Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 128 references

Genuine multipartite entanglement as a probe of many-body localization in disordered spin chains with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Genuine multipartite entanglement, measured by GGM, tracks the ergodic-to-MBL transition in a disordered Heisenberg chain: high in the thermal phase, vanishing in the localized phase, with DM interactions delaying localization.

desk verdict A useful numerical study showing GGM tracks the ergodic-to-MBL transition in disordered Heisenberg chains with DM interactions, but the quantitative 'good agreement' claim and the reported h* values need significantly more support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22795 v1 pith:23GBMPBY submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el

Triyas Sapui , Keshav Das Agarwal , Tanoy Kanti Konar , Leela Ganesh Chandra Lakkaraju , Aditi Sen De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-el
keywords many-bodylocalizationgenuinemultipartiteentanglementgeneralizedgeometricmeasureDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractiondisorderedHeisenbergspinchaingapratiofinite-sizescalingquantumdynamics
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 establishes that a computable measure of genuine multipartite entanglement, the generalized geometric measure (GGM), can serve as a reliable indicator of the ergodic-to-many-body-localization transition in disordered spin chains. In the ergodic phase the quenched-averaged GGM saturates near its maximum value, while it falls to zero in the MBL phase, both for mid-spectrum eigenstates and for the long-time state reached from an alternating up/down initial product state. The transition points obtained from GGM agree with the gap ratio and with long-range correlator indicators. The paper also reports that Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interactions extend the ergodic phase, with the three-body DM term delaying the onset of localization much more than the two-body term. If correct, this gives a practical way to locate the transition in systems where eigenstate probes are hard, and it identifies the localized phase as poor in multipartite-entanglement resources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized geometric measure (GGM), defined for a pure state $|\Psi\rangle$ as the minimum distance to the set of non-genuinely multipartite entangled states, $G(|\Psi\rangle) = 1 - \max_{|\chi\rangle}|\langle\chi|\Psi\rangle|^2$, equivalently $G = 1 - \max_{A:B}\lambda_{A:B}^2$, where $\lambda_{A:B}$ is the largest Schmidt coefficient across any bipartition. In this model, the maximization can be restricted to single-site bipartitions because the difference between the full measure and its single-site approximation satisfies $|\langle G-G_1\rangle| \approx e^{-N}$. The argument runs on two pairings: in equilibrium, middle-spectrum eigenstates in the ergodic phase have statistics similar to random pure states and therefore carry high GGM, while localized eigenstates are close to product states; in dynamics, the disorder-averaged GGM from an alternating product state grows as $G(t) = a\ln(t^\alpha) + b$ and saturates at $G_\infty = cN^\beta + d$, with exponents $\alpha$ and $\beta$ crossing zero near the transition. The DM terms are two- and three-body antisymmetric exchange interactions that conserve total $S^z$ but break time-reversal symmetry, shifting level statistics from GOE to GUE and lengthening the thermal phase.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to push the same GGM finite-size scaling to $N=20$ to $24$ in the three-body DM model and check whether the extracted $h^*$ stays near 7.9 or keeps moving with system size; continued drift would falsify the claimed scale-invariant transition. A complementary check is to compare the equilibrium $h^*$ with the dynamical $h^*$ at those sizes to see whether the 7.9 versus $\approx 5.9$ discrepancy persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain with random z-directed fields, the quenched average of GGM over middle-spectrum eigenstates behaves like a two-phase indicator: it rises toward a system-size-independent plateau around 0.5 in the ergodic phase and decays to zero beyond the critical disorder. The authors show that a single-site approximation of GGM, denoted $G_1$, differs from the full GGM by $|\langle G-G_1\rangle| \approx e^{-N}$ in this model, which makes the computation feasible for system sizes up to $N=18$. Finite-size scaling of $\langle G\rangle$ gives $h^* = 4.0$ without DM, $h^* = 3.9$ for two-body DM ($D=0.5$), and $h^* = 7.9$ for three-body DM ($D'=0.5$), while the gap-ratio scaling gives 2.9, 3.4, and 6.3. In dynamics starting from an alternating product state, the transient GGM follows $G(t) = a\ln(t^\alpha) + b$ and the steady-state value scales as $G_\infty = cN^\beta + d$; the disorder strengths where $\alpha$ or $\beta$ vanish give dynamical transition estimates 4.0, 4.6, 5.9 and 3.21, 3.4, 5.7, respectively. The paper reads the shift under DM interactions as a consequence of long-range correlations that the DM terms inject, which require stronger disorder to suppress before localization sets in.

Load-bearing premise

The reported transition values assume that the apparent crossover seen in chains of up to 18 spins is a genuine sharp phase transition, not a finite-size artifact that would keep drifting at larger sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mid-spectrum eigenstates in the MBL phase carry essentially no genuine multipartite entanglement, so localized systems will be poor hosts for protocols that need multipartite-entangled resources.
  • The single-site GGM approximation $G_1$ is enough to locate the transition, making the diagnostic accessible to randomized-measurement experiments that avoid full tomography.
  • Including DM interactions, especially the three-body term, shifts the ergodic window to higher disorder, so tuning spin-orbit-like couplings in a quantum simulator can control how easily localization sets in.
  • Dynamical signatures—the transient growth rate $\alpha$ and the steady-state exponent $\beta$—cross near the same disorder strengths as equilibrium probes, so the transition can be detected from short-time and steady-state measurements without preparing high-energy eigenstates.
  • Deep in the MBL phase the steady-state entanglement shrinks with system size ($\beta<0$), a sub-area-law behavior that should appear as entanglement freezing in larger simulators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The equilibrium $h^* \approx 7.9$ for the three-body DM model is larger than the dynamical values ($\approx 5.9$ and $\approx 5.7$); if this gap persists at larger sizes it would suggest that eigenstate and dynamical probes see different crossover scales, a question the paper leaves open.
  • The same single-site GGM recipe could be applied directly to quasiperiodic disorder models, where finite-size drift in the MBL transition is less contested, offering a cleaner test of whether GGM's transition marker is universal.
  • Because the GGM distribution over eigenstates narrows near its peak as DM strength grows, the peak position or width of $P(G)$ could serve as a standalone experimental order parameter measurable with randomized measurements.
  • If the ergodic-phase plateau in GGM reflects typical random-state entanglement, the same probe should also respond to other ergodicity-breaking mechanisms such as quantum many-body scars or Stark localization.
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 quenched genuine multipartite entanglement, quantified by the generalized geometric measure (GGM) and its single-site approximation G1, in a disordered spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain with two- and three-body Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interactions. Using exact diagonalization, POLFED, and Chebyshev time evolution, the authors compute GGM for mid-spectrum eigenstates and for dynamics from a Néel state, and extract critical disorder strengths h* through finite-size scaling. The central claims are that GGM is high in the ergodic phase and vanishes in the many-body localized (MBL) phase; that the GGM-derived transition point aligns well with standard indicators such as the gap ratio and long-range correlator; and that DM interactions, especially the three-body term, delay localization to larger disorder. The paper also proposes the distribution of GGM as a phase marker.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would establish genuine multipartite entanglement as an experimentally relevant diagnostic of the ergodic-to-MBL transition, going beyond the usual bipartite quantities. The work has clear strengths: the single-site approximation G1 is explicitly validated in Fig. 1; the numerical machinery (ED, POLFED, Chebyshev expansion) is appropriate and state of the art; and the qualitative prediction that DM interactions shift h* to larger values is concrete and falsifiable. However, the quantitative claim that GGM and standard indicators yield consistent transition points is not supported by the numbers reported in the manuscript itself, and the absence of uncertainty quantification makes the specific h* and ν values difficult to assess. The qualitative diagnostic value of GGM is credible, but the degree of quantitative agreement is currently overstated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Table II] The central claim that GGM-derived h* 'aligns well' with the gap-ratio h* is contradicted by the paper's own Table II. For D=D'=0 the values are h*(GGM)=4.0 versus h*(gap ratio)=2.9, a discrepancy of about 38%; for D=0.5,D'=0 they are 3.9 versus 3.4; and for D=0,D'=0.5 they are 7.9 versus 6.3. In addition, Sec. III A states that 'the transition is observed near ~3.3 through ⟨G⟩' for the same D=0 case, while Table II reports h*=4.0. The authors should report uncertainties from disorder averaging and from the fitting procedure, and provide a quantitative measure of agreement (e.g., collapse residuals or bootstrap intervals), or they should revise the claim to reflect the observed spread.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (8)-(9), Fig. 6] The finite-size scaling uses only N=12, 16, 18 and fits both h* and ν freely; no error bars, no collapse-quality landscape, and no test of stability with respect to including N=14 are reported. The manuscript cites Ref. [119] for the known drift of apparent MBL transitions with system size but does not discuss how that drift affects the present h* values. Since both h*(GGM) and h*(gap ratio) are obtained from the same power-law scaling ansatz with free parameters, the agreement between them is not an independent validation of the ansatz. Please provide the cost function C_X as a function of h* and ν, bootstrap or jackknife errors, and a demonstration that h* is stable under the inclusion of additional system sizes or alternative scaling forms.
  3. [Sec. V, Tables III-IV] The dynamical transition points are inconsistent with the equilibrium values and with each other. For D=0,D'=0.5, the transient h*=5.9 (Table III) and steady-state h*=5.7 (Table IV) are far from the equilibrium h*=7.9 (Table II), yet the text says these values 'agree' and 'closely align'. The transient criterion α=0.0025 is set by hand, and the steady-state criterion β≃0 is not defined quantitatively. Please report the sensitivity of h* to these thresholds and reconcile the equilibrium and dynamical estimates before asserting consistency between static and dynamical probes.
  4. [Sec. III B and Sec. IV] The h* values quoted in Sec. III B (h*=3.9 for two-body DM and h*=7.9 for three-body DM) are said to be obtained from the finite-size scaling in Sec. IV, but they are already presented and used in Fig. 3 before the scaling analysis. Moreover, Fig. 6 shows collapses only for the DM cases, while Table II also reports h* for D=D'=0. This makes it difficult to verify how the quoted critical points are extracted. Please show the scaling collapse for all cases, including D=D'=0, and state clearly whether the reported h* values come from the collapse minimization in Eq. (9) or from visual estimates of the raw data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and Sec. III A] The caption of Fig. 2 reports h*=4.0 from GGM and h*=2.9 from the gap ratio, while the main text states that the transition is observed near h*~3.3 through ⟨G⟩; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Sec. II A 1, Eq. (5)] The inequality in Eq. (5) appears to have the wrong sign: a confidence bound of the form P(|λmax_est - λmax| < ε) ≥ 1 - κ would be expected, not '< 1 - κ'.
  3. [Sec. II A 1, Eq. (4)] The notation '|A|max=1' in Eq. (4) is confusing; please define the bipartition constraint explicitly, for example by writing |A|=1 with A a single site.
  4. [Sec. II A 1] The paragraph on randomized measurements and classical shadows is not used in any numerical result in the paper; either connect this toolbox to the analysis or remove it to avoid a dangling methodological claim.
  5. [Fig. 6] The finite-size scaling figure uses only N=12, 16, 18, although Table I also lists N=14 for static quantities; adding N=14 to the collapse or explaining its omission would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GGM transition points are fitted observables benchmarked against independently fitted indicators, not predictions derived from the benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical-diagnostic correlation, not a derivation: the quenched average GGM drops from a high value in the ergodic regime to near zero in the MBL regime, and the disorder strength at which this happens is compared with h* extracted from the gap ratio and long-range correlators. The h* values are obtained by finite-size data collapse in Sec. IV, Eqs. (8)-(9), and by threshold criteria in Sec. V (alpha = 0.0025 and beta -> 0); these are fitting procedures, not quantities defined in terms of the benchmark indicators. The GGM fit does not take the gap-ratio or correlator data as input, and the benchmark fits do not take GGM data as input, so the comparison is a benchmarking of two observables rather than a reduction of one to the other. The scaling ansatz in Eq. (8) is an imported assumption from the cited literature, including the contested finite-size drift discussion in Ref. [119]; that is a robustness or correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations such as Refs. [92], [98], [100], and [117] supply the definition of GGM or supporting statements that are also backed by independent references, so they are not load-bearing. No step was found where a result is equivalent to its own input by construction, nor where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction without independent benchmarking.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its numerical results depend on several fitting parameters, especially the critical disorder and exponents, and on standard domain assumptions about the model, the GGM approximation, and the finite-size scaling form. The strongest extra burden is the arbitrary alpha threshold used to define the dynamical transition.

free parameters (4)
  • critical disorder h* for GGM = 4.0 (D=D'=0), 3.9 (D=0.5,D'=0), 7.9 (D=0,D'=0.5)
    Extracted from finite-size scaling data collapse of GGM data; not independently predicted.
  • correlation-length exponent nu for GGM = 1.4, 1.1, 1.7 for the three interaction settings
    Adjusted to optimize data collapse in Sec. IV, Eq. (9); no uncertainty reported.
  • transient growth parameters a, alpha, b = Not tabulated; alpha threshold chosen as 0.0025
    Fit of G(t)=a ln(t^alpha)+b in Sec. V; alpha=0.0025 is an arbitrary threshold for negligible growth.
  • steady-state scaling parameters c, beta, d = Not tabulated
    Fit of G_infinity=c N^beta + d in Sec. V; the transition is defined by beta=0.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is an appropriate model for studying the ergodic-to-MBL transition.
    The paper assumes the standard randomized Heisenberg model with added DM interactions captures MBL physics; this is a standard but unproved modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The single-site approximation G1 is equal to the exact GGM for the states studied.
    Validated numerically for N<=14 via Fig. 1, which shows |G-G1| ~ e^{-N}; the paper uses this for N=16 and N=18 without a check.
  • ad hoc to paper The MBL transition is described by a power-law correlation length xi=1/|h-h*|^nu.
    This scaling ansatz, Eq. (8), is a standard fitting procedure for apparent transitions, but it is not derived and is contested in the MBL literature.
  • domain assumption POLFED produces reliable mid-spectrum eigenstates and level statistics.
    The paper relies on Ref. [110] and gives some convergence criteria in Appendix A, but does not validate level statistics against exact diagonalization in this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Genuine multipartite entanglement as a probe of many-body localization in disordered spin chains with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23GBMPBY

@misc{pith2026250722795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Genuine multipartite entanglement as a probe of many-body localization in disordered spin chains with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23GBMPBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22795}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the quenched average genuine multipartite entanglement (GME) can approach its maximum value in the ergodic phase of a disordered quantum spin model. In contrast, GME vanishes in the many-body localized (MBL) phase, both in equilibrium and in the long-time dynamical steady state, indicating a lack of useful entanglement in the localized regime. To establish this, we analyze the disordered Heisenberg spin chain subjected to a random magnetic field and incorporating two- and three-body Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interactions. We exhibit that the behavior of GME, in both static eigenstates and in dynamically evolved states from an initial Neel configuration, serves as a reliable indicator of the critical disorder strength required for the ergodic-to-MBL transition. The identified transition point aligns well with standard indicators such as the gap ratio and correlation length. Moreover, we find that the presence of DM interactions, particularly the three-body one, significantly stabilizes the thermal phase and delays the onset of localization. This shift in the transition point is consistently reflected in both static and dynamical analyses, reinforcing GME as a robust probe for MBL transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22795 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The difference between the exact GGM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The quenched averaged GGM, denoted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Finite-size scaling analysis of the averaged GGM and level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dynamics of genuine multipartite entanglement, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [119]

    M. J. Bremner, C. Mora, and A. Winter, Are random pure states useful for quantum computation?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190502 (2009). 15

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    Based on Fubini-Study metric, a quantification of GME con- tent of a state is possible, known as generalized geometric measure (GGM) [89, 92, 111, 112]

    Quantifier for genuine multiparty entanglement A pure N-party state |Ψ1,2,...,N ⟩, is genuinely multiparty entangled (GME) if it is not product across any bipartition. Based on Fubini-Study metric, a quantification of GME con- tent of a state is possible, known as generalized geometric measure (GGM) [89, 92, 111, 112]. It is defined as the min- 3 N nε nR ...

  3. [2]

    Level statistics for benchmarking A method, referred to as level statistics, has been exten- sively utilized in the literature to identify MBL phase due to its distinct behavior in the ergodic and MBL phases of the dis- ordered model. Since its inception, it has been established that the energy level spacings of a non-integrable Hamiltonian typ- ically fo...

  4. [3]

    Long-range classical correlators Another useful transition indicator is the average long- range classical correlator, defined as C zz r ≡ C zz ij = ⟨ψ|Sz i Sz j |ψ⟩ − ⟨ψ|Sz i |ψ⟩⟨ψ|Sz j |ψ⟩, (7) where |i − j| = r and |ψ⟩ is a state from the middle of the en- ergy spectrum of the Hamiltonian. Pal and Huse argued that in the ergodic phase, ⟨ψ|Sz j |ψ⟩ ∼0 du...

  5. [4]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  6. [5]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  7. [6]

    J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y . Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical me- chanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134

    arXiv 2016

Show all 128 references
  1. [8]

    M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices (Elsevier, 1991)

    1991

  2. [9]

    Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2010)

    F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Y . Y . Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Distribu- tion of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 084101 (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    E. P. Wigner, On the statistical distribution of the widths and spacings of nuclear resonance levels, Mathematical Proceed- ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 47, 790–798 (1951)

    1951

  5. [12]

    F. J. Dyson, The threefold way. algebraic struc- ture of symmetry groups and ensembles in quan- tum mechanics, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 1199 (1962), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/3/6/1199/19064331/1199 1 online.pdf

    1962

  6. [13]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V . Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature452, 854–858 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´c, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nature Physics 14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V . Khemani, and R. Moessner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspective, An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Schulz, C

    M. Schulz, C. A. Hooley, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Stark many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040606 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Ponte, Z

    P. Ponte, Z. Papi ´c, F. m. c. Huveneers, and D. A. Abanin, Many-body localization in periodically driven systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 140401 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    D. V . Else, B. Bauer, and C. Nayak, Floquet time crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 090402 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Cipolloni and J

    G. Cipolloni and J. Kudler-Flam, Non-hermitian hamiltonians violate the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Phys. Rev. B 109, L020201 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Roccati, F

    F. Roccati, F. Balducci, R. Shir, and A. Chenu, Diagnosing non-hermitian many-body localization and quantum chaos via singular value decomposition, Phys. Rev. B 109, L140201 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lat- tices, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  15. [22]

    Oganesyan and D

    V . Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  16. [23]

    Pal and D

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

    2010

  17. [24]

    S. Bera, G. De Tomasi, F. Weiner, and F. Evers, Density prop- agator for many-body localization: Finite-size effects, tran- sient subdiffusion, and exponential decay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 196801 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    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

  19. [26]

    Mondaini and M

    R. Mondaini and M. Rigol, Many-body localization and ther- malization in disordered hubbard chains, Phys. Rev. A 92, 041601 (2015)

    2015

  20. [27]

    Sierant, D

    P. Sierant, D. Delande, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body local- ization due to random interactions, Phys. Rev. A 95, 021601 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization of bosons in optical lattices, New Journal of Physics 20, 043032 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    N. Y . Yao, C. R. Laumann, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, M. M ¨uller, E. A. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Many-body lo- calization in dipolar systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 243002 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    A. L. Burin, Many-body delocalization in a strongly disor- dered system with long-range interactions: Finite-size scaling, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094202 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

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

    2016

  25. [32]

    R. M. Nandkishore and S. L. Sondhi, Many-body localization with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041021 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

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

    2018

  27. [34]

    Sierant, K

    P. Sierant, K. Biedro ´n, G. Morigi, and J. Zakrzewski, Many- body localization in presence of cavity mediated long-range interactions, SciPost Physics 7, 10.21468/scipostphys.7.1.008 (2019)

    2019 doi

  28. [35]

    Khemani, D

    V . Khemani, D. N. Sheng, and D. A. Huse, Two universality classes for the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 075702 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    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

  30. [37]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi ´c, and D. A. Abanin, Local conservation laws and the structure of the many-body localized states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 127201 (2013)

    2013

  31. [38]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and V . Oganesyan, Phenomenol- ogy of fully many-body-localized systems, Phys. Rev. B 90, 174202 (2014)

    2014

  32. [39]

    J. Z. Imbrie, On many-body localization for quantum spin chains, Journal of Statistical Physics 163, 998 (2016)

    2016

  33. [40]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. Lee, P. Richerme, B. Neyenhuis, P. W. Hess, P. Hauke, M. Heyl, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Many-body localization in a quantum simulator with programmable ran- dom disorder, Nature Physics 12, 907 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    S. S. Kondov, W. R. McGehee, W. Xu, and B. DeMarco, Disorder-induced localization in a strongly correlated atomic hubbard gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 083002 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Schreiber, S

    M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. L¨uschen, M. H. Fischer, R. V osk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Ob- 13 servation of many-body localization of interacting fermions in a quasirandom optical lattice, Science 349, 842 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    J.-y. Choi, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauß, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Yefsah, V . Khemani, D. A. Huse, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Exploring the many-body localization transition in two dimen- sions, Science 352, 1547 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Rispoli, A

    M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, S. Kim, M. E. Tai, J. L´eonard, and M. Greiner, Quantum critical behaviour at the many-body localization transition, Nature 573, 385 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    Kohlert, S

    T. Kohlert, S. Scherg, X. Li, H. P. L ¨uschen, S. Das Sarma, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Observation of many-body lo- calization in a one-dimensional system with a single-particle mobility edge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 170403 (2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    Q. Guo, C. Cheng, Z.-H. Sun, Z. Song, H. Li, Z. Wang, W. Ren, H. Dong, D. Zheng, Y .-R. Zhang, R. Mondaini, H. Fan, and H. Wang, Observation of energy-resolved many- body localization, Nature Physics 17, 234 (2020)

    2020

  40. [47]

    M. Gong, G. D. de Moraes Neto, C. Zha, Y . Wu, H. Rong, Y . Ye, S. Li, Q. Zhu, S. Wang, Y . Zhao, F. Liang, J. Lin, Y . Xu, C.-Z. Peng, H. Deng, A. Bayat, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Exper- imental characterization of the quantum many-body localiza- tion transition, Phys. Rev. Res....

    2021

  41. [48]

    Alet and N

    F. Alet and N. Laflorencie, Many-body localization: An in- troduction and selected topics, Comptes Rendus Physique 19, 498 (2018), quantum simulation / Simulation quantique

    2018

  42. [49]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 15–38 (2015)

    2015

  43. [50]

    De Roeck and F

    W. De Roeck and F. m. c. Huveneers, Stability and instabil- ity towards delocalization in many-body localization systems, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155129 (2017)

    2017

  44. [51]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entangle- ment, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  45. [52]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Challenges to observation of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B 105, 224203 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 026502 (2025)

    2025

  47. [54]

    Serbyn and J

    M. Serbyn and J. E. Moore, Spectral statistics across the many- body localization transition, Phys. Rev. B 93, 041424 (2016)

    2016

  48. [55]

    Colmenarez, P

    L. Colmenarez, P. A. McClarty, M. Haque, and D. J. Luitz, Statistics of correlation functions in the random Heisenberg chain, SciPost Phys. 7, 064 (2019)

    2019

  49. [56]

    Colbois, F

    J. Colbois, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Statistics of sys- temwide correlations in the random-field xxz chain: Impor- tance of rare events in the many-body localized phase, Phys. Rev. B 110, 214210 (2024)

    2024

  50. [57]

    Bauer and C

    B. Bauer and C. Nayak, Area laws in a many-body local- ized state and its implications for topological order, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2013, P09005 (2013)

    2013

  51. [58]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, V . Oganesyan, A. Pal, and S. L. Sondhi, Localization-protected quantum order, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014206 (2013)

    2013

  52. [59]

    Chandran, V

    A. Chandran, V . Khemani, C. R. Laumann, and S. L. Sondhi, Many-body localization and symmetry-protected topological order, Phys. Rev. B89, 144201 (2014)

    2014

  53. [60]

    Bahri, R

    Y . Bahri, R. V osk, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, Localiza- tion and topology protected quantum coherence at the edge of hot matter, Nature Communications 6, 10.1038/ncomms8341 (2015)

    2015 doi

  54. [61]

    Prakash, S

    A. Prakash, S. Ganeshan, L. Fidkowski, and T.-C. Wei, Eigen- state phases with finite on-site non-abelian symmetry, Phys. Rev. B 96, 165136 (2017)

    2017

  55. [62]

    A. J. Friedman, R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter, and S. A. Parameswaran, Localization-protected order in spin chains with non-abelian discrete symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 98, 064203 (2018)

    2018

  56. [63]

    Agarwal, S

    K. Agarwal, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, M. M ¨uller, and E. Demler, Anomalous diffusion and griffiths effects near the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 160401 (2015)

    2015

  57. [64]

    J.-J. Chen, K. Xu, L.-H. Ren, Y .-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Dy- namics of quantum coherence in many-body localized sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022434 (2024)

    2024

  58. [65]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Extended slow dy- namical regime close to the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. B 93, 060201 (2016)

    2016

  59. [66]

    E. V . H. Doggen, F. Schindler, K. S. Tikhonov, A. D. Mirlin, T. Neupert, D. G. Polyakov, and I. V . Gornyi, Many-body lo- calization and delocalization in large quantum chains, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174202 (2018)

    2018

  60. [67]

    Chanda and J

    T. Chanda and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization regime for cavity-induced long-range interacting models, Phys. Rev. B 105, 054309 (2022)

    2022

  61. [68]

    Formicola, G

    F. Formicola, G. Di Bello, G. De Filippis, V . Cataudella, D. Fa- rina, and C. A. Perroni, Local ergotropy dynamically wit- nesses many-body localized phases (2025)

    2025

  62. [69]

    J. H. Bardarson, F. Pollmann, and J. E. Moore, Unbounded growth of entanglement in models of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 017202 (2012)

    2012

  63. [70]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´c, and D. A. Abanin, Universal slow growth of entanglement in interacting strongly disordered systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 260601 (2013)

    2013

  64. [71]

    S. D. Geraedts, N. Regnault, and R. M. Nandkishore, Charac- terizing the many-body localization transition using the entan- glement spectrum, New Journal of Physics19, 113021 (2017)

    2017

  65. [72]

    P. R. N. Falc ˜ao, P. Sierant, J. Zakrzewski, and E. Tirrito, Magic dynamics in many-body localized systems (2025), arXiv:2503.07468 [quant-ph]

    2025

  66. [73]

    Singh, J

    R. Singh, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Signatures of the many-body localization transition in the dynamics of entan- glement and bipartite fluctuations, New Journal of Physics18, 023046 (2016)

    2016

  67. [74]

    Corps, R

    ´Angel L. Corps, R. A. Molina, , and A. Rela˜no, Signatures of a critical point in the many-body localization transition, SciPost Phys. 10, 107 (2021)

    2021

  68. [75]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Many-body localiza- tion edge in the random-field heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. B 91, 081103 (2015)

    2015

  69. [76]

    F. Anza, F. Pietracaprina, and J. Goold, Logarithmic growth of local entropy and total correlations in many-body localized dynamics, Quantum 4, 250 (2020)

    2020

  70. [77]

    A. S. Aramthottil, T. Chanda, P. Sierant, and J. Zakrzewski, Finite-size scaling analysis of the many-body localization transition in quasiperiodic spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 104, 214201 (2021)

    2021

  71. [78]

    Iemini, A

    F. Iemini, A. Russomanno, D. Rossini, A. Scardicchio, and R. Fazio, Signatures of many-body localization in the dynam- ics of two-site entanglement, Phys. Rev. B94, 214206 (2016)

    2016

  72. [79]

    Bera and A

    S. Bera and A. Lakshminarayan, Local entanglement structure across a many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134204 (2016)

    2016

  73. [80]

    De Tomasi, Algebraic many-body localization and its implications on information propagation, Phys

    G. De Tomasi, Algebraic many-body localization and its implications on information propagation, Phys. Rev. B 99, 054204 (2019). 14

    2019

  74. [81]

    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. A 99, 033610 (2019)

    2019

  75. [82]

    A. S. Sajna and A. Polkovnikov, Semiclassical dynamics of a disordered two-dimensional hubbard model with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033338 (2020)

    2020

  76. [83]

    Perciavalle, Multipartite entanglement in many-body lo- calized quantum systems , Master’s thesis, University of Pisa (2021)

    F. Perciavalle, Multipartite entanglement in many-body lo- calized quantum systems , Master’s thesis, University of Pisa (2021)

    2021

  77. [84]

    Z.-C. Yang, C. Chamon, A. Hamma, and E. R. Mucciolo, Two- component structure in the entanglement spectrum of highly excited states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 267206 (2015)

    2015

  78. [85]

    Serbyn, A

    M. Serbyn, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi ´c, Power-law entanglement spectrum in many-body localized phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 160601 (2016)

    2016

  79. [86]

    J. Gray, S. Bose, and A. Bayat, Many-body localization tran- sition: Schmidt gap, entanglement length, and scaling, Phys. Rev. B 97, 201105 (2018)

    2018

  80. [87]

    De Tomasi, S

    G. De Tomasi, S. Bera, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Quantum mutual information as a probe for many-body lo- calization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 016804 (2017)

    2017

  81. [88]

    J. Gray, A. Bayat, A. Pal, and S. Bose, Scale invariant entan- glement negativity at the many-body localization transition, arXiv:1908.02761 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  82. [89]

    C. H. Bennett, S. Popescu, D. Rohrlich, J. A. Smolin, and A. V . Thapliyal, Exact and asymptotic measures of multipar- tite pure-state entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012307 (2000)

    2000

  83. [90]

    Eisert and H

    J. Eisert and H. J. Briegel, Schmidt measure as a tool for quan- tifying multiparticle entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022306 (2001)

    2001

  84. [91]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Normal forms and entanglement measures for multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 012103 (2003)

    2003

  85. [92]

    Wei and P

    T.-C. Wei and P. M. Goldbart, Geometric measure of entan- glement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042307 (2003)

    2003

  86. [93]

    Ma, Z.-H

    Z.-H. Ma, Z.-H. Chen, J.-L. Chen, C. Spengler, A. Gabriel, and M. Huber, Measure of genuine multipartite entanglement with computable lower bounds, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062325 (2011)

    2011

  87. [94]

    S. M. Hashemi Rafsanjani, M. Huber, C. J. Broadbent, and J. H. Eberly, Genuinely multipartite concurrence of n-qubit x matrices, Phys. Rev. A 86, 062303 (2012)

    2012

  88. [95]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Channel capacities versus entangle- ment measures in multiparty quantum states, Phys. Rev. A81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  89. [96]

    Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” fer- romagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 4, 241 (1958)

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” fer- romagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  90. [97]

    Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. 120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  91. [98]

    Moriya, New mechanism of anisotropic superexchange in- teraction, Phys

    T. Moriya, New mechanism of anisotropic superexchange in- teraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 228 (1960)

    1960

  92. [99]

    Jafari, M

    R. Jafari, M. Kargarian, A. Langari, and M. Siahatgar, Phase diagram and entanglement of the ising model with dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction, Phys. Rev. B 78, 214414 (2008)

    2008

  93. [100]

    Luo, Analytical results for the unusual gr ¨uneisen ratio in the quantum ising model with dzyaloshinskii-moriya interac- tion, Phys

    Q. Luo, Analytical results for the unusual gr ¨uneisen ratio in the quantum ising model with dzyaloshinskii-moriya interac- tion, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060401 (2022)

    2022

  94. [101]

    T. K. Konar, L. G. C. Lakkaraju, and A. Sen(De), Slow decay rate of correlations induced by long-range extended dzyaloshinskii-moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. A111, 052402 (2025)

    2025

  95. [102]

    Kargarian, R

    M. Kargarian, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Dzyaloshinskii- moriya interaction and anisotropy effects on the entanglement of the heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042319 (2009)

    2009

  96. [103]

    S. Roy, T. Chanda, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phase boundaries in an alternating-field quantum xy model with dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction: Sustainable en- tanglement in dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064422 (2019)

    2019

  97. [104]

    Z. Ming, X. Hui, L. Xiao-Xian, and T. Pei-Qing, The effects of the Dzyaloshinskii—Moriya interaction on the ground-state properties of the XY chain in a transverse field, Chin. Phys. B 22, 090313 (2013)

    2013

  98. [105]

    Liu, T.-C

    Z.-A. Liu, T.-C. Yi, J.-H. Sun, Y .-L. Dong, and W.-L. You, Lifshitz phase transitions in a one-dimensional gamma model, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032127 (2020)

    2020

  99. [106]

    D. C. Dender, D. Davidovi´c, D. H. Reich, C. Broholm, K. Lef- mann, and G. Aeppli, Magnetic properties of a quasi-one- dimensional s=1/2 antiferromagnet: Copper benzoate, Phys. Rev. B 53, 2583 (1996)

    1996

  100. [107]

    D. C. Dender, P. R. Hammar, D. H. Reich, C. Broholm, and G. Aeppli, Direct observation of field-induced incommensu- rate fluctuations in a one-dimensional S = 1/2 antiferromag- net, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1750 (1997)

    1997

  101. [108]

    Kohgi, K

    M. Kohgi, K. Iwasa, J.-M. Mignot, B. F ˚ak, P. Gegenwart, M. Lang, A. Ochiai, H. Aoki, and T. Suzuki, Staggered field effect on the one-dimensionalS = 1 2 antiferromagnet yb4as3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2439 (2001)

    2001

  102. [109]

    Fulde, B

    P. Fulde, B. Schmidt, and P. Thalmeier, Theoretical model for the semi-metal yb4as3, Europhysics Letters 31, 323 (1995)

    1995

  103. [110]

    Stagraczynski, P

    S. Stagraczynski, P. Balaz, M. Jafari, J. Barnas, and A. Dyrdal, Magnetic ordering and dynamics in monolayers and bilay- ers of chromium trihalides: atomistic simulations approach (2024), arXiv:2404.15543 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [111]

    Stagraczy ´nski, L

    S. Stagraczy ´nski, L. Chotorlishvili, M. Sch ¨uler, M. Mierze- jewski, and J. Berakdar, Many-body localization phase in a spin-driven chiral multiferroic chain, Phys. Rev. B96, 054440 (2017)

    2017

  105. [112]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Armadillo: an efficient frame- work for numerical linear algebra, in 2025 17th International Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering (IC- CAE) (2025) pp. 303–307

    2025

  106. [113]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, and J. Zakrzewski, Polynomially filtered exact diagonalization approach to many-body local- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 156601 (2020)

    2020

  107. [114]

    SHIMONY , Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 755, 675 (1995), https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.1995.tb39008.x

    A. SHIMONY , Degree of entanglement, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 755, 675 (1995), https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.1995.tb39008.x

    1995

  108. [115]

    Barnum and N

    H. Barnum and N. Linden, Monotones and invariants for multi-particle quantum states, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General 34, 6787 (2001)

    2001

  109. [116]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The randomized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9 (2023)

    2023

  110. [117]

    Weyl, Das asymptotische Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwerte linearer partieller Differentialgleichungen (mit einer Anwen- dung auf die Theorie der Hohlraumstrahlung), Math

    H. Weyl, Das asymptotische Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwerte linearer partieller Differentialgleichungen (mit einer Anwen- dung auf die Theorie der Hohlraumstrahlung), Math. Ann. 71, 441 (1912)

    1912

  111. [118]

    Gross, S

    D. Gross, S. T. Flammia, and J. Eisert, Most quantum states are too entangled to be useful as computational resources, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 190501 (2009)

    2009

  112. [120]

    Rethinasamy, S

    S. Rethinasamy, S. Roy, T. Chanda, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Universality in distribution of monogamy scores for random multiqubit pure states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 042302 (2019)

    2019

  113. [121]

    Kunimi, T

    M. Kunimi, T. Tomita, H. Katsura, and Y . Kato, Proposal for simulating quantum spin models with the dzyaloshinskii- moriya interaction using rydberg atoms and the construction of asymptotic quantum many-body scar states, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043312 (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    ˇSuntajs, J

    J. ˇSuntajs, J. Bonˇca, T. c. v. Prosen, and L. Vidmar, Ergodicity breaking transition in finite disordered spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 102, 064207 (2020)

    2020

  115. [123]

    Formicola, G

    F. Formicola, G. D. Bello, G. D. Filippis, V . Cataudella, D. Fa- rina, and C. A. Perroni, Local ergotropy dynamically wit- nesses many-body localized phases (2025), arXiv:2502.20002 [quant-ph]

    2025

  116. [124]

    H. P. L ¨uschen, P. Bordia, S. Scherg, F. Alet, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Observation of slow dynamics near the many-body localization transition in one-dimensional quasiperiodic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 260401 (2017)

    2017

  117. [125]

    Lanczos, An iteration method for the solution of the eigen- value i problem

    C. Lanczos, An iteration method for the solution of the eigen- value i problem. of linear differential and integral operators, Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 45, 255 (1950)

    1950

  118. [126]

    Sanderson and R

    C. Sanderson and R. Curtin, Practical sparse matrices in c++ with hybrid storage and template-based expression op- timisation, Mathematical and Computational Applications 24, 10.3390/mca24030070 (2019)

    2019 doi

  119. [127]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The ker- nel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  120. [128]

    Weiße and H

    A. Weiße and H. Fehske, Chebyshev expansion techniques, in Computational Many-Particle Physics , edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 545–577

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.