Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Long-Range Interacting Many-Body Systems in the Irrep Basis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper establishes that the long-range transverse-field Ising model can be approximated by a $3(N-1)$-dimensional Hilbert space built from the symmetric SU(2) sector and two distilled neighboring sectors, reproducing its quantum…

desk verdict A genuinely new truncation method for long-range spin systems, with a real soft spot: the large-N evidence is a self-consistency check that cannot see leakage out of the truncated space. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02997 v3 pith:LZ5RBXVY submitted 2025-05-05 quant-ph

Ivy Pannier-Günther , Andrew Kolmer Forbes , Pablo M. Poggi , Ivan H. Deutsch This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantummany-bodyscarslong-rangeIsingmodelirrepdistillationSU(2)irreduciblerepresentationspermutationsymmetrybreakingtransverse-fieldphasetransitionsHilbertspacetruncation
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 sets out to show that a long-range, permutation-symmetry-broken spin chain can be described, at first order, by a tiny corner of the full exponential Hilbert space: the fully symmetric sector together with one carefully chosen copy of each of the two adjacent SU(2) sectors, a subspace of dimension $3(N-1)$. The construction, called irrep distillation, fixes the freedom in degenerate irreps by maximizing their coupling to the symmetric sector, so the truncated Hamiltonian is the minimal first-order dressing of the collective-spin (Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick) limit. In the regime where quantum many-body scars exist, the distilled eigenstates match the exact scar states with near-unit ensemble-average fidelity, and the method preserves both the ground-state and dynamical quantum phase transitions, with the latter test run up to $N=1024$. If this is right, simulating near-collective long-range spin dynamics needs linear rather than exponential resources, and the approximation can check its own validity through energy variances.

What carries the argument

The machine is irrep distillation: in a system of $N$ spin-$1/2$ particles, Hilbert space decomposes into degenerate SU(2) irreps labeled by total $J$ and degeneracy index $u$, and the freedom in choosing the degenerate basis is used to maximize the Hamiltonian matrix elements that couple each irrep back to the symmetric subspace. The distilled computational amplitudes are $c^{(1,1)}_j \propto \lambda_1^{(\alpha)}[j]$ and $c^{(2,1)}_{j,k} \propto (N-2)|j-k|^{-\alpha} - \lambda_1^{(\alpha)}[j] - \lambda_1^{(\alpha)}[k] + \cdots$, i.e. orthonormalized marginals of the interaction kernel; this maximizes the coupling sums and makes all other irreps orthogonal to the coupling at first order. The truncated Hamiltonian built from these sectors, plus the selection rule $|\Delta J| \le 2$, is what reduces the exponential problem to a $3(N-1)$-dimensional one, and it carries the additional interpretation of a two-body collective model: a spin-$(N/2-1)$ major particle coupled to a spin-$1$ minor particle.

What would settle it

Exact-diagonalize the full Hamiltonian for a moderate size such as $N=16$ or $20$ in the claimed scar regime ($s<0.42$, $\alpha<1$), initialize in a symmetric spin-coherent state, and compare the population that leaks into the non-distilled sectors ($J \le N/2-3$ or the non-distilled copies of $J=N/2-1$, $N/2-2$) with the distillation error $1-\mathcal{F}$ and with the Loschmidt-echo decay time. If the leaked population reaches the same order as $1-\mathcal{F}$ on the timescales where the distilled dynamics are claimed to hold, the first-order-neglect assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the first-order perturbation theory of the long-range transverse-field Ising model around its all-to-all limit is exactly captured by truncating to the distilled subspace $H_D = H_{N/2} \oplus H_{N/2-1,1} \oplus H_{N/2-2,1}$, whose dimension is $3(N-1)$. Because the interaction $\hat{\sigma}_z^{(j)}\hat{\sigma}_z^{(k)}$ is a rank-2 tensor under SU(2), it only connects irreps with $|\Delta J| \le 2$; choosing the degenerate irreps with $J = N/2-1$ and $J = N/2-2$ so that their computational amplitudes are proportional to marginals of the interaction kernel $|j-k|^{-\alpha}$ makes all other sectors dark at lowest order. The resulting eigenstates are dressed symmetric states and are precisely the quantum many-body scars of the full model wherever those scars exist; the paper demonstrates near-unit fidelity for the scar ensemble and shows that the same truncated Hamiltonian reproduces the ground-state and dynamical phase-transition order parameters, approaching the analytic thermodynamic limits as $N$ grows. Thus the paper positions irrep distillation as a controlled, perturbation-theory-based alternative to spin-wave, matrix-product, and truncated-Wigner methods for long-range systems, with the QMBS regime as its natural domain and phase transitions surviving even outside it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that first-order perturbation theory in the symmetry-breaking interaction is enough: every Hilbert-space sector outside the three distilled subspaces, and every non-distilled copy of the two adjacent sectors, stays dynamically negligible for the scar states and order parameters of interest; the paper provides no a priori quantitative bound, relying on small-system benchmarks, energy-variance self-consistency, and a manually curated finite-size scaling for the critical boundary $s_c \approx 0.42$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the quantum many-body scars of the long-range transverse-field Ising model are computable as first-order dressed symmetric states in a $3(N-1)$-dimensional space, so scar spectroscopy and scar dynamics no longer require full diagonalization for large $N$.
  • The ground-state and dynamical phase transitions survive in the truncated dynamics and converge to the mean-field critical points $s_{\rm GQPT} = 1/2$ and $s_{\rm DQPT} = 2/3$, which lets the phase diagram of the long-range model be studied at sizes where exact methods are impossible.
  • Because the approximation can be validated internally through the energy variance $\Delta E$ of its perturbed eigenstates, the paper implies that one can certify the QMBS regime without ever building the full exponential Hilbert space.
  • The method extends beyond power-law Ising interactions to any finite set of operators that break permutation symmetry: lattice geometry enters only through the localizing function, so two- and three-dimensional lattices are not special obstructions.
  • The breakdown of the scars is tied to unstable fixed points and the separatrix of the mean-field phase space rather than to global chaos, implying that QMBS collapse can be predicted from the classical energy landscape of the symmetric limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the first-order leakage bound holds, a natural extension is an adaptive distillation that adds one irrep at a time as leaked population grows; the energy-variance test already gives a concrete stopping criterion, so this could turn IRD into a systematically improvable Krylov-type method.
  • The major/minor two-body picture suggests that the entanglement structure of long-range scars is hidden in nonlocal degrees of freedom; measuring the two-body entropy $S_{TB}$ rather than a fixed spatial bipartition could give a sharper experimental signature of scarring in systems where local partitions saturate.
  • Since IRD retains a genuine Hilbert-space structure for non-Gaussian and nonpolarized states, it is a plausible integration engine for optimal control of collective states in Rydberg or trapped-ion platforms; the paper's own outlook points this way, and the inference is that scar-protected control should inherit the linear-cost speedup.
  • The claim that scar breakdown is endemic rather than exceptional in parameter space, contrary to the resonance-based picture, suggests that other mechanisms for QMBS collapse such as KAM-type chaos may be secondary to phase-space separatrix crossings; testing this on other long-range models with different classical limits would be a direct check.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'irrep distillation' (IRD), a truncation scheme for N-spin Hamiltonians with weakly broken permutation symmetry, exemplified by the long-range transverse-field Ising model of Eq. (1). The Hilbert space is decomposed into SU(2) irreps; the authors select, within the degenerate manifolds J=N/2-1 and J=N/2-2, the 'distilled' irreps that maximize coupling to the symmetric subspace (Eqs. 27-28). The Hamiltonian is truncated to H_D = H_{N/2} ⊕ H_{N/2-1,1} ⊕ H_{N/2-2,1} (Eq. 31), of dimension 3(N-1), argued to reproduce first-order perturbation theory around the LMG limit. The paper benchmarks this approximation against exact spectra at N=12 (Fig. 5), applies a self-consistency diagnostic ΔE_max at N up to 512 (Fig. 6), extracts a QMBS breakdown boundary s_c ≈ 0.42 by manually curated finite-size scaling (Appendix B), shows that GQPT and DQPT order parameters converge to analytic LMG results for N up to 1024 (Fig. 7), and gives a two-body tensor-product interpretation of H_D (Sec. IV.B).

Significance. If the large-N validity of the truncation can be established, IRD would be a significant methodological contribution: it provides a linear-cost, controlled-approximation framework for simulating long-range spin dynamics with collective observables, non-Gaussian states, and quantum many-body scars, where existing methods (spin-wave theory, MPS, DTWA) have known limitations. The analytical construction of the distilled irreps and the orthogonality relations (Eqs. 14-16, 29-30) are elegant, and the two-body mapping (Eqs. 38-39) offers a new structural perspective. The paper also makes explicit falsifiable predictions about the QMBS regime, including the boundary s_c ≈ 0.42, and the DQPT order parameter reproduces known thermodynamic behavior. However, as detailed below, the main large-N QMBS claim currently rests on a self-consistency measure that cannot detect leakage into discarded sectors.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (34), Figs. 5-6] The central claim that the distilled Hamiltonian reproduces QMBS with near-unit fidelity up to N=1024 is not directly supported for N>12. The only direct fidelity benchmark is Fig. 5, at N=12. For larger N the paper relies on the energy-uncertainty diagnostic ΔE_max of Eq. (34), but this quantity is computed with H_D alone; it measures how close the perturbed states are to eigenstates of the truncated H_D, not whether population leaks into the discarded sectors (J≤N/2-3 and the non-distilled copies of J=N/2-1, N/2-2). Small ΔE_max is therefore compatible with large second-order leakage via processes mediated by P H Q (E - Q H Q)^{-1} Q H P. The paper should either supply a quantitative a posteriori bound on the discarded sectors (e.g., from second-order perturbation theory) or benchmark fidelity and Loschmidt echoes against symmetry-reduced exact diagonalization at larger N.
  2. [Appendix B, Figs. 12-14] The claimed QMBS breakdown boundary s_c ≈ 0.42 is based on a 'manually curated' finite-size scaling analysis of local minima of ΔE_max. The curation procedure is not a well-defined algorithm, so the extracted values sc≈0.42, ν≈2, ζ≈0.2 cannot be assessed for reproducibility or bias. Moreover, since the input ΔE_max suffers from the same limitation identified above, the boundary is not a direct test of the truncation's validity. The authors should either replace this with an automated, reproducible scaling procedure applied to a direct fidelity or leakage measure, or clearly label the s_c estimate as preliminary.
  3. [V (Conclusion) and III.B, Fig. 12] The manuscript's disagreement with Ref. [9] on whether QMBS breakdown occurs at exceptional parameter values or is endemic (Conclusion, paragraph 3) is supported by the oscillations in ΔE_max shown in Fig. 12. Because ΔE_max does not directly measure the hybridization of exact eigenstates with discarded irreps, this evidence does not establish the claim. A direct measure, such as the overlap of exact eigenstates with H_D or the participation ratio in the discarded sectors at moderate N, is needed to support the disagreement with prior work.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II.C, near Eq. (21)] There is a typo: 'repesentation' should be 'representation'.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The notation '⊕ 1k' and '⊕ (1j, 1k)' is used without definition; please explain that these denote flipping the spin at the indicated sites.
  3. [III.C, after Fig. 7] The statement 'the distilled QPTs' behavior are largely constant across α for a given N' is made without supporting data; please provide a quantitative statement or a supplementary figure showing the α-dependence.
  4. [III.B, after Eq. (34)] The clause 'when ΔE reaches a significant fraction of the inter-scar level spacing' would benefit from a concrete threshold or a reference to a quantitative criterion.
  5. [Appendix B, first paragraph] The phrase 'manually curated' should be replaced by a reproducible selection criterion for the local minima used in the scaling analysis.
  6. [IV.B, Eqs. (38)-(39)] The definitions of the 'major' and 'minor' subsystems would be clearer if introduced immediately before these equations rather than after them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distilled-truncation predictions are benchmarked against exact eigenstates, analytic phase-transition limits, and external QMBS theory rather than derived from the method's own outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The distilled irreps are chosen by maximizing the interaction-kernel overlap in Eqs. (25)-(28), and Eqs. (29)-(30) are algebraic consequences of orthogonality of the computational amplitudes, not assumed couplings. The first-order perturbed states in Eqs. (32)-(33) use matrix elements of the actual perturbation; the truncation does not change these because only the distilled irreps have nonzero direct coupling to the symmetric subspace. The central numerical claims are external benchmarks: ensemble-average fidelity F in Fig. 5 compares H_D eigenstates to exact eigenstates at N=12, and the GQPT/DQPT curves in Fig. 7 approach the analytic LMG thermodynamic limits rather than any fitted curve. The only fitted quantity is the finite-size scaling of the internal energy-variance metric ΔE_max in Appendix B (s_c≈0.42, ν≈2, ζ≈0.2), which the paper explicitly labels a self-consistency test and whose relation to exact QMBS breakdown it leaves to future work; this is an extrapolation-evidence concern, not a circular reduction. Citations to the authors' prior work ([35]) supply standard analytic phase-transition results and are not load-bearing. I therefore find no step in which a predicted quantity is equivalent by construction to an input or to a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on standard SU(2) representation theory plus two domain assumptions: that the distilled amplitudes satisfy the orthonormality constraints, and that first-order truncation is sufficient. No new physical entities are introduced; the major/minor-spin decomposition is a derived mathematical regrouping of the truncated Hilbert space.

free parameters (2)
  • s_c (QMBS breakdown critical point) = ~0.42 in the thermodynamic limit
    Obtained by manual finite-size scaling of the manually selected local-minimum envelope of Delta E_max (Appendix B). It is a fitted output used to state the method's validity bound, not an input.
  • FSSA exponents nu and zeta = nu ~ 2, zeta ~ 0.2
    Manually fitted in Appendix B; no uncertainty estimates are provided.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The N-spin Hilbert space decomposes into SU(2) irreps with degeneracies d_N(J) (Eq. 7), and the Hamiltonian can be expressed through generalized spherical tensor operators obeying the selection rule |J - J'| <= 2.
    Invoked in Secs. II B and II C; relies on standard angular momentum theory and the Wigner-Eckart theorem.
  • domain assumption The distilled computational amplitudes in Eqs. (27) and (28) form valid orthonormal basis states satisfying constraints (14)-(16).
    The paper states the amplitudes are made to satisfy these relations but does not prove them in detail; the exact decoupling of non-distilled irreps in Eqs. (29)-(30) rests on this.
  • domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in V = H - H_LMG is sufficient for the dressed symmetric eigenstates (Eqs. 32-33).
    This is the core truncation assumption behind H_D in Eq. (31); the paper benchmarks it numerically but provides no a priori error bound.
  • domain assumption The finite-size scaling form Delta E_max = N^{zeta/nu} f(N^{1/nu}(s - s_c)) applies to the manually curated envelope of local minima of Delta E_max.
    Appendix B assumes this scaling form and applies it to a hand-selected subset of the data; the fit yields s_c approx 0.42, nu approx 2, zeta approx 0.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-Range Interacting Many-Body Systems in the Irrep Basis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZ5RBXVY

@misc{pith2026250502997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-Range Interacting Many-Body Systems in the Irrep Basis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZ5RBXVY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02997}
}
abstract

Spin models featuring infinite-range, homogeneous all-to-all interactions can be efficiently described due to the existence of a symmetry-restricted Hilbert subspace and an underlying classical phase space structure. However, when the permutation invariance of the system is weakly broken, such as by long- but finite-range interactions, these tools become mathematically invalid. Here we propose to approximately describe these scenarios by considering additional many-body subspaces according to the hierarchy of their coupling to the symmetric subspace, defined by leveraging the structure of irreducible representations (irreps) of the group $SU(2)$. We put forward a procedure, dubbed "irrep distillation," which defines these additional subspaces to minimize their dimension at each order of approximation. We discuss the validity of our method in connection with the occurrence of quantum many-body scars, benchmark its utility by analyzing the dynamical and equilibrium phase transitions, outline its phenomenology, and compare its use-cases against other approximations of long-range many-body systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The energy function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Illustration of magnitudes of the amplitude on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Eigenstate properties of the exact Hamiltonian, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: depicts the growth of energy variance in the perturbed eigenstates as (s, α) increase. The sharp in￾0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ® 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 s (a) ¢E 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 ® 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 s (b) ¢Emax 0.5 1.0 1.5 FIG. 6. Energy uncertain…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a in blue. The GQPT’s ferromagnetic phase re￾sults from two-fold degeneracy in the ground-state, cor￾responding to the aforementioned pitchfork bifurcation in the classical energy function E(s; θ, ϕ). In the para￾magnetic phase, the ground state is spin-flip symmetric,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time-averaged SCS Loschmidt echoes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dimensionless collective observable of distilled evo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Entanglement entropies from partial traces over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The maximum energy variance of distilled eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: a, and curated to exclude oscillatory regimes out￾side the transition of interest. To find the critical point of this phase transi￾tion, we employ FSSA, which assumes there to be some smooth scale-dependent function f (N) , such that ∆Emax = f (N) (s). Without determi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Russomanno, M

    A. Russomanno, M. Fava, and M. Heyl, Quantum chaos and ensemble inequivalence of quantum long-range ising chains, Phys. Rev. B 104, 094309 (2021)

    2021

  2. [1]

    Lipkin, N

    H. Lipkin, N. Meshkov, and A. Glick, Validity of many- body approximation methods for a solvable model: (i). exact solutions and perturbation theory, Nuclear Physics 62, 188 (1965)

    1965

  3. [2]

    rotor-magnon

    Conse- quently, they take high spin-numbers ⟨J⟩ ≳ N−1 2 , cal- culated as the expectation of P J,uJ⟨ˆΠJ,u⟩, high overlap with spin-coherent states|⟨nQMBS|θ,ϕ⟩| 2≫ 0, and low entanglement entropy. The QMBS are the top ⟨J⟩-row of exact eigenstates in Fig. 4(a-b), and for every scar state there is a corresponding approximate scar state in the eigensystem of ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    distilled

    Below, the energy function on the sphere, show- ing the split of the single-well potential into two wells an cor- responding mean-field paramagnetic/ferromagnetic phases. kinematic property of the LMG’s eigensystem. An or- der parameter for dynamical quantum phase transition (DQPT) corresponds to the long time-averaged of the Z-polarization,⟨Jz(t)⟩ after ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    irreducible representation distillation

    This partition groups together the sets of maximum co¨ operation so that theN− 2 spin-halves are approxi- mately represented by a single spin-N 2−1 major particle, while the remaining 2 spin-halves are approximated by a spin-1 minor particle. The major and minor particles are nonlocal degrees of freedom, in contrast to the local spin-degrees of free- dom ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact solution for an n- molecule—radiation-field hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  7. [6]

    Turner, A

    C. Turner, A. Michailidis, D. Abanin, et al., Weak ergod- icity breaking from quantum many-body scars., Nature Phys. 14, 745 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    A. N. Ivanov and O. I. Motrunich, Volume-entangled ex- act eigenstates in the pxp and related models in any di- mension, arXiv:2403.05515 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Ising, Contribution to the theory of ferromagnetism, Z

    E. Ising, Contribution to the theory of ferromagnetism, Z. Phys. 31, 253 (1925)

    1925

  2. [10]

    H. Kim, T. N. Ikeda, and D. A. Huse, Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothe- sis, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052105 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Mattes, I

    R. Mattes, I. Lesanovsky, and F. Carollo, Long-range in- teracting systems are locally noninteracting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 070402 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Lerose, T

    A. Lerose, T. Parolini, R. Fazio, D. A. Abanin, and S. Pappalardi, Theory of robust quantum many-body scars in long-range interacting systems, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011020 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

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

    2018

  6. [14]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum many- body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Phys. 17, 675–685 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Kac and C

    M. Kac and C. J. Thompson, Critical behavior of sev- eral lattice models with long-range interaction, J. Math. Phys. 10, 1373 (1969)

    1969

  8. [16]

    Porras and J

    D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Effective quantum spin systems with trapped ions, Physical review letters 92, 207901 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Labuhn, D

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single rydberg atoms for realizing quantum ising models, Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Schachenmayer, B

    J. Schachenmayer, B. Lanyon, C. Roos, and A. Daley, Entanglement growth in quench dynamics with variable range interactions, Physical Review X 3, 031015 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Non-local propagation of correlations in quantum systems with long-range interactions, Nature 511, 198 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. Hess, et al. , Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Pappalardi, A

    S. Pappalardi, A. Russomanno, B. ˇZunkoviˇ c, F. Iemini, A. Silva, and R. Fazio, Scrambling and entanglement spreading in long-range spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134303 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    ˇZunkoviˇ c, M

    B. ˇZunkoviˇ c, M. Heyl, M. Knap, and A. Silva, Dynamical quantum phase transitions in spin chains with long-range interactions: Merging different concepts of nonequilib- rium criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 130601 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Defenu, A

    N. Defenu, A. Lerose, and S. Pappalardi, Out-of- equilibrium dynamics of quantum many-body systems with long-range interactions, Physics Reports 1074, 1 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, I. H. Deutsch, and P. M. Poggi, Phase-space geometry and optimal state preparation in quantum metrology with collective spins, PRX Quantum 4, 020314 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    M. Heyl, F. Pollmann, and B. D´ ora, Detecting equilib- rium and dynamical quantum phase transitions in ising chains via out-of-time-ordered correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 016801 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Khasseh, A

    R. Khasseh, A. Russomanno, M. Schmitt, M. Heyl, and R. Fazio, Discrete truncated wigner approach to dynam- ical phase transitions in ising models after a quantum quench, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014303 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    M. H. Mu˜ noz Arias, I. H. Deutsch, P. S. Jessen, and P. M. Poggi, Simulation of the complex dynamics of mean-field p-spin models using measurement-based quantum feed- back control, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022610 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Mitra, T

    A. Mitra, T. Albash, P. D. Blocher, J. Takahashi, A. Miyake, G. W. Biedermann, and I. H. Deutsch, Macrostates vs. microstates in the classical simulation of critical phenomena in quench dynamics of 1d ising mod- els, arXiv:2310.08567 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K. R. Chinni, Reliability of quantum simulation on NISQ- era devices , Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Comparin, F

    T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, and T. Roscilde, Robust spin squeezing from the tower of states ofu(1)-symmetric spin hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022625 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Arrechi, E

    F. Arrechi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, Atomic coherent states in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 6, 2211 (1972)

    1972

  24. [32]

    Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys

    R. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  25. [33]

    Biedenharn and J

    L. Biedenharn and J. Louck, Encyclopedia of Mathe- matics and its Applications , 2nd ed., edited by G.-C. Rota, Vol. 8: Angular Momentum in Quantum Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1981)

    1981

  26. [34]

    Debergh and F

    N. Debergh and F. Stancu, On the exact solutions of the lipkin-meshkov-glick model, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 34, 3265 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Morita, H

    H. Morita, H. Ohnishi, J. da Providˆ encia, and S. Nishiyama, Exact solutions for the lmg model hamilto- nian based on the bethe ansatz, Nuclear Physics B 737, 17 337 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    A. B. Klimov and J. L. Romero, A generalized wigner function for quantum systems with the su(2) dynami- cal symmetry group, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 055303 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, and H. de Guise, Generalized su(2) covariant wigner functions and some of their appli- cations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical 50, 323001 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Chinni, P

    K. Chinni, P. M. Poggi, and I. H. Deutsch, Effect of chaos on the simulation of quantum critical phenomena in analog quantum simulators, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033145 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Lerose, B

    A. Lerose, B. ˇZunkoviˇ c, J. Marino, A. Gambassi, and A. Silva, Impact of nonequilibrium fluctuations on prethermal dynamical phase transitions in long-range interacting spin chains, Physical Review B 99, 045128 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Z. Li, A. Delmonte, X. Turkeshi, and R. Fazio, Monitored long-range interacting systems: spin-wave theory for quantum trajectories, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12124 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96–192 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96–192 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Many- body quantum spin dynamics with monte carlo trajec- tories on a discrete phase space, Physical Review X 5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimiza- tion with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    W. J. Eckner, N. Darkwah Oppong, A. Cao, A. W. Young, W. R. Milner, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, and A. M. Kaufman, Realizing spin squeezing with rydberg interac- tions in an optical clock, Nature 621, 734 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mez- zacapo, et al. , Scalable spin squeezing in a dipolar ryd- berg atom array, Nature 621, 728 (2023). Appendix A: Derivation of Hamiltonian T ensor W eights Here, we provid...

    2023

Pith tools

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