Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 144 references

UniqueNESS: Graph Theory Approach to the Uniqueness of Non-Equilibrium Stationary States of the Lindblad Master Equation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 the uniqueness of the stationary state of a Lindblad master equation can be decided by checking whether a graph built from the Hamiltonian and jump operators is strongly connected, and that a driven-dissipative spin…

desk verdict The central graph-theoretic equivalence is false; the paper's advertised check for unique NESS does not work, though the spin-lattice self-similarity observation has some merit. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12507 v1 pith:435U2LRD submitted 2025-04-16 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP

Martin Seltmann , Berislav Buca This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP
keywords Lindbladmasterequationnon-equilibriumstationarystatesgraphtheorydriven-dissipativespinlatticeYoshidacriterionstrongconnectivityoperatoralgebrasopenquantumsystems
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 claims that the question "does a Lindblad master equation have a unique stationary state?" can be answered by checking whether a certain directed graph is strongly connected. The relevant graph is built from the nonzero matrix entries of the operators $\{H-\frac{i}{2}\sum_n L_n^\dagger L_n,\; L_i\}$, and the link to uniqueness runs through the Yoshida criterion: if those operators generate the full operator algebra, the steady state is unique and strictly positive. The paper argues that strong connectivity certifies this algebra generation whenever the operator span contains a nonderogatory matrix, meaning one Jordan block per eigenvalue. For a driven-dissipative spin lattice with flip-flop interactions, Rabi driving, detuning, and local loss, it exhibits a self-similar recursion for the adjacency matrices and concludes that the digraph is strongly connected for every system size, so the exact Liouvillian has a unique full-rank nonequilibrium stationary state. This matters because mean-field approximations of the same model show coexisting stationary states, and the new check scales linearly in the graph rather than exponentially in the system size.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the directed graph $D(S)$ associated with the generating set $S=\{H-\frac{i}{2}\sum_n L_n^\dagger L_n,\; L_i\}$: vertices are the basis states and an edge $i\to j$ is drawn whenever some generator has a nonzero matrix element in row $j$, column $i$. The criterion is that strong connectivity of $D(S)$ forces the algebra generated by $S$ to be the full operator algebra, provided the linear span of $S$ contains a nonderogatory matrix, that is, a matrix with exactly one Jordan block per eigenvalue. For the spin-lattice model the jump part has adjacency matrix $A_N=\sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^-$, the Hamiltonian part supplies the closing edge $B_N=\prod_{i=1}^N\sigma_i^+$, and the reachability matrix $R_N=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-1}(A_N+B_N)^k$ has strictly positive entries; self-similar recursions for $A_N^p$ and the Hamiltonian blocks show this positivity persists when passing from $N$ to $N+1$. The Yoshida criterion then converts $R_N>0$ into uniqueness and strict positivity of the steady state.

What would settle it

For the two-site model, symbolically enumerate all products of the four generators $\{H-\frac{i}{2}\sum_i\sigma_i^+\sigma_i^-,\sigma_1^-,\sigma_2^-\}$ up to degree 4 and compute the dimension of the space they span; the paper's reasoning predicts dimension 16, and a smaller dimension with a strongly connected digraph would break the graph-to-algebra link. A minimal witness is the single Pauli matrix $\sigma^x$: its digraph is strongly connected, but the algebra it generates is two-dimensional, so strong connectivity alone does not imply full algebra generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a graph-theoretic reading of an algebraic uniqueness criterion. The paper shows that the Yoshida condition, namely that the set $\{H-\frac{i}{2}\sum_n L_n^\dagger L_n, L_i\}$ generates the full operator algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, can be verified by checking the connectivity of the digraph whose edges are the nonzero matrix entries of those operators. Its main statement is that whenever this generating set contains a nonderogatory Jordan matrix in its linear span, strong connectivity of the digraph guarantees generation of the full matrix algebra, and hence a unique strictly positive steady state. Applied to a hypercubic spin lattice with flip-flop hopping, Rabi drive, detuning, and single-site loss, the paper constructs the adjacency matrices $A_N=\sum_i \sigma_i^-$ and $B_N=\prod_i\sigma_i^+$, shows the reachability matrix $R_N=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-1}(A_N+B_N)^k$ is entry-wise positive, and demonstrates via exact self-similarity that this holds for all $N$, including the thermodynamic limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a generator set whose combined digraph is strongly connected always generates the full operator algebra; that is not true for arbitrary matrices, since a Pauli X matrix has a fully connected graph yet leaves a subspace invariant, so the argument needs the extra requirement that the generator span contains a nonderogatory matrix, a property asserted for the spin lattice rather than proved there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the driven-dissipative spin lattice with flip-flop interactions, Rabi drive, detuning, and local loss, the exact Liouvillian has a unique strictly positive stationary state for every number of sites $N$, so the multiple steady states appearing in mean-field phase diagrams are artefacts of the approximation.
  • Uniqueness checks become algorithmic: verifying the Yoshida criterion reduces to a strong-connectivity test that runs in linear time $O(|V|+|E|)$ in the size of the digraph, instead of diagonalizing an exponentially large Liouvillian.
  • The graph method extends the older algebraic criteria of Spohn, Evans, and Frigerio by giving a purely combinatorial handle on the "generates the full algebra" condition, with strict positivity of the steady state included.
  • Because the adjacency matrices build self-similarly with system size, the uniqueness result holds uniformly in the thermodynamic limit $N\to\infty$ for the studied model, not only for finite sizes checked numerically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The recursive structure $A_{N+1}$ (two copies of $A_N$ on the diagonal plus one off-diagonal block) suggests the criterion applies to any lattice model whose jump graph is built by the same Kronecker-product recursion, independent of the spatial dimension and boundary conditions.
  • The paper's "one missing edge" observation, that the jump part alone is a nilpotent unidirectional ladder and a single Hamiltonian-supplied edge closes the whole graph, can be read as a reservoir-engineering recipe: to force uniqueness, engineer jumps that create a long directed path and let the coherent part add the single closing edge.
  • A conservative reading of the Pauli-X counterexample is that before porting the method to a new model one should verify the nonderogatory-Jordan condition explicitly; otherwise the strong-connectivity check can certify an algebra that the generators do not actually produce.
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 proposes a graph-theoretic criterion for the uniqueness of strictly positive stationary states of Lindblad master equations. Starting from the Yoshida criterion, which guarantees a unique faithful NESS when the set {H - i/2 sum_k L_k^* L_k, L_k} generates the full matrix algebra, the authors claim that this generation can be certified by strong connectivity of the digraph associated with the zero-nonzero pattern of the generators, provided the linear span contains a nonderogatory matrix. They then analyze a driven-dissipative spin lattice with flip-flop interactions, Rabi drive, and local loss, asserting a self-similar connectivity structure for all system sizes and concluding that the model has a unique strictly positive NESS for all N. The central claim is that strong connectivity plus a nonderogatory generator in the span suffices for full algebra generation.

Significance. The proposed method would be significant if valid: it would reduce a nontrivial algebraic condition (generation of B(H)) to a poly-time graph check and would yield a uniform all-N statement for a family of driven-dissipative lattices where numerical mean-field studies indicate multiple stationary states. The self-similarity analysis of the adjacency matrices of the Lindblad operators is an attractive construction, and the paper makes an explicit, falsifiable prediction. However, the central equivalence is false, and the counterexample is elementary; hence the significance of the claimed results is not realized in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Claim: Relation Reducibility ↔ Connectivity] The asserted equivalence between irreducibility of a complex matrix and strong connectivity of its digraph is false for matrices with signed entries. The standard theorem applies to nonnegative matrices; for general complex matrices, nonzero entries can cancel and leave invariant subspaces even when the zero-nonzero pattern is strongly connected. The Pauli matrix X = [[0,1],[1,0]] on C^2 is the simplest counterexample: its digraph has edges 1->2 and 2->1, so it is strongly connected, but X is reducible because its two eigenspaces (spanned by |+> and |->) are invariant. This error is load-bearing because it is the foundation of the graph-theoretic reduction used in Sections 2.2-2.4.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Conclusion] The claim that a generating set whose linear span contains a nonderogatory Jordan matrix generates the full matrix algebra under strong connectivity is false. The same counterexample applies: S = {X} on C^2. X is nonderogatory (its minimal and characteristic polynomials both equal (lambda-1)(lambda+1)), and its digraph in the computational basis is strongly connected, but the algebra generated by X is {aI + bX}, of dimension 2 < 4, not B(C^2). The proof in Section 2.2 relies on the assertion that any S-invariant subspace must contain an element of the generalized eigenbasis via repeated action of nilpotent blocks; this argument fails for nonderogatory matrices that are diagonalizable, since there is no nilpotent part to propagate along the graph. Consequently the verification of the Yoshida criterion for the spin lattice is not supported by the stated theorem.
  3. [Section 2.1, application to the spin lattice] The paper's conclusion that the Yoshida criterion is verified for the driven-dissipative spin lattice by a Python 'connectivity check' does not follow from the preceding results. The finite-size connectivity plots (Figures 1-6 and 13-14) demonstrate properties of the zero-nonzero pattern of the generators, but, because of the failure of the reducibility-connectivity equivalence for signed matrices, they do not certify that the set {H - i/2 sum_k L_k^* L_k, L_k} generates B(H). The claimed uniqueness and strict positivity of the NESS for all N therefore rests on an invalid reduction.
  4. [Section 2.4, Eq. (37)] The recursion for the powers A^p_{N+1} of the adjacency matrices is stated without proof, and the functions F(G_{N-1}) and H(G_{N-1}) in Eq. (38) are not defined. The conclusion that the reachability matrix R_N is entrywise positive for all N depends on this unproved self-similarity. Even if the recursion were established, it would only prove strong connectivity of the deformed digraph, which by Major Comment 2 is insufficient for the intended algebra-generation statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1] The literature review on thermalization, many-body localization, and time crystals is very long and largely disconnected from the graph-theoretic method; condensing it would improve readability.
  2. [References] Reference [126] in the bibliography is listed as Fazio, Keeling, Mazza and Schirò 2025, a recent review, in the place where the original Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan paper appears to be intended; the citation should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.4, Eq. (28)] The reachability matrix R_N is defined with powers up to 2N-1, but the text preceding it says paths of length 2N or longer necessarily include cycles; please clarify the indexing.
  4. [Section 2.1] The Python code used for the 'connectivity check' is neither included nor referenced; providing it would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 10] The equivalence diagram includes 'Irreducibility of C_N' as equivalent to strong connectivity; this is the contested claim and should either be proved under the specific nonnegativity conditions that hold here or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uniqueness claim rests on an external Yoshida criterion and direct graph constructions, not on fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's uniqueness argument begins from the external Yoshida criterion [136]: if the set {H - i sum L*L/2, L_i} generates the full operator algebra, then the Lindblad equation has a unique strictly positive NESS. The paper takes that criterion as an input and proposes directed-graph strong connectivity as a sufficient certificate for the algebra-generation hypothesis. No parameter is fitted, no empirical subset is used to define the target quantity, and the graph-theoretic criterion is not defined in terms of the NESS uniqueness it aims to prove. The main proof chain in Sections 2.1-2.4 is an attempted mathematical derivation from standard linear algebra and graph theory; the Yoshida criterion is cited from independent external literature, and the graph objects (adjacency matrices A_N, deformed adjacency matrices C_N, reachability matrices R_N) are constructed directly from the model's Lindblad operators rather than from any desired stationary-state conclusion. The authors' self-citations appear only in the introductory survey of ergodicity-breaking phenomena and are not load-bearing for the uniqueness theorem or the graph method. Thus no step reduces by construction to its own inputs. Separately, the reducibility-connectivity lemma in Section 2.1 is mathematically questionable for signed matrices, since a strongly connected nonzero pattern does not rule out invariant subspaces (e.g., the Pauli X matrix); however, an incorrect lemma is a correctness defect, not circularity, and the instructions restrict this pass to circularity claims that can be exhibited as definitional or self-referential reductions.

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

The central derivation uses no fitted parameters and postulates no new physical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are mathematical: the graph-to-irreducibility correspondence and the nonderogatory sufficient condition, both of which are either false as stated or insufficiently proven.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Transitivity of an operator algebra implies it is the full matrix algebra (Burnside-type theorem).
    Section 2.1 'Claim: Relation Transitivity to Completeness' relies on this; it is a known theorem, but the paper's proof is only a sketch and includes unproven steps about noninvertible elements and dual transitivity.
  • ad hoc to paper A matrix is irreducible (no invariant subspace) iff its digraph is strongly connected.
    Section 2.1 'Claim: Relation Reducibility to Connectivity' asserts this for arbitrary complex matrices. It is only valid for the graph-theoretic notion of reducibility for nonnegative matrices, not for existence of arbitrary invariant subspaces; Pauli X is a counterexample.
  • ad hoc to paper A nonderogatory matrix in the linear span plus strong connectivity of the generator digraph implies generation of the full matrix algebra.
    Section 2.4 introduces this as the core sufficient condition. It is asserted without proof and is contradicted by the single Pauli X generator, which is nonderogatory and strongly connected but generates only span{I, X}.
  • ad hoc to paper The adjacency matrix powers A^p_N obey the stated self-similar recursion for all N and p.
    Section 2.4 uses this recursion to prove strong connectivity for all N; only small-N verification and a sketch are given.
  • domain assumption The finite-dimensional Lindblad semigroup framework with complete positivity and trace preservation.
    The paper assumes the standard Lindblad generator form (9) on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, which is the accepted physics setup for the uniqueness criteria it applies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UniqueNESS: Graph Theory Approach to the Uniqueness of Non-Equilibrium Stationary States of the Lindblad Master Equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/435U2LRD

@misc{pith2026250412507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UniqueNESS: Graph Theory Approach to the Uniqueness of Non-Equilibrium Stationary States of the Lindblad Master Equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/435U2LRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12507}
}
read the original abstract

The dimensionality of kernels for Lindbladian superoperators is of physical interest in various scenarios out of equilibrium, for example in mean-field methods for driven-dissipative spin lattice models that give rise to phase diagrams with a multitude of non-equilibrium stationary states in specific parameter regions. We show that known criteria established in the literature for unique fixpoints of the Lindblad master equation can be better treated in a graph-theoretic framework via a focus on the connectivity of directed graphs associated to the Hamiltonian and jump operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Web of Connectivity for {L} with 2 Sites 2.4. Graph Self-Similarity The interwoven connectivity webs will now be scrutinized further in an algebraic way to explain their scale-invariance or self-similarity: the same operations involved in each step of growing system size N, namely matrix Kronecker multiplication and matrix ad￾dition, translate to different kinds of repeated digraph concatenations. In an effort to di… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Web of Connectivity for {L} with 3 Sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Web of Connectivity for {L} with 4 Sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Web of Connectivity for H − i PL ∗L/2 with 2 Sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Web of Connectivity for H − i PL ∗L/2 with 3 Sites [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Web of Connectivity for H − i PL ∗L/2 with 4 Sites Strong connectivity is guaranteed whenever a closed walk visiting all vertices can be found within the graph. Such cycles are possible for all sizes with the mere addition of only one single directed edge from the firs…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adjacency Matrices for {L} with 2 to 4 Sites digraph and explains all observed features: the basic geometrical shape for N = 2 of two triangles at opposing sides of the connectivity web is repeated over and over again for higher numbers of lattice sites and connections…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Adjacency Matrices for {L} with 5 and 6 Sites placement of identity (one copy) and adjacency matrices (two copies) of the previous step. The unidirectional orientation of the graph is due to the zero upper triangle of AN for all N. The diagonal of an adjacency matrix r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Connectivity for 2/3/4 Sites (blue/green/red) The equivalence between strong connectivity and the existence of a closed path compris￾ing the entire vertex set implies that the above claim about a single missing link (arrow from first to last vertex) for all N causing e…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Equivalences for Graph and Matrix Properties will be suppressed; that way the deformed adjacency matrix is written as CN = Yσ + + Xσ − = BN + AN (32) and A N N = N! Yσ −, AN+1 N = 0. (33) The reachability matrix RN thus evaluates to RN = 2 XN −1 k=0 C k N = 2 XN −1 k=…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Web Evolution for {L} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Limit Web for {L} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Web Evolution for H − i PL ∗L/2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Limit Web for H − i PL ∗L/2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [126]

    Cazalilla M A and Chung M C 2007Physical Review E75 045173

    work page

  2. [1]

    Fixpoints in Quantum Dynamics 1.1. Fixpoint Sets The characterization of fixpoints (stationary states) for dynamical systems has a long history, starting with the study of classical mechanics via its intrinsic symplectomorphisms (canonical transformations) on phase space manifolds and the subsequent mathematical formalization in terms of fixpoint theorems...

  3. [2]

    Sufficient Condition on Lindblad Bicommutant and Operator Algebra {Li,L∗ i}′′ =B(H) UniqueNESS 7

  4. [3]

    Sufficient Condition on Kossakowski Kernel and Hilbert Space dim(ker(C))< dim(H)/2

  5. [4]

    BB acknowledges funding by the French National Research Agency (ANR) under project ANR-24-CPJ1-0150-01

    Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for support by a research grant (42085) from VILLUM FONDEN. BB acknowledges funding by the French National Research Agency (ANR) under project ANR-24-CPJ1-0150-01

  6. [5]

    Necessary and Sufficient Condition on Extended Lindblad Commutant {H,Li,L∗ i}′ = CI This last criterion applies only for the existence of a faithful (full-rank) steady state. With the von Neumann bicommutant theorem forW∗-algebras, it amounts to the fol- lowing useful statement: in case of faithfulness, the system has a unique NESSρ∞ iff the set{H,Li,L∗ i...

  7. [6]

    connectivity check

    Graph Theory Method 2.1. Derivation & Proof As shown in the above section, it is in general not sufficient to consider only the Lie part of an operator algebra: as the antisymmetric components do not necessarily reproduce the algebra, Jordan sectors are indispensable and the full reach of a given set of gener- ators has to be studied. For an algebraA of l...

  8. [7]

    Conclusion Exact graph self-similarity in the thermodynamic limitN→∞ has thus been shown; one crucial ingredient in the proof is the exact type of Jordan matricesJ that arise from the set of generators: the algebraic graph theory method works whenever aJ-cyclic subspace equals the full space. This condition characterizesnonderogatory Jordan matricesJ: the...

Show all 144 references
  1. [8]

    Rigol M, Dunjko V, Yurovsky V and Olshanii M 2008Nature 452 854–858

  2. [9]

    BrouwerLEJ1911 Mathematische Annalen7197–115 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01456849

    doi

  3. [10]

    Polkovnikov A, Sengupta K, Silva A and Vengalattore M 2011Reviews of Modern Physics 83 863–883 UniqueNESS 27

  4. [11]

    Eisert J, Friesdorf M and Gogolin C 2015Nature Physics 11 124–130

  5. [12]

    D’Alessio L, Kafri Y, Polkovnikov A and Rigol M 2016Advances in Physics65 239–362

  6. [13]

    Deutsch J M 1991Physical Review A43 2046–2049

  7. [14]

    Srednicki M 1994Physical Review E50 888–901

  8. [15]

    Rigol M, Dunjko V and Olshanii M 2007Physical Review Letters98 050405

  9. [16]

    Calabrese P and Cardy J 2007Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and ExperimentP06008

  10. [17]

    Langen T, Geiger R and Schmiedmayer J 2015Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6 201–217

  11. [18]

    Langen T, Erne S, Geiger R, Rauer B, Schweigler T, Kuhnert M, Rohringer W, Glidden S, Mazets I, Cheneau Met al 2015 Science 348 207–211

    2015

  12. [19]

    Keldysh L V 1965Soviet Physics JETP 20 1018–1026

  13. [20]

    Kamenev A 2011Field theory of non-equilibrium systems(Cambridge University Press)

  14. [21]

    Rammer J 2007Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States(Cambridge University Press)

  15. [22]

    Berges J and Gasenzer T 2007Physical Review A76 033604

  16. [23]

    Enrico Fermi

    Berges J 2004 Introduction to nonequilibrium quantum field theory Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi", Course CLXIV, Varenna, Italy(IOS Press) pp 3–62

    2004

  17. [24]

    These techniques complement more exact numerical approaches such as time-dependent density-matrix renormalization group (t-DMRG) methods [25,26]

    developed mean-field descriptions for correlated electron systems. These techniques complement more exact numerical approaches such as time-dependent density-matrix renormalization group (t-DMRG) methods [25,26]. Accurate simulation of non-equilibrium dynamics in many-body sys...

  18. [25]

    Calabrese P and Cardy J 2006Physical Review Letters96 136801

  19. [26]

    Calabrese P, Essler F H and Fagotti M 2012 Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment P07016

    2012

  20. [27]

    Cheneau M, Barmettler P, Poletti D, Endres M, Schauss P, Fukuhara T, Gross C, Bloch I and Kollath C 2012Nature 481 484–487

  21. [28]

    Gogolin C and Eisert J 2016Reports on Progress in Physics79 056001

  22. [29]

    Vidmar L and Rigol M 2016Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment064007

  23. [30]

    Caux J S and Konik R M 2012Physical Review Letters109 175301

  24. [31]

    Moeckel M and Kehrein S 2008Physical Review Letters100 175702

  25. [32]

    Schiro M and Fabrizio M 2010Physical Review Letters105 076401

  26. [33]

    White S R and Feiguin A E 2004Physical Review Letters93 076401

  27. [34]

    Daley A J, Kollath C, Schollwöck U and Vidal G 2004Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and ExperimentP04005

  28. [35]

    Berges J and Borsányi S 2008Physical Review Letters100 211602

  29. [36]

    Knap M, Kantian A, Bloch I, Giamarchi T and Demler E 2013Physical Review Letters 111 147205

  30. [37]

    Polkovnikov A and Gritsev V 2008Nature Physics 4 477–481

  31. [38]

    Mitra A 2018Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9 245–259

  32. [39]

    Dziarmaga J 2010Advances in Physics59 1063–1189

  33. [40]

    Barmettler P, Kollath C, McCulloch I P and Giamarchi T 2009Physical Review Letters 102 130603

  34. [41]

    Nandkishore R and Huse D A 2015 Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6 15–38 ISSN 1947-5462 https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-031214-014726

    2015

  35. [42]

    Berges J 2010Acta Physica Polonica B41 2239–2261

  36. [43]

    Essler F H and Fagotti M 2016Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment064002

  37. [44]

    Sotiriadis S and Cardy J 2008Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and ExperimentP11003

  38. [45]

    Huse D A, Nandkishore R and Oganesyan V 2014 Phys. Rev. B 90(17) 174202 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.174202

    2014 doi

  39. [46]

    Abanin D A, Altman E, Bloch I and Serbyn M 2019Rev. Mod. Phys. 91(2) 021001 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001

    doi

  40. [47]

    Smith J, Lee A, Richerme P, Neyenhuis B, Hess P W, Hauke P, Heyl M, Huse D A and Monroe C 2016Nature Physics 12 907–911 ISSN 1745-2481 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3783 UniqueNESS 28

    doi

  41. [48]

    Alet F and Laflorencie N 2018Comptes Rendus Physique19 498–525 ISSN 1631-0705 quantum simulation / Simulation quantique https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S163107051830032X

  42. [49]

    van Nieuwenburg E, Malo J Y, Daley A and Fischer M 2017Quantum Science and Technology3 01LT02 ISSN 2058-9565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aa9a02

    doi

  43. [50]

    Wilczek F 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(16) 160401 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.160401

    2012

  44. [51]

    Zaletel M P, Lukin M, Monroe C, Nayak C, Wilczek F and Yao N Y 2023Rev. Mod. Phys.95(3) 031001 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.031001

    doi

  45. [52]

    Else D V, Bauer B and Nayak C 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.117(9) 090402 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.090402

    doi

  46. [53]

    Else D V, Monroe C, Nayak C and Yao N Y 2020Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11 467–499 ISSN 1947-5462 https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-031119-050658

    1947

  47. [54]

    Buča B, Tindall J and Jaksch D 2019 Nature Communications 10 1730 ISSN 2041-1723 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09757-y

    2019 doi

  48. [55]

    Medenjak M, Buča B and Jaksch D 2020Phys. Rev. B102(4) 041117 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.041117

    doi

  49. [56]

    Khemani V, Lazarides A, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2016Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(25) 250401 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250401

    doi

  50. [57]

    Sacha K 2015Physical Review A91

  51. [58]

    Braver Y, Fan C h, Žlabys G, Anisimovas E and Sacha K 2022Phys. Rev. B 106(14) 144301 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.144301

    doi

  52. [59]

    Passarelli G, Lucignano P, Fazio R and Russomanno A 2022Physical Review B106

  53. [60]

    Krishna M, Solanki P, Hajdušek M and Vinjanampathy S 2022 Measurement induced continuous time crystals https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14438

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Carollo F, Lesanovsky I, Antezza M and De Chiara G 2024Quantum Science and Technology9 035024

  55. [62]

    org/abs/2412.09677

    Daviet R, Zelle C P, Asadollahi A and Diehl S 2024 Kardar-parisi-zhang scaling in time- crystalline matter (Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09677:2412.09677) https://arxiv. org/abs/2412.09677

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Alaeian H and Buča B 2022 Communications Physics 5 318 https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42005-022-01090-z

    2022

  57. [64]

    Piccitto G, Wauters M, Nori F and Shammah N 2021Phys. Rev. B 104(1) 014307 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.014307

    doi

  58. [65]

    Minganti F, Arkhipov I I, Miranowicz A and Nori F 2020 Correspondence between dissipative phase transitions of light and time crystals ( Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08075: 2008.08075)

    2020 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Booker C, Buča B and Jaksch D 2020New Journal of Physics https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1367-2630/ababc4

    doi

  60. [67]

    Cabot A, Muhle L S, Carollo F and Lesanovsky I 2023Phys. Rev. A 108(4) L041303 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.L041303

    doi

  61. [68]

    Carollo F and Lesanovsky I 2022Phys. Rev. A105(4) L040202 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.L040202

    doi

  62. [69]

    Wu X, Wang Z, Yang F, Gao R, Liang C, Tey M K, Li X, Pohl T and You L 2024Nature Physics 20 1389–1394 ISSN 1745-2481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02542-9

    doi

  63. [70]

    Sarkar S and Dubi Y 2022 Communications Physics 5 155 https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42005-022-00925-z

    2022

  64. [71]

    Guarnieri G, Mitchison M T, Purkayastha A, Jaksch D, Buča B and Goold J 2022Phys. Rev. A 106(2) 022209 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.022209

    doi

  65. [72]

    Turner C J, Michailidis A A, Abanin D A, Serbyn M and Papić Z 2018Nature Physics14 745–749 UniqueNESS 29 ISSN 1745-2481 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0137-5

    doi

  66. [73]

    Moudgalya S, Regnault N and Bernevig B A 2018 Phys. Rev. B 98(23) 235156 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.235156

    2018 doi

  67. [74]

    Bull K, Desaules J Y and Papić Z 2020Phys. Rev. B101(16) 165139 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.165139

    doi

  68. [75]

    Schecter M and Iadecola T 2019Phys. Rev. Lett.123(14) 147201 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.147201

    doi

  69. [76]

    Serbyn M, Abanin D A and Papić Z 2021Nature Physics 17 675–685 ISSN 1745-2481 https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01230-2

    doi

  70. [77]

    Chandran A, Iadecola T, Khemani V and Moessner R 2022Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14

  71. [78]

    Shiraishi N and Mori T 2017Phys. Rev. Lett.119(3) 030601 https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.030601

  72. [79]

    Tamura K and Katsura H 2022Phys. Rev. B106(14) 144306 https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.106.144306

  73. [80]

    Daniel A, Hallam A, Desaules J Y, Hudomal A, Guo-Xian, Halimeh J C and Papić Z 2023 Bridging quantum criticality via many-body scarringhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.03631

    2023 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Iadecola T, Schecter M and Xu S 2019Phys. Rev. B 100(18) 184312 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.184312

    doi

  75. [82]

    Gotta L, Moudgalya S and Mazza L 2023Phys. Rev. Lett.131(19) 190401 https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.190401

    doi

  76. [83]

    Marché A, Morettini G, Mazza L, Gotta L and Capizzi L 2024 Exceptional stationary state in a dephasing many-body open quantum system (Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13820: 2412.13820) https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13820

    2024 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Morettini G, Capizzi L, Fagotti M and Mazza L 2025 Unconventional transport in a system with a tower of quantum many-body scars (Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10387:2502.10387) https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10387

    2025

  78. [85]

    Gotta L, Mazza L, Simon P and Roux G 2022Phys. Rev. B 106(23) 235147 https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.235147

    doi

  79. [86]

    Ren J, Liang C and Fang C 2021Phys. Rev. Lett.126(12) 120604 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.120604

    doi

  80. [87]

    Andreadakis F and Zanardi P 2023Phys. Rev. A107(6) 062402 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062402

    doi

  81. [88]

    Sala P, Rakovszky T, Verresen R, Knap M and Pollmann F 2020Phys. Rev. X 10(1) 011047 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011047

    doi

  82. [89]

    Khemani V, Hermele M and Nandkishore R 2020 Phys. Rev. B 101(17) 174204 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.174204

    2020 doi

  83. [90]

    Moudgalya S, Prem A, Nandkishore R, Regnault N and Bernevig B A 2019 Thermal- ization and its absence within krylov subspaces of a constrained hamiltonian ( Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.14048:1910.14048)

    2019 arXiv

  84. [91]

    Yoshinaga A, Hakoshima H, Imoto T, Matsuzaki Y and Hamazaki R 2022Phys. Rev. Lett.129(9) 090602 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.090602

    doi

  85. [93]

    Buča B 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 128(10) 100601 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.100601

    2022

  86. [94]

    Nicolau E, Marques A M, Mompart J, Ahufinger V and Dias R G 2023Physical Review B107 094312

  87. [95]

    Zhang Z and Schou Røising H 2023 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56 194001 ISSN 1751-8121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/acc76f

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    Kwan Y H, Wilhelm P H, Biswas S and Parameswaran S A 2025Phys. Rev. Lett.134(1) 010411 UniqueNESS 30 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.010411

    doi

  89. [97]

    11032Fphysrevx.12.011050

    Moudgalya S and Motrunich O I 2022 Physical Review X 12 https://doi.org/10. 11032Fphysrevx.12.011050

    2022

  90. [98]

    Pozsgay B, Gombor T, Hutsalyuk A, Jiang Y, Pristyák L and Vernier E 2021Physical Review E 104 ISSN 2470-0053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044106

    doi

  91. [99]

    Desaules J Y, Hudomal A, Banerjee D, Sen A, Papić Z and Halimeh J C 2023Phys. Rev. B 107(20) 205112 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.205112

    doi

  92. [100]

    Mukherjee B, Banerjee D, Sengupta K and Sen A 2021Physical Review B104 ISSN 2469-9969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.155117

    doi

  93. [101]

    Li Y, Sala P and Pollmann F 2023Phys. Rev. Res.5(4) 043239 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043239

    doi

  94. [102]

    Kormos M, Collura M, Takács G and Calabrese P 2016Nature Physics 13 246–249 https: //doi.org/10.1038%2Fnphys3934

  95. [103]

    Majidy S 2024 Nature Communications 15 ISSN 2041-1723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-024-52588-9

    2024

  96. [104]

    org/abs/2208.04928

    Gravina L, Minganti F and Savona V 2022 A critical schrödinger cat qubithttps://arxiv. org/abs/2208.04928

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Wilming H, Osborne T J, Decker K S C and Karrasch C 2022 Reviving product states in the disordered heisenberg chain https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03153

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Castro-Alvaredo O A, Lencsés M, Szécsényi I M and Viti J 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.124(23) 230601 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.230601

    doi

  99. [107]

    Castro-Alvaredo O A, Lencsés M, Szécsényi I M and Viti J 2019Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 ISSN 1029-8479 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2019)079

    2019 doi

  100. [108]

    Fröml H, Chiocchetta A, Kollath C and Diehl S 2019Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(4) 040402 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.040402

    doi

  101. [109]

    Biroli G, Kollath C and Läuchli A M 2010Phys. Rev. Lett.105(25) 250401 https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.250401

    doi

  102. [110]

    Halati C M, Sheikhan A, Morigi G and Kollath C 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 134(7) 073604 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.073604

    2025 doi

  103. [111]

    12 097 https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.12.3.097

    Buča B, Booker C and Jaksch D 2022SciPost Phys. 12 097 https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.12.3.097

  104. [112]

    Nakagawa M, Katsura H and Ueda M 2024 Physical Review Research 6 ISSN 2643-1564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043259

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    Halimeh J C, Homeier L, Zhao H, Bohrdt A, Grusdt F, Hauke P and Knolle J 2022PRX Quantum 3(2) 020345 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020345

    doi

  106. [114]

    22331/q-2022-06-15-738

    Claeys P W and Lamacraft A 2022Quantum 6 738 ISSN 2521-327X https://doi.org/10. 22331/q-2022-06-15-738

    2022

  107. [115]

    Singh H, Vasseur R and Gopalakrishnan S 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(4) 046001 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.046001

    2023 doi

  108. [116]

    Buchleitner A and Kolovsky A R 2003Phys. Rev. Lett.91(25) 253002 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.253002

    doi

  109. [117]

    Eckseler J and Schnack J 2025Phys. Rev. Res.7(1) 013178 https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013178

  110. [118]

    Solanki P, Jaseem N, Hajdušek M and Vinjanampathy S 2022Phys. Rev. A 105(2) L020401 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.L020401

    doi

  111. [119]

    Dutta S, Zhang S and Haque M 2025Phys. Rev. Lett.134(5) 050407 https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.050407

    doi

  112. [120]

    Evrard B, Pizzi A, Mistakidis S I and Dag C B 2024Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(2) 020401 https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.020401

    doi

  113. [121]

    Marché A, Nardin A, Katsura H and Mazza L 2025SU(3) fermi-hubbard gas with three-body losses: symmetries and dark states ( Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17217:2503.17217) UniqueNESS 31 https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17217

  114. [122]

    Heyl M, Polkovnikov A and Kehrein S 2013Physical Review Letters110 135704

  115. [123]

    Jurcevic P, Lanyon B P, Hauke P, Hempel C, Zoller P, Blatt R and Roos C F 2017Physical Review Letters 119 080501

  116. [124]

    Cazalilla M A 2006Physical Review Letters97 156403

  117. [125]

    Bukov M, D’Alessio L and Polkovnikov A 2015Advances in Physics64 139–226

  118. [127]

    Iucci A and Cazalilla M A 2009Physical Review A80 063619

  119. [128]

    Buča B 2023Phys. Rev. X13(3) 031013 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13. 031013

    doi

  120. [129]

    org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/7/073007

    Buča B and Prosen T 2012New Journal of Physics14 073007 ISSN 1367-2630 http://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/7/073007

    doi

  121. [130]

    Albert V V and Jiang L 2014Phys. Rev. A89(2) 022118 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.89.022118

  122. [131]

    Baumgartner B and Narnhofer H 2008Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41 395303 ISSN 1751-8121 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/41/39/395303

    doi

  123. [132]

    de Pillis J 1967 Pacific Journal of Mathematics 23 129–137 https://projecteuclid.org/ euclid.pjm/1102991990

    1967

  124. [133]

    Gorini V, Kossakowski A and Sudarshan E C G 1976Journal of Mathematical Physics17821–825

  125. [134]

    Fazio R, Keeling J, Mazza L and Schirò M 2025 Many-body open quantum systems (Preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10300:2409.10300) https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.10300

    2025 arXiv

  126. [135]

    springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01608499

    Lindblad G 1976 Communications in Mathematical Physics 48 119–130 https://link. springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01608499

    1976 doi

  127. [136]

    Spohn H 1976 Reports on Mathematical Physics 10 189–194 https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0034-4877(76)90040-9

    1976

  128. [137]

    Spohn H 1977Letters in Mathematical Physics2 33–38 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00420668

    doi

  129. [138]

    1007/BF01609834

    Evans D E 1977Communications in Mathematical Physics54 293–297 https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF01609834

  130. [139]

    Frigerio A 1977 Letters in Mathematical Physics 2 79–87 https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00398567

    1977

  131. [140]

    1007/BF01942060

    Frigerio A 1978Communications in Mathematical Physics63 269–276 https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF01942060

  132. [141]

    Zhang Y and Barthel T 2024Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57 115301 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ad2a1e

    doi

  133. [142]

    Umanità V 2006Probability theory and related fields134 603–623

  134. [143]

    Schirmer S G and Wang X 2010Phys. Rev. A81(6) 062306 https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.81.062306

  135. [144]

    Yoshida H 2024 Physical Review A 109 022218 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109. 022218

    2024 doi

  136. [145]

    Diestel R 2017Graph Theory5th ed (Springer) ISBN 978-3-662-53622-3

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.