Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 62 references

Tripartite entanglement grows on t~L² timescale, far slower than bipartite

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-10 04:15 UTC pith:WXTQQXDA

load-bearing objection New dynamical hierarchy for tripartite entanglement: t~L^2 saturation and an ETF-based operational interpretation of the Markov gap the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08615 v1 pith:WXTQQXDA submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Operational meaning of Markov gap in tripartite entanglement of quantum dynamics

Zongsheng Zhou , Riqiang Zhang , Yu-Xiang Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords markovtripartiteentanglementdynamicaldynamicsirreducibleirtematrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper studies how irreducible tripartite entanglement (IrTE)—genuine three-party entanglement that cannot be reduced to pairwise correlations—builds up in free-fermion chains after a quantum quench. The authors use the Markov gap (the difference between reflected entropy and mutual information) as their probe of IrTE. They find that the Markov gap exhibits a sharp onset time bounded by the Lieb-Robinson velocity, grows either linearly or in staircase-like jumps depending on the initial state, and saturates to a volume-law value on a timescale t~L², far slower than the ballistic t~L spreading of bipartite entanglement. To give the Markov gap a concrete physical interpretation, they introduce the concept of essential tripartite fermions (ETFs)—occupied modes that cannot be localized onto fewer than two of the three subsystems—and show that the Markov gap closely tracks the count of ETFs as read from the small singular values of a tripartite null matrix. These features persist in the interacting XXZ spin chain.

Core claim

The Markov gap, a measure of irreducible tripartite entanglement, saturates on a timescale t~L² in free-fermion chains—much slower than bipartite entanglement spreading—and its value closely tracks the number of essential tripartite fermions (ETFs), defined as occupied modes that cannot be localized to fewer than two parties under any basis rotation. The count of ETFs is read from the multiplicity of near-zero singular values of a tripartite null matrix N₃ constructed from the time-evolved correlation matrix.

What carries the argument

The central objects are: (1) the Markov gap M = S_R(A:B) - I(A:B), computed for fermionic Gaussian states via the two-point correlation matrix and its canonical purification; (2) the tripartite null matrix N₃ = [N_A, N_B, N_C], whose columns span the kernel of the transpose of each subsystem's block of the occupied-mode matrix Γ; and (3) essential tripartite fermions (ETFs), obtained by exploiting the gauge freedom to unitarily rotate the occupied modes so as to minimize the number of modes with support on all three parties. The singular value spectrum of N₃ clusters around 0, 1, and √2, and the multiplicity of near-zero singular values gives the ETF count, which the Markov gap follows at早期.

Load-bearing premise

The operational interpretation rests on the assumption that the singular value spectrum of N₃ cleanly clusters around 0, 1, and √2, with the multiplicity of zeros giving the ETF count. This ideal structure holds only when the projected ETF vectors have nonzero support on all three parties; deviations broaden the spectrum, and at long times the Markov gap receives contributions from 'holes' in the bipartite fermion sea that N₃ does not capture, making the proportionality exact

What would settle it

If the singular value spectrum of N₃ does not cluster into three distinct plateaus for generic initial states and times, or if the Markov gap diverges from the ETF count in a way not attributable to the identified hole excitations, the operational interpretation would be undermined.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The t~L² saturation timescale reveals a dynamical hierarchy: the wavefunction develops tripartite structure long after bipartite entanglement has scrambled, suggesting that multipartite entanglement probes aspects of the state invisible to standard entanglement entropy.
  • The staircase-like jumps with O(1) step heights, sharpening with system size, suggest a phase-transition-like assembly of tripartite entanglement, qualitatively different from the smooth linear growth of bipartite entanglement.
  • The ETF framework gives an operational recipe—construct N₃, count small singular values—that could be applied to other measures of multipartite entanglement to test whether their values are measure-specific or reflect a common underlying structure.
  • The persistence of signatures in the interacting XXZ chain, including the kink and volume-law scaling, suggests that the observed dynamical hierarchy is not an artifact of free fermions but extends to interacting systems.
  • The bounds t* ∈ [l_B/(2v_max), l_B/v_max] for the onset of IrTE are general and could be tested in experiments with cold-atom chains, where the threshold time and growth pattern are observable through entanglement witnesses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the growth of irreducible tripartite entanglement (IrTE), quantified by the Markov gap, in free-fermion chains following a global quantum quench. The authors identify several dynamical features: (1) a threshold time $t^*$ for the onset of IrTE, for which they derive attainable Lieb-Robinson bounds $l_B/(2v_{max}) le t^* le l_B/v_{max}$; (2) volume-law scaling of the saturated Markov gap; (3) a saturation timescale $t sim L^2$, much slower than the ballistic $t sim L$ of bipartite entanglement; and (4) qualitatively distinct early-time growth (quasi-linear vs. staircase-like) depending on the initial state. To provide an operational interpretation of the Markov gap, the authors introduce the concept of essential tripartite fermions (ETFs) and a tripartite null matrix $N_3$, showing that the Markov gap tracks the number of small singular values of $N_3$. Several signatures are shown to persist in the interacting XXZ chain via MPS simulations.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-motivated question: how multipartite entanglement is dynamically assembled from local interactions, which is less understood than bipartite entanglement growth. The Lieb-Robinson bounds on $t^*$ are a clean and useful result. The introduction of the ETF framework and the tripartite null matrix provides a novel and potentially fruitful lens for understanding Gaussian tripartite entanglement. The $t sim L^2$ saturation timescale, if robust, is a striking finding that reveals a dynamical hierarchy. The combination of exact free-fermion numerics, analytic bounds, and MPS simulations for the interacting case represents a solid body of work.

major comments (1)
  1. The paper's title and abstract promise an 'operational meaning' for the Markov gap, and the central operational claim is that the Markov gap 'closely tracks the number of small singular values' of $N_3$ (i.e., the ETF count). However, the authors explicitly state: 'For long-time dynamics, however, we find discrepancy between them,' attributing this to 'holes' in the bipartite Fermi sea not captured by $N_3$. This creates a structural tension: the ETF interpretation holds at early times ($t sim L$), while the most striking finding (volume-law saturation at $t sim L^2$) occurs in the long-time regime where the ETF correspondence has already broken down. The paper does not explain what sets the volume-law saturation value of the Markov gap, nor whether the ETF count itself saturates at $t sim L^2$ or at a different timescale. The authors should clarify the scope of their operational claim:
minor comments (7)
  1. In the abstract, 'much slower than the ballistic spreading of bipartite correlations' could be clarified to specify that this refers to entanglement saturation (not correlation spreading, which is also ballistic).
  2. Fig. 2(a): the y-axis label 'M/L x 10^{-2}' is ambiguous. It should be clarified whether the displayed quantity is $(M/L) times 10^{-2}$ or $M/(L times 10^{-2})$. The same applies to panels (b) and (d).
  3. The phrase 'a nonzero Markov gap merely certifies the presence of IrTE' in the Introduction could be rephrased to set up the operational question more clearly.
  4. In the XXZ results (Fig. 4), the claim that the Markov gap 'reaches the highest saturation at the gapless critical point' is based on very small system sizes ($L=12, 18$). This should be stated as a suggestion rather than a demonstrated result.
  5. Reference [57] (Berthiere, arXiv:2408.12533) is cited as concurrent work. The relationship to the present results should be made clearer.
  6. Eq. (S19): the asymptotic analysis for $C_{xy}(t)$ uses the Fresnel propagator and assumes $t gg |x-y|$. The connection to Markov gap saturation is stated as 'we expect' (Supplemental Material, Sec. S-II.B). This heuristic should be acknowledged as such in the main text.
  7. The notation $V^{(2)}$ in Eq. (3) vs. $V_2$ in the preceding text is slightly inconsistent; consistent notation would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; derivation chain is self-contained with honest limitations

full rationale

The paper's three main contributions each rest on independent inputs. (1) The bounds on t* (l_B/(2v_max) ≤ t* ≤ l_B/v_max) are derived from the Lieb-Robinson bound and the structure of the interaction-picture decomposition U(t) = U_AB ⊗ U_BC — a genuine locality argument, not a restatement of the conclusion. (2) The spectral result {0, 1, √2} for the tripartite null matrix N₃ is proven under an explicitly stated assumption (π_X(t') ≠ 0 ∀X), and the paper transparently acknowledges that this assumption is violated in practice and that the ETF–Markov gap correspondence breaks down at long times. This is honest limitation reporting, not circular reasoning. (3) The t~L² saturation is supported by a heuristic Fresnel-propagator dephasing argument for |D_B⟩ (Eq. S19, where the authors say 'we expect') and by numerical data collapse for other states — an incomplete but non-circular derivation. The ETF framework is introduced as new terminology for a genuine decomposition, not a renaming of a known result. Self-citations (Ref [39] by Xu and Zhang) provide motivation/context only and are not load-bearing for any derivation. No step in the chain reduces to its inputs by construction, fitting, or definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two invented entities (ETF, N_3) with clear computational definitions and falsifiable connections to the Markov gap. No free parameters are fitted to force the central result. The axioms are mostly standard, with one domain assumption (Markov gap measures IrTE) adopted from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • v_eff for crystal state |C(3,1)> = sqrt(3)/2 * v_max
    The effective light cone velocity for the crystal state is derived from stationary phase analysis and confirmed numerically, not fitted to data.
  • TDVP time step dt = 0.02
    Numerical integration step for XXZ simulations, chosen for accuracy.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Lieb-Robinson bound sets a finite speed v_max for information propagation in short-range interacting systems.
    Used to derive lower and upper bounds for the threshold time t*. Standard result from Ref. [7].
  • standard math Wick's theorem applies to Gaussian fermionic states, reducing all correlations to two-point functions.
    Invoked in Supplemental Material S-I to justify the correlation matrix framework. Standard for free fermions.
  • domain assumption The Markov gap M = S_R(A:B) - I(A:B) quantifies irreducible tripartite entanglement.
    The paper adopts this measure from prior work (Refs. 28, 30, 31). The paper's contribution is interpreting it, not proving it measures IrTE.
  • ad hoc to paper The singular value spectrum of N_3 clusters around 0, 1, and sqrt(2).
    Observed numerically and proven exactly only under the idealized assumption that all ETF projections are tripartite. Used as the basis for the operational interpretation.
invented entities (2)
  • Essential tripartite fermion (ETF) independent evidence
    purpose: Minimal set of tripartite fermion modes that cannot be eliminated by unitary transformations among occupied modes, used to operationally interpret the Markov gap.
    The number of ETFs is shown to correlate with the Markov gap value and is computable from the singular value spectrum of the tripartite null matrix N_3. The concept is falsifiable: if the Markov gap did not track the small singular value count, the interpretation would fail.
  • Tripartite null matrix N_3 independent evidence
    purpose: Matrix constructed from orthonormal bases of the kernels of sub-correlation matrices, whose singular value spectrum characterizes ETFs.
    Constructed directly from the state's correlation matrix. Its spectrum is independently verifiable and is shown to track the Markov gap.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 24274 in / 2537 out tokens · 407088 ms · 2026-07-10T04:15:41.345870+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate how irreducible multipartite entanglement, a long-range correlation by nature, can emerge from short-range dynamics far from equilibrium. Focusing on the Markov gap as a probe of irreducible tripartite entanglement (IrTE) in free-fermion chains, we uncover qualitatively distinct dynamical behaviors: the Markov gap grows either quasi-linearly or in staircase-like jumps depending on the initial state. We also propose attainable upper and lower bounds for the onset time of IrTE based on the Lieb-Robinson bound. Strikingly, the Markov gap saturates to a volume-law value on a timescale $t\sim\! L^2$, much slower than the ballistic spreading of bipartite correlations. To understand what information about the wavefunctions is revealed by the Markov gap calculation, we introduce the concept of essential tripartite fermion (ETF) and an associated tripartite null matrix. The value of Markov gap closely tracks the number of small singular values of this tripartite null matrix, yielding a transparent, operational physical interpretation of the measure. We further demonstrate that several dynamical signatures persist in the interacting XXZ chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08615 by Riqiang Zhang, Yu-Xiang Zhang, Zongsheng Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) The singular value spectrum (only the smallest 100 singular values are displayed) of the null matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (c,d). The data collapse onto M(t)/L immediately implies a volume-law of the Markov gap. Moreover, although the short-time fine structures have a time scale t ∼ L, the long￾time behavior shows a time scale of t ∼ L 2 as demonstrated by the horizontal axes used for data collapse. Such time scale is best understood in the case of |DB⟩: t ∼ L 2 is necessary provided the volume-law of saturation, the O(1) heig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic diagram of tripartite entanglement structure of free [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dynamics of Markov gap from Neel state quenched by XXZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech.2005, P04010 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Time dependence of correlation func- tions following a quantum quench, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 136801 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Quantum quenches in extended sys- tems, J. Stat. Mech.2007, P06008 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Fagotti and P

    M. Fagotti and P. Calabrese, Evolution of entanglement en- tropy following a quantum quench: Analytic results for theXY chain in a transverse magnetic field, Phys. Rev. A78, 010306(R) (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Casini, H

    H. Casini, H. Liu, and M. Mezei, Spread of entanglement and causality, J. High Energy Phys.2016(7), 77

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu

    A. Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.9, 245 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Commun. math. Phys.28, 251 (1972)

    work page 1972

  8. [8]

    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)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Alba and P

    V. Alba and P. Calabrese, Entanglement and thermodynamics after a quantum quench in integrable systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.114, 7947 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Bianchi, L

    E. Bianchi, L. Hackl, and N. Yokomizo, Linear growth of the entanglement entropy and the kolmogorov-sinai rate, J. High Energy Phys.2018(3), 25

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Alba and P

    V. Alba and P. Calabrese, Entanglement dynamics after quantum quenches in generic integrable systems, SciPost Phys.4, 017 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, and W. K. Wootters, Almost every pure state of three qubits is completely determined by its two-particle reduced density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 207901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    D. L. Zhou, Irreducible multiparty correlations in quantum states without maximal rank, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 180505 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Navascu ´es, E

    M. Navascu ´es, E. Wolfe, D. Rosset, and A. Pozas-Kerstjens, 6 Genuine network multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 240505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    G¨ uhne and G

    O. G¨ uhne and G. T´oth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    Huber, M

    M. Huber, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and J. I. de Vicente, Entropy vector formalism and the structure of multidimensional entan- glement in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A88, 042328 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Walter, B

    M. Walter, B. Doran, D. Gross, and M. Christandl, Entanglement polytopes: Multiparticle entanglement from single-particle in- formation, Science340, 1205 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    M. M. Wilde, Multipartite quantum correlations and local re- coverability, Proc. A471, 20140941 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    J. L. Beckey, N. Gigena, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Com- putable and operationally meaningful multipartite entanglement measures, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Xie and J

    S. Xie and J. H. Eberly, Triangle measure of tripartite entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040403 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Nezami and M

    S. Nezami and M. Walter, Multipartite entanglement in stabilizer tensor networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 241602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    K. Siva, Y. Zou, T. Soejima, R. S. K. Mong, and M. P. Zaletel, Universal tripartite entanglement signature of ungappable edge states, Phys. Rev. B106, L041107 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    P. M. Tam, M. Claassen, and C. L. Kane, Topological multi- partite entanglement in a fermi liquid, Phys. Rev. X12, 031022 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    H. Liu, T. Zhou, and X. Chen, Measurement-induced entangle- ment transition in a two-dimensional shallow circuit, Phys. Rev. B106, 144311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Y. Liu, Y. Kusuki, J. Kudler-Flam, R. Sohal, and S. Ryu, Multi- partite entanglement in two-dimensional chiral topological liq- uids, Phys. Rev. B109, 085108 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Sheffer, A

    Y. Sheffer, A. Stern, and E. Berg, Extracting topological spins from bulk multipartite entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 086601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Y. Zou, K. Siva, T. Soejima, R. S. K. Mong, and M. P. Zale- tel, Universal tripartite entanglement in one-dimensional many- body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 120501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    L. Lyu, P. Lauand, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Network- irreducible multiparty entanglement in quantum matter, arXiv:2512.11118

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Akers and P

    C. Akers and P. Rath, Entanglement wedge cross sections require tripartite entanglement, J. High Energy Phys.2020(4), 208

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Hayden, O

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar, and J. Sorce, The markov gap for geo- metric reflected entropy, J. High Energy Phys.2021(10), 47

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. J. Kang, C. Murdia, and S. F. Ross, Signals of multiparty entanglement and holography, J. High Energy Phys.2025(6), 68

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Iizuka, A

    N. Iizuka, A. Miyata, and M. Nishida, Multipartite markov gaps and entanglement wedge multiway cuts, J. High Energy Phys. 2025(10), 148

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Gadde, V

    A. Gadde, V. Krishna, and T. Sharma, New multipartite entan- glement measure and its holographic dual, Phys. Rev. D106, 126001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Akers, R

    C. Akers, R. M. Soni, and A. Y. Wei, Multipartite edge modes and tensor networks, SciPost Phys. Core7, 070 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Genuine multi-entropy and holography

    N. Iizuka and M. Nishida, Genuine multi-entropy and hologra- phy, arXiv:2502.07995

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    More on genuine multi-entropy and holography

    N. Iizuka, S. Lin, and M. Nishida, More on genuine multi- entropy and holography, arXiv:2504.16589

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. J. Kang, C. Cummings, C. Murdia, and S. F. Ross, Purely Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger–like entangle- ment is forbidden in holography, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 031602 (2026)

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Xu and Y.-X

    G. Xu and Y.-X. Zhang, Multipartite Greenberger-Horne- Zeilinger entanglement in monitored random Clifford circuits, Phys. Rev. B112, 184314 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A62, 062314 (2000)

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    Walter, D

    M. Walter, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, Multipartite entanglement, in Quantum Information(John Wiley Sons, Ltd, 2016) Chap. 14, pp. 293–330

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Multipartite entanglement

    P. Horodecki, Lukasz Rudnicki, and K.˙Zyczkowski, Multipartite entanglement, arXiv.2409.04566

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    A. K. Srivastava, G. M¨ uller-Rigat, M. Lewenstein, and G. Rajchel-Mieldzio´c, Introduction to quantum entanglement in many-body systems, inNew Trends and Platforms for Quantum Technologies, edited by R. Aguado, R. Citro, M. Lewenstein, and M. Stern (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024) pp. 225–285

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    M. Ma, Y. Li, and J. Shang, Multipartite entanglement measures: A review, Fundam. Res.5, 2489 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Info

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Info. Comput.5, 216–238 (2005)

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    Peschel and V

    I. Peschel and V. Eisler, Reduced density matrices and entan- glement entropy in free lattice models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504003 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Surace and L

    J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Schollw ¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    U. Schollw ¨ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´erez-Garc´ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Supplementary information includes additional numerical re- sults

    work page

  52. [52]

    Bueno and H

    P. Bueno and H. Casini, Reflected entropy, symmetries and free fermions, J. High Energy Phys.2020(5), 103

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    Dutta and T

    S. Dutta and T. Faulkner, A canonical purification for the en- tanglement wedge cross-section, J. High Energy Phys.2021(3), 178

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Groisman, S

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, Quantum, classical, and total amount of correlations in a quantum state, Phys. Rev. A72, 032317 (2005)

    work page 2005

  55. [55]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    Singha Roy, G

    S. Singha Roy, G. Ram ´ırez, S. N. Santalla, G. Sierra, and J. Rodr ´ıguez-Laguna, Exotic correlation spread in free- fermionic states with initial patterns, Phys. Rev. B105, 214306 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Tripartite entanglement dynamics following a quantum quench

    C. Berthiere, Tripartite entanglement dynamics following a quantum quench, arXiv:2408.12533

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 070601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  59. [59]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimization with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B94, 165116 (2016)

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITen- sor Software Library for Tensor Network Calculations, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022). 7

    work page 2022

  61. [61]

    local pro- jections

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Codebase release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022). END MATTER More About The Entanglement Structure Recall that states expressed asQn q=1 Pn i=1 Tq,id† i |0⟩are equivalent to each other as long asTq,i is an×nunitary matrix. By exploiting this freedom, the bipartite fermions betweenA andBca...

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    The Markov gap of this state isM ≈0.18716

    Consider a chain of five sites and three fermions: Γ = √ 0.8 √ 0.1 √ 0.1 0 0 0 √ 0.1 − √ 0.1 √ 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 1     (18) whereA,B, andCare split by dashed vertical lines. The Markov gap of this state isM ≈0.18716. In the above matrix, the first row represents an ETF (denoted by ⃗t). The second row represents a bipartite fermion inF BC . In this exa...

    work page 2026