Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Resources in Disorder-Free Localization Dynamics of Gauge Theories

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gauge invariance alone can slow the growth of quantum complexity to a double-logarithmic rate.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Devendra Singh Bhakuni , Giovanni Cataldi , Jad C. Halimeh , Emanuele Tirrito This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elhep-lat
keywords disorder-freelocalizationlatticegaugetheorystabilizerRényientropyparticipationfermionicnon-Gaussianitydouble-logarithmicgrowthconfinementquantumresources
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper 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.

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.

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

Extended reading notes

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

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, 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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Resources in Disorder-Free Localization Dynamics of Gauge Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXDU2HK5

@misc{pith2026260728730,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Resources in Disorder-Free Localization Dynamics of Gauge Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXDU2HK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28730}
}
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 the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Williamson majorization theory of fermionic non-Gaussianity

    quant-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A pure state's Williamson spectrum is weakly majorized by its ensemble average under any fermionic Gaussian protocol, unifying monotones and conversion bounds for non-Gaussianity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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

Show all 128 references
  1. [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

  2. [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

  3. [11]

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

    2025

  4. [12]

    Bravyi and J

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

    2012

  5. [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

  6. [14]

    Bravyi, G

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

    2016

  7. [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

  8. [16]

    Liu and A

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

    2022

  9. [17]

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

    2019

  10. [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

  11. [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

  12. [20]

    Baumgratz, M

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

    2014

  13. [21]

    Streltsov, G

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

    2017

  14. [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

  15. [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

  16. [24]

    Lyu and K

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

    2024

  17. [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

  18. [26]

    Sierant, P

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

    2026

  19. [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

  20. [28]

    Chitambar and G

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

    2019

  21. [29]

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

    1982

  22. [30]

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

    2021

  23. [31]

    Haug and L

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

    2023

  24. [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

  25. [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

  26. [34]

    Hoshino, M

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

    2026

  27. [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

  28. [36]

    Leone, S

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

    2021

  29. [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

  30. [38]

    Turkeshi, E

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

    2025

  31. [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

  32. [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

  33. [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

  34. [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

  35. [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]

    2025

  36. [44]

    Odavić, M

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

    2025

  37. [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

  38. [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

  39. [47]

    Dowling, P

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

    2025

  40. [48]

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

    2024

  41. [49]

    Bejan, C

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

    2024

  42. [50]

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

    2025

  43. [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

  44. [52]

    Sierant and X

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

    2026

  45. [53]

    Kogut and L

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

    1975

  46. [54]

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

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

    1977

  47. [55]

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

    1974

  48. [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

  49. [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

  50. [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

  51. [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

  52. [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

  53. [61]

    Dalmonte and S

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

    2016

  54. [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

  55. [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

  56. [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

  57. [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. B...

    2025

  58. [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

  59. [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]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [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

    2024 arXiv

  61. [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

  62. [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

  63. [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, Natu...

    2025

  64. [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]

    2026 arXiv

  65. [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]

    2026 arXiv

  66. [74]

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

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

    2017

  67. [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

  68. [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

  69. [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

  70. [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

  71. [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

  72. [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

  73. [81]

    Iadecola and M

    T. Iadecola and M. Schecter, Quantum many-body scar states with emergent kinetic constraints and finite- entanglement revivals, Physical Review B101, 024306 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    H. Zhao, J. Vovrosh, F. Mintert, and J. Knolle, Quan- tum Many-Body Scars in Optical Lattices, Physical Re- view Letters124, 160604 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    A. S. Aramthottil, U. Bhattacharya, D. González- Cuadra, M. Lewenstein, L. Barbiero, and J. Zakrzewski, ScarstatesindeconfinedZ 2 latticegaugetheories,Phys- ical Review B106, L041101 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Long-lived phan- tom helix states in Heisenberg quantum magnets, Na- ture Physics18, 899 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Desaules, A

    J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hudomal, D. Banerjee, A. Sen, Z. Pa- pić, and J. C. Halimeh, Prominent quantum many-body scars in a truncated Schwinger model, Physical Review B107, 205112 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. Desaules, 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. Papić, L. Ying, H. Wang, and Y.-C. Lai, Many-body Hilbert space scarring on a s...

    2023

  80. [88]

    T.Budde, M.KrsticMarinkovic,andJ.C.PintoBarros, Quantum many-body scars for arbitrary integer spin in 2 + 1DAbelian gauge theories, Physical Review D110, 094506 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papić, Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Na- ture Physics17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    Hartse, L

    J. Hartse, L. Fidkowski, and N. Mueller, Stabilizer Scars, Physical Review Letters135, 060402 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Desaules, D

    J.-Y. Desaules, D. Banerjee, A. Hudomal, Z. Papić, A. Sen, and J. C. Halimeh, Weak ergodicity breaking in the Schwinger model, Physical Review B107, L201105 (2023)

    2023

  84. [92]

    Brenes, M

    M. Brenes, M. Dalmonte, M. Heyl, and A. Scardicchio, Many-Body Localization Dynamics from Gauge Invari- ance, Physical Review Letters120, 030601 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    Osborne, I

    J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, Disorder-Free Localization in2+1D Lattice Gauge The- 9 ories with Dynamical Matter (2023), arXiv:2301.07720 [cond-mat]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. N. Ciavarella, C. W. Bauer, and J. C. Halimeh, Generic Hilbert space fragmentation in Kogut-Susskind lattice gauge theories, Physical Review D112, L091501 (2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    Cataldi, G

    G. Cataldi, G. Calajó, P. Silvi, S. Montangero, and J. C. Halimeh, Disorder-Free Localization and Fragmentation in a Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory, Physical Re- view Letters136, 170401 (2026)

    2026

  88. [96]

    Gyawali, S

    G. Gyawali, S. Kumar, Y. D. Lensky, E. Rosenberg, A. Szasz, T. Cochran, R. Chen, A. H. Karamlou, K. Kechedzhi, J. Berndtsson, T. Westerhout, A. As- faw, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, T. I. Ander- sen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, N. Astrakhant- sev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbu...

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Jeyaretnam, T

    J. Jeyaretnam, T. Bhore, J. J. Osborne, J. C. Halimeh, and Z. Papić, Hilbert space fragmentation at the ori- gin of disorder-free localization in the lattice Schwinger model, Communications Physics8, 172 (2025)

    2025

  90. [98]

    J. C. Halimeh, L. Homeier, H. Zhao, A. Bohrdt, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and J. Knolle, Enhancing Disorder-Free Localization through Dynamically Emer- gent Local Symmetries, PRX Quantum3, 020345 (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    Chakraborty, M

    N. Chakraborty, M. Heyl, P. Karpov, and R. Moess- ner, Disorder-free localization transition in a two- dimensional lattice gauge theory, Physical Review B 106, L060308 (2022)

    2022

  92. [100]

    P. R. N. Falcão, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Frau, E. Tir- rito, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Dalmonte, Nonstabilizer- ness in U(1) lattice gauge theory, Physical Review B 111, L081102 (2025)

    2025

  93. [101]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer Rényi Entropy, Physical Review Letters128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  94. [102]

    Leone and L

    L. Leone and L. Bittel, Stabilizer entropies are mono- tones for magic-state resource theory, Physical Review A110, L040403 (2024)

    2024

  95. [103]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction (1997)

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction (1997)

    1997

  96. [104]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Physical Review A57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  97. [105]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004)

    2004

  98. [106]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonsta- bilizerness monotones, Quantum7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  99. [107]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Measuring magic on a quantum processor, npj Quantum Information8, 148 (2022)

    2022

  100. [108]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable Measures of Magic Resource for Quantum Computers, PRX Quantum4, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  101. [109]

    Y. Liu, P. Sierant, P. Stornati, M. Lewenstein, and M. Płodzień, Quantum algorithms for inverse partic- ipation ratio estimation in multiqubit and multiqudit systems, Physical Review A111, 052614 (2025)

    2025

  102. [110]

    See Supplemental Material for more details about the model implementation

  103. [111]

    Since the SRE and PE are basis-dependent, we evaluate them in the computational bases of the gauge-invariant formulations introduced below—the spin basis of the integrated U(1)model and the dressed-site basis of the SU(2)model—which are also the natural measurement bases in qu...

  104. [112]

    C. J. Hamer, Z. Weihong, and J. Oitmaa, Series expan- sions for the massive Schwinger model in Hamiltonian lattice theory, Physical Review D56, 55 (1997)

    1997

  105. [113]

    Cataldi, G

    G. Cataldi, G. Magnifico, P. Silvi, and S. Montangero, Simulating (2+1)D SU(2) Yang-Mills lattice gauge the- ory at finite density with tensor networks, Physical Re- view Research6, 033057 (2024)

    2024

  106. [114]

    Calajó, G

    G. Calajó, G. Magnifico, C. Edmunds, M. Ringbauer, S. Montangero, and P. Silvi, Digital Quantum Simula- tion of a (1+1)D SU(2) Lattice Gauge Theory with Ion Qudits, PRX Quantum5, 040309 (2024)

    2024

  107. [115]

    Zohar and M

    E. Zohar and M. Burrello, Formulation of lattice gauge theories for quantum simulations, Physical Review D 91, 054506 (2015). 10

    2015

  108. [116]

    S. Kühn, E. Zohar, J. I. Cirac, and M. C. Bañuls, Non- Abelian string breaking phenomena with matrix prod- uct states, Journal of High Energy Physics2015, 1 (2015), number: 7

    2015

  109. [117]

    Cataldi, edlgt: Exact Diagonalization for Lattice Gauge Theories (2026)

    G. Cataldi, edlgt: Exact Diagonalization for Lattice Gauge Theories (2026)

    2026

  110. [118]

    P. R. N. Falcão, P. Sierant, J. Zakrzewski, and E. Tir- rito, Nonstabilizerness Dynamics in Many-Body Lo- calized Systems, Physical Review Letters135, 240404 (2025)

    2025

  111. [119]

    We do not track the SRE for SU(2): in the dressed-site formulation the local dimension isd= 13, and evaluating the Pauli-weight distribution over the132L Heisenberg– Weyl strings is impractical already atL= 12

  112. [120]

    P.R.N.Falcão, J.Zakrzewski,andP.Sierant,Fermionic magic resources in disordered quantum spin chains (2026)

    2026

  113. [121]

    Y. Shao, S. Cheng, and Z. Liu, Characterizing Pauli Propagation via Operator Complexity (2025)

    2025

  114. [122]

    Martinez, A

    V. Martinez, A. Angrisani, E. Pankovets, O. Fawzi, and D. Stilck França, Efficient Simulation of Parametrized Quantum Circuits under Nonunital Noise through Pauli Backpropagation, Physical Review Letters134, 250602 (2025)

    2025

  115. [123]

    Angrisani, A

    A. Angrisani, A. Schmidhuber, M. S. Rudolph, M. Cerezo, Z. Holmes, and H.-Y. Huang, Classically Estimating Observables of Noiseless Quantum Circuits, Physical Review Letters135, 170602 (2025)

    2025

  116. [124]

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y. Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, Pauli Propagation: A Computational Framework for Simulating Quantum Systems (2025)

    2025

  117. [125]

    Miller, J

    A. Miller, J. Favre, Z. Holmes, O. Salehi, R. Chakraborty, A. Nykänen, Z. Zimborás, A. Glos, and G. García-Pérez, Simulation of Fermionic circuits using Majorana Propagation (2025)

    2025

  118. [126]

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

    2019

  119. [127]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 026502 (2025)

    2025

  120. [128]

    Quantum Resources in Disorder-Free Localization Dynamics of Gauge Theories

    Achievability is guaranteed by the binary matter oc- cupations: hardcore particles cannot cross, so theu-th particle from the left ofz0 must reach theu-th occupied site ofz, and some particle can always advance toward its target (in any chain of mutually blocking particles, th...

Pith tools

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