Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 95 references

Quantum information scrambling in strongly disordered Rydberg spin systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In strongly disordered quantum spin chains, power-law interactions such as those in Rydberg arrays produce algebraic light cones for information spreading, unlike the logarithmic light cones of nearest-neighbor models.

desk verdict Plausible physics claim underbuilt by finite-size scaling; the experimental protocol is the strongest part. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.19856 v2 pith:H2JDGWT7 submitted 2025-12-22 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gas

Maximilian Müllenbach , Sebastian Geier , Adrian Braemer , Eduard J. Braun , Titus Franz , Gerhard Zürn , Matthias Weidemüller , Martin Gärttner This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.quant-gas
keywords out-of-time-ordercorrelatorsmany-bodylocalizationoperatorspreadingpower-lawinteractionsRydbergatomarraysFloquetengineeringlightconesdisorderedspinchains
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 asks how quantum information spreads in strongly disordered spin chains when interactions decay as a power of distance, as they do in Rydberg arrays, rather than only between nearest neighbors. The authors compute out-of-time-order correlators (OTOCs) in a disordered Heisenberg XXZ model and find that dipolar (1/r^3) and van der Waals (1/r^6) interactions produce algebraic light cones, meaning the time for information to reach distance r grows as r^b, whereas the nearest-neighbor model shows the logarithmic light cones (t~e^r) characteristic of many-body localization. They trace the difference to the direct power-law couplings, which set a floor on how slowly any disorder realization can scramble, and they propose a Rydberg-tweezer protocol that can measure OTOCs in such systems with tunable anisotropy and programmable disorder.

What carries the argument

The central object is the out-of-time-order commutator C(r,t)=||[sigma_x^i(t), sigma_x^j]||_F^2, which measures the growth of a local operator under Heisenberg evolution. The load-bearing mechanism is the analytically solvable Ising model commutator C_I^x(r,t)=2-2cos(4 C_alpha t / r^alpha), which is independent of disorder; because power-law tails couple sites at distance r directly, every disorder realization must scramble at least as fast as this oscillating envelope, acting as a 'soft cutoff' that removes the arbitrarily slow realizations responsible for logarithmic light cones in the nearest-neighbor case. The paper also examines the distribution of C(r,t) over 5000 disorder realizations

What would settle it

Simulating the same XXZ model at alpha=3 and alpha=6 for N=14-20 and fitting the OTOC contour t~r^b would show whether b drifts toward exponential growth at larger N, or whether the distribution of C(r,t) develops a growing fraction of realizations slower than the Ising cutoff—either outcome would indicate the algebraic cone is not the thermodynamic-limit behaviour.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At strong disorder (h=14, N=13), the disorder-averaged OTOC commutator for a nearest-neighbor XXZ chain shows the established logarithmic light cone, while for dipolar interactions the same quantity spreads along power-law contours t ~ r^b with b approximately 1.48, and the difference persists for van der Waals interactions (alpha=6) when the disorder is strong enough. The paper argues this is not a small correction: the power-law tail provides an analytically known 'soft cutoff' — the Ising-type commutator C_I(r,t)=2-2cos(4 C_alpha t / r^alpha) — that bounds the slowest-growing disorder realizations, suppressing the very slow modes that produce logarithmic growth in the nearest-neighbor cas

Load-bearing premise

The numerical comparison is made at a single system size N=13 with 5000 disorder realizations and no finite-size scaling, so the algebraic light cones could be a finite-size artifact if power-law systems develop the slower logarithmic modes at larger distances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rydberg-atom experiments with strongly disordered Heisenberg chains should show measurably faster information spreading than the nearest-neighbor MBL prediction, visible in OTOC light cones.
  • Many-body localized systems with power-law interactions should not be treated as equivalent to nearest-neighbor MBL even for alpha=6: localization persists, but the slowest scrambling modes are bounded by the direct power-law coupling.
  • The proposed Floquet plus state-transfer protocol gives a concrete path to measuring OTOCs in Rydberg arrays; if implemented, it would directly test the predicted algebraic light cones.
  • Numerical studies that approximate power-law interactions as nearest-neighbor may miss qualitatively different scrambling behaviour in the strongly disordered regime, so comparisons to experiments must include the full tails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The algebraic light cone may be a finite-size phenomenon that crosses over to logarithmic growth at larger system sizes; the N=13 data cannot rule out the reappearance of slow modes at longer distances, so a finite-size scaling study (e.g., N=14-20 with Krylov or tensor-network methods) would be decisive.
  • The soft-cutoff mechanism suggests a general principle: any interaction term that directly couples distant sites, however weak, bounds the slowest operator growth and can destroy the logarithmic light cone of MBL; ultracold-atom experiments with even faint dipolar tails might see such an effect.
  • The state-sampling analysis implies that random product states, not just random bitstrings, are an efficient experimental proxy for infinite-temperature OTOCs, a practical guideline that could extend to other quantum simulator platforms.
  • The deviation should become more pronounced at larger distances because the cutoff timescale scales as r^alpha; one could design a diagnostic comparing C(r,t) to the nearest-neighbor result at fixed time to isolate the direct long-range contribution.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies information scrambling in a strongly disordered XXZ spin chain with power-law interactions. Using exact diagonalization and quantum typicality at system size N=13 with 5000 disorder realizations, it reports that disorder-averaged out-of-time-order commutators for dipolar (α=3) and van der Waals (α=6) interactions exhibit algebraic light cones t~r^β, whereas the nearest-neighbor model shows logarithmic light cones t~e^{β r} characteristic of many-body localization. The difference is attributed to a soft cutoff arising from the exactly solvable Ising part of the interaction. The second part proposes a Rydberg tweezer protocol combining Floquet engineering and state-transfer time reversal to measure OTOCs, and compares initial-state sampling strategies.

Significance. If the algebraic light cone result holds, it challenges the common view that power-law interactions with α≥3 are essentially nearest-neighbor in strongly disordered systems, with implications for MBL and long-range interacting quantum matter. The paper has notable strengths: 5000 disorder realizations, an explicit analytical comparison with the Ising model, and a concrete experimental protocol validated by numerical simulation of the Floquet sequence. However, the central claim currently rests on a single system size with no finite-size scaling, and the power-law coupling normalization is not specified, so the asymptotic distinction between algebraic and logarithmic growth is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B, Figs. 1–3] The central distinction between algebraic and logarithmic light cones is inferred from N=13 only. At this size, with i=3 and open boundary conditions, the number of usable distances for the contour fits is small (r>2, at most 7–8 points), and MBL finite-size effects are known to be severe. No finite-size scaling is provided for any disorder strength or α. Without such an analysis, the observed t~r^β behavior could be a finite-size transient before slower, logarithmic growth appears at larger N. This is load-bearing for the main claim. Please provide finite-size scaling for at least α=3 at h=14 and α=6 at h=14 and h=21, or explicitly state that the result is a finite-size observation rather than an asymptotic claim.
  2. [Sec. II B, Eq. (7), Fig. 2] The proposed mechanism treats the Ising solution C_I^x(r,t)=2−2cos(4C_α t/r^α) as a 'soft cutoff' limiting how slow operator growth can be. However, the paper does not establish that the full XXZ commutator is bounded below by the Ising contribution; the flip-flop terms could in principle interfere destructively and produce slower tails. The distribution analysis in Fig. 2 is suggestive but not a proof. This is a conceptual gap in the explanatory mechanism, though the numerical observation stands independently. Please either prove a bound (even a non-tight one) or present additional numerical evidence that the Ising term dominates the tail for the relevant disorder realizations.
  3. [Sec. II A, Eq. (2); Sec. II B] The power-law coupling scale C_α is never specified. In Eq. (2), J_ij=C_α/r^α, but the text does not state C_α or the reference J used to normalize the time axis Jt. This matters because the comparison at h=14 between power-law and nearest-neighbor models implicitly assumes the same energy scale; if C_α differs from the nearest-neighbor J, the effective disorder strength h/J differs between the two models. Please specify C_α (or state explicitly that it is set equal to the nearest-neighbor J) and discuss the sensitivity of the light-cone shapes to this normalization.
  4. [Sec. II B, text near 'β=1.478±0.041'] The paper itself notes that the fitted exponent β does not stand up to scrutiny because β/α varies with threshold θ and disorder h. This is an honest admission, but it weakens the quantitative claim of an algebraic light cone. The qualitative contrast with the nearest-neighbor exponential fit is visible, but the reader should be told clearly which parts of the claim are quantitative (the functional form) and which are only qualitative. A finite-size scaling of the threshold contours would help distinguish a true algebraic cone from a crossover.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption describes dashed lines as fits t_θ ∝ e^{β r} for vdW interactions, but the text claims algebraic light cones for α=6. This appears to be a typo for t_θ ∝ r^β. Please correct.
  2. [Sec. III A] The acronym 'W AHUHA' should be 'WAHUHA' (Waugh-Huber-Haeberlen) in running text.
  3. [Sec. II A] The sentence distinguishing the Frobenius norm (average/typical modes) from the operator norm (fastest mode) is useful but could be expanded to clarify why the Frobenius norm is the relevant quantity for the light-cone comparison in this work.
  4. [Sec. III B] The conclusion that random bitstring states are more economical than random product states once N≳10 relies on the SEM proxy and implicit cost assumptions. Please state these assumptions explicitly (e.g., equal cost per prepared state and simultaneous readout).
  5. [Eq. (7)] The derivation of the Ising OTOC is compressed. Writing out the phase factors e^{±4J_ij t} explicitly would help readers see that this is an Ising-model result, not the full XXZ commutator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the algebraic-light-cone finding is a numerical observation, the Ising cutoff is an exact analytic comparison, and the self-citations are independent experimental demonstrations.

full rationale

The central numerical claim is not derived from an input that already contains it: the algebraic light cones are extracted directly from disorder-averaged exact-diagonalization/typicality simulations of the XXZ Hamiltonian (Eq. 2), and no fitted parameter is then renamed as a prediction. The authors explicitly qualify the fit: 'this suggested scaling does not stand up to scrutiny as beta/alpha varies with threshold theta and disorder strength h', so the non-universal exponent is not used as a forced output. The soft-cutoff mechanism is based on the exact Ising OTOC C_I^x(r,t)=2-2cos(4 C_alpha t/r^alpha), which is derived from the commuting Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) and is independent of the numerical data; even if the implied inequality is not rigorously proven, that is a correctness/finite-size concern rather than circularity. Self-citations to the group's prior work (e.g., Geier et al. 2024, Franz et al. 2024) enter only as experimentally demonstrated techniques for the measurement protocol and are external, falsifiable evidence, not load-bearing self-support. The main limitations - single system size N=13, absence of finite-size scaling, and unspecified C_alpha normalization - are empirical robustness issues, not definitional reductions of the claimed result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a single system size, hand-chosen disorder strengths, an unproven soft-cutoff assumption, and an unspecified power-law normalization; the experimental proposal relies on standard but non-trivial Rydberg/Floquet assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Disorder strength h = 14 (α=3, α=6); 21 (additional α=6)
    Chosen by hand to probe the strongly disordered regime; the NN-vs-power-law distinction and the exponent β vary with h.
  • Contour threshold θ = 0.25, 0.5, 1 (α=3); 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 (α=6)
    Analysis parameter defining light-cone time t_θ; the fitted exponent β depends on θ, so the algebraic-scaling claim is not threshold-independent.
  • Power-law coupling scale C_α (or reference J) = not specified in text
    Plots use normalized time Jt but the text never states the value of C_α or the reference J for power-law runs; light-cone shapes depend on C_α relative to h.
  • System size N = 13 (all main OTOC results)
    Largest size accessible to the exact-diagonalization method used; no finite-size scaling is shown, so algebraic light cones could be a finite-N effect.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The random-field XXZ chain at h=14 lies in the MBL phase for nearest-neighbor interactions, with logarithmic light cones.
    Baseline for the NN-vs-power-law comparison (Sec. II B, Fig. 1a); taken from Refs. [16,62-65]. If this assumption fails at N=13, the comparison is weakened.
  • standard math Quantum typicality: the infinite-temperature trace is well approximated by an average over 10 Haar-random states, with error exponentially small in N.
    Used in Sec. II A to replace the trace with random-state expectation values; standard concentration-of-measure result.
  • domain assumption The Ising expression C^I_x(r,t)=2-2cos(4C_αt/r^α) is a disorder-independent soft cutoff that bounds how slow operator growth can be in the power-law XXZ model.
    Central explanatory mechanism in Sec. II B; argued from the distribution of C_x (Fig. 2), not derived for the full XXZ dynamics.
  • domain assumption State transfer between Rydberg S/P states changes the dipolar coefficient C_3 to -kC_3 while preserving the spin-1/2 encoding and allows the disorder potential to be rescaled to -k h_i.
    Underpins the time-reversal protocol in Sec. III A; relies on Rydberg atomic physics and prior demonstrations [72].
  • domain assumption The modified reflection-symmetric Floquet sequence implements the desired XXZ Hamiltonian with the same J⊥, J∥ as WAHUHA and with vanishing net x/y fields, to first order.
    Derived by toggling-frame arguments in Sec. III A and verified numerically for one disorder realization in Fig. 4d; assumes Floquet-Magnus convergence at t_c=0.1 J^-1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum information scrambling in strongly disordered Rydberg spin systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2JDGWT7

@misc{pith2026251219856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum information scrambling in strongly disordered Rydberg spin systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2JDGWT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19856}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the fact that power-law interactions occur in a plethora of physical systems, their many-body dynamics is far less understood than that of nearest-neighbor interacting systems. Here, we study information scrambling in strongly disordered spin systems with power-law interactions via out-of-time-order correlators (OTOCs). Numerically, we find pronounced differences in the dynamical spreading of OTOCs between nearest-neighbor and power-law interacting systems. This deviation persists even for short-range interactions, opposing the common view that these interactions produce dynamics equivalent to the nearest-neighbor case. In a detailed experimental proposal, tailored but not limited to Rydberg tweezer setups, we present a protocol to extract OTOCs in XXZ Heisenberg spin systems with tunable anisotropy and programmable disorder based on currently available techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19856 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b) shows the ubiquitous Waugh-Huber￾Haeberlen (WAHUHA) sequence [76], previously used in [42, 72] to create XXZ and, as an extension, XYZ Hamil￾tonians by changing the delay between the y-pulses as an additional degree of freedom. Given a desired anisotropy ∆ ∈ [0, 2] …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Although random product states converge faster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. Safavi-Naini, A. M. Kaufman, and A. M. Rey, Dynamics of quantum information, Nature Reviews Physics1, 627 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time- order correlators, Nature Physics14, 988 (2018)

    B. Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time- order correlators, Nature Physics14, 988 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Scrambling Dynamics and Out-of- Time-Ordered Correlators in Quantum Many-Body Sys- tems, PRX Quantum5, 010201 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  5. [5]

    D. J. Luitz and Y. Bar Lev, Information propagation in isolated quantum systems, Physical Review B96, 020406 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Nachtergaele and R

    B. Nachtergaele and R. Sims, Much Ado About Some- thing: Why Lieb-Robinson bounds are useful (2011), arXiv:1102.0835

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Cheneau, P

    M. Cheneau, P. Barmettler, D. Poletti, M. Endres, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, C. Gross, I. Bloch, C. Kollath, and S. Kuhr, Light-cone-like spreading of correlations in a quantum many-body system, Nature481, 484 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    C.-F. A. Chen, A. Lucas, and C. Yin, Speed limits and locality in many-body quantum dynamics, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 116001 (2023)

    2023

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    M. B. Hastings, Lieb-Schultz-Mattis in higher dimen- sions, Physical Review B69, 104431 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Bravyi, M

    S. Bravyi, M. B. Hastings, and F. Verstraete, Lieb- Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and 8 Topological Quantum Order, Physical Review Letters97, 050401 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    M. B. Hastings, An area law for one-dimensional quan- tum systems, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2007, P08024 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    M. B. Hastings and S. Michalakis, Quantization of Hall Conductance for Interacting Electrons on a Torus, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics334, 433 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    J. Haah, M. B. Hastings, R. Kothari, and G. H. Low, Quantum Algorithm for Simulating Real Time Evolution of Lattice Hamiltonians, SIAM Journal on Computing , FOCS18 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Z. Wang, M. Foss-Feig, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Bound- ing the finite-size error of quantum many-body dynam- ics simulations, Physical Review Research3, L032047 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of Diffusion in Certain Random Lattices, Physical Review109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  8. [16]

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

    2019

  9. [17]

    C. K. Burrell and T. J. Osborne, Bounds on the Speed of Information Propagation in Disordered Quantum Spin Chains, Physical Review Letters99, 167201 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    I. H. Kim, A. Chandran, and D. A. Abanin, Local inte- grals of motion and the logarithmic lightcone in many- body localized systems (2014), arXiv:1412.3073

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chen, Universal Logarithmic Scrambling in Many Body Localization (2016), arXiv:1608.02765

    Y. Chen, Universal Logarithmic Scrambling in Many Body Localization (2016), arXiv:1608.02765

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    X. Chen, T. Zhou, D. A. Huse, and E. Fradkin, Out-of- time-order correlations in many-body localized and ther- mal phases, Annalen der Physik529, 1600332 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Swingle and D

    B. Swingle and D. Chowdhury, Slow scrambling in disor- dered quantum systems, Physical Review B95, 060201 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    R. Fan, P. Zhang, H. Shen, and H. Zhai, Out-of-time- order correlation for many-body localization, Science Bulletin62, 707 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Huang, Y.-L

    Y. Huang, Y.-L. Zhang, and X. Chen, Out-of-time- ordered correlators in many-body localized systems, An- nalen der Physik529, 1600318 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    He and Z.-Y

    R.-Q. He and Z.-Y. Lu, Characterizing many-body local- ization by out-of-time-ordered correlation, Physical Re- view B95, 054201 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Bordia, F

    P. Bordia, F. Alet, and P. Hosur, Out-of-time-ordered measurements as a probe of quantum dynamics, Physical Review A97, 030103 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    J. Lee, D. Kim, and D.-H. Kim, Typical growth behav- ior of the out-of-time-ordered commutator in many-body localized systems, Physical Review B99, 184202 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Kim and D.-H

    M. Kim and D.-H. Kim, Slowest and fastest information scrambling in the strongly disordered XXZ model, Phys- ical Review B107, L220203 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Spectral Gap and Expo- nential Decay of Correlations, Communications in Math- ematical Physics265, 781 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. van den Worm, S. R. Manmana, and M. Kastner, Breakdown of Quasilocality in Long-Range Quantum Lattice Models, Physical Review Letters111, 260401 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Hauke and L

    P. Hauke and L. Tagliacozzo, Spread of Correlations in Long-Range Interacting Quantum Systems, Physical Re- view Letters111, 207202 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Damanik, M

    D. Damanik, M. Lemm, M. Lukic, and W. Yessen, New Anomalous Lieb-Robinson Bounds in Quasiperi- odic$XY$Chains, Physical Review Letters113, 127202 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Foss-Feig, Z.-X

    M. Foss-Feig, Z.-X. Gong, C. W. Clark, and A. V. Gor- shkov, Nearly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Inter- acting Quantum Systems, Physical Review Letters114, 157201 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Jurcevic, B

    P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, C. Hempel, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quasiparticle engineering and entanglement propagation in a quantum many-body sys- tem, Nature511, 202 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Chen and A

    C.-F. Chen and A. Lucas, Finite Speed of Quantum Scrambling with Long Range Interactions, Physical Re- view Letters123, 250605 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Kuwahara and K

    T. Kuwahara and K. Saito, Strictly Linear Light Cones in Long-Range Interacting Systems of Arbitrary Dimen- sions, Physical Review X10, 031010 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    M. C. Tran, C.-F. Chen, A. Ehrenberg, A. Y. Guo, A. Deshpande, Y. Hong, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Lucas, Hierarchy of Linear Light Cones with Long-Range Interactions, Physical Review X10, 031009 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    M. C. Tran, A. Y. Guo, C. L. Baldwin, A. Ehrenberg, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Lucas, Lieb-Robinson Light Cone for Power-Law Interactions, Physical Review Let- ters127, 160401 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    D. J. Luitz and Y. Bar Lev, Emergent locality in sys- tems with power-law interactions, Physical Review A99, 010105 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Colmenarez and D

    L. Colmenarez and D. J. Luitz, Lieb-Robinson bounds and out-of-time order correlators in a long-range spin chain, Physical Review Research2, 043047 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Geier, N

    S. Geier, N. Thaicharoen, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, A. Salzinger, A. Tebben, D. Grimshandl, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Floquet Hamiltonian engineering of an isolated many-body spin system, Science374, 1149 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Scholl, H

    P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barredo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier, A. Tebben, A. Salzinger, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lahaye, M. Weidem¨ uller, and A. Browaeys, Microwave Engineering of Programmable$XXZ$Hamiltonians in Arrays of Rydberg ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Steinert, P

    L.-M. Steinert, P. Osterholz, R. Eberhard, L. Festa, N. Lorenz, Z. Chen, A. Trautmann, and C. Gross, Spa- tially Tunable Spin Interactions in Neutral Atom Arrays, Physical Review Letters130, 243001 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Franz, S

    T. Franz, S. Geier, C. Hainaut, A. Braemer, N. Thaicharoen, M. Hornung, E. Braun, M. G¨ arttner, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Observation of anisotropy- independent magnetization dynamics in spatially disor- dered Heisenberg spin systems, Physical Review Research 6, 033131...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, F. Machado, S. Chern, L. Leclerc, B. G´ ely, Y. T. Chew, D. Barredo, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Enhancing a Many-Body Dipolar Rydberg Tweezer Array with Ar- bitrary Local Controls, Physical Review Letters132, 263601 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Vermersch, A

    B. Vermersch, A. Elben, L. M. Sieberer, N. Y. Yao, and P. Zoller, Probing Scrambling Using Statistical Correla- tions between Randomized Measurements, Physical Re- view X9, 021061 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    X. Nie, Z. Zhang, X. Zhao, T. Xin, D. Lu, and J. Li, Detecting scrambling via statistical correlations between randomized measurements on an NMR quantum simula- tor (2019), arXiv:1903.12237

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. K. Joshi, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, T. Brydges, C. Maier, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum Information Scrambling in a Trapped-Ion Quantum Sim- ulator with Tunable Range Interactions, Physical Review Letters124, 240505 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    G¨ arttner, J

    M. G¨ arttner, J. G. Bohnet, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Measuring out-of-time- order correlations and multiple quantum spectra in a trapped-ion quantum magnet, Nature Physics13, 781 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    K. X. Wei, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, Explor- ing Localization in Nuclear Spin Chains, Physical Review Letters120, 070501 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    K. X. Wei, P. Peng, O. Shtanko, I. Marvian, S. Lloyd, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, Emergent Prether- malization Signatures in Out-of-Time Ordered Correla- tions, Physical Review Letters123, 090605 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    C. M. S´ anchez, A. K. Chattah, K. X. Wei, L. Buljubasich, P. Cappellaro, and H. M. Pastawski, Perturbation Inde- pendent Decay of the Loschmidt Echo in a Many-Body System, Physical Review Letters124, 030601 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Nie, B.-B

    X. Nie, B.-B. Wei, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, X. Zhao, C. Qiu, Y. Tian, Y. Ji, T. Xin, D. Lu, and J. Li, Experimen- tal Observation of Equilibrium and Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions via Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators, Physical Review Letters124, 250601 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Pegahan, I

    S. Pegahan, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Energy- Resolved Information Scrambling in Energy-Space Lat- tices, Physical Review Letters126, 070601 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Mi et al., Information scrambling in quantum circuits, Science374, 1479 (2021)

    X. Mi et al., Information scrambling in quantum circuits, Science374, 1479 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Braum¨ uller, A

    J. Braum¨ uller, A. H. Karamlou, Y. Yanay, B. Kannan, D. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, Y. Sung, A. Veps¨ al¨ ainen, R. Winik, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gustavsson, C. Tahan, and W. D. Oliver, Probing quantum information propagation with out-of- time-...

    2022

  50. [58]

    S. K. Zhao, Z.-Y. Ge, Z. Xiang, G. M. Xue, H. S. Yan, Z. T. Wang, Z. Wang, H. K. Xu, F. F. Su, Z. H. Yang, H. Zhang, Y.-R. Zhang, X.-Y. Guo, K. Xu, Y. Tian, H. F. Yu, D. N. Zheng, H. Fan, and S. P. Zhao, Probing Operator Spreading via Floquet Engineering in a Super- conducting...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Xiang, Y.-W

    D.-S. Xiang, Y.-W. Zhang, H.-X. Liu, P. Zhou, D. Yuan, K. Zhang, S.-Y. Zhang, B. Xu, L. Liu, Y. Li, and L. Li, Observation of quantum information collapse-and-revival in a strongly-interacting Rydberg atom array (2024), arXiv:2410.15455

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Liang, Z

    X. Liang, Z. Yue, Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, Y. Lin, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Observation of Anomalous Information Scrambling in a Rydberg Atom Array, Physical Review Letters135, 050201 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    D. A. Abanin et al., Observation of constructive interfer- ence at the edge of quantum ergodicity, Nature646, 825 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, T

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, T. Prosen, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Many-body lo- calization in the Heisenberg$XXZ$magnet in a random field, Physical Review B77, 064426 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Pal and D

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

    2010

  56. [64]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Many-body local- ization edge in the random-field Heisenberg chain, Phys- ical Review B91, 081103 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    D. A. Abanin and Z. Papi´ c, Recent progress in many- body localization, Annalen der Physik529, 1700169 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Levy, L’addition des variables al´ eatoires d´ efinies sur une circonf´ erence, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France67, 1 (1939)

    P. Levy, L’addition des variables al´ eatoires d´ efinies sur une circonf´ erence, Bulletin de la Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France67, 1 (1939)

    1939

  59. [67]

    V. D. Milman and G. Schechtman,Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional Normed Spaces, 2nd ed., Lecture Notes in Mathematics No. 1200 (Springer, Berlin ; New York, 2001)

    2001

  60. [68]

    Heitmann, J

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

    2020

  61. [69]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quan- tum Science3, 023501 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Bluvstein and et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    D. Bluvstein and et al., Logical quantum processor based on reconfigurable atom arrays, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, W. G. Tobias, J. S. Higgins, and J. Ye, Tunable itinerant spin dynamics with polar molecules, Nature614, 70 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Geier, A

    S. Geier, A. Braemer, E. Braun, M. M¨ ullenbach, T. Franz, M. G¨ arttner, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Time-reversal in a dipolar quantum many-body spin sys- tem, Physical Review Research6, 033197 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    J. Choi, H. Zhou, H. S. Knowles, R. Landig, S. Choi, and M. D. Lukin, Robust Dynamic Hamiltonian Engi- neering of Many-Body Spin Systems, Physical Review X 10, 031002 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    N. U. Koyluoglu, N. Maskara, J. Feldmeier, and M. D. Lukin, Floquet Engineering of Interactions and Entan- glement in Periodically Driven Rydberg Chains, Physical Review Letters135, 113603 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    T. M. Graham and et al., Multi-qubit entanglement and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum computer, Nature 604, 457 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    J. S. Waugh, L. M. Huber, and U. Haeberlen, Approach to High-Resolution nmr in Solids, Physical Review Let- ters20, 180 (1968)

    1968

  69. [77]

    Saffman and T

    M. Saffman and T. G. Walker, Analysis of a quantum logic device based on dipole-dipole interactions of op- tically trapped Rydberg atoms, Physical Review A72, 022347 (2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    L. Li, Y. O. Dudin, and A. Kuzmich, Entanglement be- tween light and an optical atomic excitation, Nature498, 466 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    de L´ es´ eleuc, D

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Optical Control of the Resonant Dipole- 10 Dipole Interaction between Rydberg Atoms, Physical Re- view Letters119, 053202 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Technically, selective light shift addressing implements hi(ˆσz i + 1)/2, but the second term can be neglected as it only adds a global phase to the wavefunction

  73. [81]

    Mitarai and K

    K. Mitarai and K. Fujii, Methodology for replacing in- direct measurements with direct measurements, Physical Review Research1, 013006 (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    Swingle, G

    B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hay- den, Measuring the scrambling of quantum information, Physical Review A94, 040302 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    G. Zhu, M. Hafezi, and T. Grover, Measurement of many- body chaos using a quantum clock, Physical Review A 94, 062329 (2016)

    2016

  76. [84]

    Kastner, P

    M. Kastner, P. Osterholz, and C. Gross, Ancilla-free mea- surement of out-of-time-ordered correlation functions: General measurement protocol and Rydberg atom im- plementation, Physical Review A110, 013303 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    C. B. Da˘ g and L.-M. Duan, Detection of out-of-time- order correlators and information scrambling in cold atoms: Ladder-$\mathit{XX}$model, Physical Review A99, 052322 (2019)

    2019

  78. [86]

    We drop the restriction that spin jis in a ˆσz eigenstate to ease averaging over distances and enable the restriction to the largest symmetry sector

    For practical purposes, we generalize this class to fully random product states. We drop the restriction that spin jis in a ˆσz eigenstate to ease averaging over distances and enable the restriction to the largest symmetry sector. Our results remain valid since the performance...

  79. [87]

    T. J. Park and J. C. Light, Unitary quantum time evo- lution by iterative Lanczos reduction, The Journal of Chemical Physics85, 5870 (1986)

    1986

  80. [88]

    N. Y. Yao, C. R. Laumann, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, M. M¨ uller, E. A. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Many-Body Localization in Dipolar Systems, Physical Review Letters 113, 243002 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    Pino, Entanglement growth in many-body localized systems with long-range interactions, Physical Review B 90, 174204 (2014)

    M. Pino, Entanglement growth in many-body localized systems with long-range interactions, Physical Review B 90, 174204 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    A. L. Burin, Localization in a random XY model with long-range interactions: Intermediate case between single-particle and many-body problems, Physical Re- view B92, 104428 (2015)

    2015

  83. [91]

    De Tomasi, Algebraic many-body localization and its implications on information propagation, Physical Re- view B99, 054204 (2019)

    G. De Tomasi, Algebraic many-body localization and its implications on information propagation, Physical Re- view B99, 054204 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Safavi-Naini, M

    A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, O. L. Acevedo, A. M. Rey, and R. M. Nandkishore, Quantum dynamics of disor- dered spin chains with power-law interactions, Physical Review A99, 033610 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    X. Deng, G. Masella, G. Pupillo, and L. Santos, Univer- sal Algebraic Growth of Entanglement Entropy in Many- Body Localized Systems with Power-Law Interactions, Physical Review Letters125, 010401 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Donner, T. Macr ` ı, G. Pagano, S. Ruffo, and A. Trombettoni, Long-range interacting quantum systems, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V. B. Shah, Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing, SIAM Review59, 65 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.