pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12296 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 🪐 quant-ph

Dynamical signatures of conventional and asymptotic quantum many-body scars on a trapped ion simulator

Leonard Logari\'c , John Goold , Shane Dooley This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum many-body scarsasymptotic scarsquantum simulationtrapped ionsFloquet dynamicsthermalizationergodicity violation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Asymptotic quantum many-body scars thermalize more slowly as system size increases in ion-trap experiments.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors link gapless excitations to asymptotic quantum many-body scars in qudit models. They then study a 2-local model where the asymptotic scars appear as gapless excitations above a ground-state localization transition. Using the all-to-all connectivity of the trapped-ion processor, they prepare these states in logarithmic circuit depth and evolve them with Floquet dynamics on up to 20 qubits. The simulations show thermalization times that lengthen with larger system size, supplying the first experimental indication that asymptotic scars grow more stable in bigger systems.

Core claim

In the chosen 2-local model that hosts both conventional and asymptotic scars, the asymptotic quantum many-body scars are gapless excitations of a localization transition. These states are prepared efficiently on the processor and, under Floquet driving, exhibit thermalization timescales that increase with qubit number up to N = 20.

What carries the argument

Asymptotic quantum many-body scars realized as gapless excitations of a ground-state localization transition, prepared via their structure in logarithmic-depth circuits on an all-to-all connected processor.

If this is right

  • Thermalization times for asymptotic scars grow with system size, allowing longer-lived nonthermal states in larger simulators.
  • Conventional and asymptotic scars can be told apart by whether their thermalization rate slows or stays constant with added particles.
  • Logarithmic-depth preparation makes these states accessible for scalable quantum simulation on all-to-all processors.
  • Model parameters can be tuned to favor asymptotic over conventional scar behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the size-dependent slowdown persists, asymptotic scars could provide a route to scalable long-lived states for quantum memory or simulation.
  • The connection to localization transitions implies similar scar behavior may exist in other models that host ground-state phase transitions.
  • Repeating the protocol on different hardware or with varied interaction ranges would test whether the observed trend is platform-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The prepared states accurately realize the theoretical asymptotic scars and the measured slowdown in thermalization is produced by the scar mechanism rather than noise or finite-size artifacts.

What would settle it

An experiment on the same model that finds thermalization time stopping its increase or beginning to decrease once qubit number exceeds 20 would falsify the asymptotic-scar interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12296 by John Goold, Leonard Logari\'c, Shane Dooley.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The Floquet brickwork circuit of our experiment in the Quantinuum H1-1 processor. (b) The probability amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. LEFT: Bipartite entanglement entropy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Gap between the first excited state and the ground state of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Level spacing statistics for the eigenstates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Half-system bipartite entanglement entropy of the eigenstates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Bipartite entanglement entropy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Results for the Hamiltonian with and without exponential degeneracy at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Results for the Floquet circuit model with and without exponential degeneracy at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

One of the promising applications of digital quantum processors is the simulation of many-body quantum systems. They have been already used to investigate several ergodicity violating mechanisms, which were initially discovered in synthetic quantum matter, such as many-body localisation, Hilbert space fragmentation and quantum many-body scars (QMBS). In addition to conventional QMBS, a recently discovered mechanism for ergodicity violation are the so-called asymptotic quantum many-body scars (AQMBS). These become more stable as system size is increased, leading to progressively longer thermalisation timescales. In this work, we show a connection between gapless excitations and AQMBS in certain qudit-based models. We then consider a 2-local model, hosting both conventional and asymptotic scars, in which the AQMBS states are gapless excitations of a ground state localisation transition. By exploiting the structure of the found AQMBS states and the all-to-all connectivity of the Quantinuum H1-1 quantum processor, we prepare these states in logarithmic circuit depth, and probe their thermalisation behaviour under Floquet dynamics. Performing simulations on up to N = 20 qubits and up to 418 entangling ZZ gates, we find slower thermalisation times as the system size is increased, providing the first experimental signatures of asymptotic scars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript establishes a theoretical link between gapless excitations and asymptotic quantum many-body scars (AQMBS) in certain qudit models, then experimentally implements a 2-local model containing both conventional QMBS and AQMBS on the Quantinuum H1-1 trapped-ion processor. Exploiting all-to-all connectivity, the authors prepare the AQMBS states in logarithmic circuit depth and evolve them under Floquet dynamics, reporting data for system sizes up to N=20 qubits using circuits with as many as 418 ZZ entangling gates. The central experimental result is an observed increase in thermalization timescales with growing N, presented as the first experimental signatures of the asymptotic scar mechanism.

Significance. If the size-dependent slowdown is shown to originate from the AQMBS subspace rather than finite-size effects or hardware noise, the result would be significant: it would furnish the first hardware demonstration of an ergodicity-violating mechanism whose stability improves with system size, and it would illustrate how all-to-all connectivity can be leveraged for efficient preparation of non-thermal states. The concrete resource counts (N=20, 418 gates) and the explicit connection drawn between AQMBS and a localization transition are also useful for guiding future digital quantum simulations of many-body scarring.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Experimental results] Abstract and experimental results section: the headline claim that thermalization slows with increasing N is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no direct comparison of the measured decay rates (or any other dynamical observable) against the ideal, noiseless Floquet evolution of the same 2-local Hamiltonian at each N. Without this benchmark it remains unclear whether the reported trend is produced by the gapless AQMBS excitations or by N-dependent accumulation of coherent and incoherent errors in the 418-gate circuits.
  2. [State preparation] State-preparation subsection: the attribution of the observed dynamics to AQMBS requires that the prepared states have high overlap with the theoretical asymptotic-scar subspace. No state fidelity, overlap, or post-selection metrics are reported for the N=20 instances; this omission prevents a quantitative assessment of whether the prepared states are faithful realizations of the gapless excitations of the localization transition rather than conventional scar remnants or other states.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion or supplementary material: the manuscript does not present a control experiment or numerical test in which the putative AQMBS subspace is deliberately suppressed (e.g., by a small perturbation that lifts the gapless modes) while keeping all other parameters fixed. Such a control would be necessary to isolate the asymptotic-scar mechanism from generic finite-size or 1/N corrections.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the sentence 'Performing simulations on up to N = 20 qubits' is potentially misleading because the work is performed on a physical quantum processor; rephrasing to 'Performing quantum simulations' or 'Executing circuits' would improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract] Notation: ensure that the abbreviation AQMBS is defined at first use and then used consistently; the abstract introduces both 'asymptotic quantum many-body scars (AQMBS)' and 'asymptotic scars' without subsequent standardization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and describe the revisions that will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Experimental results] Abstract and experimental results section: the headline claim that thermalization slows with increasing N is load-bearing, yet the manuscript provides no direct comparison of the measured decay rates (or any other dynamical observable) against the ideal, noiseless Floquet evolution of the same 2-local Hamiltonian at each N. Without this benchmark it remains unclear whether the reported trend is produced by the gapless AQMBS excitations or by N-dependent accumulation of coherent and incoherent errors in the 418-gate circuits.

    Authors: We agree that a direct benchmark against ideal, noiseless Floquet evolution is necessary to isolate the contribution of the AQMBS mechanism from hardware noise. In the revised manuscript we will add comparisons of the experimental decay rates and other dynamical observables to numerical simulations of the ideal 2-local Floquet dynamics at each system size. These ideal simulations will be presented alongside the experimental data in the results section and supplementary material. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [State preparation] State-preparation subsection: the attribution of the observed dynamics to AQMBS requires that the prepared states have high overlap with the theoretical asymptotic-scar subspace. No state fidelity, overlap, or post-selection metrics are reported for the N=20 instances; this omission prevents a quantitative assessment of whether the prepared states are faithful realizations of the gapless excitations of the localization transition rather than conventional scar remnants or other states.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative fidelity metrics are required for a rigorous attribution to the AQMBS subspace. For system sizes up to N=10 we have computed overlaps with the theoretical AQMBS states via exact diagonalization; these will be reported in the revised state-preparation subsection. For N=20 we will add an error-budget analysis based on the logarithmic-depth circuit and the known gate-error rates of the H1-1 processor, together with any available post-selection statistics from the experimental runs. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion or supplementary material: the manuscript does not present a control experiment or numerical test in which the putative AQMBS subspace is deliberately suppressed (e.g., by a small perturbation that lifts the gapless modes) while keeping all other parameters fixed. Such a control would be necessary to isolate the asymptotic-scar mechanism from generic finite-size or 1/N corrections.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit control isolating the gapless AQMBS modes is valuable. In the revised manuscript we will include numerical simulations in which a small perturbation is added to lift the gapless excitations while preserving the rest of the Hamiltonian; the resulting faster thermalization will be shown in the discussion section and supplementary material to demonstrate that the observed size-dependent slowdown is tied to the AQMBS subspace. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental signatures rest on direct measurements, not self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental study on the Quantinuum H1-1 processor. It prepares candidate AQMBS states in logarithmic depth using all-to-all connectivity and measures their Floquet evolution up to N=20 and 418 ZZ gates, reporting size-dependent slowdown in thermalization. The theoretical sections identify AQMBS as gapless excitations of a localization transition in a 2-local qudit model, but this identification is used only to motivate state preparation and does not generate any 'prediction' that is fitted to the same data or reduced by construction to the input ansatz. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claim, and the experimental observables (decay rates versus N) are independent of any internal fitting loop. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external hardware benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The work relies on prior theoretical definitions of QMBS and AQMBS and on the assumption that the chosen 2-local model hosts the predicted gapless AQMBS states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5530 in / 1201 out tokens · 66289 ms · 2026-05-10T15:22:43.962631+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For the|0⟩ ⊗N state the data forN= 20 is the same as already used forN= 8 and 12 (which were run in parallel), atT= 0

    work page

  2. [2]

    For the|1⟩ ⊗N state the data forN= 20 is the same as already used forN= 8 and 12 (which were run in parallel), atT= 0

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the|1⟩ ⊗ |0⟩ ⊗N−1 state we reused the data for allgvalues atT= 0. C. Classical Methods The results presented in the main text, obtained via classical methods, were computed either by exact brute force methods implemented in Python’s numpy library [45], for system sizes up toN= 12, whereas for greater system sizes, the Julia package ITensor was used [4...

    work page

  4. [4]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer, Ry- dberg atom quantum technologies, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics53, 012002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braum¨ uller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Superconducting qubits: Current state of play, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Foss-Feig, G

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation (2024), arXiv:2409.02990 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Ther- malization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theoretical overview, J. Phys. B51, 112001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    B. Fauseweh, Quantum many-body simulations on digi- tal quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future chal- lenges, Nature Communications15, 2123 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    L. E. Fischer, M. Leahy, A. Eddins, N. Keenan, D. Fer- racin, M. A. C. Rossi, Y. Kim, A. He, F. Pietracap- rina, B. Sokolov, S. Dooley, Z. Zimbor´ as, F. Tacchino, S. Maniscalco, J. Goold, G. Garc´ ıa-P´ erez, I. Tavernelli, A. Kandala, and S. N. Filippov, Dynamical simulations of many-body quantum chaos on a quantum computer, Nature Physics (2026)

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    Yan, Z.-Y

    Z. Yan, Z.-Y. Ge, R. Li, Y.-R. Zhang, F. Nori, and Y. Nakamura, Characterizing many-body dynamics with projected ensembles on a superconducting quantum pro- cessor (2025), arXiv:2506.21061 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nat. Phys.14, 745 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Dooley, Robust quantum sensing in strongly interact- ing systems with many-body scars, PRX Quantum2, 020330 (2021)

    S. Dooley, Robust quantum sensing in strongly interact- ing systems with many-body scars, PRX Quantum2, 020330 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 086501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 443 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Logari´ c, S

    L. Logari´ c, S. Dooley, S. Pappalardi, and J. Goold, Quan- tum many-body scars in dual-unitary circuits, Physical Review Letters132(2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 EP (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling quantum many- body dynamics in driven Rydberg atom arrays, Science 371, 1355 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, Observation of many-body scarring in a bose- hubbard quantum simulator, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023010 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    L. Zhao, P. R. Datla, W. Tian, M. M. Aliyu, and H. Loh, Observation of quantum thermalization restricted to hilbert space fragments and𭟋 2k scars, Phys. Rev. X15, 011035 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. De- saules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu, W. Ren, Y. Yao, X. Zhang, S. Xu, K. Wang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, B. Zhang, H. Li, C. Song, Z. Wang, F. Liu, Z. Papi´ c, L. Ying, H. Wang, and Y.-C. Lai, Many-body hilbert space scar- ring on a superconducting processor, Nature Physics19, 120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Gotta, S

    L. Gotta, S. Moudgalya, and L. Mazza, Asymptotic quantum many-body scars, Physical Review Letters131 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Kunimi, Y

    M. Kunimi, Y. Kato, and H. Katsura, Systematic con- struction of asymptotic quantum many-body scar states and their relation to supersymmetric quantum mechan- ics, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043107 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Gioia, S

    L. Gioia, S. Moudgalya, and O. I. Motrunich, Distinct types of parent hamiltonians for quantum states: Insights from thewstate as a quantum many-body scar (2026), arXiv:2510.24713 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Weak ergodicity breaking and quantum many-body scars in spin-1 magnets, Phys- ical Review Letters123(2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Chattopadhyay, H

    S. Chattopadhyay, H. Pichler, M. D. Lukin, and W. W. Ho, Quantum many-body scars from virtual entangled pairs, Physical Review B101(2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Dooley, S

    S. Dooley, S. Pappalardi, and J. Goold, Entanglement en- hanced metrology with quantum many-body scars, Phys. Rev. B107, 035123 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Dooley and G

    S. Dooley and G. Kells, Extreme many-body scarring in a quantum spin chain via weak dynamical constraints, Phys. Rev. B105, 155127 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    P. G. Larsen, A. E. B. Nielsen, A. Eckardt, and F. Pe- tiziol, Experimental protocol for observing single quan- tum many-body scars with transmon qubits, SciPost Phys.20, 036 (2026)

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Mori, Systematic construction of counterexamples to the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Physical Review Letters119(2017). 9

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Moudgalya, E

    S. Moudgalya, E. O’Brien, B. A. Bernevig, P. Fendley, and N. Regnault, Large classes of quantum scarred hamil- tonians from matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B102, 085120 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    P. G. Larsen and A. E. B. Nielsen, Phase transitions in quantum many-body scars, Physical Review Research6 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Symmetries as ground states of local superoperators: Hydrodynamic implica- tions, PRX Quantum5, 040330 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    [19?, 20], which provided alternative constructions of models host- ing AQMBS

    We note that the general theoretical framework of The- orem 2 complements the results of Refs. [19?, 20], which provided alternative constructions of models host- ing AQMBS

    work page

  34. [34]

    Mandelstam and I

    L. Mandelstam and I. Tamm, The uncertainty relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum me- chanics, J. Phys. (USSR)9, 249 (1945)

    work page 1945

  35. [35]

    Bachmann and B

    S. Bachmann and B. Nachtergaele, Product vacua with boundary states, Phys. Rev. B86, 035149 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Gapped and gapless phases of frustration-free spin-1/2 chains, Journal of Mathematical Physics56, 061902 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    quantinuum.com/(2025), october 3–8, 2025

    Quantinuum, Quantinuum H1-1,https://www. quantinuum.com/(2025), october 3–8, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    All rights reserved

    Quantinuum, Quantinuum system model h1 product data sheet,https://quantinuum.co.jp/assets/pdf/ system_model_h1_product_data_sheet.pdf(2023), ver- sion 5.20.©2023 by Quantinuum. All rights reserved

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Bachmann, E

    S. Bachmann, E. Hamza, B. Nachtergaele, and A. Young, Product vacua and boundary state models ind- dimensions, Journal of Statistical Physics160, 636 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Mohapatra, S

    S. Mohapatra, S. Moudgalya, and A. C. Balram, Unrav- eling additional quantum many-body scars of the spin-1 xymodel with fock-space cages and commutant algebras (2025), arXiv:2511.14878 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Direct fidelity estimation from few pauli measurements, Physical Review Letters 106(2011)

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing r´ enyi entanglement entropy via random- ized measurements, Science364, 260 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Fredkin Spin Chain

    O. Salberger and V. Korepin, Fredkin spin chain (2016), arXiv:1605.03842 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Movassagh and P

    R. Movassagh and P. W. Shor, Supercritical en- tanglement in local systems: Counterexample to the area law for quantum matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 13278 (2016), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1605716113

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1605716113 2016

  45. [45]

    Movassagh, The gap of fredkin quantum spin chain is polynomially small, Annals of Mathematical Sciences and Applications3, 531–562 (2018)

    R. Movassagh, The gap of fredkin quantum spin chain is polynomially small, Annals of Mathematical Sciences and Applications3, 531–562 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Superconductivity and the quantum hard-core dimer gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 2376 (1988)

    work page 1988

  47. [47]

    Feldmeier, Y.-J

    J. Feldmeier, Y.-J. Liu, M. D. Lukin, and S. Choi, Digital dissipative state preparation for frustration-free gapless quantum systems (2026), arXiv:2603.10119 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep- pard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Array ...

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    Dooley, G

    S. Dooley, G. Kells, H. Katsura, and T. C. Dorlas, Sim- ulating quantum circuits by adiabatic computation: Im- proved spectral gap bounds, Phys. Rev. A101, 042302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    van Horssen, E

    M. van Horssen, E. Levi, and J. P. Garrahan, Dynam- ics of many-body localization in a translation-invariant quantum glass model, Physical Review B92(2015)

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    Pancotti, G

    N. Pancotti, G. Giudice, J. I. Cirac, J. P. Garrahan, and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, Quantum east model: Localization, non- thermal eigenstates, and slow dynamics, Physical Review X10(2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Dynamical signatures of conventional and asymptotic quantum many-body scars on a trapped ion simulator

    P. Brighi and M. Ljubotina, Anomalous transport in the kinetically constrained quantum east-west model, Physi- cal Review B110(2024). 1 Supplementary Material for “Dynamical signatures of conventional and asymptotic quantum many-body scars on a trapped ion simulator”Leonard Logari´ c, John Goold, Shane Dooley V. PROOF OF THEOREM 2 A. Outline Consider a sy...

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    From now on, we will write the local generators in terms of Pauli matrices acting in the{|ψ (g)⟩,|11⟩}subspace: ˜σx =|ψ (g)⟩⟨11|+|11⟩⟨ψ (g)|,˜σy =i|ψ (g)⟩⟨11| −i|11⟩⟨ψ (g)|,˜σz =|ψ (g)⟩⟨ψ(g)| − |11⟩⟨11|, for brevity. Both symmetry subsectors exhibit level spacing statistics in accordance with the Gaussian unitary ensemble, for both sets of probed generato...

    work page