Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 102 references

Investigating Stark many-body localization with continuous unitary transformation flows

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in one-dimensional Stark MBL the finite-size critical field drifts to zero with system size, so the thermodynamic system is localized for any nonzero electric field and no ergodic phase survives.

desk verdict Good method work and honest benchmarking, but the thermodynamic-limit Stark MBL claim rests on a truncated support diagnostic and the abstract overstates the main text's cautious conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14527 v3 pith:H3OEDULP submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.stat-mech

Jan-Niklas Herre , Qiyu Liu , Roman Rausch , Christoph Karrasch , Dante M. Kennes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Starkmany-bodylocalizationcontinuousunitarytransformationsflowequationslocalintegralsofmotionWannier-Starkinfinite-temperaturedynamicstiltedfermionsystemstransition
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

The paper asks whether many-body localization survives when random disorder is replaced by a perfectly uniform electric field, the Stark MBL setting. Using a numerical flow-equation method that approximately diagonalizes the interacting Hamiltonian, the authors watch how local the system's integrals of motion are as the tilt strength $\gamma$ changes. Their central 1D result is that the crossover field $\gamma_c$ moves toward smaller values as system size grows, and they conclude that the thermodynamic limit plausibly has no ergodic regime: localization would survive at any nonzero $\gamma$. The same method reproduces dynamics up to intermediate times but misses the higher-order interaction processes behind a slow finite-size delocalization seen in tDMRG, whose onset follows $t^*\sim 1/U$. If correct, this makes Stark MBL a disorder-free route to localization that experiments on clean tilted lattices can directly probe.

What carries the argument

Tensorflow Equations (TFE), a numerical realization of Wegner's continuous unitary flow $dH(l)/dl=[H(l),\eta(l)]$, in which the running Hamiltonian is stored as coefficient tensors of fermionic operator strings truncated at fourth order (two-particle terms) and diagonalized with the Wegner generator combined with a Toda-Mielke 'scrambling' step that lifts single-particle degeneracies. The localization diagnostic is the support $s$ of the flowed number operator, the ratio of the four-operator weight to the total weight in Eq. (22): $s\to 0$ signals a local integral of motion and localization, $s\to 1$ a delocalized operator. The critical field is read from the crossing of $s(\gamma)$ curves for different system sizes. Dynamics are obtained by propagating a chosen operator alongside the Hamiltonian and evaluating the infinite-temperature autocorrelation from diagonal energies and the matrix elements $\langle j|n_i|k\rangle$, with exact diagonalization and tDMRG as benchmarks.

What would settle it

Recompute the number-operator support with a sixth-order flow (including three-particle operator strings) for 1D chains at $U=1.0$ over $L=12$ to $36$. If the crossing point $\gamma_c$ stops drifting downward or moves upward once higher orders are included, the $\gamma_c\to 0$ conclusion is a truncation artifact; if the drift persists at the next order, the no-ergodic-regime claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the 1D Stark MBL transition is not at a finite, size-independent field. The support $s$ of the number operator in the approximately diagonal basis shows a crossing at $\gamma_c\approx 0.7$ for small chains accessible to exact diagonalization, but the crossing drifts to smaller fields for larger systems; the authors write that an extrapolation to infinite size 'could very well lead to $\gamma_c\to 0$', i.e. localization at any nonzero tilt, in line with the Hilbert-space shattering picture. In 2D the signal is less clear: a crossing near $\gamma_c\approx 1.3$ appears only beyond exact-diagonalization sizes and finite-size effects are strong, so the thermodynamic statement is left open. The paper also establishes a methodological claim: fourth-order TFE can simulate clean systems beyond exact diagonalization with accurate dynamics up to $t\sim 1/U^2$, while the long-time finite-size delocalization seen in tDMRG, scaling as $t^*\sim 1/U$, is of higher order and is missed by the truncation, suggesting it is non-perturbative.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the assumption that dropping the flow's higher-order interaction terms (keeping only up to two-particle terms) does not change the qualitative shape of the localization diagnostic, even though the paper itself shows those omitted terms drive long-time delocalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In 1D, no disorder is needed for many-body localization in the thermodynamic limit: a nonzero uniform electric field would suffice at infinite temperature.
  • Finite systems can still appear ergodic at small tilt, because the measured delocalization time grows with system size; experiments on current finite samples can therefore see localized behavior even if the infinite system localizes for any $\gamma>0$.
  • In 2D, the method finds a crossover near $\gamma_c\approx 1.3$ with strong finite-size drift, leaving the thermodynamic question open while remaining compatible with subdiffusive transport in tilted 2D lattices.
  • Fourth-order TFE is a practical tool for disorder-free systems: it matches exact diagonalization and tDMRG up to $t\sim 1/U^2$ and reaches system sizes beyond exact diagonalization, including 2D systems mapped to long-range chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $\gamma_c\to 0$ drift is physical rather than a truncation artifact, Stark MBL would belong to a different class from random and quasiperiodic MBL, where a transition survives at finite disorder; a direct test would be a cold-atom tilted-chain experiment that varies system size at fixed small $\gamma$ and checks whether the critical tilt keeps dropping.
  • The combination of $t^*\sim 1/U$ with the truncation blindness to long-time decay suggests the delocalization mechanism is a non-perturbative resonance effect, so a resummation or a higher-order flow retaining selected ladder terms might restore the decay within the flow-equation framework.
  • The same support diagnostic could be applied as a phase-diagram probe to other clean weak-to-intermediate-coupling models, such as the 2D Hubbard model with a weak tilt, reaching sizes beyond exact diagonalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 develops a numerical implementation of continuous unitary transformation flows (TensorFlow Equations, TFE) and applies it to interacting spinless fermions in a linear potential (Stark MBL) in one and two dimensions. The authors introduce methodological improvements, benchmark the resulting dynamics against exact diagonalization and tDMRG, and use the flowed number operator to define a support diagnostic s (Eq. 22) that indicates a crossover between ergodic and localized regimes. In 1D they find a finite-size transition at nonzero field that drifts downward with system size, and they argue that an extrapolation could lead to gamma_c -> 0 in the thermodynamic limit. In 2D the signatures are less clear. They also show that TFE dynamics are accurate to intermediate times t ~ 1/U^2, while tDMRG captures a higher-order, finite-size delocalization at times t* ~ 1/U that the truncated TFE misses.

Significance. If the central inference is correct, the paper would provide numerical support for the debated claim that the 1D Stark MBL system has no true ergodic phase for any nonzero field in the thermodynamic limit, while also demonstrating that TFE can reach system sizes beyond ED in both 1D and 2D. The strengths of the manuscript include the careful benchmarking of dynamics against ED and tDMRG in Fig. 3, the explicit comparison of generator choices in Appendix C, the machine-implementable tensor-contraction formulation, and the honest discussion of the method's limitations, including the statement in Section IVC that TFE cannot capture higher-order delocalization. The main caveat is that the static support diagnostic, which carries the paper's central claim, is computed within a 4th-order-truncated flow, and no truncation-convergence test for s is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IVA, Eq. (22), Appendix C] The central inference that gamma_c -> 0 is not established with respect to the truncation of the flow. The support s in Eq. (22) uses only the second- and fourth-order coefficients A and B of the flowed number operator in Eq. (B2), and the flow itself is truncated to two-particle terms as stated in Section IIIA. Appendix C estimates the neglected terms as O(U^2/gamma), while Section IVC and Fig. 5 show that higher-order interaction processes produce a finite-size delocalization at t* ~ 1/U in tDMRG simulations. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section IVA that 'any s>0 allows for two-particle effects ... generating higher order effects that are not included in the truncated flow equations.' Therefore the observed downward drift of gamma_c in Fig. 2a could be a truncation artifact rather than a physical trend. I ask the authors to provide a convergence check of s with respect to including 6th-order terms, or an independent construction of local integrals of motion, for at least the smaller system sizes, and to report the sensitivity of s to the flow-stopping criterion.
  2. [§IVA, Fig. 2] The extraction of gamma_c is under-specified, which weakens the quantitative claim. The text states that gamma_c is obtained 'from the crossing point of the curves belonging to different system sizes,' but it does not define which pairs of curves are crossed, how the crossing point is interpolated, or how the quoted values (gamma_c ≈ 0.7, < 0.5, and ≈ 1.3) are obtained. Without a defined gamma_c(L) and a finite-size extrapolation, the statement that the crossing 'drifts' and 'could very well lead to gamma_c -> 0' is a visual trend rather than a quantitative result. Please provide the crossing points as a function of system size, specify the extrapolation procedure (or explicitly state that no extrapolation is attempted), and include error bars reflecting the uncertainty in the support curves.
  3. [Abstract and §V] The abstract states that the 1D results show 'localization at infinitesimally small field even in the presence of interactions,' which is stronger than the main-text statement in Section IVA that an extrapolation 'could very well lead to gamma_c -> 0.' Given the truncation concerns above, the abstract overstates the certainty of the thermodynamic-limit conclusion. The authors should either soften the abstract to match the main-text caveat or supply the additional convergence and scaling analysis needed to justify the stronger claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IIIB, Eq. (17)] The error bound in Eq. (17) is not correct as written: |exp(iδ_E t) - 1| is bounded by |δ_E t|, not by (1/2) δ_E^2 t^2. The qualitative conclusion that TFE dynamics break down at t ~ 1/δ_E still supports the stated t ~ 1/U^2 timescale, but the displayed inequality should be corrected.
  2. [§IIIA] The text says the canonical Wegner generator 'provides stable convergence' and then states that 'at zero external potential it breaks down completely'; this is contradictory as phrased and should be clarified, for example by specifying that it fails at exact degeneracies rather than in general.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption in Fig. 2 uses the word 'transition' for what the text elsewhere describes as a crossover or finite-size transition; the terminology should be made consistent, since the paper does not claim to establish a true phase transition in the thermodynamic limit.
  4. [Appendix C, Fig. 9] The text states that the energy error 'scales qualitatively with U/gamma,' but Fig. 9 reports exponents ν from power-law fits; please clarify how the plotted exponents translate into the U/gamma scaling and whether the fits are intended as evidence for a specific functional form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gamma_c-to-zero inference is an extrapolation of a direct truncation-based diagnostic, not a fit to the claimed transition and not a self-citation-reduced result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are outputs of an approximate numerical flow, not of fitting a target value into the method. The support s in Eq. (22) is computed directly from the flowed number-operator coefficients A and B, and the transition is read off from crossings of s curves for different system sizes; no parameter is tuned to reproduce gamma_c or any localization criterion. The method itself is taken from prior work by other authors (Refs. [63,64]), and the results are cross-checked against external benchmarks (ED, tDMRG, trapped-ion experiments, and independent works [63,64,82,83]). The paper explicitly softens the abstract's strong claim, stating that an extrapolation 'could very well lead to gamma_c -> 0,' and it flags that any s>0 leaves room for higher-order delocalization effects missing from the 4th-order truncation. That the diagnostic s and the truncation come from the same method is a potential accuracy or convergence-risk concern, but it is not circularity by the standards of an input being defined in terms of an output or a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is 0.

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

The physical model has no fitted coupling constants (J=1, U fixed, gamma scanned). The central claim rests on several methodological choices: the truncation order, the normal-ordering reference, the support diagnostic, and the 2D-to-1D mapping. None of these are independently certified by shipped code, and the truncation is acknowledged to omit the very processes that cause delocalization.

free parameters (4)
  • scrambling threshold epsilon = 0.01
    Threshold in Eq. (11) for the Toda-Mielke generator; chosen by hand to lift near-degeneracies. Authors report no qualitative change for epsilon <= 0.5 but use 0.01 for stable convergence, especially in 2D.
  • TFE convergence tolerances = max|H2_off| < 1e-6, max|H4_off| < 1e-4, flow time l=1000
    Stopping criteria in Section IIIA; the convergence error sets the energy resolution and thus the timescale up to which dynamics is accurate (t ~ 1/U^2).
  • delocalization threshold definition = first minimum of oscillations in Jt in [0,1]
    Heuristic used in Section IVC to define t*; the extracted t* ~ 1/U scaling is stated to be qualitatively robust to the averaging interval.
  • support crossing point extraction = moving crossing of s curves for different L
    gamma_c is read off from crossings in Fig. 2 without a systematic finite-size scaling or uncertainty; this is a hand-defined crossover.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Truncating the flow at two-particle (4th-order) operator strings yields a closed and accurate system for small interactions.
    Invoked in Section IIIA and Appendix C; the error is estimated as O(U^2/gamma). The paper later shows this truncation misses higher-order delocalization, so the assumption is only partially valid.
  • domain assumption Vacuum normal ordering is sufficient for the flow contractions.
    Appendix A uses G_alpha_beta = 0 and G_beta_alpha = delta_alpha_beta, i.e., normal ordering with respect to the vacuum, while noting the interacting ground state would be more appropriate.
  • ad hoc to paper The support quantity s in Eq. (22) is a valid localization order parameter.
    Introduced in Section IVA and taken from Refs. [82,64]; s is computed from the truncated flow and is used to define the crossover. The paper notes only s -> 0 truly implies localization.
  • domain assumption Mapping 2D lattices to 1D long-range chains by snaking preserves the localization properties of the 2D model.
    Section II states the 2D Hamiltonian is mapped to a 1D Hamiltonian with long-range hopping by tracing the lattice row by row as in Ref. [63]. The validity of this mapping for the TFE approximation is not separately benchmarked against 2D ED.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating Stark many-body localization with continuous unitary transformation flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3OEDULP

@misc{pith2026241114527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating Stark many-body localization with continuous unitary transformation flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3OEDULP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14527}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the ergodicity-to-localization transition in interacting fermion systems subjected to a spatially uniform electric field. For that we employ the recently proposed Tensorflow Equations (TFE), a type of continuous unitary flow equations. This enables us to iteratively determine an approximate diagonal basis of the quantum many-body system. We present improvements to the method, which achieves good accuracy at small to intermediate interaction strengths, even in the absence of an electric field or disorder. Then, we examine two quantities that reveal the fate of Stark MBL in 1D and 2D. First, we investigate the structure of the resulting basis to determine the crossover between ergodic and localized regimes with respect to electric field strength. Second, we simulate long-time dynamics at infinite temperature. Our results in 1D show a localization transition at non-zero field for finite interaction that vanishes with increasing system size leading to localization at infinitesimally small field even in the presence of interactions. In 2D we find less clear signatures of localization and strong finite size effects. We establish that the TFE work accurately up to intermediate times but cannot capture higher order effects in interaction strength that lead to delocalization at longer times in finite-size Stark MBL systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The Stark MBL system in two dimensions. Fermions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) The support of the number operator in the 1D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The dynamical autocorrelation for the Stark MBL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Increase of bond dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: While tDMRG is limited by bond dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Graphical representation of computing commutators with a) Four and two legs resulting in four new four-legged tensors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The convergence error given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. A power-law fit was performed to extract the scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The dynamical autocorrelation for a 1D Stark MBL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The median energy error compared to ED for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    S.J.ThomsonandJ.Eisert,Unravelinglong-timequan- tum dynamics using flow equations, Nature Physics20, 1401–1406 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [82]

    Chandran, I

    A. Chandran, I. H. Kim, G. Vidal, and D. A. Abanin, Constructing local integrals of motion in the many-body localized phase, Physical Review B91, 085425 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [83]

    Singh, B

    H. Singh, B. Ware, R. Vasseur, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Local integrals of motion and the quasiperiodic many- body localization transition, Physical Review B 103, l220201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [1]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Physical Review Letters 69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  5. [2]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  6. [3]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

  7. [4]

    S. R. White and A. E. Feiguin, Real-time evolution using the density matrix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 076401 (2004)

    2004

  8. [5]

    A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollwöck, and G. Vidal, Time-dependent density-matrix renormalization-group using adaptive effective hilbert spaces, Journal of Statis- tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P04005 (2004)

    2004

Show all 102 references
  1. [6]

    A. E. Feiguin and S. R. White, Time-step targeting methods for real-time dynamics using the density ma- trix renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 72, 020404 (2005)

    2005

  2. [7]

    Schmitteckert, Nonequilibrium electron transport us- ing the density matrix renormalization group method, Phys

    P. Schmitteckert, Nonequilibrium electron transport us- ing the density matrix renormalization group method, Phys. Rev. B70, 121302 (2004)

    2004

  3. [8]

    Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys

    G. Vidal, Classical simulation of infinite-size quantum lattice systems in one spatial dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070201 (2007)

    2007

  4. [9]

    Kennes and C

    D. Kennes and C. Karrasch, Extending the range of real time density matrix renormalization group simulations, Computer Physics Communications200, 37 (2016)

    2016

  5. [10]

    Carleo and M

    G. Carleo and M. Troyer, Solving the quantum many- body problem with artificial neural networks, Science 355, 602 (2017)

    2017

  6. [11]

    D.-L. Deng, X. Li, and S. Das Sarma, Quantum en- tanglement in neural network states, Phys. Rev. X7, 021021 (2017)

    2017

  7. [12]

    Sharir, A

    O. Sharir, A. Shashua, and G. Carleo, Neural tensor contractions and the expressive power of deep neural quantum states, Physical Review B106, 205136 (2022)

    2022

  8. [13]

    X.-Q. Sun, T. Nebabu, X. Han, M. O. Flynn, and X.- L. Qi, Entanglement features of random neural network quantum states, Phys. Rev. B106, 115138 (2022)

    2022

  9. [14]

    Luo and J

    D. Luo and J. Halverson, Infinite neural network quan- tum states: entanglement and training dynamics, Ma- chine Learning: Science and Technology 4, 025038 (2023)

    2023

  10. [15]

    I. L. Gutiérrez and C. B. Mendl, Real time evolution with neural-network quantum states, Quantum6, 627 (2022)

    2022

  11. [16]

    Passetti, D

    G. Passetti, D. Hofmann, P. Neitemeier, L. Grunwald, M. A. Sentef, and D. M. Kennes, Can neural quantum stateslearnvolume-lawgroundstates?,PhysicalReview Letters 131, 036502 (2023)

    2023

  12. [17]

    Goremykina, R

    A. Goremykina, R. Vasseur, and M. Serbyn, Analyti- cally solvable renormalization group for the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040601 (2019)

    2019

  13. [18]

    Balasubramanian, Y

    S. Balasubramanian, Y. Liao, and V. Galitski, Many- body localization landscape, Phys. Rev. B101, 014201 (2020)

    2020

  14. [19]

    Monteiro, T

    F. Monteiro, T. Micklitz, M. Tezuka, and A. Altland, Minimal model of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013023 (2021)

    2021

  15. [20]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Physical Review109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  16. [21]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Anderson transitions, Re- views of Modern Physics80, 1355 (2008)

    2008

  17. [22]

    Fleishman and P

    L. Fleishman and P. W. Anderson, Interactions and the anderson transition, Physical Review B21, 2366 (1980)

    1980

  18. [23]

    Basko, I

    D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Metal–insulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states, Annals of Physics 321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  19. [24]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Interact- ing electrons in disordered wires: Anderson localization and low-ttransport, Physical Review Letters95, 206603 (2005)

    2005

  20. [25]

    Žnidarič, T

    M. Žnidarič, T. Prosen, and P. Prelovšek, Many-body localization in the heisenbergxxz magnet in a random field, Physical Review B77, 064426 (2008)

    2008

  21. [26]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interact- ing fermions at high temperature, Physical Review B 75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  22. [27]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization phase transition, Physical Review B82, 174411 (2010). 13

    2010

  23. [28]

    V. Ros, M. Müller, and A. Scardicchio, Integrals of mo- tion in the many-body localized phase, Nuclear Physics B 891, 420 (2015)

    2015

  24. [29]

    J. A. Kjäll, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Many- body localization in a disordered quantum ising chain, Physical Review Letters113, 107204 (2014)

    2014

  25. [30]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Many-body localization edge in the random-field heisenberg chain, Physical Review B91, 081103 (2015)

    2015

  26. [31]

    D. J. Luitz and Y. B. Lev, The ergodic side of the many- body localization transition, Annalen der Physik529, 00350 (2017)

    2017

  27. [32]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  28. [33]

    Altman and R

    E. Altman and R. Vosk, Universal dynamics and renor- malization in many-body-localized systems, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics6, 383 (2015)

    2015

  29. [34]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papić, and D. A. Abanin, Criterion for many-body localization-delocalization phase transition, Physical Review X5, 041047 (2015)

    2015

  30. [35]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium : Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  31. [36]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing (2024), arXiv:2403.07111 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Morningstar, L

    A. Morningstar, L. Colmenarez, V. Khemani, D. J. Luitz, and D. A. Huse, Avalanches and many-body res- onances in many-body localized systems, Physical Re- view B105, 174205 (2022)

    2022

  33. [38]

    S.Iyer, V.Oganesyan, G.Refael,andD.A.Huse,Many- body localization in a quasiperiodic system, Physical Review B87, 134202 (2013)

    2013

  34. [39]

    M. Lee, T. R. Look, S. P. Lim, and D. N. Sheng, Many- body localization in spin chain systems with quasiperi- odic fields, Physical Review B96, 075146 (2017)

    2017

  35. [40]

    Chandran and C

    A. Chandran and C. Laumann, Localization and sym- metry breaking in the quantum quasiperiodic ising glass, Physical Review X7, 031061 (2017)

    2017

  36. [41]

    Nag and A

    S. Nag and A. Garg, Many-body mobility edges in a one-dimensional system of interacting fermions, Physi- cal Review B96, 060203 (2017)

    2017

  37. [42]

    Khemani, D

    V. Khemani, D. Sheng, and D. A. Huse, Two univer- sality classes for the many-body localization transition, Physical Review Letters119, 075702 (2017)

    2017

  38. [43]

    Y. B. Lev, D. M. Kennes, C. Klöckner, D. R. Reich- man, and C. Karrasch, Transport in quasiperiodic in- teracting systems: From superdiffusion to subdiffusion, Europhysics Letters119, 37003 (2017)

    2017

  39. [44]

    Schreiber, S

    M. Schreiber, S. S. Hodgman, P. Bordia, H. P. Lüschen, M. H. Fischer, R. Vosk, E. Altman, U. Schneider, and I.Bloch,Observationofmany-bodylocalizationofinter- acting fermions in a quasirandom optical lattice, Science 349, 842 (2015)

    2015

  40. [45]

    H. P. Lüschen, P. Bordia, S. Scherg, F. Alet, E. Alt- man, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Observation of slow dynamics near the many-body localization transition in one-dimensionalquasiperiodicsystems,PhysicalReview Letters 119, 260401 (2017)

    2017

  41. [46]

    Bordia, H

    P. Bordia, H. Lüschen, S. Scherg, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, U. Schneider, and I. Bloch, Probing slow re- laxation and many-body localization in two-dimensional quasiperiodic systems, Physical Review X 7, 041047 (2017)

    2017

  42. [47]

    De Roeck and F

    W. De Roeck and F. Huveneers, Stability and insta- bility towards delocalization in many-body localization systems, Physical Review B95, 155129 (2017)

    2017

  43. [48]

    Thiery, F

    T. Thiery, F. Huveneers, M. Müller, and W. De Roeck, Many-body delocalization as a quantum avalanche, Physical Review Letters121, 140601 (2018)

    2018

  44. [49]

    G. H. Wannier, Dynamics of band electrons in electric and magnetic fields, Reviews of Modern Physics34, 645 (1962)

    1962

  45. [50]

    Schulz, C

    M. Schulz, C. Hooley, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Stark many-body localization, Physical Review Letters 122, 040606 (2019)

    2019

  46. [51]

    van Nieuwenburg, Y

    E. van Nieuwenburg, Y. Baum, and G. Refael, From bloch oscillations to many-body localization in clean in- teractingsystems,ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademy of Sciences116, 9269 (2019)

    2019

  47. [52]

    D. H. Dunlap and V. M. Kenkre, Dynamic localization of a charged particle moving under the influence of an electric field, Physical Review B34, 3625 (1986)

    1986

  48. [53]

    Ponte, Z

    P. Ponte, Z. Papić, F. Huveneers, and D. A. Abanin, Many-body localization in periodically driven systems, Physical Review Letters114, 140401 (2015)

    2015

  49. [54]

    D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, and F. Huveneers, The- ory of many-body localization in periodically driven sys- tems, Annals of Physics372, 1 (2016)

    2016

  50. [55]

    E.Bairey, G.Refael,andN.H.Lindner,Drivinginduced many-body localization, Physical Review B96, 020201 (2017)

    2017

  51. [56]

    Morong, F

    W. Morong, F. Liu, P. Becker, K. S. Collins, L. Feng, A.Kyprianidis, G.Pagano, T.You, A.V.Gorshkov,and C.Monroe,Observationofstarkmany-bodylocalization without disorder, Nature599, 393 (2021)

    2021

  52. [57]

    Scherg, T

    S. Scherg, T. Kohlert, P. Sala, F. Pollmann, B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, I. Bloch, and M. Aidels- burger, Observing non-ergodicity due to kinetic con- straints in tilted fermi-hubbard chains, Nature Commu- nications 12, 4490 (2021)

    2021

  53. [58]

    Wang, Z.-H

    Y.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Sun, and H. Fan, Stark many- body localization transitions in superconducting cir- cuits, Physical Review B104, 205122 (2021)

    2021

  54. [59]

    Q. Guo, C. Cheng, H. Li, S. Xu, P. Zhang, Z. Wang, C. Song, W. Liu, W. Ren, H. Dong, R. Mondaini, and H. Wang, Stark many-body localization on a super- conducting quantum processor, Physical Review Letters 127, 240502 (2021)

    2021

  55. [60]

    (9) If we omit terms containing more than4 fermionic op- erators, i.e

    is then given by ηW (l) := [H0(l), Hoff(l)] = [H(l), Hoff(l)] = h H(2)(l), H(2) off (l) i | {z } =:η(2) W (l) + h H(2)(l), H(4) off (l) i + h H(4)(l), H(2) off (l) i | {z } =:η(4) W (l) + . . . (9) If we omit terms containing more than4 fermionic op- erators, i.e. everything b...

  56. [61]

    Kehrein, The Flow Equation Approach to Many- Particle Systems (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006)

    S. Kehrein, The Flow Equation Approach to Many- Particle Systems (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006)

    2006

  57. [62]

    F. J. Wegner, Flow equations for hamiltonians, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements90, 141 (2000)

    2000

  58. [64]

    Pekker, B

    D. Pekker, B. K. Clark, V. Oganesyan, and G. Refael, Fixed points of wegner-wilson flows and many-body lo- calization, Physical Review Letters119, 075701 (2017)

    2017

  59. [65]

    S. R. Taylor, M. Schulz, F. Pollmann, and R. Moessner, Experimental probes of stark many-body localization, Physical Review B102, 054206 (2020)

    2020

  60. [66]

    S. J. Thomson and M. Schirò, Local integrals of motion in quasiperiodic many-body localized systems, SciPost Physics 14, 125 (2023). 14

    2023

  61. [67]

    E. V. H. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, and D. G. Polyakov, Many-body localization in a tilted potential in two di- mensions, Physical Review B105, 134204 (2022)

    2022

  62. [68]

    Zisling, D

    G. Zisling, D. M. Kennes, and Y. Bar Lev, Transport in stark many-body localized systems, Physical Review B 105, l140201 (2022)

    2022

  63. [69]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Mapping local hamiltoni- ans of fermions to local hamiltonians of spins, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2005, P09012 (2005)

    2005

  64. [70]

    Cataldi, A

    G. Cataldi, A. Abedi, G. Magnifico, S. Notarnicola, N. Dalla Pozza, V. Giovannetti, and S. Montangero, Hilbert curve vs hilbert space: exploiting fractal 2d cov- ering to increase tensor network efficiency, Quantum5, 556 (2021)

    2021

  65. [71]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Pižorn, H. Verschelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent vari- ational principle for quantum lattices, Physical Review Letters 107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  66. [72]

    Mielke, A., Flow equations for band-matrices*, Eur. Phys. J. B5, 605 (1998)

    1998

  67. [73]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, Quspin: a python pack- age for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quan- tum many body systems. part ii: bosons, fermions and higher spins, SciPost Physics7, 020 (2019)

    2019

  68. [74]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, Quspin: a python pack- age for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems part i: spin chains, SciPost Physics 2, 003 (2017)

    2017

  69. [75]

    Nocera and G

    A. Nocera and G. Alvarez, Symmetry-conserving pu- rification of quantum states within the density matrix renormalization group, Physical Review B93, 045137 (2016)

    2016

  70. [76]

    Verstraete, J

    F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Ma- trix product density operators: Simulation of finite- temperature and dissipative systems, Physical Review Letters 93, 207204 (2004)

    2004

  71. [77]

    Heitmann, J

    T. Heitmann, J. Richter, D. Schubert, and R. Steinigeweg, Selected applications of typicality to real-time dynamics of quantum many-body systems, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A75, 421 (2020)

    2020

  72. [78]

    P. W. Hess, P. Becker, H. B. Kaplan, A. Kypriani- dis, A. C. Lee, B. Neyenhuis, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, J. Smith, W. L. Tan, J. Zhang, and C. Mon- roe, Non-thermalization in trapped atomic ion spin chains, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathemat...

    2017

  73. [79]

    F/S" denotes a full scrambling transformation before the start of a conventional Wegner flow, threshold ε = 0.01

    requires accurate knowledge of the energies, that by now only ED can provide. We instead look at the struc- ture of integrals of motion (IOM) in the definition of Refs. [80, 81]. An IOM can be defined via the long-time average of a chosen local operatorO, which is diagonal in ...

  74. [80]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Many-body localiza- tion transition with power-law interactions: Statistics of eigenstates, Physical Review B97, 214205 (2018)

    2018

  75. [81]

    Šuntajs, J

    J. Šuntajs, J. Bonča, T. c. v. Prosen, and L. Vid- mar, Quantum chaos challenges many-body localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. E102, 062144 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Bertoni, J

    C. Bertoni, J. Eisert, A. Kshetrimayum, A. Nietner, and S. J. Thomson, Local integrals of motion and the stability of many-body localization in wannier-stark po- tentials, Phys. Rev. B109, 024206 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    E. V. H. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, and D. G. Polyakov, Stark many-body localization: Evidence for hilbert- space shattering, Physical Review B 103, 100202 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    K.S.TikhonovandA.D.Mirlin,Eigenstatecorrelations around the many-body localization transition, Physical Review B103, 064204 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    Herre, J

    J.-N. Herre, J. F. Karcher, K. S. Tikhonov, and A. D. Mirlin, Ergodicity-to-localization transition on random regular graphs with large connectivity and in many- body quantum dots, Physical Review B 108, 014203 (2023)

    2023

  80. [88]

    Zhang and H

    S.-X. Zhang and H. Yao, Universal properties of many- body localization transitions in quasiperiodic systems, Physical Review Letters121, 206601 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    A. S. Aramthottil, T. Chanda, P. Sierant, and J. Za- krzewski, Finite-size scaling analysis of the many-body localization transition in quasiperiodic spin chains, Physical Review B104, 214201 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Kloss, J

    B. Kloss, J. C. Halimeh, A. Lazarides, and Y. Bar Lev, Absence of localization in interacting spin chains with a discrete symmetry, Nature Communications14, 3778 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Zhang, Subdiffusion in strongly tilted lattice systems, Physical Review Research2, 033129 (2020)

    P. Zhang, Subdiffusion in strongly tilted lattice systems, Physical Review Research2, 033129 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Guardado-Sanchez, A

    E. Guardado-Sanchez, A. Morningstar, B. M. Spar, P. T. Brown, D. A. Huse, and W. S. Bakr, Subdiffusion and heat transport in a tilted two-dimensional fermi- hubbard system, Physical Review X10, 011042 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, and F. m. c. Huveneers, Exponentially slow heating in periodically driven many- body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 256803 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, and F. m. c. Huveneers, Effective hamiltonians, prethermalization, and slow energy absorption in periodically driven many- body systems, Phys. Rev. B95, 014112 (2017)

    2017

  87. [95]

    Abanin, W

    D. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, and F. Huveneers, A rigorous theory of many-body prethermalization for periodically driven and closed quantum systems, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics354, 809 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    Kaczmarek and A

    A. Kaczmarek and A. S. Sajna, Slow semiclassical dy- namics of a two-dimensional hubbard model in disorder- free potentials, Physical Review B108, 134304 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    M. Qin, H. Shi, and S. Zhang, Benchmark study of the two-dimensional hubbard model with auxiliary-field quantum monte carlo method, Physical Review B94, 085103 (2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    Laflorencie, G

    N. Laflorencie, G. Lemarié, and N. Macé, Topological order in random interacting ising-majorana chains sta- bilized by many-body localization, Physical Review Re- search 4, l032016 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    N.C.Costa, K.Seki, S.Yunoki,andS.Sorella,Phasedi- agram of the two-dimensional hubbard-holstein model, Communications Physics3, 80 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    S. J. Thomson, D. Magano, and M. Schirò, Flow equa- tions for disordered floquet systems, SciPost Physics11, 028 (2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    Decker, C

    K. Decker, C. Karrasch, J. Eisert, and D. Kennes, Flo- quet engineering topological many-body localized sys- tems, Physical Review Letters124, 190601 (2020). 15

    2020

  94. [102]

    S. A. Weidinger and M. Knap, Floquet prethermaliza- tion and regimes of heating in a periodically driven, in- teracting quantum system, Scientific Reports7, 45382 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.