

Simulate a one-dimensional spin-1/2 chain with power-law Ising interactions $J/|i-j|^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha=1.5$, compute the infinite-temperature OTOC $C(R,t)$ for distances $R\approx20$ to $100$, and test whether an exponential envelope $e^{\lambda t}/R^{\alpha}$ appears; the paper's claim predicts only polynomial growth in $t$ at fixed $R$, so a clean exponential signal in this regime would refute Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1: for a $D$-dimensional quantum lattice with few-body interactions decaying as $1/R^\alpha$ and $\alpha>D$, any on-site operator $W_i$ evolving under the unitary dynamics has, for every radius $r$, a local approximant $\tilde{W}_{i[r]}^{(t)}$ supported on the ball $i[r]$ such that $$\|W_i(t)-\tilde{W}_{i[r]}^{(t)}\|_F \le C\, $r^{{-\alpha+D}}$\, $t^{{(\alpha-D-1)/2}}$,$$ with $C=O(1)$. Because an operator supported on $i[R-1]$ commutes with any operator at distance $R$, this yields $C(R,t)\lesssim (C't/R^{\zeta})^{\alpha-(D-1)/2}$ with $\zeta=(2\alpha-2D)/(2\alpha-D+1)$, so the scrambling time satisfies $t\gtrsim R^\zeta$. The exponential fast-scrambling form $e^{\lambda t}/R^\alpha$ is therefore impossible whenever the thermodynamic limit exists, and the threshold $\alpha>D$ is identified as the optimal boundary for this absence of fast scrambling.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes each interaction term touches at most $k$ spins for a fixed $k$ and the lattice has bounded connectivity, so the one-site energy $g$ entering the short-time threshold is finite, and it establishes the bound only for the infinite-temperature OTOC; if interactions become genuinely many-body with growing $k$, the graph degree diverges, or a finite-temperature version is required, the $\alpha>D$ result is not yet established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every Hamiltonian with few-body power-law interactions and $\alpha>D$, the out-of-time-order correlator satisfies $C(R,t)\lesssim (C't/R^{\zeta})^{\alpha-(D-1)/2}$ with $\zeta=(2\alpha-2D)/(2\alpha-D+1)$, so the exponential growth $e^{\lambda t}/R^\alpha$ is excluded.
  • The scrambling time over distance $R$ is at least algebraic, $t\gtrsim R^{\zeta}$, and since $\zeta<1$ for finite $\alpha$, this forbids the logarithmic scrambling time $t\sim \log n$ characteristic of fast scramblers.
  • The threshold $\alpha>D$ coincides with the condition that the total energy is extensive and the thermodynamic limit is well defined, so the result covers exactly the class of long-range systems that are thermodynamically stable.
  • The result extends the earlier rigorous exclusion of fast scrambling from the regime $\alpha>2D$ down to $\alpha>D$, matching the boundary suggested by numerical counterexamples for $\alpha\le D$.
  • The same time-slicing technique also reproduces the state-of-the-art polynomial light cone $R\approx t^{(\alpha-D)/(\alpha-2D)}$ for operator-norm propagation when $\alpha>2D$, with a simpler derivation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the finite-temperature extension anticipated in the paper can be carried through via cluster-expansion techniques, the absence of exponential scrambling would apply to realistic experimental platforms with dipole-dipole interactions ($D=2$, $\alpha=3$) and van der Waals interactions ($D=3$, $\alpha=6$), both of which lie in the newly covered regime $D<\alpha<2D$.
  • The exponent $\zeta$ is likely not optimal; a natural next step is to determine whether the Frobenius-norm analogue of the linear light cone appears at the conjectured critical value $\alpha_c=3D/2+1$, already proven for $D=1$ in the paper's discussion.
  • For Markovian open quantum dynamics whose uniform mixed state is stationary, the same recursive time-slicing structure should yield analogous polynomial OTOC bounds, a direct but unproven extension suggested by the form of the paper's main approximation inequality.
  • A numerical check in the newly covered one-dimensional regime $1<\alpha<2$, where previous rigorous bounds stopped at $\alpha>3/2$, could test whether any exponential OTOC envelope appears at large distances; the paper's claim predicts no such envelope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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 claims to prove that in D-dimensional lattice spin systems with few-body power-law interactions decaying as R^{-alpha} with alpha > D, the infinite-temperature OTOC grows at most polynomially, so fast scrambling is impossible. The main technical statement is Theorem 1 (Eq. (8)): every on-site operator W_i has a local approximation on a ball of radius r whose normalized Frobenius error is bounded by C r^{-alpha+D} t^{alpha-D-1/2} (with the exponent as printed in the manuscript). From this and Eq. (7), the authors derive an OTOC bound of the form C(R,t) <= (C' t / R^zeta)^{alpha~} with zeta = (2alpha-2D)/(2alpha-D+1) and alpha~ = alpha-(D-1)/2, giving a scrambling time lower bound t >= R^zeta for alpha>D. The proof concatenates short-time evolutions and uses a short-time Frobenius-norm Lieb-Robinson bound (Theorem 7, Eq. (S.44)). The manuscript also presents a simplified derivation of earlier operator-norm bounds for alpha>2D.

Significance. If the theorem is correct, the paper would settle a natural open problem by showing that the threshold for excluding exponential OTOC growth is exactly the thermodynamic-stability condition alpha>D, improving on earlier results that only covered alpha>2D. The proof strategy is attractive: a short-time Frobenius-norm Lieb-Robinson bound combined with a time-slicing and concatenation argument, with no fitted parameters and no post hoc data selection. The authors also state the limitations of their result clearly, in particular that the proof is for the infinite-temperature OTOC and for finite-k, finite-degree Hamiltonians, and that the finite-temperature extension is left open.

major comments (3)
  1. [S.IV, Eqs. (S.47) and (S.48)] The displayed exponent bookkeeping in the concatenation step is internally inconsistent. If the per-step bound (S.47) is 2^{D-1} C0 (Delta t)^{-alpha+D+3/2} t^{alpha-D+1/2} R^{-alpha+D}, then summing the m_t = t/Delta t terms in (S.27) adds a factor t/Delta t, giving a t-exponent of alpha-D+3/2, not alpha-D-1/2. The displayed (S.48) has t-exponent alpha-D-1/2, which is lower by 2. Thus Eq. (S.48) does not follow from Eq. (S.47) by the stated summation step, and the proof of Theorem 2 (and hence Theorem 1) is not established as written.
  2. [S.IV, substitution of (S.44) into (S.47)] Even before the summation, the step from the short-time bound (S.44) to the per-step bound (S.47) does not have the stated exponents. With t = Delta t, r = Delta r = Delta t R / t, and |(partial X_m)_{Delta r/2}| <= gamma (2R)^{D-1} from (S.46), substitution into the bound (S.44) gives a per-step error with different R- and t-exponents from (S.47). If the unindexed sum symbol in (S.44) is the square root of its argument, substitution yields a t-exponent of alpha-D/2-1/2 and an R-exponent of -alpha+D, which agree with (S.47) for no general alpha>D. If the symbol is intended as a summation, the summation range is undefined and the same exponent mismatch persists. This is a load-bearing gap: the claimed per-step estimate is the basis for the final theorem.
  3. [Main text, after Eq. (8)] The derivation of the displayed OTOC bound from Eq. (8) is not shown and does not appear to be a consequence of (7) and (8) with the printed exponents. From (7), C(R,t) is bounded by four times the square of the Frobenius error in (8). With the t- and R-exponents as printed in (8), the resulting t- and R-exponents do not match the displayed bound (C' t / R^zeta)^{alpha~} with alpha~ = alpha - (D-1)/2 and zeta = (2alpha-2D)/(2alpha-D+1). The authors should provide the intermediate algebra; as written, the stated polynomial growth and the scrambling-time lower bound do not follow from the stated theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (S.44), (S.61), (S.62), (S.64)] The symbol sum appears without an index in several displayed equations. If it is a summation, its range must be specified; if it is intended as a square root, it should be typeset accordingly. The current notation makes the proof impossible to audit.
  2. [Eq. (S.45)] The definition of C0 is difficult to parse because it mixes a square root, a fraction, and an additive gamma. It should be rewritten as a single, clearly grouped formula.
  3. [Theorem 1, Eq. (8)] The statement says that C is an O(1) constant but does not specify its dependence on J0, alpha, D, k, or the chosen short-time step Delta t. Since Theorem 2 (S.18) tracks Delta t explicitly, the relation between the constants in (8) and (S.18) should be stated.
  4. [Main text, proof of Theorem 1] The sentence near Eq. (13) about a sufficiently large Delta t is confusing: the short-time bound is used for small Delta t, and the exponential growth of the operator-norm bound appears for large total time, not for large Delta t. The wording should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polynomial OTOC bound is derived from a self-contained short-time Frobenius-norm Lieb-Robinson estimate, not from a fitted parameter or a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central local-approximation inequality (Theorem 7, Eq. S.44) is proved in Sections S.V and S.VI directly from the Hamiltonian assumption (Assumption 1) using a BCH/Pauli-expansion argument with explicit constants (Eq. S.45), so the main bound (8) is not assumed as an input. The recursive concatenation inequality (12)/(S.27) follows from the triangle inequality and unitary invariance, and although the time-slicing idea is attributed to the authors' Ref. [93], the argument is reproduced in the text rather than invoked as an unverified black box. Similarly, the operator-norm light-cone discussion cites Ref. [81] for a proof structure, but the Frobenius-norm result that carries Theorem 1 does not depend on that citation. No parameter is fitted to OTOC data and then renamed as a prediction; the constants C, C0, g-tilde, and lambda are all defined from the Hamiltonian and lattice geometry. No uniqueness theorem is imported from prior author work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The finite-temperature generalization is explicitly flagged as an expectation, not presented as a derived prediction. The skeptic's stated exponent inconsistency between Eq. S.44 and Eq. S.47 is a mathematical-validity concern about whether the proof as written establishes the claimed exponents; it is not a circularity, because it does not make the conclusion equivalent to an input by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim uses no fitted parameters or invented physical entities. The theorem depends on standard Hamiltonian assumptions (k-locality, power-law decay, regular lattice), on background mathematical facts, and on the authors' own concatenation technique used as a proof tool. All of these are stated explicitly; none of them are tuned to force the result.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: power-law decay of interactions, sup over pairs at distance r of summed interaction strengths is bounded by J0(r+1)^{-α} with α>D (Eq. S.8).
    Defines the class of systems studied; ensures finite energy density and is the main premise of the theorem.
  • domain assumption k-locality: H=sum_{|Z|≤k} h_Z with finite k (Eq. S.7).
    Required for the Pauli-basis expansion and the combinatorial lemmas in Section S.VI; not needed for the operator-norm bound.
  • domain assumption Lattice growth bounds |i[r]|≤γr^D and |∂i[r]|≤γr^{D-1} (Eq. S.5).
    Used throughout the surface estimates, for example Eq. (S.46), to bound the boundary of the local region.
  • standard math Standard Schatten norm inequalities and random unitary representation of partial trace (Eqs. S.14, S.34).
    Background quantum information tools used to reduce local approximation error to commutator norms.
  • standard math Hastings-Koma Lieb-Robinson bound for long-range interactions (Theorem 4 in the supplement).
    Used for the operator-norm analogue and for comparison with prior work; the Frobenius-norm proof is self-contained.
  • domain assumption Finite one-site energy g and finite λ in Eq. (S.11), which follow from α>D and k-locality.
    Defines g̃ and the short-time condition |t|≤1/(2e g̃) in Theorem 2; if g diverges the proof breaks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically stable long-range interacting systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6SEG36H

@misc{pith2026200910124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically stable long-range interacting systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6SEG36H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.10124}
}
abstract

In this study, we investigate out-of-time-order correlators (OTOCs) in systems with power-law decaying interactions such as $R^{-\alpha}$, where $R$ is the distance. In such systems, the fast scrambling of quantum information or the exponential growth of information propagation can potentially occur according to the decay rate $\alpha$. In this regard, a crucial open challenge is to identify the optimal condition for $\alpha$ such that fast scrambling cannot occur. In this study, we disprove fast scrambling in generic long-range interacting systems with $\alpha>D$ ($D$: spatial dimension), where the total energy is extensive in terms of system size and the thermodynamic limit is well-defined. We rigorously demonstrate that the OTOC shows a polynomial growth over time as long as $\alpha>D$ and the necessary scrambling time over a distance $R$ is larger than $t\gtrsim R^{\frac{2\alpha-2D}{2\alpha-D+1}}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.10124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) The OTOC ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) We decompose time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic picture of the definition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic picture of the set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Decomposition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The decomposition of string [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Schematic picture of the positions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Local observable errors from truncating interaction tails in gapped quantum lattice systems

    quant-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Truncating a gapped lattice interaction at range R changes local ground-state expectations by at most the per-site strength of the discarded tail, with O(R^{-(p-d)}) for two-body r^{-p} couplings when p>2d.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For m = 2, we adopt the second-step approximation W (2) X2 := W (1) X1 (∆t,X 2), which is similar to (10)

    (10) Note thatWi(∆t,X 1) is now supported on subsetX1. For m = 2, we adopt the second-step approximation W (2) X2 := W (1) X1 (∆t,X 2), which is similar to (10). We then obtain the approximation error as ‖‖Wi(2∆t)−W (2) X2 ‖‖ p ≤ ‖‖Wi(2∆t)−W (1) X1 (∆t) +W (1) X1 (∆t)−W (2) X2 ‖‖ p ≤ ‖‖Wi(∆t)−W (1) X1 ‖‖ p + ‖‖W (1) X1 (∆t)−W (2) X2 ‖‖ p, (11) with W (1) ...

  2. [2]

    Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,

    J. M. Deutsch, “Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,” Phys. Rev. A43, 2046–2049 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Chaos and quantum thermalization,

    Mark Srednicki, “Chaos and quantum thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E50, 888–901 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    From Quantum Dynamics to the Canon- ical Distribution: General Picture and a Rigorous Ex- ample,

    Hal Tasaki, “From Quantum Dynamics to the Canon- ical Distribution: General Picture and a Rigorous Ex- ample,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1373–1376 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics,

    Sandu Popescu, Anthony J. Short, and Andreas Win- ter, “Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics,” Nature Physics2, 754–758 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Black holes as mir- rors: quantum information in random subsystems ,

    PatrickHaydenandJohnPreskill,“ Black holes as mir- rors: quantum information in random subsystems ,” Journal of High Energy Physics2007, 120–120 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Random Quantum Circuits are Approximate 2-designs,

    Aram W. Harrow and Richard A. Low, “Random Quantum Circuits are Approximate 2-designs,” Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 291, 257–302 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Towards the fast scrambling conjecture,

    Nima Lashkari, Douglas Stanford, Matthew Hastings, Tobias Osborne, and Patrick Hayden, “Towards the fast scrambling conjecture,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2013, 22 (2013)

    2013

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,

    AI Larkin and Yu N Ovchinnikov, “Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity,” Sov Phys JETP 28, 1200–1205 (1969)

    1969

  2. [10]

    Hidden correlations in the Hawking ra- diation and thermal noise,

    Alexei Kitaev, “Hidden correlations in the Hawking ra- diation and thermal noise,” inTalk given at the Fun- damental Physics Prize Symposium, Vol. 10 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    A bound on chaos,

    Juan Maldacena, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stanford, “A bound on chaos,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 106 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Unscrambling the physics of out-of- time-order correlators,

    Brian Swingle, “Unscrambling the physics of out-of- time-order correlators,” Nature Physics14, 988–990 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Lieb-Robinson Bound and the Butterfly Effect in Quantum Field The- ories,

    Daniel A. Roberts and Brian Swingle, “Lieb-Robinson Bound and the Butterfly Effect in Quantum Field The- ories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 091602 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,

    Elliott H. Lieb and Derek W. Robinson, “The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems,” Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics28, 251–257 (1972)

    1972

  7. [15]

    Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order,

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, “Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Exponential Clustering Theorem ,

    Bruno Nachtergaele and Robert Sims, “Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Exponential Clustering Theorem ,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 265, 119– 130 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Quantum Entanglement Growth un- der Random Unitary Dynamics,

    Adam Nahum, Jonathan Ruhman, Sagar Vijay, and Jeongwan Haah, “Quantum Entanglement Growth un- der Random Unitary Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Jarzynski-like equality for the out-of-time-ordered correlator,

    Nicole Yunger Halpern, “Jarzynski-like equality for the out-of-time-ordered correlator,” Phys. Rev. A95, 012120 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Velocity-dependent Lyapunov exponents in many-body quantum, semiclassical, and classical chaos ,

    Vedika Khemani, David A. Huse, and Adam Nahum, “Velocity-dependent Lyapunov exponents in many-body quantum, semiclassical, and classical chaos ,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 144304 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Op- erator Spreading in Random Unitary Circuits,

    AdamNahum, SagarVijay, andJeongwanHaah,“Op- erator Spreading in Random Unitary Circuits,” Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Operator Hydrodynamics, OTOCs, and Entanglement Growth in Systems without Conservation Laws,

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, Tibor Rakovszky, Frank Poll- mann, and S. L. Sondhi, “Operator Hydrodynamics, OTOCs, and Entanglement Growth in Systems without Conservation Laws,” Phys. Rev. X8, 021013 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    A Universal Op- erator Growth Hypothesis,

    Daniel E. Parker, Xiangyu Cao, Alexander Avdoshkin, Thomas Scaffidi, and Ehud Altman, “A Universal Op- erator Growth Hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. X9, 041017 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Locality, Quantum Fluctuations, and Scrambling,

    Shenglong Xu and Brian Swingle, “Locality, Quantum Fluctuations, and Scrambling,”Phys.Rev.X 9,031048 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Finite-Size Scaling of Out-of-Time- Ordered Correlators at Late Times,

    Yichen Huang, Fernando G. S. L. Brandão, and Yong- Liang Zhang, “Finite-Size Scaling of Out-of-Time- Ordered Correlators at Late Times,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 010601 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Dynamical scaling laws of out-of-time-ordered corre- lators,

    Bo-Bo Wei, Gaoyong Sun, and Myung-Joong Hwang, “Dynamical scaling laws of out-of-time-ordered corre- lators,” Phys. Rev. B100, 195107 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Universal scrambling in gapless quantum spin chains,

    Shunsuke Nakamura, Eiki Iyoda, Tetsuo Deguchi, and Takahiro Sagawa, “Universal scrambling in gapless quantum spin chains,”Phys.Rev.B 99,224305(2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Accessing scram- bling using matrix product operators,

    Shenglong Xu and Brian Swingle, “Accessing scram- bling using matrix product operators,” Nature Physics 16, 199–204 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Measuring the scram- bling of quantum information ,

    Brian Swingle, Gregory Bentsen, Monika Schleier- Smith, and Patrick Hayden, “Measuring the scram- bling of quantum information ,” Phys. Rev. A 94, 6 040302 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Measuring out-of-time-order corre- lations and multiple quantum spectra in a trapped-ion quantum magnet,

    Martin Gärttner, Justin G. Bohnet, Arghavan Safavi- Naini, Michael L. Wall, John J. Bollinger, and Ana Maria Rey, “Measuring out-of-time-order corre- lations and multiple quantum spectra in a trapped-ion quantum magnet,” Nature Physics13, 781–786 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Measuring Out-of-Time-Order Correlators on a Nu- clear Magnetic Resonance Quantum Simulator,

    Jun Li, Ruihua Fan, Hengyan Wang, Bingtian Ye, Bei Zeng, Hui Zhai, Xinhua Peng, and Jiangfeng Du, “Measuring Out-of-Time-Order Correlators on a Nu- clear Magnetic Resonance Quantum Simulator,” Phys. Rev. X 7, 031011 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Probing Scrambling Using Statisti- cal Correlations between Randomized Measurements,

    B. Vermersch, A. Elben, L. M. Sieberer, N. Y. Yao, and P. Zoller, “Probing Scrambling Using Statisti- cal Correlations between Randomized Measurements,” Phys. Rev. X9, 021061 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Verified quantum information scrambling,

    K. A. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y. Yao, and C. Monroe, “Verified quantum information scrambling,” Nature567, 61–65 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Quantum Information Scrambling in a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator with Tunable Range Interactions,

    Manoj K. Joshi, Andreas Elben, Benoît Vermersch, Tiff Brydges, Christine Maier, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F. Roos, “Quantum Information Scrambling in a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator with Tunable Range Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 240505 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Local criticality, diffusion and chaos in generalized Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models,

    Yingfei Gu, Xiao-Liang Qi, and Douglas Stanford, “Local criticality, diffusion and chaos in generalized Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 125 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Spread of entanglement in a Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev chain,

    Yingfei Gu, Andrew Lucas, and Xiao-Liang Qi, “Spread of entanglement in a Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev chain,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 120 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Information propagation in isolated quantum systems,

    David J. Luitz and Yevgeny Bar Lev, “Information propagation in isolated quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 020406 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Light- Cone Spreading of Perturbations and the Butterfly Ef- fect in a Classical Spin Chain,

    AvijitDas, SaurishChakrabarty, AbhishekDhar, Anu- pam Kundu, David A. Huse, Roderich Moessner, Sam- riddhi Sankar Ray, and Subhro Bhattacharjee, “Light- Cone Spreading of Perturbations and the Butterfly Ef- fect in a Classical Spin Chain,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 024101 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Trans- port and chaos in lattice Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models,

    Haoyu Guo, Yingfei Gu, and Subir Sachdev, “Trans- port and chaos in lattice Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models,” Phys. Rev. B100, 045140 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Chaos in the butter- fly cone,

    Márk Mezei and Gábor Sárosi, “Chaos in the butter- fly cone,” Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 186 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Asymmet- ric butterfly velocities in 2-local Hamiltonians,

    Yong-Liang Zhang and Vedika Khemani, “Asymmet- ric butterfly velocities in 2-local Hamiltonians,” Sci- Post Phys. 9, 24 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Entanglement Growth in Quench Dynam- ics with Variable Range Interactions,

    J. Schachenmayer, B. P. Lanyon, C. F. Roos, and A.J.Daley,“Entanglement Growth in Quench Dynam- ics with Variable Range Interactions,” Phys. Rev. X3, 031015 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Spread of Correlations in Long-Range Interacting Quantum Systems,

    P. Hauke and L. Tagliacozzo, “Spread of Correlations in Long-Range Interacting Quantum Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 207202 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Breakdown of Quasilo- cality in Long-Range Quantum Lattice Models,

    JensEisert, MauritzvandenWorm, SalvatoreR.Man- mana, and Michael Kastner, “Breakdown of Quasilo- cality in Long-Range Quantum Lattice Models,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 260401 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Spreading of Perturbations in Long-Range Interacting Classical Lattice Models,

    David Métivier, Romain Bachelard, and Michael Kastner, “Spreading of Perturbations in Long-Range Interacting Classical Lattice Models,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 210601 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Entanglement growth in many-body localized systems with long-range interactions,

    M. Pino, “Entanglement growth in many-body localized systems with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. B 90, 174204 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Fast Quantum State Transfer and Entanglement Renormalization Using Long-Range Interactions,

    Zachary Eldredge, Zhe-Xuan Gong, Jeremy T. Young, Ali Hamed Moosavian, Michael Foss-Feig, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Fast Quantum State Transfer and Entanglement Renormalization Using Long-Range Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 170503 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Spreading of correlations in exactly solvable quantum models with long-range interactions in arbitrary dimensions,

    Lorenzo Cevolani, Giuseppe Carleo, and Laurent Sanchez-Palencia, “Spreading of correlations in exactly solvable quantum models with long-range interactions in arbitrary dimensions,” New Journal of Physics18, 093002 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Singular dynamics and emergence of nonlocality in long-range quantum models,

    L Lepori, A Trombettoni, and D Vodola, “Singular dynamics and emergence of nonlocality in long-range quantum models,” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2017, 033102 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Universal scaling laws for correlation spreading in quantum systems with short- and long-range interac- tions,

    Lorenzo Cevolani, Julien Despres, Giuseppe Carleo, Luca Tagliacozzo, and Laurent Sanchez-Palencia, “Universal scaling laws for correlation spreading in quantum systems with short- and long-range interac- tions,” Phys. Rev. B98, 024302 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Effect of long-range hopping and interactions on entanglement dynamics and many-body localization,

    Rajeev Singh, Roderich Moessner, and Dibyendu Roy, “Effect of long-range hopping and interactions on entanglement dynamics and many-body localization,” Phys. Rev. B95, 094205 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Ultrafast variational simulation of nontrivial quan- tum states with long-range interactions,

    Wen Wei Ho, Cheryne Jonay, and Timothy H. Hsieh, “Ultrafast variational simulation of nontrivial quan- tum states with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 052332 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Spin transport in a long-range-interacting spin chain,

    Benedikt Kloss and Yevgeny Bar Lev, “Spin transport in a long-range-interacting spin chain,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 032114 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Energy current correla- tion in solvable long-range interacting systems,

    Shuji Tamaki and Keiji Saito, “Energy current correla- tion in solvable long-range interacting systems,” Phys. Rev. E 101, 042118 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Spectral Gap and Exponential Decay of Correlations,

    Matthew B. Hastings and Tohru Koma, “Spectral Gap and Exponential Decay of Correlations,” Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics265, 781–804 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Propagation of Correlations in Quantum Lat- tice Systems,

    Bruno Nachtergaele, Yoshiko Ogata, and Robert Sims, “Propagation of Correlations in Quantum Lat- tice Systems,” Journal of Statistical Physics124, 1–13 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Fast scramblers,

    Yasuhiro Sekino and L Susskind, “Fast scramblers,” Journal of High Energy Physics2008, 065–065 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Fast scrambling on sparse graphs,

    Gregory Bentsen, Yingfei Gu, and Andrew Lucas, “Fast scrambling on sparse graphs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 6689–6694 (2019), https://www.pnas.org/content/116/14/6689.full.pdf

    2019

  50. [58]

    Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,

    Juan Maldacena and Douglas Stanford, “Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model,” Phys. Rev. D94, 106002 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Numerical study of fermion and boson models with infinite-range random interactions,

    Wenbo Fu and Subir Sachdev, “Numerical study of fermion and boson models with infinite-range random interactions,” Phys. Rev. B94, 035135 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Solvable model for a dynamical quantum phase transition from fast to slow scrambling,

    Sumilan Banerjee and Ehud Altman, “Solvable model for a dynamical quantum phase transition from fast to slow scrambling,” Phys. Rev. B95, 134302 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Scrambling and entanglement spread- ing in long-range spin chains ,

    Silvia Pappalardi, Angelo Russomanno, Bojan Žunkovič, Fernando Iemini, Alessandro Silva, and Rosario Fazio, “Scrambling and entanglement spread- ing in long-range spin chains ,” Phys. Rev. B 98, 134303 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Treelike Inter- 7 actions and Fast Scrambling with Cold Atoms,

    Gregory Bentsen, Tomohiro Hashizume, Anton S. Buyskikh, Emily J. Davis, Andrew J. Daley, Steven S. Gubser, and Monika Schleier-Smith, “Treelike Inter- 7 actions and Fast Scrambling with Cold Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 130601 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    A separation of out- of-time-ordered correlator and entanglement,

    Aram W Harrow, Linghang Kong, Zi-Wen Liu, Saeed Mehraban, and Peter W Shor, “A separation of out- of-time-ordered correlator and entanglement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02219 (2019), arXiv:1906.02219

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Scrambling dynamics and many-body chaos in a ran- dom dipolar spin model,

    Ahmet Keleş, Erhai Zhao, and W. Vincent Liu, “Scrambling dynamics and many-body chaos in a ran- dom dipolar spin model,” Phys. Rev. A99, 053620 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Cavity-QED simulator of slow and fast scrambling,

    J. Marino and A. M. Rey, “Cavity-QED simulator of slow and fast scrambling,” Phys. Rev. A99, 051803 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Operator growth bounds from graph theory ,

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas, “ Operator growth bounds from graph theory ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.03682 (2019), arXiv:1905.03682

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fast scrambling without appealing to holographic du- ality,

    Zehan Li, Sayan Choudhury, and W. Vincent Liu, “Fast scrambling without appealing to holographic du- ality,” Phys. Rev. Research2, 043399 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Minimal Model for Fast Scrambling,

    Ron Belyansky, Przemyslaw Bienias, Yaroslav A. Kharkov, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Brian Swingle, “Minimal Model for Fast Scrambling,”Phys.Rev.Lett. 125, 130601 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model,

    Andrew Lucas and Andrew Osborne, “Operator growth bounds in a cartoon matrix model,” Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics 61, 122301 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0022177

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Out-of-time- ordered correlators in short-range and long-range hard- core boson models and in the Luttinger-liquid model,

    Cheng-Ju Lin and Olexei I. Motrunich, “Out-of-time- ordered correlators in short-range and long-range hard- core boson models and in the Luttinger-liquid model,” Phys. Rev. B98, 134305 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Quantum chaos dynam- ics in long-range power law interaction systems,

    Xiao Chen and Tianci Zhou, “Quantum chaos dynam- ics in long-range power law interaction systems,”Phys. Rev. B 100, 064305 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Emergent lo- cality in systems with power-law interactions,

    David J. Luitz and Yevgeny Bar Lev, “Emergent lo- cality in systems with power-law interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 010105 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Operator Lévy Flight: Light Cones in Chaotic Long-Range Interacting Systems,

    Tianci Zhou, Shenglong Xu, Xiao Chen, Andrew Guo, andBrianSwingle,“Operator Lévy Flight: Light Cones in Chaotic Long-Range Interacting Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 180601 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Lieb-robinson bounds and out-of-time order correlators in a long- range spin chain,

    Luis Colmenarez and David J. Luitz, “Lieb-robinson bounds and out-of-time order correlators in a long- range spin chain,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043047 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Nearly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Interacting Quantum Systems,

    Michael Foss-Feig, Zhe-Xuan Gong, Charles W. Clark, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Nearly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Interacting Quantum Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 157201 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Improving the Lieb–Robinson Bound for Long-Range Interactions,

    Takuro Matsuta, Tohru Koma, and Shu Nakamura, “Improving the Lieb–Robinson Bound for Long-Range Interactions,” Annales Henri Poincaré 18, 519–528 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Improved Lieb-Robinson bound for many-body Hamiltonians with power-law interac- tions,

    Dominic V. Else, Francisco Machado, Chetan Nayak, and Norman Y. Yao, “Improved Lieb-Robinson bound for many-body Hamiltonians with power-law interac- tions,” Phys. Rev. A101, 022333 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Locality and Digital Quantum Simulation of Power-Law Inter- actions,

    Minh C. Tran, Andrew Y. Guo, Yuan Su, James R. Garrison, Zachary Eldredge, Michael Foss-Feig, An- drew M. Childs, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Locality and Digital Quantum Simulation of Power-Law Inter- actions,” Phys. Rev. X9, 031006 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Locality and heating in periodically driven, power-law-interacting systems,

    Minh C. Tran, Adam Ehrenberg, Andrew Y. Guo, Paraj Titum, Dmitry A. Abanin, and Alexey V. Gor- shkov, “Locality and heating in periodically driven, power-law-interacting systems,” Phys. Rev. A 100, 052103 (2019)

    2019

  72. [80]

    Finite Speed of Quantum Scrambling with Long Range Interactions,

    Chi-Fang Chen and Andrew Lucas, “Finite Speed of Quantum Scrambling with Long Range Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 250605 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Hierarchy of Linear Light Cones with Long-Range In- teractions,

    Minh C. Tran, Chi-Fang Chen, Adam Ehrenberg, An- drew Y. Guo, Abhinav Deshpande, Yifan Hong, Zhe- Xuan Gong, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Andrew Lucas, “Hierarchy of Linear Light Cones with Long-Range In- teractions,” Phys. Rev. X10, 031009 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Strictly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Interacting Systems of Ar- bitrary Dimensions,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara and Keiji Saito, “Strictly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Interacting Systems of Ar- bitrary Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. X10, 031010 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of systems with long-range interactions: An introduc- tion,

    ThierryDauxois, StefanoRuffo, EnnioArimondo, and Martin Wilkens, “Dynamics and thermodynamics of systems with long-range interactions: An introduc- tion,” inDynamics and Thermodynamics of Systems with Long-Range Interactions(2002) pp. 1–19

    2002

  76. [84]

    Statistical mechanics and dynamics of solvable models with long-range interactions,

    Alessandro Campa, Thierry Dauxois, and Stefano Ruffo, “Statistical mechanics and dynamics of solvable models with long-range interactions,” Physics Reports 480, 57 – 159 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    Optimal state transfer and entanglement generation in power- law interacting systems,

    Minh C. Tran, Abhinav Deshpande, Andrew Y. Guo, Andrew Lucas, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Optimal state transfer and entanglement generation in power- law interacting systems,” (2020), arXiv:2010.02930 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Existence of a phase-transition in a one-dimensional Ising ferromagnet,

    Freeman J. Dyson, “Existence of a phase-transition in a one-dimensional Ising ferromagnet,” Comm. Math. Phys. 12, 91–107 (1969)

    1969

  79. [87]

    Long-Range Order in One- Dimensional Ising Systems ,

    D. J. Thouless, “ Long-Range Order in One- Dimensional Ising Systems ,” Phys. Rev. 187, 732–733 (1969)

    1969

  80. [88]

    Phase Transitions in Long-Range Ferromagnetic Chains,

    J. M. Kosterlitz, “Phase Transitions in Long-Range Ferromagnetic Chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 1577– 1580 (1976)

    1976

  81. [89]

    Absence of Spontaneous Magnetic Order at Nonzero Temperature in One- and Two-Dimensional Heisenberg and XY Systems with Long-Range Inter- actions,

    P. Bruno, “Absence of Spontaneous Magnetic Order at Nonzero Temperature in One- and Two-Dimensional Heisenberg and XY Systems with Long-Range Inter- actions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 137203 (2001)

    2001

  82. [90]

    Area law of noncritical ground states in 1D long-range interacting systems,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara and Keiji Saito, “Area law of noncritical ground states in 1D long-range interacting systems,” Nature Communications11, 4478 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Dy- namical phase diagram of quantum spin chains with long-range interactions,

    Jad C. Halimeh and Valentin Zauner-Stauber, “Dy- namical phase diagram of quantum spin chains with long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 134427 (2017)

    2017

  84. [92]

    Dynamical Quantum Phase Tran- sitions in Spin Chains with Long-Range Interactions: Merging Different Concepts of Nonequilibrium Criti- cality,

    Bojan Žunkovič, Markus Heyl, Michael Knap, and Alessandro Silva, “Dynamical Quantum Phase Tran- sitions in Spin Chains with Long-Range Interactions: Merging Different Concepts of Nonequilibrium Criti- cality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 130601 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    However, this does not means that for α < Dthe systems necessarily show fast scram- bling

    Our condition ofα>Dis applied to general quantum many-body systems to satisfy the polynomial growth of the OTOC (3). However, this does not means that for α < Dthe systems necessarily show fast scram- bling. Indeed, there exists a class of long-range inter- acting systems [113...

  86. [94]

    Exponential bound on infor- mation spreading induced by quantum many-body dy- namics with long-range interactions,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara, “Exponential bound on infor- mation spreading induced by quantum many-body dy- namics with long-range interactions,” New Journal of Physics 18, 053034 (2016)

    2016

  87. [95]

    Ob- servation of ultralong-range Rydberg molecules,

    Vera Bendkowsky, Björn Butscher, Johannes Nipper, James P Shaffer, Robert Löw, and Tilman Pfau, “Ob- servation of ultralong-range Rydberg molecules,” Na- ture 458, 1005 (2009). 8

    2009

  88. [96]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases,

    Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zw- erger, “Many-body physics with ultracold gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885–964 (2008)

    2008

  89. [97]

    Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, “Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,”Rev.Mod.Phys. 82, 2313–2363 (2010)

    2010

  90. [98]

    Observation of dipolar spin-exchange interactions with lattice-confined polar molecules,

    Bo Yan, Steven A Moses, Bryce Gadway, Jacob P Covey, Kaden RA Hazzard, Ana Maria Rey, Deb- orah S Jin, and Jun Ye, “ Observation of dipolar spin-exchange interactions with lattice-confined polar molecules,” Nature501, 521 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion of Erbium,

    K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R.Grimm, andF.Ferlaino,“ Bose-Einstein Condensa- tion of Erbium,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 210401 (2012)

    2012

  92. [100]

    Engi- neered two-dimensional Ising interactions in a trapped- ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins,

    Joseph W Britton, Brian C Sawyer, Adam C Keith, C-C Joseph Wang, James K Freericks, Hermann Uys, Michael J Biercuk, and John J Bollinger, “ Engi- neered two-dimensional Ising interactions in a trapped- ion quantum simulator with hundreds of spins,”Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  93. [101]

    Emergence and Frustra- tion of Magnetism with Variable-Range Interactions in a Quantum Simulator,

    R. Islam, C. Senko, W. C. Campbell, S. Korenblit, J. Smith, A. Lee, E. E. Edwards, C.-C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, and C. Monroe, “Emergence and Frustra- tion of Magnetism with Variable-Range Interactions in a Quantum Simulator,” Science340, 583–587 (2013)

    2013

  94. [102]

    Many-body interferome- try of a Rydberg-dressed spin lattice,

    Johannes Zeiher, Rick Van Bijnen, Peter Schauß, Se- bastian Hild, Jae-yoon Choi, Thomas Pohl, Immanuel Bloch, and Christian Gross, “Many-body interferome- try of a Rydberg-dressed spin lattice,” Nature Physics 12, 1095–1099 (2016)

    2016

  95. [103]

    Coherent Many-Body Spin Dynamics in a Long-Range Interacting Ising Chain,

    Johannes Zeiher, Jae-yoon Choi, Antonio Rubio- Abadal, Thomas Pohl, Rick van Bijnen, Immanuel Bloch, and Christian Gross, “Coherent Many-Body Spin Dynamics in a Long-Range Interacting Ising Chain,” Phys. Rev. X7, 041063 (2017)

    2017

  96. [104]

    Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,

    Hannes Bernien, Sylvain Schwartz, Alexander Keesling, Harry Levine, Ahmed Omran, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, Alexander S Zibrov, Manuel Endres, Markus Greiner, et al., “Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,” Nature 551, 579 (2017), article

    2017

  97. [105]

    Ob- servation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator,

    Jiehang Zhang, Guido Pagano, Paul W Hess, Antonis Kyprianidis, Patrick Becker, Harvey Kaplan, Alexey V Gorshkov, Z-X Gong, and Christopher Monroe, “Ob- servation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator,” Nature551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  98. [106]

    Observation of prethermalization in long-range interacting spin chains,

    Brian Neyenhuis, Jiehang Zhang, Paul W. Hess, Ja- cob Smith, Aaron C. Lee, Phil Richerme, Zhe-Xuan Gong, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Christopher Mon- roe, “Observation of prethermalization in long-range interacting spin chains,” Science Advances3 (2017), 10.1126/sciadv.1700672

    2017 doi

  99. [107]

    Confined quasiparticle dynam- ics in long-range interacting quantum spin chains,

    Fangli Liu, Rex Lundgren, Paraj Titum, Guido Pagano, Jiehang Zhang, Christopher Monroe, and Alexey V. Gorshkov, “Confined quasiparticle dynam- ics in long-range interacting quantum spin chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 150601 (2019)

    2019

  100. [108]

    Observation of domain wall confinement and dynamics in a quantum simulator,

    WL Tan, P Becker, F Liu, G Pagano, KS Collins, A De, L Feng, HB Kaplan, A Kyprianidis, R Lund- gren, et al., “Observation of domain wall confinement and dynamics in a quantum simulator,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11117 (2019), arXiv:1912.11117

    2019 arXiv

  101. [109]

    [115, 116]

    See Supplemental Material [url] for the details of the rigorous proof of the main theorem, which includes Refs. [115, 116]

  102. [110]

    Locality of Temperature,

    M. Kliesch, C. Gogolin, M. J. Kastoryano, A. Riera, and J. Eisert, “Locality of Temperature,” Phys. Rev. X 4, 031019 (2014)

    2014

  103. [111]

    Clustering of Conditional Mutual In- formation for Quantum Gibbs States above a Threshold Temperature,

    TomotakaKuwahara, KohtaroKato, andFernandoG. S. L. Brandão, “Clustering of Conditional Mutual In- formation for Quantum Gibbs States above a Threshold Temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 220601 (2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    Lieb-Robinson Bound and Locality for General Markovian Quantum Dynamics,

    David Poulin, “Lieb-Robinson Bound and Locality for General Markovian Quantum Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 190401 (2010)

    2010

  105. [113]

    Quasilocality and Efficient Simulation of Markovian Quantum Dy- namics,

    Thomas Barthel and Martin Kliesch, “Quasilocality and Efficient Simulation of Markovian Quantum Dy- namics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 230504 (2012)

    2012

  106. [114]

    Bound on quantum scrambling with all-to-all interactions,

    Chao Yin and Andrew Lucas, “Bound on quantum scrambling with all-to-all interactions,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 022402 (2020)

    2020

  107. [115]

    Signaling and scrambling with strongly long-range interactions,

    Andrew Y. Guo, Minh C. Tran, Andrew M. Childs, Alexey V. Gorshkov, and Zhe-Xuan Gong, “Signaling and scrambling with strongly long-range interactions,” Phys. Rev. A102, 010401 (2020)

    2020

  108. [116]

    Approximate quantum markov chains,

    David Sutter, “Approximate quantum markov chains,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05477 (2018), arXiv:1802.05477

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Floquet-Magnus theory and generic transient dynam- ics in periodically driven many-body quantum sys- tems,

    Tomotaka Kuwahara, Takashi Mori, and Keiji Saito, “Floquet-Magnus theory and generic transient dynam- ics in periodically driven many-body quantum sys- tems,” Annals of Physics367, 96 – 124 (2016). 9 Supplementary Material for “Absence of fast scrambling in thermodynamically s...

    2016

  110. [118]

    Estimation of the summation with respect tow: Proof of (S.93)

    Proof of Lemma 9 22 D. Estimation of the summation with respect tow: Proof of (S.93). 24

  111. [119]

    polynomial light cone

    Proof of Lemma 10 27 S.I. SET UP AND PRELIMINARIES A. Notations We here recall the setup. We consider a quantum spin system withn spins, where each of the spin sits on a vertex of theD-dimensional graph (orD-dimensional lattice) withΛ the total spin set, namely|Λ|= n. For the ...

  112. [120]

    Proof of Lemma 9 In order to characterize the subset-subset connections, we first introduce a setGm of graph structures (Fig. 5). Each of the graph G = (V,E )∈ Gm (|V|= m + 1) is constructed recursively as follow: the first vertex has a node with the vertex 0. The second vertex ...

  113. [121]

    For an arbitrary element inw1 (w2), there exists a path which connect an arbitrary element toZ0 via the subsets inw1 (w2)

  114. [122]

    This lemma implies in order to makediam(Λw)≤𝓁, there should exist the following two paths inw: Z0→i (i∈X[r]c) andZ0→i′with di,i′≤𝓁

    The subsetΛw satisfiesΛw1\ Λw⁄=∅and Λw2\ Λw⁄=∅, where Λw has been defined in Eq.(S.80). This lemma implies in order to makediam(Λw)≤𝓁, there should exist the following two paths inw: Z0→i (i∈X[r]c) andZ0→i′with di,i′≤𝓁. For Λw∋i (di,X≥r), without loss of generality, we choose th...

  115. [123]

    For arbitraryX andY (X\Y ⁄=∅), let us consider the commutator between the operators PX,q and PY,q′as [PX,q, PY,q′]∝PZ,q′′

    Proof of Lemma 10 We first focus on the following fact. For arbitraryX andY (X\Y ⁄=∅), let us consider the commutator between the operators PX,q and PY,q′as [PX,q, PY,q′]∝PZ,q′′. (S.133) Then, ifq′′⁄= 0, we obtain X\Z⁄=∅, Y \Z⁄=∅. (S.134) We prove the statement in Lemma 10 by i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.