Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Nonequilibrium steady state in Lindblad dynamics for infinite quantum spin systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A uniform condition-number bound makes thermodynamic and long-time limits commute for infinite open quantum spin systems.

desk verdict Solid operator-algebraic definition and sufficient condition for NESS/TANESS commutation, with an exact noncommutation example; the condition-number claim in §5.4 is under-supported but the counterexample itself stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07448 v1 pith:KE4NQY6Q submitted 2025-08-10 math-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elmath.MPquant-ph

Kenji Shimomura , Nagisa Hara , Seiichiro Kusuoka This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elmath.MPquant-ph MSC 82C1046L5581S22
keywords LindbladdynamicsquantumspinsystemsnonequilibriumsteadystatethermodynamiclimitconditionnumberspectralgapJordancanonicalformC*-algebra
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 when the steady state of an infinitely extended open quantum spin system can be computed by first solving finite subsystems and then taking the thermodynamic limit. It defines nonequilibrium steady states (NESS) and time-averaged NESS (TANESS) as cluster points of the infinite-system Lindblad dynamics, and shows the answer is controlled by more than spectral gaps. A sufficient condition is established: if the finite-system Liouvillians have uniform line/point gaps, a uniform exceptional gap for defective eigenvalues, and a uniform upper bound on the condition number of a map putting each normalized Liouvillian into Jordan form, then the thermodynamic and long-time limits commute for every initial state, and the infinite-system NESS/TANESS is unique. The condition number plays the decisive role: the paper exhibits a local model with uniform gaps in which this number grows exponentially with system size and the two limiting orders give different expectation values.

What carries the argument

The central object is the condition number $\kappa_\Lambda(V^\epsilon_\Lambda) = \|V^\epsilon_\Lambda\|\,\|(V^\epsilon_\Lambda)^{-1}\|$ of an invertible linear map $V^\epsilon_\Lambda$ that carries the normalized Liouvillian $(\Delta_{\rm ex}-\epsilon)^{-1}L_\Lambda$ into Jordan canonical form. This number quantifies how far each finite-system Liouvillian is from being normal, i.e., how strongly its defective (non-semisimple) eigenvalues deform the time evolution. Together with three spectral gaps — the line gap $\Delta_\Lambda$, the point gap $\Delta^p_\Lambda$, and the exceptional gap $\Delta^{\rm ex}_\Lambda$ — the uniform boundedness of $\kappa_\Lambda$ controls the prefactor in the fini

What would settle it

Construct a local Lindblad family satisfying Assumption 2 whose finite subsystems have uniform line/point gaps and a uniform exceptional gap, and exhibit Jordanizing maps $V^\epsilon_\Lambda$ with uniformly bounded condition numbers; if for some initial state the thermodynamic-then-long-time limit differs from the long-time-then-thermodynamic limit, Theorems 8 and 10 are false. Conversely, in the paper's example one only needs to verify the lower bound $\kappa_{\Lambda_n} \ge (1-\epsilon)^{-2n}/2$ and the noncommutation (expectation value $1/2$ versus $0$) to confirm that dropping the $\kappa$

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for a family of local Lindblad generators $L_\Lambda$ acting on finite subsystems of a quasi-local $C^*$-algebra, define the finite-system steady state by projecting onto the zero-eigenvalue spectral subspace $\Pi_\Lambda$. The main theorem states that, under the three uniform bounds, for any initial state $\omega$ the weak-$*$ limit over $\Lambda$ of $\omega \circ \Pi_\Lambda$ exists, is independent of the chosen subnet, and equals every NESS and TANESS of the infinite-system dynamics. The proof derives a $\Lambda$-independent exponential bound $|\omega \circ \gamma^\Lambda_t(A) - \omega \circ \Pi_\Lambda(A)| \le \kappa\|A\| e^{-\min\{\Delta,\epsilon\}t}$, obtained

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumptions (A2)/(B2): there is a single finite constant $\kappa$ such that every finite subsystem's Liouvillian can be put into Jordan form by a linear map with condition number at most $\kappa$; if this uniform bound fails, even perfectly uniform spectral gaps do not guarantee that the thermodynamic and long-time limits commute.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the uniform condition-number bound holds, finite-system NESS/TANESS data (the spectral projection $\Pi_\Lambda$) converge weak-$*$ to the unique infinite-system NESS/TANESS, so the infinite-system steady state can be computed algebraically from finite Liouvillians.
  • The convergence to the steady state is exponential with rate $\min\{\Delta,\epsilon\}$, uniformly in system size, making finite-cluster calculations quantitatively reliable whenever the sufficient condition is verified.
  • For diagonalizable Liouvillians, the line-gap assumption plus a uniform diagonalizer condition number suffices (Corollary 9); the exceptional-gap assumption is then automatic.
  • When the condition-number bound fails, uniform spectral gaps alone can still guarantee a well-defined infinite dynamics, yet the two orders of limits irreversibly change expectation values, as shown by the paper's example.
  • The result applies to every initial state, not only stationary or low-energy states, and yields uniqueness of the NESS/TANESS for that initial state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because $V^\epsilon_\Lambda$ is non-unique, the theorem is really about the best possible diagonalizing map; a model might satisfy the uniform condition-number assumption via an adapted Jordanization even when a naive basis has exponentially large $\kappa$, so the practical test is to search for a well-conditioned $V^\epsilon_\Lambda$ rather than to compute $\kappa$ in one fix
  • Editorial inference: the exponential lower bound $\kappa_{\Lambda_n} \ge (1-\epsilon)^{-2n}/2$ connects the growth of Jordan-block size to the breakdown of commutativity; one could test whether other driven dissipative chains with non-Hermitian skin-like sensitivity also have size-dependent condition numbers and hence ambiguous infinite-system steady states.
  • Editorial inference: for closed (unitary) dynamics the Liouvillian is normal, so the condition-number assumption holds automatically; the theorem thus contains, as a special case, the familiar statement that a uniformly gapped unitary dynamics has a unique thermodynamic-limit steady state.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Lindblad dynamics for quantum spin systems on infinite lattices. It defines NESS and TANESS as weak-* cluster points of long-time limits and long-time averages of an initial state evolved under the infinite-system dynamics, and observes that the thermodynamic limit and the long-time limit do not generally commute. The main results, Theorems 8 and 10, give sufficient conditions for commutativity: uniform finite-volume line/point spectral gaps, a uniform exceptional gap, and a uniform upper bound on the condition number of a Jordanizing map for the normalized Liouvillian. Under these assumptions the paper proves that the thermodynamic limit of finite-system NESS/TANESS exists, is independent of subnet choices, and equals the unique infinite-system NESS/TANESS for any initial state. The proof uses a finite-volume spectral projection and uniform exponential decay controlled by the spectral gaps and the condition number. The paper then constructs an explicit finite-range model on Γ=N for which the spectral gaps are uniformly nonvanishing (Δ=Δ_p=1/2, Δ_ex=1) but the two limits do not commute: for an explicitly chosen initial state, the infinite-system expectation of a local observable converges to 1/2 in the long-time limit, whereas the thermodynamic limit of finite-system long-time limits is 0. The noncommutation is established by exact computation, and the paper attributes the failure to the unboundedness of the condition number.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a useful operator-algebraic framework for NESSs of infinite Lindblad systems and a concrete, checkable sufficient condition for when finite-volume steady states converge to infinite-volume ones. The result is nonempty: it covers systems with finite-volume Liouvillians that are sufficiently close to normal, uniformly in the volume, and it sharpens the known fact that spectral gaps alone are insufficient. The example is valuable: it is exactly solvable, with explicit spectra, generalized eigenspaces, and a transparent noncommutation mechanism. A notable strength is that the main theorems are proved in detail and the crucial finite-volume estimates are written out; the example's expectation values are computed explicitly rather than argued heuristically. The paper also honestly acknowledges the non-uniqueness of the Jordanizing map after Theorem 8, although, as discussed below, Section 5.4 does not fully follow through on that acknowledgment.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.4 (concluding inequality before the final paragraph)] The direct verification that assumptions (A2)/(B2) fail is incomplete. The paper itself notes after Theorem 8 that V^ϵ_Λ is non-unique: replacing V^ϵ_Λ by A∘V^ϵ_Λ, where A commutes with the Jordan form, changes the condition number. Therefore the lower bound κ_{Λ_n}(V^ϵ_{Λ_n}) ≥ (1/2)(1−ϵ)^{2n−2} for the particular V^ϵ_{Λ_n} constructed in Eq. (38) does not prove that no Jordanizing map with uniformly bounded condition number exists. Since (A2)/(B2) are existential conditions, this is a genuine gap. The advertised conclusion is recoverable: the exact noncommutation in §5.2 (1/2 versus 0) together with Theorem 8 and Corollary 17 (uniform gaps) implies by contradiction that no uniformly bounded V^ϵ_Λ can exist. This argument should be stated explicitly in §5.4, and the text should distinguish the lower bound for the constructed V from the nonexistence of any bounded choice.
  2. [§4.3, proof of Theorem 8, estimate after Eq. (16)] In the non-semisimple case the displayed equation writes "e^{t Re λ_h} e^{(∆−ϵ)t∥N_h∥}" but the preceding line uses Re λ_h ≤ −∆ex_Λ ≤ −∆ex. The exponent should be ∆ex, not ∆; otherwise the inequality e^{t Re λ_h} e^{(∆−ϵ)t} ≤ e^{−ϵt} is not justified. The final e^{−ϵt} decay is correct once ∆ex is used, so this is a local typo, but it should be fixed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 6] The text says "a subnet of (t)_{t>0}" for the TANESS; it should be "a subnet of (T)_{T>0}" or, equivalently, of the net indexed by T.
  2. [Appendix A, Definition 19] Typo: "witten" should be "written".
  3. [Section 5.2, discussion after Eq. (24)] The notation for the initial state ω0 specifies expectations only on the operators D_{2j−1}, D_{2j}; it would help the reader to note that this extends to a genuine state (e.g., a product state with odd sites in |↑⟩ and even sites maximally mixed), since the subsequent computations use evaluation on combinations of the D_m.
  4. [Throughout] Several minor typos: "complex plain" (p. 10), "parpicular" (p. 16), "fields" formatting issues in equations. These do not affect the mathematics but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the main theorems are conditional proofs with explicit assumptions; the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Theorems 8 and 10 are genuine conditional statements: assumptions (A1)/(A2) and (B1)/(B2) are stated explicitly and used in the proofs, while the conclusions (commutation of thermodynamic and long-time limits, uniqueness of NESS/TANESS) are derived rather than assumed. In particular, the uniform bound κΛ(V^ϵ_Λ) ≤ κ is used directly to obtain the Λ-independent exponential decay e^{-min{Δ,ϵ}t} in the proof of Theorem 8; this is a normal use of an assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No quantity is calibrated to the target NESS values. The example is also self-contained: Section 5.2 computes exact time evolution and obtains an infinite-system NESS expectation 1/2 versus the finite-system long-time limit 0, and the failure of (A2)/(B2) is then forced by the contrapositive of Theorem 8 together with (A1), not by assuming the conclusion. Section 5.4's explicit lower bound κΛn(V^ϵ_Λn) ≥ (1/2)(1−ϵ)^{2n−2} is computed for the particular Jordanizer V^ϵ_Λn given by Eq. (38); because (A2) is existential over V, that lower bound alone would not by itself rule out a better choice, but the noncommutation result from Section 5.2 already establishes the failure, so this is at most a presentational incompleteness, not circularity. The self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing: [44] is an in-preparation follow-up paper, and [45] is cited only for background on non-Hermitian condition numbers and a standard choice of V; neither supplies the main theorem. The external citation [34] for the Lieb-Robinson bound and thermodynamic-limit existence is an independent result with explicit assumptions and is not used to smuggle in the paper's conclusions. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its input, and the derivation chain is self-contained; the score of 1 reflects only harmless self-citations, not circular reasoning.

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

The paper is purely mathematical. Its central claims rest on standard C*-algebraic facts, the locality assumptions that guarantee the thermodynamic limit, and the explicit hypotheses of Theorems 8 and 10. No data-fitting parameters or newly postulated physical entities appear.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2 (locality of Liouvillian) with the decay function F and exponential factor Fμ
    Invoked in Section 2.3 to apply the Lieb-Robinson theorem of [34] and obtain the infinite-lattice dynamics γ^Γ_t and the uniform convergence of γ^Λ_t over finite time intervals.
  • domain assumption Theorem 3 of Nachtergaele, Vershynina and Zagrebnov [34]: existence of the thermodynamic limit for Lindblad dynamics
    Used as a black box in Section 2.3 and in the proofs of Theorems 8 and 10 to justify the convergence γ^{Λ_μ}_t to γ^Γ_t uniformly on finite intervals.
  • standard math Weak-* compactness of the state space and standard net compactness (Banach-Alaoglu, Kelley Theorem 20)
    Used in Section 3 to ensure NESS and TANESS cluster points exist and in Section 4.3 to promote pointwise convergence to net convergence.
  • standard math For a finite-dimensional C*-algebra, unital completely positive maps have norm 1, and the spectral properties of Liouvillians in Lemma 11
    Used in Lemmas 11 and 12; these are standard facts for finite-dimensional matrix algebras and completely positive semigroups.
  • domain assumption The hypotheses (A1) plus (A2), or (B1) plus (B2), of Theorems 8 and 10
    These are the explicit sufficient conditions whose consequences the theorems establish. In the example they are shown to fail, with the failure of (A2) and (B2) following from the proven noncommutation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonequilibrium steady state in Lindblad dynamics for infinite quantum spin systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE4NQY6Q

@misc{pith2026250807448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonequilibrium steady state in Lindblad dynamics for infinite quantum spin systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE4NQY6Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07448}
}
abstract

We consider Lindblad dynamics of quantum spin systems on infinite lattices and define a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) and a time-averaged nonequilibrium steady state (TANESS) on the basis of $C^*$-algebraic formalism. Generically, the NESS on an infinite system does not equal the thermodynamic limit of NESSs on finite systems. We give a sufficient condition that they coincide with each other, in terms of both a condition number, which quantifies the normality of a Liouvillian, and some spectral gaps on finite subsystems. To appreciate the importance of the condition number, we provide an example in which the spectral gaps have nonzero lower bounds uniformly for any finite subsystems but a thermodynamic limit and a long-time limit (or a long-time average) do not commute with each other.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07448 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic figure for three kinds of gaps in Theorems 8 and 10: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Lieb-Robinson bounds and existence of the thermodynamic limit for a class of irreversible quantum dynamics

    B. Nachtergaele, A. Vershynina, and V. A. Zagrebnov. “Lieb-Robinson bounds and existence of the thermodynamic limit for a class of irreversible quantum dynamics”. In: AMS Contemporary Mathematics 552 (2011), pp. 161–175

    work page 2011

  2. [44]

    Shimomura

    K. Shimomura. in preparation

    work page

  3. [1]

    Valence bond ground states in isotropic quantum antiferromag- nets

    I. Affleck et al. “Valence bond ground states in isotropic quantum antiferromag- nets”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 115.3 (1988), pp. 477–528

    work page 1988

  4. [2]

    Attal, A

    S. Attal, A. Joye, and C. Pillet. Open Quantum Systems I: The Hamiltonian Approach. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [3]

    Attal, A

    S. Attal, A. Joye, and C. Pillet. Open Quantum Systems II: The Markovian Approach. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [4]

    Attal, A

    S. Attal, A. Joye, and C. Pillet. Open Quantum Systems III: Recent Develop- ments. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [5]

    Automorphic Equivalence within Gapped Phases of Quan- tum Lattice Systems

    S. Bachmann et al. “Automorphic Equivalence within Gapped Phases of Quan- tum Lattice Systems”. In:Communications in Mathematical Physics 309.3 (2012), pp. 835–871

    work page 2012

  8. [6]

    A Many-Body Index for Quantum Charge Transport

    S. Bachmann et al. “A Many-Body Index for Quantum Charge Transport”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 375.2 (2020), pp. 1249–1272

    work page 2020

Show all 49 references
  1. [7]

    Exclusion Processes with Degenerate Rates: Con- vergence to Equilibrium and Tagged Particle

    L. Bertini and C. Toninelli. “Exclusion Processes with Degenerate Rates: Con- vergence to Equilibrium and Tagged Particle”. In: Journal of Statistical Physics 117.3 (Nov. 2004), pp. 549–580

    2004

  2. [8]

    How and Why to Solve the Operator Equation AX − XB = Y

    R. Bhatia and P. Rosenthal. “How and Why to Solve the Operator Equation AX − XB = Y ”. In: Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 29.1 (Jan. 1997), pp. 1–21. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/blms/article-pdf/29/ 1/1/729672/29-1-1.pdf

    1997

  3. [9]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. Robinson. Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Me- chanics 1: C*- and W*-Algebras. Symmetry Groups. Decomposition of States . Springer, 1987

    1987

  4. [10]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. Robinson. Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Me- chanics 2: Equilibrium States. Models in Quantum Statistical Mechanics. Springer, 1997

    1997

  5. [11]

    Breuer and F

    H. Breuer and F. Petruccione. The Theory of Open Quantum Systems . Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  6. [12]

    A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equa- tion: transport in constrained open spin chains

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen. “A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equa- tion: transport in constrained open spin chains”. In: New Journal of Physics 14.7 (July 2012), p. 073007. 37

    2012

  7. [13]

    Completely positive dy- namical semigroups of N-level systems

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan. “Completely positive dy- namical semigroups of N-level systems”. In: Journal of Mathematical Physics 17.5 (May 1976), pp. 821–825. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / jmp / article-pdf/17/5/821/19090720/821\_1\_online.pdf

    1976

  8. [14]

    Spectral Gap and Exponential Decay of Corre- lations

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma. “Spectral Gap and Exponential Decay of Corre- lations”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 265.3 (2006), pp. 781– 804

    2006

  9. [15]

    Quantization of Hall Conductance for In- teracting Electrons on a Torus

    M. B. Hastings and S. Michalakis. “Quantization of Hall Conductance for In- teracting Electrons on a Torus”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 334.1 (2015), pp. 433–471

    2015

  10. [16]

    Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and stochastic Ising models

    R. Holley and D. Stroock. “Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and stochastic Ising models”. In: Journal of Statistical Physics 46.5 (Mar. 1987), pp. 1159–1194

    1987

  11. [17]

    On Entropy Production in Quantum Statistical Mechanics

    V. Jakˇ si´ c and C.-A. Pillet. “On Entropy Production in Quantum Statistical Mechanics”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 217.2 (Mar. 2001), pp. 285–293

    2001

  12. [18]

    Mathematical Theory of Non-Equilibrium Quan- tum Statistical Mechanics

    V. Jakˇ si´ c and C.-A. Pillet. “Mathematical Theory of Non-Equilibrium Quan- tum Statistical Mechanics”. In: Journal of Statistical Physics 108.5 (Sept. 2002), pp. 787–829

    2002

  13. [19]

    Non-Equilibrium Steady States of Finite¶Quantum Systems Coupled to Thermal Reservoirs

    V. Jakˇ si´ c and C.-A. Pillet. “Non-Equilibrium Steady States of Finite¶Quantum Systems Coupled to Thermal Reservoirs”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 226.1 (Mar. 2002), pp. 131–162

    2002

  14. [20]

    Local Noether theorem for quantum lattice sys- tems and topological invariants of gapped states

    A. Kapustin and N. Sopenko. “Local Noether theorem for quantum lattice sys- tems and topological invariants of gapped states”. In: JOURNAL OF MATHE- MATICAL PHYSICS 63.9 (2022)

    2022

  15. [21]

    Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing

    M. J. Kastoryano and K. Temme. “Quantum logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and rapid mixing”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics 54.5 (May 2013), p. 052202. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / jmp / article - pdf / doi / 10 . 1063 / 1 . 4804995/13369764/052202\_1\_online.pdf

    2013

  16. [22]

    T. Kato. Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators . Classics in Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995

    1995

  17. [23]

    Symmetry and Topology in Non-Hermitian Physics

    K. Kawabata et al. “Symmetry and Topology in Non-Hermitian Physics”. In: Phys. Rev. X 9 (4 Oct. 2019), p. 041015

    2019

  18. [24]

    J. Kelley. General Topology. University series in higher mathematics. Van Nos- trand, 1955

    1955

  19. [25]

    Levin and Y

    D. Levin and Y. Peres. Markov Chains and Mixing Times . MBK. American Mathematical Society, 2017

    2017

  20. [26]

    On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups

    G. Lindblad. “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups”. In: Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 48.2 (1976), pp. 119–130

    1976

  21. [27]

    Dissipative operators and cohomology of operator algebras

    G. Lindblad. “Dissipative operators and cohomology of operator algebras”. In: Letters in Mathematical Physics 1.3 (May 1976), pp. 219–224. 38

    1976

  22. [28]

    The Split Property and the Symmetry Breaking of the Quantum Spin Chain

    T. Matsui. “The Split Property and the Symmetry Breaking of the Quantum Spin Chain”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 218.2 (2001), pp. 393– 416

    2001

  23. [29]

    Boundedness of Entanglement Entropy and Split Property Of Quan- tum Spin Chains

    T. Matsui. “Boundedness of Entanglement Entropy and Split Property Of Quan- tum Spin Chains”. In: Reviews in Mathematical Physics 25.09 (2013), p. 1350017. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X13500177

    2013 doi

  24. [30]

    Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transi- tions

    F. Minganti et al. “Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transi- tions”. In: Phys. Rev. A 98 (4 2018), p. 042118

    2018

  25. [31]

    Naaijkens

    P. Naaijkens. Quantum Spin Systems on Infinite Lattices: A Concise Introduc- tion. Springer International Publishing, 2017

    2017

  26. [32]

    Quasi-locality bounds for quantum lattice systems. I. Lieb-Robinson bounds, quasi-local maps, and spectral flow automorphisms

    B. Nachtergaele, R. Sims, and A. Young. “Quasi-locality bounds for quantum lattice systems. I. Lieb-Robinson bounds, quasi-local maps, and spectral flow automorphisms”. In: JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS 60.6 (2019)

    2019

  27. [33]

    Quasi-Locality Bounds for Quantum Lattice Systems. Part II. Perturbations of Frustration-Free Spin Models with Gapped Ground States

    B. Nachtergaele, R. Sims, and A. Young. “Quasi-Locality Bounds for Quantum Lattice Systems. Part II. Perturbations of Frustration-Free Spin Models with Gapped Ground States”. In: Annales Henri Poincar´ e23.2 (2022), pp. 393–511

    2022

  28. [35]

    Topological enhancement of nonnormality in non-Hermitian skin effects

    Y. O. Nakai et al. “Topological enhancement of nonnormality in non-Hermitian skin effects”. In: Phys. Rev. B 109 (14 Apr. 2024), p. 144203

    2024

  29. [36]

    Classification of gapped ground state phases in quantum spin sys- tems

    Y. Ogata. “Classification of gapped ground state phases in quantum spin sys- tems”. In: International Congress of Mathematicians (Dec. 2023), pp. 4142– 4161

    2023

  30. [37]

    V. Paulsen. Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras. Cambridge Stud- ies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  31. [38]

    Prodan and H

    E. Prodan and H. Schulz-Baldes. Bulk and Boundary Invariants for Complex Topological Insulators: From K-Theory to Physics . Mathematical Physics Stud- ies. Springer International Publishing, 2016

    2016

  32. [39]

    Rivas and S

    ´A. Rivas and S. Huelga.Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction. SpringerBriefs in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  33. [40]

    On the operator equation $BX-XA=Q$

    M. Rosenblum. “On the operator equation $BX-XA=Q$”. In: Duke Mathemat- ical Journal 23 (1956), pp. 263–269

    1956

  34. [41]

    Natural Nonequilibrium States in Quantum Statistical Mechanics

    D. Ruelle. “Natural Nonequilibrium States in Quantum Statistical Mechanics”. In: Journal of Statistical Physics 98.1 (Jan. 2000), pp. 57–75

    2000

  35. [42]

    Entropy Production in Quantum Spin Systems

    D. Ruelle. “Entropy Production in Quantum Spin Systems”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 224.1 (Nov. 2001), pp. 3–16

    2001

  36. [43]

    Y. Saad. Numerical Methods for Large Eigenvalue Problems: Revised Edition . Classics in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathemat- ics, 2011. 39

    2011

  37. [45]

    General Criterion for Non-Hermitian Skin Effects and Application: Fock Space Skin Effects in Many-Body Systems

    K. Shimomura and M. Sato. “General Criterion for Non-Hermitian Skin Effects and Application: Fock Space Skin Effects in Many-Body Systems”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (13 Sept. 2024), p. 136502

    2024

  38. [46]

    Condition numbers and equilibration of matrices

    A. van der Sluis. “Condition numbers and equilibration of matrices”. In: Nu- merische Mathematik 14.1 (Dec. 1969), pp. 14–23

    1969

  39. [47]

    The logarithmic sobolev inequality for dis- crete spin systems on a lattice

    D. W. Stroock and B. Zegarlinski. “The logarithmic sobolev inequality for dis- crete spin systems on a lattice”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 149.1 (Sept. 1992), pp. 175–193

    1992

  40. [48]

    Trefethen and M

    L. Trefethen and M. Embree. Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Non- normal Matrices and Operators . Princeton University Press, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    S. Willard. General Topology. Addison-Wesley series in mathematics. Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1970. 40

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.