Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 35 references

The Cost of Nonlocality: A Dynamical Performance Equation of Energy-Entanglement-Complexity

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives an exact energy-entanglement performance equation that prices non-local entanglement generation in locally interacting quantum systems.

desk verdict Central equation is an algebraic identity and the QSL-complexity lemma is falsified by a single T gate; the paper's physical content reduces to a standard bound plus an invalid postulate. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03781 v1 pith:KYMLYJPA submitted 2025-08-05 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

HongZheng Liu , YiNuo Tian , Zhiyue Wu This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech MSC 81P4081P68 PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a03.67.Mn
keywords quantumspeedlimitLieb-Robinsonboundsentanglementgenerationcomputationalcomplexitydynamicalefficiencyperformancefrontierproxyenergyvariance
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 a quantitative cost ledger for generating non-local entanglement in quantum systems whose dynamics are governed by local interactions. It claims that every such process obeys an exact 'energy-entanglement performance equation' linking the available energy variance, the entanglement produced, the optimal computational complexity, and the local interaction strength through two efficiency factors. If the claim holds, entanglement generation becomes a priced resource with a universal performance frontier and a measurable diagnostic ratio for locating bottlenecks. The practical payoff is a closed experimental loop: a complexity proxy built from measurement statistics makes the equation testable rather than purely formal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the pair of dimensionless efficiency factors $\eta_{QSL}=(\pi\hbar C_{\text{opt}}/2)/(\sigma_{\text{avail}}\Delta t)$ and $\eta_{LR}=S_E/((\gamma J/\hbar)\Delta t)$, which convert the two fundamental inequalities into exact equalities. Eliminating $\Delta t$ between them produces the performance equation; the physical content is carried by the bounds $\eta_{QSL}\leq 1$ and $\eta_{LR}\leq 1$ derived from the Mandelstam-Tamm and Lieb-Robinson lemmas. The secondary machinery is the state complexity proxy $\hat{K}_{KL}=\log_2 M_{\text{out}} - D_{KL}(\hat{P}\|U_{M_{\text{out}}})$, whose Shannon-entropy target is shown to lower-bound the optimal circuit complexity under an algorithmic-typicality assumption, allowing the equation to be rewritten entirely in measurable quantities.

What would settle it

Run a strictly local Hamiltonian evolution from a product state, compile $C_{\text{opt}}$ independently, calibrate $J$ and $\gamma$, and measure $\sigma_{\text{avail}}$, $S_E$, and $\Delta t$; observing either $\sigma_{\text{avail}} \Delta t < \pi \hbar C_{\text{opt}}/2$ or $S_E > \gamma J \Delta t/\hbar$ would violate the two lemmas that carry the equation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Eq. (4.5), the energy-entanglement performance equation: $\sigma_{\text{avail}} S_E = (\eta_{LR}/\eta_{QSL})(\pi\gamma J/2) C_{\text{opt}}$. Here $\eta_{QSL}$ and $\eta_{LR}$ are efficiency factors defined so that the Mandelstam-Tamm quantum speed limit and the Lieb-Robinson locality bound become equalities rather than inequalities; eliminating the common evolution time $\Delta t$ yields the identity. The paper argues that Planck's constant cancels because both bounds are calibrated linearly in $\hbar$, leaving a scale-free relation between resource cost, information output, and complexity. Its physical content resides in the upper bounds $\eta_{QSL}\leq 1$ and $\eta_{LR}\leq 1$, and in a measurable complexity proxy $\hat{K}_{KL}$ that supplies a lower bound on $C_{\text{opt}}$, giving the experimentally testable version (4.9).

Load-bearing premise

A task of optimal complexity $C_{\text{opt}}$ can be modeled as $C_{\text{opt}}$ sequential steps, each rotating the state to an orthogonal one; if real circuits can cram the same logical work into fewer or non-orthogonal steps, the speed-limit lemma and the equation built on it lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any entanglement-generation protocol in a local system must lie on or below the performance frontier $\sigma_{\text{avail}} S_E \approx (\pi\gamma J/2) C_{\text{opt}}$ that is reached only when both efficiency factors approach 1.
  • The ratio $\eta_{LR}/\eta_{QSL}$ becomes an operational diagnostic: a value below 1 points to entanglement propagation as the bottleneck, while a value above 1 points to inefficient use of energy fluctuations or excessive evolution time.
  • With the complexity proxy, the QSL bound can be tested directly as $\eta_{QSL-K}\leq 1$, making the framework experimentally checkable through randomized measurements, shadow tomography, and standard randomness tests on the final-state distribution.
  • Because $\hbar$ cancels in the identity, the cost relation is scale-free and expresses a duality between evolution in Hilbert space and propagation of correlations in real space.
  • Benchmarking near-optimal processes lets one read off the product $\gamma J$ from a fitted frontier slope, or infer the compilation efficiency $r_{\text{exp}}=C_{\text{opt}}/C_{\text{exp}}$ for a hardware platform.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that, because Eq. (4.5) is algebraically forced once the efficiency factors are defined, the only falsifiable content is the pair of lemmas; a direct test of Postulate D.1 on small circuits would therefore be more decisive than checking the identity itself.
  • The same elimination of $\Delta t$ could be applied to any two resource bounds with the same linear scaling, suggesting that 'performance equations' of this ratio-symmetric form may exist for other resource pairs, not just energy and entanglement.
  • Because the complexity bound runs from final state back to process, the framework can certify that a random-looking output required a deep circuit, but it cannot detect simple circuits that reach the same state by destructive interference; that asymmetry is worth stating explicitly.
  • An untested extension is the long-range case: the paper conjectures the equation changes with the interaction decay exponent $\alpha$, which a small numerical simulation of $1/r^\alpha$ chains could verify or refute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an exact "energy-entanglement performance equation," Eq. (4.5): sigma_avail * S_E = (eta_LR / eta_QSL) * (pi * gamma * J / 2) * C_opt, obtained by combining a Mandelstam-Tamm-type quantum speed limit with a Lieb-Robinson-type entanglement-growth bound. It introduces efficiency factors eta_QSL and eta_LR, a measurable complexity proxy based on Shannon entropy, and then defines a "quantum dynamical performance frontier" and a diagnostic ratio eta_LR / eta_QSL for benchmarking entanglement-generation protocols. Appendix C.4 explicitly shows that Eq. (4.5) is an algebraic identity following from the definitions of the efficiency factors; the paper states that the testable content resides in the two inequalities eta_QSL <= 1 and eta_LR <= 1.

Significance. If the two efficiency bounds were valid, the identity could serve as a useful bookkeeping device and the experimental blueprint in Sec. 5 would be a concrete route to benchmarking the cost of generating entanglement under locality constraints. The manuscript is unusually transparent in admitting that the central equation is a tautology (App. C.4), and it provides a detailed measurement protocol. However, the physical content of the framework relies on two pillars: the QSL-complexity bound, whose proof depends on an unproved and factually false postulate, and the complexity-proxy bound, which depends on an unproved assumption about algorithmic incompressibility. Since one of the two efficiency bounds is therefore not established, the claimed universal performance equation and its derived diagnostics are not supported as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Appendix D, Postulate D.1 / Lemma 3.1] Lemma 3.1 is not a consequence of the Mandelstam-Tamm bound as claimed, because the bridge provided by Postulate D.1 is unproved and is in fact false for elementary universal circuits. The postulate asserts that a task of optimal depth C_opt can be modeled as C_opt serial steps, each evolving the state to an orthogonal state. A concrete counterexample is the T gate acting on |0>: C_opt(T) = 1, but T|0> = |0>. Realize T with H = -(pi*hbar/(4*Delta_t))|1><1|; the initial state |0> is an eigenstate of H with zero eigenvalue, so sigma_avail = 0, yet Eq. (3.1) would require 0 >= pi*hbar/2. Even for a depth-1 CNOT acting on |++>, the final state has overlap 1/2 with the initial state, so the per-step orthogonalization assumption fails in an entangling example. Since eta_QSL <= 1 is derived directly from Lemma 3.1, this invalidates the physical content of Eq. (4.5).
  2. [Sec. 4 and Appendix C.4, Eq. (4.5)] The manuscript's own calculation in Appendix C.4, Eqs. (C.1)-(C.6), shows that Eq. (4.5) is an algebraic identity obtained by substituting the definitions of eta_QSL and eta_LR. This means the equation has no independent physical content beyond the two efficiency upper bounds. The "quantum dynamical performance frontier" of Sec. 6.1 is therefore not a derived consequence of the physics; it is simply the assumption eta_QSL = eta_LR = 1 inserted into the identity. The abstract and introduction present Eq. (4.5) as a newly established universal law, but the equality cannot be experimentally falsified at all. The overstatement of the equation's status is a load-bearing presentation issue because the claimed "performance frontier" and the "cost of nonlocality" ledger rest on this framing.
  3. [Appendix G, Physical Assumption G.1 and Theorem 4.2] Theorem 4.2 depends on Physical Assumption G.1, the claim that the final-state measurement distribution is algorithmically incompressible and satisfies K(P) >= H(P) - O(1). This assumption is not proven for the class of processes considered and can fail in physically relevant cases: Clifford circuits, shallow circuits, and integrable dynamics can produce highly compressible output distributions even at large circuit depth. The proposed NIST randomness tests in Sec. 5.4 cannot certify algorithmic incompressibility; passing statistical tests is not a proof of K(P) >= H(P). The paper acknowledges the assumption in the paragraph after Definition 4.3, but this caveat does not rescue Theorem 4.2, which is used to define the experimentally testable efficiency factor eta_QSL-K in Eq. (4.8) and the final Eq. (4.9).
  4. [Sec. 5.3 and Appendix C.3] There is an internal inconsistency between the definition of eta_QSL and the experimental instructions. Definition 4.1 defines eta_QSL = (pi*hbar/2) * C_opt / (sigma_avail * Delta_t), and Lemma 3.1 guarantees eta_QSL <= 1 only when C_opt is the optimal complexity. However, Sec. 5.3 instructs the experimenter to substitute the experimentally applied depth C_exp into Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2), and Appendix C.3 states that C_exp is used as the input for calculating eta_QSL. Since C_exp >= C_opt, the resulting quantity can exceed 1, so the diagnostic thresholds based on eta_LR/eta_QSL < 1 or > 1 in Secs. 5.3 and 6.2 are not logically tied to the proven bound. Either the definition must be modified and re-analyzed, or the protocol must use C_opt, which would make the diagnostic ratio uncomputable without the unmeasured optimal depth.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Footnote 3 and Sec. 4] Footnote 3 states that K(M) = O(n) for local Clifford shadow tomography, while the main text repeatedly calls K(M) a "small constant." For a system of n qubits, an O(n) term in Eq. (4.7) can be comparable to the measured proxy b_KKL, which scales at most as O(n); the claimed lower bound can then become vacuous. The paper should resolve this discrepancy explicitly.
  2. [Appendix F.3] The claim that the 1D Heisenberg chain saturates the Lieb-Robinson bound and gives eta_LR = 1 in the short-time linear regime is presented through an approximation without a quantitative check that the constant gamma used in Eq. (F.8) equals the actual slope of the entanglement growth for that model. This should be stated as an illustrative model rather than a proof of saturation.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Gate B] The calibration of gamma is said to be independent because it comes from numerical simulation, but the simulation itself will typically assume the same theoretical framework of Eq. (3.2). The text would benefit from clarifying under what assumptions a numerical gamma estimate is genuinely independent of the bound being tested.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 10.0 of 10

Eq. (4.5) is an algebraic identity by the paper's own admission: substituting the definitions of η_QSL and η_LR cancels every physical quantity, so the 'central thesis' reduces to σ_avail S_E = σ_avail S_E.

  1. self definitional [Theorem 4.1 and Appendix C.4, Eqs. (C.1)-(C.6)]
    "To ensure the logical rigor of our theoretical framework, this section aims to explicitly clarify that our core 'Energy-Entanglement Performance Equation' (RECT -η, Eq. (4.5)) is, by its construction based on the definitions of the efficiency factors, an algebraic identity (or tautology). ... This result shows that the correctness of the RECT-η equation is not a falsifiable physical proposition, but a matter of mathematical self-consistency guaranteed by our definitions of the efficiency factors."

    The stated derivation of the central result, Eqs. (C.1)-(C.6), expands the right-hand side of Eq. (4.5) by inserting η_QSL = (πℏ/2)C_opt/(σ_avail Δt) and η_LR = S_E/((γJ/ℏ)Δt). The efficiency ratio η_LR/η_QSL then collapses algebraically to 2σ_avail S_E/(πγJ C_opt); multiplying by (πγJ/2)C_opt returns exactly σ_avail S_E, i.e., the left-hand side. No physical input other than the definitions of the two efficiency factors is used. Thus Theorem 4.1 is true by construction and is not a consequence of the two lemmas plus dynamics; presenting it as the 'central thesis' and as the basis of a universal 'quantum dynamical performance frontier' is a renaming of the definitions rather than a derived physical law.

full rationale

The circularity is definitional and is admitted in the manuscript. Theorem 4.1 is derived by substituting the definitions of η_QSL and η_LR; every physical quantity cancels, leaving an identity. Therefore the paper's main advertised result—the 'energy-entanglement performance equation'—is equivalent to its own input by construction, which merits the maximum circularity score under the rubric. There is no significant self-citation chain here, and I am not flagging self-citation: the LR-side bound rests on external literature (Bravyi-Hastings-Verstraete, Lieb-Robinson), and the complexity-proxy argument rests on Li-Vitányi and sampling experiments. Those are independent supports, not circularity. The separate weakness that Lemma 3.1 depends on the unproved Postulate D.1 about C_opt serial orthogonalizing steps is a correctness and foundation gap rather than a circularity step: the postulate is not derived from the theorem. Because the central equation itself is a tautology, the claimed performance frontier and the efficiency-ratio diagnostic inherit no new predictive content beyond the input bounds; the score is 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard quantum speed limit and Lieb-Robinson bounds plus two strong, unproven assumptions: Postulate D.1 (orthogonal-step model of C_opt) and Physical Assumption G.1 (algorithmic incompressibility). The efficiency factors and performance frontier are derived quantities, not independent physical entities. The constants gamma, c_G, and K(M) must be estimated or fitted per system and platform.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (entanglement growth constant) = c * |boundary(A)|, geometry-dependent
    Introduced in Lemma 3.2; absorbs the boundary size and a geometric constant. The main text calls it O(1), but Appendix A.1 says it scales as L^(d-1). In any experimental test it must be estimated from geometry or numerical simulation.
  • c_G (compilation efficiency) = fitted by linear regression in Appendix G.4
    Constant in Theorem 4.2 mapping description bits to gate count; must be calibrated on benchmark circuits for each hardware platform.
  • K(M) (measurement scheme complexity) = fitted via intercept; claimed O(n)
    Appears subtracted in the complexity bound; if truly O(n), it cancels the b_KKL contribution and makes the lower bound trivial for large n, as stated in footnote 3.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Postulate D.1: a task with optimal complexity C_opt can be modeled as C_opt serial steps, each evolving the state to an orthogonal one, so the Mandelstam-Tamm bound applies per step.
    Bridges circuit complexity to physical dynamics; unproven and not a consequence of the definition of circuit depth. Locations: Section 3, Appendix D.1.
  • domain assumption Physical Assumption G.1: final-state probability distributions of generic deep evolutions are algorithmically incompressible, K(P) >= H(P) - O(1).
    Needed for Lemma G.3 and Theorem 4.2; not proven, typically false for structured states such as GHZ states, and passing statistical tests does not establish incompressibility.
  • standard math Standard Mandelstam-Tamm quantum speed limit for time-dependent Hamiltonians.
    Foundational bound, broadly accepted; used in Appendix D.2.
  • standard math Standard Lieb-Robinson bounds for local Hamiltonians, and the Bravyi-Hastings-Verstraete entropy growth rate bound.
    Used in Appendix E; standard results for local lattice systems.
  • standard math Kolmogorov complexity additivity: K(P) <= K(U) + K(M) + O(log K(U)) when P is computed from U and measurement scheme M.
    Standard algorithmic information theory; used in Lemma G.2.
  • domain assumption Initial state has Kolmogorov complexity O(1).
    Assumes initial states such as |0...0>; stated in the proof of Theorem 4.2 in Appendix G.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Cost of Nonlocality: A Dynamical Performance Equation of Energy-Entanglement-Complexity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYMLYJPA

@misc{pith2026250803781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Cost of Nonlocality: A Dynamical Performance Equation of Energy-Entanglement-Complexity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYMLYJPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03781}
}
read the original abstract

This work aims to quantify the physical cost of generating non-local entanglement in systems governed by local interactions. By unifying the quantum speed limit and Lieb-Robinson bounds, we establish an "energy-entanglement performance equation." This framework connects theoretical computational complexity with experimental observables by introducing a measurable proxy for complexity, thereby revealing a performance trade-off among the "energy variance-entanglement product," the strength of local interactions, and dynamical efficiency. Our work not only defines a "performance frontier"-constrained by theoretical bounds and amenable to experimental benchmarking-but also provides a novel diagnostic tool for identifying the performance bottlenecks of a process.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. I. Mandelstam and I. E. Tamm. The uncertainty relation between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. J. Phys. (USSR), 9:249–254, 1945. English translation of Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR (ser. Fiz.) 9, 122–128 (1945)

    work page 1945

  2. [2]

    Norman Margolus and Lev B. Levitin. The maximum speed of dynamical evolution. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 120(1-2):188–195, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Quantum speed limits: from heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control

    Sebastian Deffner and Steve Campbell. Quantum speed limits: from heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quantum control. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 50(45):453001, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Lieb and Derek W

    Elliott H. Lieb and Derek W. Robinson. The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 28(3):251–257, 1972

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    M. B. Hastings. Locality in quantum systems, 2010. Lecture notes; arXiv:1008.5137

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Hastings, and Frank Verstraete

    Sergey Bravyi, Matthew B. Hastings, and Frank Verstraete. Lieb–robinson bounds and the generation of correlations and topological quantum order. Physical Review Letters, 97(5):050401, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Entanglement rates and area laws

    Karel Van Acoleyen, Michaël Mariën, and Frank Verstraete. Entanglement rates and area laws. Physical Review Letters, 111(17):170501, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Chubb, Terry Farrelly, and Tobias J

    Cédric Bény, Christopher T. Chubb, Terry Farrelly, and Tobias J. Osborne. Energy cost of entanglement extraction in complex quantum systems. Nature Communications, 9:3792, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Jens Eisert, Marcus Cramer, and Martin B. Plenio. Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82(1):277–306, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Ultimate physical limits to computation

    Seth Lloyd. Ultimate physical limits to computation. Nature, 406(6799):1047–1054, 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Nielsen, Mark R

    Michael A. Nielsen, Mark R. Dowling, Mile Gu, and Andrew C. Doherty. Quantum computation as geometry. Science, 311(5764):1133–1135, 2006

    2006

  4. [12]

    Ming Li and Paul M. B. Vitányi. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. Springer, New York, NY , 3 edition, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor

    Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush, Dave Bacon, Joseph C Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando GSL Brandao, David A Buell, et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 574(7779):505–510, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Certified randomness using a trapped- ion quantum processor

    Minzhao Liu, Ruslan Shaydulin, Pradeep Niroula, Matthew DeCross, Shih-Han Hung, Wen Yu Kon, Enrique Cervero-Martín, Kaushik Chakraborty, Omar Amer, Scott Aaronson, et al. Certified randomness using a trapped- ion quantum processor. Nature, pages 1–6, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Mora and Hans J

    C. Mora and Hans J. Briegel. Algorithmic complexity of quantum states, 2004. 32

    2004

  8. [16]

    Kolmogorov complexity of unitary transformations in quantum computing, 2021

    Alexei Kaltchenko. Kolmogorov complexity of unitary transformations in quantum computing, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics, 16(10):1050–1057, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, Joshua Lapan, Andrew Lundgren, and Daniel Preda. A quantum adiabatic evolution algorithm applied to random instances of an np-complete problem. Science, 292(5516):472– 475, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Quantum certification and benchmarking

    Jens Eisert, Dominik Hangleiter, Nathan Walk, Ingo Roth, Damian Markham, Rhea Parekh, Ulysse Chabaud, and Elham Kashefi. Quantum certification and benchmarking. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(8):382–390, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized measurements

    Andreas Elben, Richard Kueng, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Rick van Bijnen, Christian Kokail, Marcello Dalmonte, Pasquale Calabrese, Barbara Kraus, John Preskill, Peter Zoller, and Benoît Vermersch. Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized measurements. Physical Review Letters, 125(...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Sp 800-22 rev

    Lawrence E Bassham III, Andrew L Rukhin, Juan Soto, James R Nechvatal, Miles E Smid, Elaine B Barker, Stefan D Leigh, Mark Levenson, Mark Vangel, David L Banks, et al. Sp 800-22 rev. 1a. a statistical test suite for random and pseudorandom number generators for cryptographic a...

    2010

  14. [22]

    The large n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity

    Juan Maldacena. The large n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38:1113–1133, 1999. Originally published in Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231-252

    1998

  15. [23]

    Computational complexity and black hole horizons

    Leonard Susskind. Computational complexity and black hole horizons. Fortschritte der Physik, 64(1):24–43, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Brown, Daniel A

    Adam R. Brown, Daniel A. Roberts, Leonard Susskind, Brian Swingle, and Ying Zhao. Complexity, action, and black holes. Physical Review D, 93(8):086006, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777–780, 1935

    Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10):777–780, 1935

    1935

  18. [26]

    On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox

    John Stewart Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3):195–200, 1964

    1964

  19. [27]

    Quantum resource theories

    Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour. Quantum resource theories. Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(2):025001, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Lanyon, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F

    Tiff Brydges, Andreas Elben, Petar Jurcevic, Benoît Vermersch, Christine Maier, Ben P. Lanyon, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F. Roos. Probing rényi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements. Science, 364(6437):260–263, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Lieb–robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem

    Bruno Nachtergaele and Robert Sims. Lieb–robinson bounds and the exponential clustering theorem. Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 265(1):119–130, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Paul M. B. Vitányi. Information distance in multiples. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4):2451– 2456, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Nielsen and Isaac L

    Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 10th anniversary edition edition, 2010

    2010

  24. [32]

    Green, C

    Tanmoy Pandit, Alaina M. Green, C. Huerta Alderete, Norbert M. Linke, and Raam Uzdin. Bounds on the recurrence probability in periodically-driven quantum systems. Quantum, 6:682, April 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi. Classical and Quantum Computation, volume 47 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Koenraad M. R. Audenaert. A sharp continuity estimate for the von neumann entropy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(28):8127–8136, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits

    Matthew Amy, Dmitri Maslov, Michele Mosca, and Martin Roetteler. A meet-in-the-middle algorithm for fast synthesis of depth-optimal quantum circuits. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 32(6):818–830, 2013. 33

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.