Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Quantum Markov Chains for an Asymmetric Mixed Ising-XY Model on a Cayley Tree

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An asymmetric mixed Ising–XY model on a binary tree has exactly one positive translation-invariant boundary law, and every positive boundary law is scalar.

desk verdict Solid boundary-law analysis for a new asymmetric mixed Ising-XY model, but the abstract overstates: the root initial state is free, so QMC uniqueness does not follow from Theorem 4.2. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14343 v1 pith:B2WXEVHU submitted 2026-07-15 math-ph math.DSmath.MPquant-ph

Farrukh Mukhamedov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.DSmath.MPquant-ph MSC 46L5382B1082B2081P40
keywords quantumMarkovchainCayleytreeIsing–XYmodelboundarylawtransferoperatoruniquenessentanglementrigidity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies a quantum spin model on the semi-infinite binary tree in which each vertex's first child edge carries an XY interaction and its second child edge carries an Ising interaction. Using the compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains and a normalized trace, it derives the recursion that a translation-invariant boundary operator must satisfy. The central result is that this recursion has exactly one positive solution for every real coupling J_I, J_XY and every beta>0, namely a scalar proportional to the identity; hence the model has a unique translation-invariant quantum Markov chain. The paper goes further and shows that every positive solution of the full, non-translation-invariant boundary equation is scalar, so all the non-translation-invariant scalar boundary laws are gauge freedom that produce the same state. It also computes the local three-site density and proves that only the XY-edge pair can be entangled, with explicit concurrence and negativity formulas that vanish outside an intermediate XY-coupling window.

What carries the argument

The local transfer operator E_x(Y)=Tr_{S(x)}( A_{x,(x,1),(x,2)} Y A*_{x,(x,1),(x,2)} ), with A_{x,(x,1),(x,2)}=K_{XY} K_{I}, is the one-step map that takes boundary data on the two children to boundary data on the parent; the compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains says h_x=E_x(1⊗h_(x,1)⊗h_(x,2)). Writing h in Pauli (Bloch) coordinates and using the normalized trace Tr(1I)=1, the recursion reduces to a four-dimensional system (4.10) with constants a=C²(κ0²+κ1²), b=2S²κ0κ1, c=S(κ0²+κ1²), d=2κ0κ1. The key identities a−d=(κ0−κ1)²=1 and a−b=d+C², together with the positivity condition x²+y²+z²≤X², force z=0 and then x=y=0, leaving the unique scalar X=1/a. The same positivi

What would settle it

Recompute the boundary recursion with the unnormalized trace Tr(1I)=2 and test whether non-scalar positive solutions (x,y,z≠0) appear; the identity a−d=(κ0−κ1)²=1 used to rule out z≠0 would change. Alternatively, run the full two-child recursion (6.4) on a large finite binary tree with non-scalar leaf boundary data and check whether any non-scalar positive solution survives to the root as the depth grows; if it does, Theorem 6.2's rigidity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the author's own terms, the discovery is a rigidity theorem: for the locally asymmetric mixed Ising–XY model on the Cayley tree of order two, the translation-invariant boundary equation (4.10) admits a unique positive solution X*=1/[C²(κ0²+κ1²)], x*=y*=z*=0, so the unique positive translation-invariant boundary condition is h*=X*1. Consequently a positive translation-invariant boundary condition generates exactly one quantum Markov chain, for all J_I, J_XY in R and β>0. The stronger two-child statement is that any positive solution of the full boundary equation (3.11) is necessarily scalar, h_x=t_x 1I with t_x = a t_(x,1) t_(x,2); the infinitely many non-translation-invariant scalar solut

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the quoted compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains together with the normalized-trace convention Tr(1I)=1; if the trace normalization is changed, the recursion constants change and the identities that force uniqueness (in particular a−d=(κ0−κ1)²=1) no longer apply, and the infinite-ray argument presupposes a semi-infinite tree.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For all real J_I, J_XY and β>0, the model admits exactly one translation-invariant quantum Markov chain generated by a positive translation-invariant boundary condition.
  • The reduced boundary-law dynamics has no admissible periodic points of minimal period greater than one; every admissible periodic orbit is the constant fixed point.
  • Every positive solution of the full two-child boundary equation is scalar; infinitely many non-translation-invariant scalar boundary laws exist but all generate the same quantum Markov chain.
  • On the natural three-site cluster, only the XY-edge pair can be entangled; the Ising-edge and sibling pairs are separable for all parameters.
  • Pairwise entanglement of the XY pair is non-increasing in |J_I| and vanishes as |J_XY|→0 or →∞, so entanglement exists only in an intermediate XY-coupling regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is the same locally asymmetric assignment on higher-order trees or with the XY and Ising edges interchanged; failure of uniqueness there would pinpoint the two-child, one-XY-one-Ising geometry as the source of rigidity.
  • The distinct attenuation rates for transverse coherence and longitudinal population, visible in the linearized recursion, suggest the model can benchmark branching quantum communication: root-to-generation signal survival differs sharply for phase versus bit information.
  • Since rigidity depends on allowing infinite rays in the semi-infinite tree, finite-tree approximations should show transient non-scalar boundary data that only decays to scalar in the infinite-volume limit; quantifying that decay is a concrete check of the mechanism.
  • The depth-independence of local entanglement follows from projective consistency of the compatible family; departing from compatible boundary data should produce a genuine depth-dependent entanglement flow, which the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a mixed quantum Ising–XY model on the semi-infinite Cayley tree of order two, where at each vertex the first outgoing edge carries an XY-type Boltzmann weight and the second carries an Ising-type weight. Using the compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains from [8] and a normalized trace convention, the author derives the translation-invariant boundary-law recursion, proves uniqueness of its positive solution h^* = a^{-1} 1I for all J_I, J_XY and β>0, proves absence of admissible periodic points of the reduced dynamical map, proves a rigidity theorem for the full two-child boundary equation (all positive solutions are scalar), and computes local two-site entanglement measures on the three-site parent–child cluster. The central algebraic derivations in Appendix A are explicit and parameter-free, and the boundary-law uniqueness proof is sound. However, the advertised conclusion that the model admits a unique translation-invariant QMC is not established: Theorem 4.2 classifies only the boundary law h, while the root boundary state ω0 remains free in (3.10), and different ω0 can yield different QMCs with the same h*. The paper's own Proposition 6.4 acknowledges dependence on the root density ρ0, creating an internal tension with the abstract and Corollary 4.3.

Significance. Taken as a boundary-law analysis, this is a useful contribution. The paper provides an explicit local transfer operator, a rigorous uniqueness proof for the positive translation-invariant boundary law over the full parameter plane, a non-trivial rigidity theorem for the full boundary equation, and closed-form local entanglement formulas. The derivations are self-contained modulo the quoted compatibility criterion, with no fitted parameters and explicit trace conventions. These are substantive strengths. The overstatement in the abstract and in Corollary 4.3, however, concerns the central advertised claim and needs to be fixed before the paper is acceptable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Corollary 4.3; §3, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.11)] The uniqueness claim for the QMC itself is false as stated. Theorem 3.1 constructs a QMC from boundary data (ω0, {h_x}) satisfying (3.10)–(3.11). Theorem 4.2 classifies only the translation-invariant positive solutions h of (3.11); it says nothing about ω0. Corollary 4.3 checks that one choice, ω0 = a 1I, works, but it never rules out other ω0. This is not a mere proof gap: at J_XY = 0, C = 1, h* = (κ0^2 + κ1^2)^{-1} 1I. For any normalized density ρ0, set ω0 = (κ0^2 + κ1^2) ρ0. Then Tr(ω0 h*) = 1 and (3.11) holds by Theorem 4.2. A direct computation from (3.8) gives φ^{(1)}_{ω0,h*}(σ_z^0) = Tr(ρ0 σ_z), which is 0 for ρ0 = 1I and 1 for ρ0 = 2|0><0|. These are different states with the same positive translation-invariant boundary law. The abstract and Corollary 4.3 should be revised to state uniqueness of h* and uniqueness of the QMC only for a fixed root density ρ0, not uniqueness of the
  2. [Proposition 6.4; Section 10 (Conclusion)] The paper's own Proposition 6.4 shows that for a fixed root density ρ0 the QMC is independent of the scalar family {t_x}, but it also shows that the state depends on ρ0. Therefore the Conclusion's statement that non-translation-invariant positive boundary laws 'do not generate genuinely different quantum Markov chains' is true only after ρ0 is fixed. As written, the claimed 'strong rigidity phenomenon at the level of positive QMCs' is overstated: different choices of ω0 satisfying (3.10) do generate different QMCs. The scope of the rigidity theorem should be stated explicitly to avoid this contradiction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.8)] The notation W_{n+1}] is confusing given the definition of W_n] in (3.7). Since (3.8) applies to a ∈ B_{Λ_n} and uses the operator on Λ_{n+1}, please clarify the indexing or denote the finite-volume operator by Ω_n to avoid the appearance of a shift.
  2. [Abstract; §4] The phrase 'translation-invariant boundary condition' is used repeatedly but never defined precisely. In particular, it is not stated whether the root boundary state ω0 is part of the translation-invariant data. Please add a formal definition, since the uniqueness result depends on this scope.
  3. [References] References [11] and [38] both bear the title 'Entangled Hidden Elephant Random Walk Model' but are listed with different journal years and article numbers. Please verify that these are distinct works and cite them accurately.
  4. [§8, Proposition 8.1] In the definition of T(m), the adjoint A* is written without a vertex subscript. Since A_u depends on u, the formula should read A*_{u,(u,1),(u,2)}. This is a minor notational clarity issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the boundary-law derivation and uniqueness proof are explicit parameter-free computations once the quoted compatibility criterion is granted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The compatibility criterion quoted as Theorem 3.1 from reference [8] is a general parameter-free theorem about tree-indexed quantum Markov chains; it does not assert the mixed model's uniqueness, so citing it is not a case of importing the paper's own conclusion. The local transfer operator and the translation-invariant boundary system are derived by direct Pauli-basis expansion in Proposition 4.1 and Appendix A, under an explicitly stated normalized-trace convention. Equation (4.10) is exactly the fixed-point equation obtained from that expansion, not a restatement of the claimed solution. Theorem 4.2 then solves this polynomial system by explicit inequalities, with no fitted parameters and no external 'prediction' used. The later rigidity result in Theorem 6.2 follows from contraction estimates along infinite rays, and the entanglement computation in Section 8 is a closed trace computation from the already-constructed state. No quantity is fitted to data, no ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. One caution, which is a mathematical gap rather than circularity: Corollary 4.3's assertion of a unique QMC is under-justified, because condition (3.10) leaves the root state omega_0 free while Theorem 4.2 classifies only the boundary operators h_x; different admissible omega_0 with the same h* are not analyzed. This does not make the derivation circular, since it is an omitted argument about the root state, not a reduction of the conclusion to the input by construction.

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

No fitted parameters, no ad hoc constants, and no new physical entities are introduced. The couplings J_I, J_XY and β are model inputs from the prior literature, not parameters fitted to data. The axioms are the standard QMC compatibility framework, Pauli algebra, positivity constraints, and the infinite-tree structure.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains (Theorem 3.1, cited from [8])
    The entire state construction and the boundary equation (3.11) rest on this criterion; no proof is reproduced in the paper.
  • domain assumption Normalized trace convention Tr(1I)=1 on every tensor factor
    All coefficients a,b,c,d in (4.10) and (6.3) are computed under this convention; the uniqueness proof depends on the resulting identities.
  • standard math Pauli algebra identities used in Appendix A, e.g. Tr(σ_i h σ_j)=Xδ_ij−iΣε_ijk r_k
    Used to evaluate the partial traces in the derivation of (4.9) and (6.3).
  • standard math Positive boundary operators satisfy X>0 and x²+y²+z²≤X²
    Follows from positivity in M₂(C); used throughout the uniqueness and rigidity proofs.
  • domain assumption The semi-infinite Cayley tree contains infinite rays along repeated first- and second-child edges
    Theorem 6.2 iterates inequalities along the infinite rays (x,2,2,...) and (x,1,1,...) to force normalized Bloch components to zero.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Markov Chains for an Asymmetric Mixed Ising-XY Model on a Cayley Tree." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2WXEVHU

@misc{pith2026260714343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Markov Chains for an Asymmetric Mixed Ising-XY Model on a Cayley Tree},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2WXEVHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14343}
}
abstract

We study a mixed quantum Ising-$XY$ model on the semi-infinite rooted Cayley tree of order two. For every vertex $u$, the edge $\langle u,(u,1)\rangle$ carries an $XY$ interaction and the edge $\langle u,(u,2)\rangle$ carries an Ising interaction. Using the compatibility criterion for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains and consistently working with the normalized trace, we derive the translation-invariant boundary equation and compute explicitly the associated local transfer operator, namely the one-step partial-trace map which propagates successor boundary data to the parent vertex. We prove that the boundary equation has a unique positive translation-invariant solution for all $J_I,J_{XY}\in\mathbb R$ and $\beta>0$. Hence the model admits a unique translation-invariant quantum Markov chain generated by a positive translation-invariant boundary condition. We also show that the reduced boundary-law dynamics, i.e. the induced finite-dimensional recursion for the boundary-law parameters, has no admissible periodic points of period greater than one and compute the local two-site entanglement on the natural three-site cluster of the tree.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The first levels of Γ2 + and the locally asymmetric mixed Ising–XY assignment of interactions. x (x, 1) (x, 2) KXY ⟨x,(x,1)⟩ KI ⟨x,(x,2)⟩ Ax,(x,1),(x,2) = KXY ⟨x,(x,1)⟩KI ⟨x,(x,2)⟩ HXY = 1 2 (σx ⊗ σx + σy ⊗ σy) HI = 1 2 (1I ⊗ 1I + σz ⊗ σz) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The local three-site interaction block at a vertex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The local transfer operator as a one-step boundary-law update: successor boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references

  1. [8]

    Accardi L., Mukhamedov F., Souissi A., Construction of a new class of quantum Markov fields,Adv. Oper. Theory1(2016), 206–218

    2016

  2. [1]

    Accardi L., On the noncommutative Markov property,Funct. Anal. Appl.,9(1975) 1–8

    1975

  3. [2]

    Accardi L., Fidaleo F., Quantum Markov fields,Inf. Dim. Analysis, Quantum Probab. Related Topics6(2003) 123–138

    2003

  4. [3]

    Accardi L., Fidaleo F., Non homogeneous quantum Markov states and quantum Markov fields,J. Funct. Anal.200(2003), 324–347

    2003

  5. [4]

    Mukhamedov, F., Markov states and chains on the CAR algebra, Inf

    Accardi L., Fidaleo F. Mukhamedov, F., Markov states and chains on the CAR algebra, Inf. Dim. Analysis, Quantum Probab. Related Topics10(2007), 165–183

    2007

  6. [5]

    Saburov M

    Accardi L., Mukhamedov F. Saburov M. On Quantum Markov Chains on Cayley tree I: uniqueness of the associated chain withXY-model on the Cayley tree of order two,Inf. Dim. Analysis, Quantum Probab. Related Topics14(2011), 443–463

    2011

  7. [6]

    Saburov M

    Accardi L., Mukhamedov F. Saburov M. On Quantum Markov Chains on Cayley tree II: Phase transitions for the associated chain withXY-model on the Cayley tree of order three, Ann. Henri Poincare12(2011), 1109–1144

    2011

  8. [7]

    Saburov M

    Accardi L., Mukhamedov F. Saburov M. On Quantum Markov Chains on Cayley tree III: Ising model,J. Stat. Phys.157(2014), 303-329

    2014

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Accardi, L., El Gheteb S., Lu, Y.G., Souissi, A., Algebraic Hidden processes and hidden Markov processes,Infin. Dimens. Anal. Quantum. Probab. Relat. Top.29(2026), No. 01, 2450009

    2026

  2. [10]

    Accardi L., Ohno, H., Mukhamedov, F., Quantum Markov fields on graphs,Inf. Dim. Analysis, Quantum Probab. Related Topics13(2010), 165–189

    2010

  3. [11]

    Accardi, L., Souissi, A., Rhaima, M., Entangled Hidden Elephant Random Walk Model, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals196(2025), 116389

    2025

  4. [12]

    Mixed quantum Ising–XY model on a Cayley tree of order two.Eur

    AlAali, A., Mukhamedov, F. Mixed quantum Ising–XY model on a Cayley tree of order two.Eur. Phys. J. B98(2025), Article 58

    2025

  5. [13]

    Ananikian, N.S., Streˇ cka, J., Hovhannisyan, V., Magnetization plateaus of an exactly solv- able spin-1 Ising–Heisenberg diamond chain,Solid State Commun.194(2014), 48-53

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bernardes A.T., de Oliveira M.J., Field behaviour of theXYchiral model on a Cayley tree, J. Phys. A,25(1992) 1405–1415

    1992

  7. [15]

    5, 910–913

    Briegel, J.H., Raussendorf,R., Persistent Entanglement in Arrays of Interacting Particles, Physical Review Letters86(2001), no. 5, 910–913

    2001

  8. [16]

    10, 104109

    Chen X., Franco, I., Tree tensor network hierarchical equations of motion based on time- dependent variational principle for efficient open quantum dynamics in structured thermal environments,The Journal of Chemical Physics163(2025), no. 10, 104109. 31

    2025

  9. [17]

    Dhahri, A., Ko, C.K., Yoo, H.J., Quantum Markov chains associated with open quantum random walks,J. Stat. Phys.176(2019), 1272-1295

    2019

  10. [18]

    Dhahri A., Mukhamedov, F., Open quantum random walks, quantum Markov chains and recurrence,Rev. Math. Phys.31(2019), 1950020 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Werner R

    Fannes M., Nachtergaele B. Werner R. F., Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Commun. Math. Phys.144(1992) 443–490

    1992

  12. [20]

    Quantum Markov chains.J

    Gudder S. Quantum Markov chains.J. Math. Phys. 49(2008), 072105, 14 pp

    2008

  13. [21]

    Robustness of quantum Markov chains.Comm

    Ibinson B., Linden N., Winter A. Robustness of quantum Markov chains.Comm. Math. Phys.277(2008) 289–304

    2008

  14. [22]

    Quantum Markov processes and applications in physics

    K¨ ummerer B. Quantum Markov processes and applications in physics. In book: Quantum independent increment processes. II, 259–330,Lecture Notes in Math., 1866, Springer, Berlin, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    8, 1899–1946

    Leifer M.S., Poulin, D., Quantum Graphical Models and Belief Propagation,Annals of Physics323(2008), no. 8, 1899–1946

    2008

  16. [24]

    5, 054116

    Li, W., Ren, J., Yang, H., Wang, H., Shuai, Z., Optimal tree tensor network operators for tensor network simulations: Applications to open quantum systems,The Journal of Chemical Physics161(2024), no. 5, 054116

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, W., von Delft, J., Xiang, T., Efficient simulation of infinite tree tensor network states on the Bethe lattice,Physical Review B86(2012), 195137

    2012

  18. [26]

    Mukhamedov F.M, Barhoumi A., Souissi A., Phase transitions for quantum Markov chains associated with Ising type models on a Cayley tree.J. Stat. Phys163(2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Mukhamedov F., Barhoumi A., Souissi A., El Gheteb S., A quantum Markov chain approach to phase transitions for quantum Ising model with competing XY-interactions on a Cayley tree,J. Math. Phys.61(2020), 093505

    2020

  20. [28]

    Mukhamedov F.M, El Gheteb S., Uniqueness of quantum Markov chain associated with XY-Ising Model on cayley tree of order two.Open. Sys. & Infor. Dyn24(2017) 1750010

    2017

  21. [29]

    Mukhamedov F., El Gheteb S., Clustering property of Quantum Markov Chain associated to XY-model with competing Ising interactions on the Cayley tree of order two,Math. Phys. Anal. Geom.22(2019), 10

    2019

  22. [30]

    On Gibbs measures of models with competing ternary and binary interactions on a Cayley tree and corresponding von Neumann algebras I, II.J

    Mukhamedov F.M., Rozikov U.A. On Gibbs measures of models with competing ternary and binary interactions on a Cayley tree and corresponding von Neumann algebras I, II.J. Stat. Phys.114(2004), 825–848;119(2005), 427–446

    2004

  23. [31]

    Mukhamedov F., Souissi A., Quantum Markov states on Cayley trees,J. Math. Anal. Appl. 473(2019), 313-333

    2019

  24. [32]

    Mukhamedov F., Souissi A., Diagonalizability of quantum Markov states on trees,J. Stat. Phys.182(2021), Article 9. 32

    2021

  25. [33]

    22, 5188–5191

    Raussendorf R., Briegel, J.H., A One-Way Quantum Computer,Physical Review Letters 86(2001), no. 22, 5188–5191. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    A.Gibbs Measures on Cayley Trees, World Scientific Publishing (2013)

    Rozikov, U. A.Gibbs Measures on Cayley Trees, World Scientific Publishing (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Souissi A., On stopping rules for tree-indexed quantum Markov chains,Inf. Dim. Analysis, Quantum Probab. Related Top.,26(2023), no. 3, 2250030

    2023

  28. [36]

    A hidden quantum Markov model framework for entanglement and topological order in the AKLT chain,Euro Phys

    Souissi A., Andolsi, A. A hidden quantum Markov model framework for entanglement and topological order in the AKLT chain,Euro Phys. J. Plus141(2026), 404

    2026

  29. [37]

    & Inform

    Souissi A., Barhoumi A., Symmetric group action on quantum Markov chains on Cayley Trees and open quantum walks dynamics,Open Sys. & Inform. Dyn.32(2025), 2550010

    2025

  30. [38]

    Souissi A., Mukhamedov F., El Gheteb S., Rhaima M., Mukhamedova F., Entangled Hidden Elephant Random Walk Model,Chaos, Solitons & Fractals186(2024), 115252

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nonlinear Math

    Souissi A., Mukhamedov F., Nonlinear Stochastic Operators and Associated Inhomogeneous Entangled Quantum Markov ChainsJ. Nonlinear Math. Phys.31(2024), 11

    2024

  32. [40]

    Tufarelli T., Giovannetti, V., High-fidelity state transfer in binary-tree spin networks, Physical Review A79(2009), 022313

    2009

  33. [41]

    Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems,Adv

    Verstraete, F, Murg V,, Cirac J, I. Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems,Adv. Physics 57(2008), 143-224

    2008

  34. [42]

    Yadavalli S.A., Marvian, I., Noisy quantum trees: infinite protection without correction, npj Quantum Information11(2025), 151

    2025

  35. [43]

    Zad, H.A., Movahhedian, H., Classical correlation and quantum entanglement in the mixed- spin Ising-XY model with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction,Int. J. Mod. Phys. B31(2017) 1750094. 33

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.