Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 128 references

Gauge invariance alone can slow the growth of quantum complexity to a double-logarithmic rate.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:31 UTC pith:DXDU2HK5

load-bearing objection Solid numerical study with one genuinely useful exact inequality, but the headline double-log growth is only an upper-bound ceiling and not a proven asymptotic law. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28730 v1 pith:DXDU2HK5 submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elhep-lat

Quantum Resources in Disorder-Free Localization Dynamics of Gauge Theories

Devendra Singh Bhakuni , Giovanni Cataldi , Jad C. Halimeh , Emanuele Tirrito This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elhep-lat
keywords disorder-free localizationlattice gauge theorystabilizer Rényi entropyparticipation entropyfermionic non-Gaussianitydouble-logarithmic growthconfinementquantum resources
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.

This paper tries to establish that in (1+1)-dimensional U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theories, the constraints of gauge invariance—without any quenched disorder—can slow the growth of quantum complexity to an ultraslow, double-logarithmic law. Simulating quenches from superpositions of superselection sectors (the disorder-free localization protocol), the authors find two regimes: at intermediate gauge coupling, stabilizer and participation Rényi-2 entropies relax to saturation as power laws; at the largest couplings, they continue to grow, but no faster than log log t, while fermionic non-Gaussianity saturates throughout. The double-logarithmic ceiling is derived from an exact counting of resonant configurations: configurations with zero electric-energy mismatch within radius r grow polynomially, V_res(r) ~ r^k with k ≈ 0.145L, and the accessible depth grows only logarithmically in time. The result matters because it identifies gauge symmetry as an intrinsic generator of non-ergodic, classically compressible dynamics.

Core claim

The authors show that in the strong-coupling regime of both U(1) and SU(2) lattice gauge theories, the stabilizer Rényi-2 entropy and the participation Rényi-2 entropy are bounded by k log log t + const, with k ≃ 0.145L extracted from exact transfer-matrix counting of resonant configurations up to L=96. The argument combines three steps: exact kinematic bounds (PE2 ≤ log|Ω|, SRE2 ≤ log|ΔΩ|, and SRE2 ≤ 2PE2), degenerate perturbation theory giving a logarithmic perturbative depth n*(t) ~ log(wt)/log(g²/w), and the geometric finding that the resonant volume grows polynomially with exponent k, corresponding to a finite density of mobile charges. Fermionic non-Gaussianity, by contrast, relaxes to

What carries the argument

The central object is the resonant configuration volume V_res(r): the number of computational-basis configurations reachable from the initial configuration whose electric-energy mismatch with the initial state is exactly zero and whose graph distance is at most r. It is evaluated exactly by a transfer-matrix scan over electric-field profiles, and its polynomial growth V_res(r)∼r^k, with k≃0.145L, combined with the logarithmic perturbative depth n*(t)∼log(wt)/log(g²/w), produces the double-logarithmic ceilings PE2≲k log log t and SRE2≤2PE2.

Load-bearing premise

The double-logarithmic ceiling relies on the assumption that, at strong coupling, the state can permanently access only configurations whose electric energy exactly matches the initial configuration, with every transition between different energy towers remaining virtual; if multi-hop resonances allow real leakage between towers, the ceiling collapses.

What would settle it

Measure or compute PE2 at strong coupling (g² ~ 16–20) in a U(1) LGT for times beyond 10^15 and system sizes beyond L=16: if the growth departs from a log log t fit and saturates, or if the population of configurations with nonzero electric-energy mismatch exceeds the perturbative (w/g²)^n bound, the resonant-volume argument fails. Equivalently, directly compute matrix elements connecting different energy towers and check whether they are suppressed only by powers of w/g².

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

If this is right

  • At strong coupling, stabilizer and participation Rényi-2 entropies grow no faster than a double logarithm in time, so the Pauli-weight distribution remains confined to a polynomially growing set of strings.
  • The same ultraslow law appears in both Abelian U(1) and non-Abelian SU(2) theories, making it a gauge-invariance-driven effect rather than a feature of a specific gauge group.
  • Fermionic non-Gaussianity saturates at every coupling, so two-point correlations remain near-Gaussian and the dynamics may be amenable to Majorana-propagation simulation even where wavefunction spreading is slow.
  • The double-logarithmic curves shift downward by k log log(g²/w) as the coupling grows, giving a quantitative, testable prediction for how the slowdown depends on coupling.
  • All three complexity measures are measurable in current quantum simulators, so the ultraslow growth is an experimental target rather than a purely numerical observation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the bound holds in the thermodynamic limit, the density of complexity cost—PE2/L and SRE2/L—vanishes logarithmically with time, suggesting these gauge-theory quenches become progressively easier to simulate classically as the system grows.
  • The finite density of mobile charges (k ≈ 0.145 per site) may be a diagnostic of the confinement length scale; measuring k from the slope of PE2 versus log log t would provide a new dynamical probe of confinement.
  • The argument implies that any mechanism that violates the zero-mismatch restriction—such as multi-phonon resonances or string-breaking processes—would convert the double-log law into a single log or a power law, so the ultraslow growth is a sharp test of confinement.
  • One could extend the resonant-volume counting to higher dimensions or to Z2 gauge theories to see whether the k∝L extensivity and the double-log ceiling survive beyond one spatial dimension.

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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the real-time growth of three quantum-resource measures — stabilizer Rényi-2 entropy, participation Rényi-2 entropy, and fermionic non-Gaussianity — in 1+1D U(1) and truncated SU(2) lattice gauge theories in the disorder-free localization regime. Exact time evolution is performed for U(1) up to t=10^15 at L=16 and for SU(2) up to t=10^4 at L=12, with several hundred superselection sectors averaged. A statistical model-selection protocol (local logarithmic slopes, forward cross-validation, block bootstrap, AIC) identifies saturating power-law relaxation at intermediate couplings and favors unbounded double-logarithmic growth for SRE2 and PE2 at the largest U(1) couplings and for PE2 at strong SU(2) couplings, while NG saturates everywhere. The double-logarithmic law is connected to a configuration-space argument: strong-coupling perturbation theory gives a logarithmic perturbative depth n*(t), and an exact transfer-matrix count of resonant configurations gives a polynomial resonant volume Vres(r) ~ r^k with k ≈ 0.145L, yielding PE2 ≤ k log log t and SRE2 ≤ 2 PE2. The paper concludes that gauge invariance constrains the generation of quantum resources.

Significance. If the double-logarithmic growth claim is correct, this is a valuable addition to the DFL literature and to the quantum-resource dynamics of gauge theories, with concrete implications for classical simulability and for near-term quantum simulators. The paper has genuine strengths: the exact transfer-matrix counting of resonant configurations up to L=96 is an impressive, reproducible piece of combinatorics; the inequality SRE2 ≤ 2 PE2 is proven exactly for arbitrary pure states; and the statistical analysis is unusually careful, with bootstrap and cross-validation used and the finite-window limitation explicitly acknowledged. These strengths make the numerical study a solid contribution. However, as detailed below, the configuration-space bound is only an upper bound and does not, by itself, substantiate unbounded growth; the paper's headline claim is therefore stronger than the evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [SM, Eqs. (S26), (S42)-(S44)] The configuration-space argument provides only a one-sided bound: PE2(t) ≤ log Vres(n*(t)) ~ k log log t and SRE2 ≤ 2 PE2. Every state whose support remains inside a small subset of Vres — including an essentially frozen state — satisfies the same inequality. The bound therefore cannot 'substantiate' unbounded double-logarithmic growth; it only shows that such growth is compatible with the counting. The abstract and the Conclusions ('this law ... substantiated by a configuration-space bound') overstate what is derived. Please either rephrase the claim as 'an ultraslow ceiling consistent with the observed growth' or add a lower bound / typicality argument showing that the wave function actually populates a non-vanishing fraction of the resonant volume.
  2. [Table S2 and SM 'Model-selection results'] The double-logarithmic classification at U(1) g²=16,20 rests on bootstrap probabilities P≈0.90-0.95 evaluated on a single fixed time window [10²,10^15]. The SM itself states that these diagnostics 'do not establish the t→∞ asymptotic law' and reports no window-shift stability analysis. Because the central claim of the Letter is the unbounded asymptotic law, this is load-bearing. Either add a stability analysis under shifts of t_min and t_max (e.g., showing the selected model and P remain stable over a range of endpoints), or consistently label the conclusion as 'slow growth within the simulated window' in the abstract and main text, not as an established asymptotic law.
  3. [SM, 'Strong-coupling dynamics and the logarithmic perturbative depth'] The derivation of n*(t) ~ log(wt)/log(g²/w) assumes that inter-tower transitions are purely virtual and that only configurations with zero electric-energy mismatch (Δε=0) are permanently accessible. This is the key assumption that makes the bound an upper bound; if multi-hop resonances or finite-size leakage populate off-resonant configurations, the ceiling collapses. No numerical check of this assumption is reported. Please quantify the total probability weight on configurations with Δε≠0 as a function of g² and time in the exact time evolutions of Fig. 2, or otherwise justify that the leakage is negligible on the simulated window.
  4. [Main text, 'The SU(2) dynamics' / Table S2] In the SU(2) theory the double-logarithmic classification is much weaker: the window spans only ~3 decades and the bootstrap probabilities at the largest couplings are P=0.59-0.73, with P=0.95 only at g²=7.75. The main text says the analysis 'favors continued double-logarithmic growth' at g²≥5.33, but the Conclusion states the ultraslow growth holds 'for both gauge groups'. This generalization goes beyond the reported evidence. Please temper the SU(2) claim to reflect the indicative, not conclusive, nature of the classification, as already acknowledged in the text.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says data and fit curves are displayed up to t=10^11, whereas the fit parameters are determined on [10²,10^15]. Please clarify whether the simulated data extend to 10^15 and are only shown up to 10^11, or whether the fits use data not displayed.
  2. [End Matter, Table I] The PE2 relaxation-exponent trend has R²_adj=0.737 over five couplings; the text already cautions against over-interpretation. It would be helpful to state the fit window and the number of points in the caption or table note.
  3. [SM, Eq. (S21)] The effective sample size uses the lag-1 autocorrelation c_1 of the residuals, but the formula reduces N by a factor that depends on c_1. Since AIC is used only as a cross-check, consider stating that the qualitative conclusions are unchanged under Neff/N in [0.2,1] to make the robustness explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the double-log ceiling is derived from the Hamiltonian and exact configuration counting, independent of the fitted time traces.

full rationale

The analytical chain is self-contained and not equivalent to its inputs. The strong-coupling bound PE2(t) <= log|Omega(t)| <= log V_res(n*(t)) with n*(t) ~ log(wt)/log(g^2/w) follows from degenerate perturbation theory on the integrated U(1) Hamiltonian (SM Eqs. S36-S44), and V_res(r) is evaluated by an exact transfer-matrix count (SM; validated against brute force for L<=16) rather than fitted to SRE2/PE2 data. The SRE2 <= 2 PE2 inequality is an exact identity for arbitrary pure states. Thus the double-logarithmic ceiling is a genuine derived consequence of Gauss-law energetics and confinement, not a renamed fit. The paper's actual double-logarithmic claim is selected by bootstrap model comparison over finite windows; the SM explicitly concedes these diagnostics 'do not establish the t->infty asymptotic law'. That is a strength-of-evidence limitation (the analytic result is only an upper bound, so unbounded growth is not proven), but it is not circularity. Self-citations [92,95,117] provide the DFL preparation protocol and simulation library; they are not used to define the new resource growth or the counting bound. No load-bearing reduction of an output to an input is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on a strong-coupling perturbative ansatz, the DFL sector-average protocol, and standard resource-theoretic diagnostics. The only fitted quantity entering the analytical bound is the exponent k derived from exact counting, which is not fitted to the time traces.

free parameters (4)
  • Saturating-power-law parameters X∞, A, α = per trace, e.g., U(1) SRE2 at g²=4-12
    Fitted to time traces in the statistical model comparison (Table S2) to characterize relaxation.
  • Double-log slope a and intercept b = per trace at g²=16,20 (U(1)) and g²≥5.33 (SU(2) PE2)
    Fitted to time traces in the bootstrap classification; numerical values not reported in main text.
  • Resonant-volume exponent k = k ≃ 0.145L (e.g., 13.7 at L=96)
    Extracted from exact counting of V_res(r); used in the predicted ceiling slope PE2 ≲ k log log t.
  • Trend parameters in End Matter = e.g., 31.8 g^-1.69 for SRE2 X∞
    Exploratory AIC fits to saturation values and exponents; not central to main claim.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Strong-coupling perturbation theory: a matter hop costs energy O(g²) and only Δε=0 configurations are permanently accessible; inter-tower transitions are virtual and suppressed.
    SM 'Strong-coupling dynamics and the logarithmic perturbative depth' (Eqs. S39–S42); this is the foundation of n*(t) and the logarithmic clock.
  • domain assumption The Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian with staggered fermions, open boundary conditions, and finite truncation (SU(2) minimal j∈{0,1/2}) describes the desired lattice gauge theory.
    Main text Eqs. (4)–(8); the truncation is cited to prior work [95,113,114].
  • domain assumption The equal-weight superposition over superselection sectors in Eq. (9) acts as an effective disorder average.
    Eq. (10) and Ref. [92]; central to DFL.
  • standard math Standard linear algebra inequalities (Cauchy–Schwarz, Rényi-entropy properties) and the exact marginal identity for the Pauli weight distribution.
    SM Eqs. (S25)–(S35); no physical assumptions.
  • domain assumption The block-bootstrap and cross-validation model-selection procedure can distinguish saturating from unbounded growth over the accessible time window.
    SM Table S2; the authors explicitly note this does not establish the t→∞ law.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38855 in / 9216 out tokens · 90791 ms · 2026-08-03T00:31:51.686355+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum-state complexity diagnostics provide valuable insight into many-body dynamics, information scrambling, and quantum computation. Here, we investigate the real-time dynamics of quantum complexity in $1+1$-dimensional Abelian U(1) and non-Abelian SU(2) lattice gauge theories (LGTs), focusing on the disorder-free localization (DFL) regime. Using stabilizer R\'enyi entropy, participation R\'enyi entropy, and fermionic non-Gaussianity as measures of complexity, we observe, for both theories, two main behaviors as a function of the gauge coupling: at intermediate values, a power-law relaxation towards saturation, consistent with observations in many-body localization, and, at sufficiently large values, an ultraslow double-logarithmic growth, which we substantiate with a configuration-space bound verified by exact counting. Our results not only provide deeper insight into the dynamics of DFL but also highlight the role of gauge invariance in constraining quantum resources and are relevant to recent quantum simulations of LGTs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28730 by Devendra Singh Bhakuni, Emanuele Tirrito, Giovanni Cataldi, Jad C. Halimeh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.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

128 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, En- tanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    M. B. Plenio and S. S. Virmani, An Introduction to Entanglement Theory, inQuantum Information and Coherence, edited by E. Andersson and P. Öhberg (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014) pp. 173–209

    2014

  5. [5]

    D. J. Luitz, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Universal Be- havior beyond Multifractality in Quantum Many-Body Systems, Physical Review Letters112, 057203 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Hangleiter, J

    D. Hangleiter, J. Bermejo-Vega, M. Schwarz, and J. Eis- ert, Anticoncentration theorems for schemes showing a quantum speedup, Quantum2, 65 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    N. Macé, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Multifractal Scal- ings Across the Many-Body Localization Transition, Physical Review Letters123, 180601 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    A. M. Dalzell, N. Hunter-Jones, and F. G. S. L. Brandão, Random Quantum Circuits Anticoncentrate in Log Depth, PRX Quantum3, 010333 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Universal Behavior beyond Multifractality of Wave Functions at Measurement- Induced Phase Transitions, Physical Review Letters 128, 130605 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Magni, A

    B. Magni, A. Christopoulos, A. De Luca, and X. Turkeshi, Anticoncentration in Clifford Circuits and Beyond: From Random Tensor Networks to Pseudo- magic States, Physical Review X15, 031071 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    G. Lami, J. De Nardis, and X. Turkeshi, Anticoncen- tration and State Design of Random Tensor Networks, Physical Review Letters134, 010401 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Bravyi and J

    S. Bravyi and J. Haah, Magic-state distillation with low overhead, Physical Review A86, 052329 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. Hamed Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation,NewJournalofPhysics16,013009(2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Trading Clas- sical and Quantum Computational Resources, Physical Review X6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved Classical Simula- tion of Quantum Circuits Dominated by Clifford Gates, Physical Review Letters116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-Body Quantum Magic, PRX Quantum3, 020333 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Quantifying the magic of quantum channels, New Journal of Physics21, 103002 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a Re- source Theory for Magic States to Fault-Tolerant Quan- tum Computing, Physical Review Letters118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Sonya Tarabunga, M

    P. Sonya Tarabunga, M. Frau, T. Haug, E. Tirrito, and L. Piroli, A nonstabilizerness monotone from stabilizer- ness asymmetry, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045026 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. Plenio, Quantifying Coherence,PhysicalReviewLetters113,140401(2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio,Colloquium : Quantum coherence as a resource, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All Pure Fermionic Non-Gaussian States Are Magic States for Matchgate Computations, Physical Review Letters123, 080503 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Lumia, E

    L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, Measurement-induced transitions beyond Gaussianity: A single particle description, Physical Review Research 6, 023176 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Lyu and K

    X. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic Gaussian Testing and Non-Gaussian Measures via Convolution (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Coffman, G

    L. Coffman, G. Smith, and X. Gao, Measuring Non- Gaussian Magic in Fermions: Convolution, Entropy, and the Violation of Wick’s Theorem and the Match- gate Identity (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Sierant, P

    P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic Magic Resources of Quantum Many-Body Systems, PRX Quantum7, 010302 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    P. S. Tarabunga, B. Jobst, R. Morral-Yepes, M. Langer, B.Kraus, F.Pollmann,andS.-H.Lin,Computablemea- sures of fermionic non-Gaussianity from the covariance matrix (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Reviews of Modern Physics91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    R. P. Feynman, Simulating physics with computers, International Journal of Theoretical Physics21, 467 (1982)

    1982

  30. [30]

    C. D. White, C. Cao, and B. Swingle, Conformal field theories are magical, Physical Review B103, 075145 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Physical Review B107, 035148 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Magic-state resource theory for the ground state of the transverse- field Ising model, Physical Review A106, 042426 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Viscardi, M

    M. Viscardi, M. Dalmonte, A. Hamma, and E. Tir- rito, Interplay of entanglement structures and stabilizer entropy in spin models, SciPost Physics Core9, 012 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer Rényi Entropy and Conformal Field Theory, Physical Review X16, 011037 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    A. M. Läuchli and C. Kollath, Spreading of correlations and entanglement after a quench in the one-dimensional Bose–Hubbard model, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2008, P05018 (2008)

    2008

  36. [36]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, 7 Quantum Chaos is Quantum, Quantum5, 453 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Physical Review B111, 054301 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spreading in random quantum circuits, Nature Communications 16, 2575 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Jasser, J

    B. Jasser, J. Odavić, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy and entanglement complexity in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Physical Review B112, 174204 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    Yunger Halpern, A

    N. Yunger Halpern, A. Bartolotta, and J. Pollack, En- tropic uncertainty relations for quantum information scrambling, Communications Physics2, 92 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Vikram, L

    A. Vikram, L. Shou, and V. Galitski, Proof of a Univer- sal Speed Limit on Fast Scrambling in Quantum Sys- tems (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Tirrito, X

    E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Anticoncen- tration and nonstabilizerness spreading under ergodic quantum dynamics (2025), arXiv:2412.10229 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Odavić, M

    J. Odavić, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer en- tropy in nonintegrable quantum evolutions, Physical Review B112, 104301 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Iannotti, A

    D. Iannotti, A. Russotto, B. Jasser, J. Odavić, and A. Hamma, Non-stabilizerness and U(1) symmetry in chaotic many-body quantum systems (2026)

    2026

  46. [46]

    Tirrito, P

    E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, D. S. Bhakuni, M. Dal- monte, P. Sierant, and X. Turkeshi, Universal Spreading of Nonstabilizerness and Quantum Transport (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic Resources of the Heisenberg Picture, Physical Review Letters135, 050401 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    G. E. Fux, E. Tirrito, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Entanglement – nonstabilizerness separation in hybrid quantum circuits, Physical Review Research6, L042030 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Bejan, C

    M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. Béri, Dynamical Magic Transitions in Monitored Clifford+ T Circuits, PRX Quantum5, 030332 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    P. S. Tarabunga and E. Tirrito, Magic transition in measurement-only circuits, npj Quantum Information 11, 166 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Tirrito, L

    E. Tirrito, L. Lumia, A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, A. Silva, X. Turkeshi, and M. Collura, Magic phase transitions in monitored gaussian fermions (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Theory of Magic Phase Transitions in Encoding-Decoding Circuits (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories, Physical Review D11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  54. [54]

    Susskind, Lattice fermions, Physical Review D16, 3031 (1977)

    L. Susskind, Lattice fermions, Physical Review D16, 3031 (1977)

    1977

  55. [55]

    K. G. Wilson, Confinement of quarks, Physical Review D10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  56. [56]

    Bañuls, K

    M. Bañuls, K. Cichy, J. Cirac, and K. Jansen, The mass spectrum of the Schwinger model with matrix prod- uct states, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 158 (2013)

    2013

  57. [57]

    Buyens, J

    B. Buyens, J. Haegeman, K. Van Acoleyen, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Matrix Product States for Gauge Field Theories, Physical Review Letters113, 091601 (2014)

    2014

  58. [58]

    Tagliacozzo, A

    L. Tagliacozzo, A. Celi, and M. Lewenstein, Tensor Networks for Lattice Gauge Theories with Continuous Groups, Physical Review X4, 041024 (2014)

    2014

  59. [59]

    E. Rico, T. Pichler, M. Dalmonte, P. Zoller, and S. Mon- tangero, Tensor Networks for Lattice Gauge Theories and Atomic Quantum Simulation, Physical Review Let- ters112, 201601 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    Pichler, M

    T. Pichler, M. Dalmonte, E. Rico, P. Zoller, and S. Mon- tangero, Real-Time Dynamics in U(1) Lattice Gauge Theories with Tensor Networks, Physical Review X6, 011023 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    Dalmonte and S

    M. Dalmonte and S. Montangero, Lattice gauge theory simulations in the quantum information era, Contem- porary Physics57, 388 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    F. Görg, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Realization of density- dependent Peierls phases to engineer quantized gauge fields coupled to ultracold matter, Nature Physics15, 1161 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    González-Cuadra, M

    D. González-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjača, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantú, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and A. Bylinskii, Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)D Rydberg quantum simulator, Nature642, 321 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, A. Szasz, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie Beni, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Ata- laya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengts- son, A. Bilmes, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buckley, T. Bu...

    2025

  66. [66]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Confinement in aZ 2 lattice gauge theory on a quantum computer, Nature Physics 21, 312 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Cobos, J

    J. Cobos, J. Fraxanet, C. Benito, F. d. Marcanto- nio, P. Rivero, K. Kapás, M. A. Werner, O. Leg- eza, A. Bermudez, and E. Rico, Real-Time Dynam- ics in a (2+1)-D Gauge Theory: The Stringy Na- ture on a Superconducting Quantum Simulator (2025), arXiv:2507.08088 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Crippa, K

    A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, Analysis of the confinement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2411.05628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Thermalization dynamics of a gauge theory on a quantum simulator, Science377, 311 (2022)

    2022

  70. [70]

    Wang, W.-Y

    H.-Y. Wang, W.-Y. Zhang, Z. Yao, Y. Liu, Z.-H. Zhu, Y.-G. Zheng, X.-K. Wang, H. Zhai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Interrelated Thermalization and Quantum Criticality in a Lattice Gauge Simulator, Physical Re- view Letters131, 050401 (2023)

    2023

  71. [71]

    Zhang, Y

    W.-Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Cheng, M.-G. He, H.-Y. Wang, T.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, G.-X. Su, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y.-G. Zheng, H. Sun, B. Yang, P. Hauke, W. Zheng, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Observation of microscopic confinement dynamics by a tunable topo- logicalθ-angle, Nature Physics21, 155 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    K. Xu, U. Borla, K. Hemery, R. Joshi, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of glue- ball excitations and string breaking in a2 + 1DZ2 lat- tice gauge theory on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07435 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Joshi, Y

    R. Joshi, Y. Tian, K. Hemery, N. S. Srivatsa, J. J. Osborne, H. Dreyer, E. Rinaldi, and J. C. Halimeh, Observation of genuine2 + 1D string dynamics in a U(1)lattice gauge theory with a tunable plaque- tte term on a trapped-ion quantum computer (2026), arXiv:2604.07436 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phasesofmatter,ReviewsofModernPhysics89,041004 (2017)

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phasesofmatter,ReviewsofModernPhysics89,041004 (2017)

    2017

  75. [75]

    Sachdev, Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 014001 (2019)

    S. Sachdev, Topological order, emergent gauge fields, and Fermi surface reconstruction, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 014001 (2019)

    2019

  76. [76]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papić, Weak ergodicity breaking from quan- tum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Lattice Gauge The- ories and String Dynamics in Rydberg Atom Quantum Simulators, Physical Review X10, 021041 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    Calajó, G

    G. Calajó, G. Cataldi, M. Rigobello, D. Wanisch, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi, S. Montangero, and J. C. Hal- imeh, Quantum many-body scarring in a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory, Physical Review Research7, 013322 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    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)

    2022

  80. [80]

    Moudgalya, S

    S. Moudgalya, S. Rachel, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Reg- nault, Exact excited states of nonintegrable models, Physical Review B98, 235155 (2018)

    2018

Showing first 80 references.