Topological Defects from Quantum Reset Dynamics

Henrik Johannesson; R. Jafari; Sebastian Eggert

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Topological Defects from Quantum Reset Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Random quantum resets during a quench convert Kibble-Zurek defect scaling into anti-Kibble-Zurek scaling, with universal exponents identical to those produced by Gaussian noise.

desk verdict A potentially interesting anti-KZ mechanism, but the central equation doesn't match the stated reset protocol; the exponent claims are unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00230 v1 pith:JDT5QLME submitted 2026-01-30 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

R. Jafari , Henrik Johannesson , Sebastian Eggert This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elquant-ph

keywords quantumresettingKibble-Zurekmechanismanti-Kibble-Zurekscalingtransverse-fieldIsingchaintopologicaldefectsannealinguniversalexponentsout-of-equilibriumdynamics

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 asks whether random interruptions of a quantum quench—reset events that return the system to its initial state—change the universal way in which defects are produced when a system is driven across a quantum critical point. Using the exactly solvable transverse-field Ising chain, the authors find that quantum resetting at rate r shifts the defect density from Kibble-Zurek scaling (defects decrease with slower ramps) to anti-Kibble-Zurek scaling (defects increase with slower ramps), with a crossover at an optimal annealing time. The optimal time and the minimal defect density obey power laws in r that match, within error bars, the exponents found for quenches with uncorrelated or fast colored noise. The paper therefore establishes that Poissonian resets and Gaussian noise produce the same defect statistics, a correspondence with direct consequences for interpreting quantum annealing experiments.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the reset-averaged density matrix ρ_r,k(t) = r ∫_0^t e^{-rt'} ρ_{0,k}(t') dt' + e^{-rt} ρ_{0,k}(t), which weights the no-reset evolution by e^{-rt} and each reset event by the Poissonian rate r. Inserting this into the defect-counting formula reduces the problem to the exactly solvable Landau-Zener dynamics of each momentum mode in the fermionized Ising chain. The competition between quench-driven excitations (suppressed as τ grows) and reset-driven excitations (growing with τ) is what produces the crossover and the optimal annealing time.

What would settle it

Repeat the same reset-plus-ramp simulation with reset waiting times drawn from a power-law distribution (non-Poissonian) and check whether the optimal-time exponent γ remains 2/3; alternatively, recompute the fitted exponents α, β, γ at N=4000 and N=8000 to test whether they are stable under finite-size scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the defect density n_r after a linear quench with quantum resetting obeys n_r ≈ h(r) τ^α + b τ^{-β} for slow quenches (τ > 1), with α ≈ 1 and β ≈ 1/2, so the reset-driven part grows linearly with the quench time scale while the ordinary Kibble-Zurek part decays as τ^{-1/2}; their competition produces a local minimum at an optimal time τ_opt,r ∼ r^{-2/3}, with the minimum density scaling as r^{1/3}. The same universal exponents appear in the mean excess energy, and the scaling curves for different reset rates collapse onto a single master curve. This is exactly the behavior previously obtained for quenches subject to Gaussian white or fast colored noise, which leads

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the environment acts as ideal, instantaneous, Poissonian resets of the entire chain to its initial state, and that the averaged density matrix is exactly the weighted integral in Eq. (8), with exponents extracted from N=1000 numerics and no finite-size scaling analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a quantum annealer where the environment acts through effective resets, the optimal anneal time grows as r^{-2/3} with the reset rate, so faster resets require faster quenches to minimize defects.
The minimal achievable defect density scales as r^{1/3}, so reducing the reset rate pays off with a power-law reduction in residual defects.
The data collapse means that measuring the defect density at a few reset rates determines the entire universal curve for all rates.
If the paper is correct, tests of Kibble-Zurek scaling in open quantum systems must treat reset-like decoherence and additive noise on the same footing, since both give the same anti-Kibble-Zurek signature in defect density and excess energy.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper reports a sharp change of the QR-induced exponent from 3 to 1 at τ ≈ 1 but does not analyze its origin; this may signal a genuine dynamical transition in the reset process and is a natural target for a dedicated analytic or finite-size study.
A testable extension beyond the Poissonian assumption: any reset process with finite mean waiting time may fall into the same universality class, whereas heavy-tailed reset distributions could produce different exponents—this is not claimed by the paper but is consistent with its logic.
The equivalence with Gaussian noise suggests that random resets may be the minimal effective description of a broad class of environmental disturbances during quenches; a numerical experiment with non-Markovian or state-dependent resets could probe how far the universality extends.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth one careful read, but the first thing to check is the derivation of Eq. (8), not the fits. The claimed new result—quantum resetting turns Kibble-Zurek scaling into anti-Kibble-Zurek scaling, with optimal annealing times scaling as r^{-2/3} and the same exponents as Gaussian noise—is genuinely new and, if true, would connect resetting protocols to the noise class in a clean way. The TFI setup is standard, the r=0 limit gives KZ correctly, and the qualitative picture of a competition between adiabaticity and resets is plausible.

The problem is that Eq. (8) is not the average over the protocol in Eq. (7). Eq. (7) resets the mode's state, not the time-dependent Hamiltonian. For a linear ramp the exact renewal average must contain U_k(t,s) ρ_k(0) U_k^†(t,s), and that is not ρ0,k(t-s) unless H_k is time-independent or the reset also rewinds the ramp. The text says 'resets of the driving' at one point, which might mean the latter, but Eq. (7) does not implement it, and Eq. (6) at t_f=2τ with h_f=0 would have to be rethought if the ramp restarts stochastically. So as written, every number in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 is computed from a different model than the one defined.

There are also the usual secondary concerns: the exponents are extracted by fitting the same data they are meant to support, there are no error bars from finite-size analysis, only N=1000, and no code or data are released. The τ<1 exponent α'=3.000 is fitted to a signal the authors themselves call experimentally invisible, which is a weak basis for a 'universal' claim.

If the intended protocol is restart-the-drive resetting, then Eq. (8) may be defensible and the qualitative story is interesting. But as it stands, the text does not say that, and the central derivation is broken. This is not beyond repair, but it needs a corrected derivation, a clear statement of the reset protocol, and ideally an analytic argument for at least γ=2/3.

I would send this to a serious referee, not desk-reject it: the question is timely and the flaw is identifiable and fixable. I would not cite the exponents yet.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a linear quench across the quantum critical point of the transverse-field Ising chain subject to Poissonian quantum resets. It claims that resets induce a crossover from Kibble-Zurek scaling (n_0 ~ τ^{-1/2}) to anti-Kibble-Zurek scaling, with defect densities described by Eq. (9), optimal annealing times τ_opt,r ~ r^{-γ} with γ≈2/3, and exponents identical to those found for noisy ramps. The claims are based on exact fermionization and numerical evaluation of a renewal master equation, Eq. (8), for a chain with N=1000 sites.

Significance. If the claimed universality holds, the equivalence between quantum-reset dynamics and uncorrelated/colored noise would be a notable addition to out-of-equilibrium universality. The paper exploits the exact solvability of the TFI chain, and the data collapse in Fig. 1(c) is visually suggestive. However, the central master equation is not consistent with the stated reset protocol, and the universal exponents are inferred from fits to the same numerical data they are then used to support. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (3)

[Topological defects from quenching with QR, Eqs. (7)–(8)] Equation (8) does not follow from the protocol defined by Eq. (7). For state-only resets, the state after the last reset at time s is U_k(t,s)|ψ_k(0)⟩, so the renewal average contains r∫_0^t e^{-r(t-s)} U_k(t,s)ρ_k(0)U_k†(t,s) ds. Eq. (8) reduces to this only if U_k(t,s)=U_k(t-s,0), i.e. only if a reset also restarts the linear ramp. The text's phrase 'resets of the driving' may intend this, but Eq. (7) does not implement it. Since all numerical results are obtained from Eq. (8), the reported exponents α, α′, β, γ and the claimed equivalence to noisy ramps describe a different stochastic process from the one defined. Please correct the protocol statement; if state-only resets are intended, the numerical exponents must be recomputed using the correct renewal average.
[Results, Eq. (9) and Figs. 1–2] The central exponents are obtained by fitting the same data they are then used to support. There is no finite-size analysis (N=1000 only), no specified fit ranges, no error bars, and the amplitude h(r) and crossover function Λ(τ) in Eq. (9) are never defined. The collapse in Fig. 1(c) relies on the fitted shift δ_r = ln(r×10^5), whose reference scale is arbitrary. Thus the claimed universal scaling laws are not independently verified. Please provide finite-size scaling, explicit fit windows, and either an analytic derivation or an independent check of the values α≈1, α′=3.000, β≈1/2, and γ≈2/3.
[Eq. (9) and the τ≈1 crossover] The piecewise form in Eq. (9), with a sharp exponent jump from α′≈3 to α≈1 at τ≈1, is not justified in the manuscript. The text describes this as 'suggestive of some type of criticality,' but no mechanism is given and Λ(τ) is never specified. This makes the two-branch law difficult to falsify. At minimum, the authors should define Λ(τ), specify how the τ<1 and τ>1 regions are chosen, and show a collapse of the full n_r, not only of δn_r after a fitted shift.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (8)] Please define t′ consistently. If t′ is the time elapsed since the last reset, the survival factor should be written as e^{-r t′} with the substitution u=t−s stated; if t′ is the absolute reset time, a factor e^{rt′} is missing. The current notation is confusing.
[Fig. 1(b) inset] The relation δ_r = ln(r×10^5) depends on an arbitrary reference scale. State the units of r and clarify whether δ_r is taken as a fit parameter or derived from the model.
[Eq. (9)] The coefficient b is identified with c^{-1/2}, where c is the quasiparticle speed. This relation should be derived or explicitly referenced; it appears without derivation.
[Fig. 1(a)] The statement that n_0 ∼ τ^{-1/2} for τ≳1 is not accompanied by a fit range or accuracy estimate. Given that the paper’s claims rest on numerical scaling, providing these details would improve reproducibility.
[Data availability] Since the central results are numerical and obtained from fits, making the data and/or code available would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the universal exponents are empirical fits anchored by the external KZ check and by independent noisy-ramp comparisons; the one self-citation [20] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) QR protocol Eq. (7); (ii) average density matrix Eq. (8) quoted from the external Ref. [25]; (iii) exact no-QR Landau-Zener solution of Ref. [39]; (iv) numerical evaluation of N_r and subsequent extraction of exponents from Figs. 1-3. The exponents alpha, alpha', beta, gamma, and the collapse shift delta_r are obtained by fitting the same numerical curves they summarize (Fig. 1, Eq. (9), Fig. 2), so they are empirical extractions rather than free-standing first-principles predictions. This is a limitation of the evidence, but not a circular reduction: the paper does not rename a fitted parameter as an independent prediction, and the r=0 curve reproduces the known KZ exponent from the external Dziarmaga result, providing an independent anchor. The claim of equivalence with noisy-ramp dynamics is supported by external Refs. [17,19]; Ref. [20], although sharing a co-author with the present paper, is not load-bearing because the identical colored-noise result is independently available in Ref. [19]. A possible correctness concern is that Eq. (8) is the renewal average for a protocol in which a reset restarts the evolution, whereas Eq. (7) literally resets only the state while H_k(t) remains time-dependent; if so, the numerics would describe a different stochastic process. That is a potential error in the derivation, not a circularity of the conclusion with its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score. No self-definitional step, no fitted parameter called a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation, and no renaming of a known result was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a model of ideal Poissonian resets (Eq. (7) and Eq. (8)), a standard exact solution of the TFI chain, and a set of exponents and collapse functions obtained by fitting the same numerical data they are used to support. No new physical entities are introduced; the load-bearing input is the reset protocol and the fitted scaling forms.

free parameters (8)

α (anti-KZ exponent, τ>1) = 1.00 ± 0.02
Obtained by linear fit to log-log slope of δn_r vs τ in Fig. 1(b); central to the claimed crossover.
α′ (QR exponent, τ<1) = 3.000 ± 0.003
Fit to δn_r in the τ<1 interval; the authors note the signal is too small to be experimentally visible, and no error bars/finite-size checks are shown.
β (KZ exponent) = 0.50 ± 0.01
Fit to n0 vs τ for r=0; matches known Dziarmaga value and serves as baseline in Eq. (9).
γ (optimal-time exponent) = 0.664 ± 0.002 (≈2/3)
Fit of τ_opt,r vs r in Fig. 2; claimed identical to noise-ramp exponent from Refs. [17,19,20].
n_min exponent = 0.332 ± 0.002 (≈1/3)
Fit of local minima n_r^min vs r (inset Fig. 2); equals γ/2 by construction of the fitted curves.
δ_r (data-collapse shift) = ln(r × 10^5)
Empirical shift read from inset of Fig. 1(b); the 10^5 scale is a fitting constant chosen so curves collapse in Fig. 1(c).
h(r) (QR amplitude in Eq. (9)) = not specified
r-dependent prefactor from fits; no closed form or derivation.
Λ(τ) (plateau crossover function) = unspecified
Introduced in Eq. (9) to describe crossover to density-saturated plateau; left undefined.

assumptions (5)

standard math TFI chain is exactly solvable by Jordan-Wigner transformation; dynamics factorizes into independent momentum modes with two-level Hamiltonians H_k(t).
Used in Preliminaries; standard result from Refs. [34,37,38].
domain assumption QR is an ideal, instantaneous, unit-probability reset to the initial state at Poissonian random times with rate r.
Defines the protocol in Eq. (7); no justification as a realistic environment beyond citation of the QR literature.
domain assumption The averaged QR density matrix is ρ_r,k(t) = r ∫₀ᵗ e^{-rt'} ρ₀,k(t') dt' + e^{-rt} ρ₀,k(t) (Eq. (8)).
Taken from Ref. [25]; assumes memoryless resets and no evolution during reset.
domain assumption Defects are identified with quasiparticle excitations γ†γ; total defect number is the sum over modes of the probability to be in the upper instantaneous state.
Section on defects; relies on the kink–fermion correspondence and working in the even-parity sector.
domain assumption A single chain size N=1000 is representative of the thermodynamic limit for all τ and r studied.
All data from 1000-site chain; no finite-size scaling analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topological Defects from Quantum Reset Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDT5QLME

@misc{pith2026260200230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topological Defects from Quantum Reset Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDT5QLME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00230}
}

abstract

We analyze mechanisms for universal out-of-equilibrium dynamics near criticality by exploring the effect of randomized quantum resetting (QR) under a finite-time quench across a quantum phase transition. Using the transverse-field Ising chain as a generic model and exploiting its exact solution, QR is found to cause a crossover of the scaling of the topological defect density with the time scale $\tau$ of the quench, from Kibble-Zurek to anti-Kibble-Zurek scaling as $\tau$ increases. This reflects a competition between non-adiabatic quench-driven excitations and QR, giving rise to local minima of the defect densities at optimal annealing times. These times and the corresponding local minima are shown to scale as universal power laws with the rate of QR. Additional results for the scaling of the mean excess energy suggest that a system driven across a quantum critical point exhibits the same scaling behavior under a linear quench with QR as with uncorrelated noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00230 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Scaling of the optimal quantum annealing times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** , one finds that Qr exhibits the same universal scaling as the defect density in Eq. (9). This result agrees with the noisy ramp dynamics in Ref. [17] which shows identical scaling behaviors for defect densities and excess energies. The universality between the dynamics enforced by the two quench protocols, one with QR and the other with noise, extends to the scaling of the variance of the mean excess energies, a… view at source ↗

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

Dissipation-Induced Deviations from Kibble-Zurek Scaling in Non-Hermitian Quantum Annealing
quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

In the non-Hermitian transverse-field Ising model, dissipation causes defect density to exhibit Kibble-Zurek, anti-Kibble-Zurek, or super-Kibble-Zurek scaling due to excitations across broad momentum sectors rather th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008
[2]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

2020
[3]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

2021
[4]

Keimer and J

B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, Nat. Phys.13, 1045 (2017)

2017
[5]

Polkovnikov, K

A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

2011
[6]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[7]

W. H. Zurek, Nature317, 505 (1985)

1985
[8]

Damski, Phys

B. Damski, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 035701 (2005)

2005

Show all 41 references

[9]

W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 105701 (2005)

2005
[10]

Dziarmaga, Phys

J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 245701 (2005)

2005
[11]

Dziarmaga, Adv

J. Dziarmaga, Adv. Phys.59, 1063 (2010)

2010
[12]

del Campo and W

A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430018 (2014)

2014
[13]

S. M. Griffin, M. Lilienblum, K. T. Delaney, Y. Kumagai, M. Fiebig, and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. X2, 041022 (2012)

2012
[14]

Nigmatullin, A

R. Nigmatullin, A. del Campo, G. De Chiara, G. Morigi, M. B. Plenio, and A. Retzker, Phys. Rev. B93, 014106 (2016)

2016
[15]

Patan` e, A

D. Patan` e, A. Silva, L. Amico, R. Fazio, and G. E. Santoro, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 175701 (2008)

2008
[16]

Patan` e, L

D. Patan` e, L. Amico, A. Silva, R. Fazio, and G. E. Santoro, Phys. Rev. B80, 024302 (2009)

2009
[17]

Dutta, A

A. Dutta, A. Rahmani, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 080402 (2016)

2016
[18]

Puebla, A

R. Puebla, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 230602 (2020)

2020
[19]

Singh and S

M. Singh and S. Gangadharaiah, Phys. Rev. B104, 064313 (2021)

2021
[20]

Sadeghizade, R

S. Sadeghizade, R. Jafari, and A. Langari, Phys. Rev. B 111, 104310 (2025)

2025
[21]

Bando, Y

Y. Bando, Y. Susa, H. Oshiyama, N. Shibata, M. Ohzeki, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, D. A. Lidar, S. Suzuki, A. del Campo, and H. Nishimori, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033369 (2020)

2020
[22]

Rajak, S

A. Rajak, S. Suzuki, A. Dutta, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.381, 20210417 (2023)

2023
[23]

R. D. Somma and G. Ortiz, inQuantum Quenching, Annealing and Computation, edited by A. K. Chandra, A. Das, and B. K. Chakrabarti (Springer, Berlin Heidel- berg, 2010) pp. 1–20

2010
[24]

M. R. Evans, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.53, 193991 (2020)

2020
[25]

Mukherjee, K

B. Mukherjee, K. Sengupta, and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. B98, 104309 (2018)

2018
[26]

Friedman, D

H. Friedman, D. A. Kessler, and E. Barkai, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50, 04LT01 (2016)

2016
[27]

Thiel, E

F. Thiel, E. Barkai, and D. A. Kessler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 040502 (2018)

2018
[28]

Yin and E

R. Yin and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 050802 (2023)

2023
[29]

D. C. Rose, H. Touchette, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Gar- rahan, Phys. Rev. E98, 022129 (2018)

2018
[30]

Perfetto, F

G. Perfetto, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, SciPost Phys. 13, 079 (2022)

2022
[31]

Kulkarni and S

M. Kulkarni and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. A108, 062210 (2023)

2023
[32]

Perfetto, F

G. Perfetto, F. Carollo, M. Magoni, and I. Lesanovsky, Phys. Rev. B104, L180302 (2021)

2021
[33]

Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions (2nd edition) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions (2nd edition) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

2011
[34]

Pfeuty, Ann

P. Pfeuty, Ann. Phys.57, 79 (1970)

1970
[35]

Bao and Z

R. Bao and Z. Hou, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 150403 (2025)

2025
[36]

Michel, M

O. Michel, M. Werner, and A. Riera, arXiv:2510.07481 [quant-ph] (2025)

2025
[37]

E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys.16, 407 6 (1961)

1961
[38]

G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, Sci- Post Phys. Lect. Notes82, 1 (2024)

2024
[39]

N. V. Vitanov and B. M. Garraway, Phys. Rev. A53, 4288 (1996)

1996
[40]

Zeng, C.-Y

H.-B. Zeng, C.-Y. Xia, and A. del Campo, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 060402 (2023)

2023
[41]

De Grandi, V

C. De Grandi, V. Gritsev, and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B81, 012303 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bloch, J

I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

2008

[2] [2]

Browaeys and T

A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

2020

[3] [3]

Blais, A

A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

2021

[4] [4]

Keimer and J

B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, Nat. Phys.13, 1045 (2017)

2017

[5] [5]

Polkovnikov, K

A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 863 (2011)

2011

[6] [6]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.9, 1387 (1976)

1976

[7] [7]

W. H. Zurek, Nature317, 505 (1985)

1985

[8] [8]

Damski, Phys

B. Damski, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 035701 (2005)

2005