Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

The same non-integrable Rydberg chain behaves as integrable or not, depending only on the initial state

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

In a non-integrable Rydberg chain, initial states with density below half filling show ballistic, effectively integrable dynamics, while denser states show diffusive non-integrable transport.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection The state-dependent integrability claim is likely right in spirit, but the sharp kF=π/2 threshold is not as secure as presented and the diffusive evidence is underquantified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22933 v1 pith:RIVNGA4I submitted 2026-07-24 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Emergent integrable dynamics in a non-integrable Rydberg-atom chain

Gianluca Morettini , Luca Capizzi , Leonardo Mazza , Maurizio Fagotti This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords Rydberg atom chainintegrability breakingstate-dependent dynamicstwo-particle scatteringballistic vs diffusive transportgeneralized hydrodynamicsdipolar XY modelemergent free-fermion dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that integrability is not just a property of a Hamiltonian: the same non-integrable Rydberg spin chain can exhibit either ballistic, integrable-like dynamics or diffusive, non-integrable dynamics depending on the particle density of the initial state. The mechanism is kinematic: two-particle scattering in the lattice can only occur when a pair of occupied quasiparticles has total momentum π. Below half filling, no such pair exists, so the leading integrability-breaking process is forbidden and the system's dynamics are indistinguishable from an effective free-fermion model on accessible timescales. Above half filling, the extra scattering channel opens, current degrades, and the variance of the half-chain magnetization grows as a power law rather than logarithmically. The authors support this with numerics and propose an experiment on current Rydberg-atom platforms.

Core claim

The central discovery is a sharp, state-dependent crossover in a fixed non-integrable Hamiltonian H0+ηV: for Fermi momenta kF ≲ π/2 the bipartition dynamics are, in the authors' words, 'indistinguishable from an effective integrable model', while for kF ≳ π/2 a qualitatively different diffusive regime appears. The deciding factor is the energy–momentum relation ε(k) = -2J cos k: nontrivial two-particle scattering is kinematically allowed only at total momentum π. This yields a simple selection rule — states whose occupied modes stay below π/2 are protected at leading order — and explains why integrable and non-integrable behavior coexist in the same model. The paper also identifies which of

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-particle scattering kinematics encoded in energy and momentum conservation: ε(k1)+ε(k2)=ε(k1')+ε(k2') and k1+k2 ≡ k1'+k2' mod 2π, with the unrenormalized lattice dispersion ε(k) = -2J cos k. When the total momentum is π, the total energy of the pair vanishes, so any such pair can scatter into any other pair with total momentum π — opening the backscattering channel that destroys ballistic transport. This kinematic constraint also partitions the free-fermion conservation laws into 'robust' ones (those vanishing at k=π/2) and 'fragile' ones. The dominance of these two-particle processes at short and intermediate times is the mechanism that protects states with kF<π/2.

Load-bearing premise

The sharp split rests on the assumption that, at the experimentally relevant interaction strength η=1/8 and timescales t≤12/J, two-particle scattering remains the only relevant process and the single-particle dispersion stays close to its free value—if renormalization or higher-order n-body events open channels below kF=π/2 within this window, the crossover softens or disappears.

What would settle it

Look for the crossover to disappear or soften: tune a Rydberg chain (or the same numerics) to kF just below π/2, extend evolution beyond t≃12/J, and measure the half-chain magnetization variance; if it grows as a power law in that regime, the integrable-looking dynamics are an artifact of short times. Alternatively, compute the two-particle T-matrix with the renormalized dispersion at η=1/8 and check whether the total-momentum-π channel remains the only open one.

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

If this is right

  • Any bipartition protocol built from states with occupied momenta |k| ≲ π/2 is predicted to show effectively free-fermion dynamics, not just the specific Fermi-sea states studied numerically.
  • The sharp crossover at kF=π/2 provides a concrete experimental signature: measuring the time-averaged variance of half-chain magnetization as a function of filling should show a plateau below half filling and power-law growth above.
  • A non-integrable model with Wigner-Dyson level statistics can host thoroughly integrable dynamics on short and intermediate scales, extending the notion of weak integrability breaking beyond prethermal behavior.
  • The kinematic selection rule is lattice-specific: in Galilean or relativistic systems the same scattering is forbidden entirely, so the state-dependent phenomenon is tied to the band structure.
  • A self-consistent mean-field description should be quantitatively accurate for kF ≤ π/2, potentially giving microscopic hydrodynamic equations valid for all fillings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's protection argument is perturbative: at any finite kF > 0, n-body processes with n ≥ π/kF can in principle destabilize the NESS, so the integrable-looking regime should weaken at longer times; the practical question is how the timescale grows with system size and interaction strength.
  • The same kinematic logic may apply to other lattice models with a cosine-like dispersion and density-dependent thresholds, suggesting that state-dependent integrability breaking may be a generic feature rather than specific to dipolar Rydberg chains.
  • Since the accessible time window in current Rydberg simulators (t ≲ 10/J) matches the numerics, an immediate test is possible: prepare the chain at fillings below and above half, and compare the magnetization-front rescaling and the half-chain variance growth.
  • It remains open whether the threshold is exactly π/2 after renormalization of the single-particle dispersion at η=1/8; a refined calculation including self-energy corrections could shift or soften the transition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional dipolar XY model, truncated to nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor terms, H = H0 + ηV with η = 1/8. H0 is the free-fermion chain; V contains a quadratic dispersion-renormalizing term and a quartic integrability-breaking term. The authors propose a two-particle scattering argument: using the bare dispersion ε(k) = -2J cos k, nontrivial scattering is allowed only for pairs with total momentum π, so a right-moving Fermi sea with kF < π/2 is kinematically protected from leading-order scattering, while kF > π/2 is not. They support this with TEBD simulations of a bipartition protocol: for kF/π = 0.25 and 0.5, density profiles collapse ballistically and are close to free-fermion hydrodynamics with ε_R(k) = -2J(cos k + η cos 2k); for kF/π = 0.75 and 1, the profiles are claimed to show diffusive scaling, and the variance of the half-chain magnetization grows beyond the integrable log t behavior only for kF ≳ π/2. Level-spacing statistics of H0 + ηV at η = 1/8 are GOE, confirming non-integrability in the spectral sense. The paper concludes that integrability breaking is state-dependent.

Significance. If correct, the result would be a valuable example of state-dependent weak integrability breaking in a realistic experimental model, with a parameter-free kinematic predictor and observables (magnetization variance, entanglement) accessible to Rydberg simulators. Strengths include the absence of fitted parameters in the threshold prediction, the GOE check for the full model, the parameter-free free-fermion comparison, and the direct experimental relevance of the bipartition protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [Kinematics of two-particle scattering, Eq. (4)] The central threshold kF = π/2 is derived from the bare dispersion, and the paper explicitly states that for finite η the conclusion should be modified. The quadratic part of V (Eq. (3)) renormalizes the dispersion to ε_R(k) = -2J(cos k + η cos 2k), which is precisely the dispersion used for the free-fermion comparison in Fig. 2. Repeating the two-body scattering analysis with ε_R gives nontrivial solutions whenever |cos(K/2)| ≤ 4η|cos K|, which for η = 1/8 occurs for total momenta |K| ≳ 137°. In the bipartition protocol this allows leading-order scattering for kF as low as ≈0.38π. The TEBD data in Figs. 2 and 3 probe kF/π = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, leaving the interval (0.38, 0.5) untested. The observed 'sharp' split may therefore be an artifact of the unrenormalized constraint. The authors must either provide a corrected kinematic analysis that consistently uses the dressed dispersion at η
  2. [Numerical study: Magnetization profile, Fig. 2] The claim of diffusive transport for kF = 0.75π and π is based on a visual preference for the j/√t collapse at t ≤ 12. No diffusion coefficient is extracted, no scaling exponent is fitted, and no collapse error is quantified. Given that the central message contrasts ballistic (integrable-like) and diffusive (non-integrable) dynamics, this identification is load-bearing. Please provide a quantitative scaling analysis: e.g., collapse residuals for the two candidate scalings, a time-dependent width exponent, or a finite-time extrapolation of the exponent toward 1/2.
  3. [End Matter, Higher-order effects] The EM admits that for any kF > 0, sufficiently high-order n-body processes destabilize the NESS (Eq. (11)), and asserts that they act on 'much later timescales' / 'very large timescales', but no estimate of that timescale is given. At η = 1/8 the perturbation is not perturbatively small, and the separation of orders is not guaranteed on the simulated timescales (t ≤ 12, T up to 12 in Fig. 3). The paper should supply a concrete estimate of the breakdown time, or numerical evidence (convergence in bond dimension, kF-dependence of the onset time) that higher-order processes are negligible in the regime where kF ≤ 0.5π data show effective integrability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several missing spaces from LaTeX source ('notintegrable', 'Theunperturbed', 'genuinen-body', etc.). Please proofread the compiled text.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'a diffusive scaling is more suitable' is subjective. Please indicate the values of t used in the collapse, add error bars or multiple time slices, and specify that details of the TEBD parameters are in the EM.
  3. [Eq. (9)] The notation ⟨Q2_A(t)⟩c,η is not fully defined; please clarify that c denotes the connected correlator and η labels the Hamiltonian. Also, the subscript c before the comma is easy to misread.
  4. [Kinematics, conservation-law discussion] The terms 'robust' and 'fragile' conservation laws are introduced without definitions; consider defining them explicitly or citing Ref. [33] at that point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central kF=π/2 threshold is derived from H0 kinematics, not fitted; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central threshold kF=π/2 is derived, not fitted: Eq. (4) imposes energy-momentum conservation with ε(k)=-2J cos k, and the paper shows nontrivial two-body solutions exist only for total momentum π, so for kF<π/2 no such pairs are present. The ballistic comparison in Fig. 2 uses the free-fermion hydrodynamic prediction with ε(k)=-2J(cos k+η cos 2k), whose coefficient η is fixed by the model (Eq. (3)), not adjusted to data. No parameter is fitted to the variance crossover in Fig. 3; the crossover is read off from TEBD data against an η=0 baseline. The self-citations (refs. [18], [37], [38]) are used as background, experimental motivation, and GHD tools; the load-bearing kinematic argument uses only the model's own Hamiltonian and standard Jordan-Wigner mapping, with the conservation-law dichotomy citing independent work (refs. [33], [34]). The manuscript itself flags two caveats: the unrenormalized-dispersion approximation in the kinematic analysis ('for finite values of η, the single-particle dispersion ε(k) undergoes nontrivial renormalization and the conclusions derived from the kinematic constraints in Eq. (4) should be modified accordingly') and the EM admission that n-body processes destabilize the NESS for any kF>0 at sufficiently high order. These are correctness/validity limitations, not circularity: they concern whether the prediction survives renormalization and higher-order processes, not whether the prediction is equivalent to its inputs. Because the prediction is parameter-free and independently testable, circularity burden is low. Minor self-citations are present but not load-bearing; no reduction of the central claim to input definitions or fitted data was found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three modeling assumptions: NNN truncation with η=1/8, Fermi-sea form of the interacting initial state, and perturbative separation of two-particle from n-body scattering. None of these is fitted to the observed threshold; η is taken from the dipole geometry. No free parameters are tuned to the data, and no new entities are introduced.

axioms (6)
  • standard math The Jordan-Wigner transformation exactly maps the nearest-neighbor XY chain to free fermions and gives the fermionic form of V in Eq. (3).
    Standard exact mapping used to justify H0 in Eq. (2) and the quartic interaction in Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Truncating the dipolar XY model at the next-nearest-neighbor term with η=1/8 captures the main integrability-breaking effects on the timescale of interest.
    The paper explicitly truncates the 1/|i-j|^3 sum because the NNN term 'captures the main integrability-breaking effects on the timescale of interest'; neglected |i-j|≥3 terms are assigned to higher-order/later-time effects in the End Matter.
  • domain assumption The weakly interacting ground state at fixed N is well described as a Fermi sea with kF defined by kF/π = N/(L/2).
    Luttinger theorem and experimental hints are invoked; Eq. (6) is used as a definition of kF for the interacting ground state.
  • domain assumption Two-particle scattering with the unrenormalized dispersion ε(k)=-2J cos k controls the leading-order qualitative dynamics, and higher-order n-body scattering acts only at much later times.
    This is the mechanism behind the kF=π/2 threshold. The authors note that finite-η renormalization modifies the conclusions and that higher-order processes eventually destabilize the NESS for any kF>0.
  • domain assumption Level-spacing statistics in the (I,F)=(1,1) symmetry sector at L=16 and η=1/8 certify that the model is nonintegrable.
    Wigner-Dyson statistics in one symmetry sector is used as the standard diagnostic that H0+ηV is not integrable.
  • standard math Energy and momentum conservation modulo 2π is sufficient to determine the allowed two-particle scattering channels.
    The kinematic analysis in Eq. (4) relies only on these conservation laws; the lattice structure is what opens the nontrivial total-momentum-π channel.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent integrable dynamics in a non-integrable Rydberg-atom chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIVNGA4I

@misc{pith2026260722933,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent integrable dynamics in a non-integrable Rydberg-atom chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIVNGA4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22933}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that integrable and non-integrable dynamics can coexist in the same Rydberg-atom chain, depending on the initial state in which the system is prepared. In the setting we consider, Rydberg atoms mainly experience an effective dipolar interaction and, within the nearest-neighbor approximation, their dynamics can be mapped onto an effective integrable Fermi gas with ballistic transport. The inclusion of longer-range couplings, however, is essential for the theory to be predictive; those terms break the conservation laws associated with integrability, enabling, in particular, the emergence of genuine diffusive transport. We study the dynamics generated by a bipartition protocol and reveal a sharp qualitative change in behavior as the particle density is varied, suggesting the possibility of accessing weaker and stronger integrability breaking dynamics in the same Hamiltonian depending on the relevance of local interactions. We propose a theoretical mechanism that accounts for the differences. Our findings provide clear and concrete evidence that integrability breaking is not solely a property of the Hamiltonian and of the magnitude of the couplings that break integrability, but also of the state in which the system is prepared.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22933 by Gianluca Morettini, Leonardo Mazza, Luca Capizzi, Maurizio Fagotti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The local occupation n(x, k) as a function of the po￾sition x and the momentum k for t > 0, evolved from the ini￾tial condition (8) with the free-fermionic hydrodynamic equa￾tion (7). The function n(x, k) equals 1 within the gray regions and 0 otherwise. rescaling and only depend on x/t. Previous studies have shown that in non-interacting systems, η = 0, the vari￾ance of the half-chain magnetization QA = P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Difference between the magnetization variance in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatial profile of the charge density for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Difference between the half-chain entropy in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    quantum Newton cradle

    +ε(k ′ 2), k1 +k 2 ≡k ′ 1 +k ′ 2 mod 2π. (4) Equation (4) strongly constrains the kinematics of the scattering problem, regardless of the specific form of the interaction. While a trivial solution, in which the out- going momenta coincide with the incoming ones, is al- ways allowed, additional nontrivial solutions arise only for pairs(k 1, k2)with total m...

    2030

  2. [2]

    Specifically, we expect the Wigner-Dyson distribution P(s)∝se −s2 and⟨r⟩ GOE = 4−2 √ 3[51–54]

    In contrast, for non-integrable systems (with time- reversal symmetry) the level-spacing statistics is de- scribed by the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble (GOE). Specifically, we expect the Wigner-Dyson distribution P(s)∝se −s2 and⟨r⟩ GOE = 4−2 √ 3[51–54]. In Fig. 4, we show that forη= 1/8(the experiment- ally relevant value) the model predominantly exhibits ...

  3. [3]

    A. A. N. Kolmogorov, On conservation of conditionally periodic motions for a small change in Hamilton’s func- tion, Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences98, 527 (1954). 7

    1954

  4. [4]

    N. N. Nekhoroshev, Behavior of Hamiltonian systems close to integrable, Analysis and Applications5, 338 (1971)

    1971

  5. [5]

    Pöschel, On Nekhoroshev’s estimate for quasi- convex Hamiltonians, Mathematische Zeitschrift213, 187 (1993)

    J. Pöschel, On Nekhoroshev’s estimate for quasi- convex Hamiltonians, Mathematische Zeitschrift213, 187 (1993)

    1993

  6. [6]

    Fermi, J

    E. Fermi, J. Pasta, and S. Ulam,Studies of Nonlin- ear Problems, Tech. Rep. LA-1940 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1955)

    1940

  7. [7]

    Kinoshita, T

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, A quantum Newton’s cradle, Nature440, 900 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Langen, S

    T. Langen, S. Erne, R. Geiger, B. Rauer, T. Schweigler, M. Kuhnert, W. Rohringer, I. E. Mazets, T. Gasenzer, andJ.Schmiedmayer,Experimentalobservationofagen- eralized Gibbs ensemble, Science348, 207 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Schemmer, I

    M. Schemmer, I. Bouchoule, B. Doyon, and J. Dubail, Generalized hydrodynamics on an atom chip, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 090601 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Malvania, Y

    N. Malvania, Y. Zhang, Y. Le, J. Dubail, M. Rigol, and D. S. Weiss, Generalized hydrodynamics in strongly in- teracting 1D Bose gases, Science373, 1129 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, B. Ye, F. Machado, J. Kemp, K. Srakaew, S. Hollerith, J. Rui, S. Gopalakrishnan, N. Y. Yao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Quantum gas mi- croscopy of Kardar–Parisi–Zhang superdiffusion, Science 376, 716 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Dubois, G

    L. Dubois, G. Thémèze, F. Nogrette, J. Dubail, and I. Bouchoule, Probing the Local Rapidity Distribution of a One-Dimensional Bose Gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 113402 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Schüttelkopf, M

    P. Schüttelkopf, M. Tajik, N. Bazhan, F. Cataldini, S.- C. Ji, J. Schmiedmayer, and F. Møller, Characterizing transport in a quantum gas by measuring Drude weights, Science (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    F. H. L. Essler and M. Fagotti, Quench dynamics and relaxation in isolated integrable quantum spin chains, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2016, 064002 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Vidmar and M

    L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, Generalized gibbs ensemble in integrable lattice models, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2016, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Bertini, M

    B. Bertini, M. Collura, J. De Nardis, and M. Fagotti, Transport in Out-of-Equilibrium XXZ Chains: Exact Profiles of Charges and Currents, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 207201 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    O. A. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, and T. Yoshimura, Emergent hydrodynamics in integrable quantum systems out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. X6, 041065 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    A. H. van Amerongen, J. J. P. van Es, P. Wicke, K. V. Kheruntsyan, and N. J. van Druten, Yang-yang thermo- dynamics on an atom chip, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 090402 (2008)

    2008

  19. [19]

    Bastianello, A

    A. Bastianello, A. De Luca, and R. Vasseur, Hydro- dynamics of weak integrability breaking, Journal of Stat- istical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2021, 114003 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    C. Chen, L. Capizzi, A. Marché, G. Bornet, G. Em- perauger, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, M. Fagotti, and L. Mazza, Observing weakly broken conservation laws in a dipolar rydberg quantum spin chain (2026), arXiv:2602.02251 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Schauß, J

    P. Schauß, J. Zeiher, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, T. Macrì, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Groß, Crystallization in Ising quantum magnets, Science347, 1455 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579–584 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Schymik, V

    K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, D. Barredo, P. Scholl, H. Williams, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Enhanced atom-by-atom assembly of arbitrary tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. A102, 063107 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-Body Physics with Individually Controlled Rydberg Atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Ebadi, T

    S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho,et al., Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalin- owski, R. Samajdar,et al., Probing topological spin li- quids on a programmable quantum simulator, Science 374, 1242 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Rosenberg, T

    E. Rosenberg, T. I. Andersen, and e. a. Samajdar, Dy- namicsofmagnetizationatinfinitetemperatureinaHeis- enberg spin chain, Science384, 48–53 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    C. Chen, G. Emperauger, G. Bornet, F. Caleca, B. Gély, M. Bintz, S. Chatterjee, V. S. Liu, D. Barredo, N. Yao, T. Lahaye, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, and A. Browaeys, Spectroscopy of elementary excitations from quench dy- namics in a dipolar XY Rydberg simulator, Science389, 483 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Emperauger, M

    G. Emperauger, M. Qiao, C. Chen, F. Caleca, S. Bocini, M. Bintz, G. Bornet, R. Martin, B. Gély, L. Klein, D. Barredo, S. Chatterjee, N. Y. Yao, F. Mezzacapo, T. Lahaye, T. Roscilde, and A. Browaeys, Tomonaga- Luttinger Liquid Behavior in a Rydberg-Encoded Spin Chain, Phys. Rev. X15, 031021 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Nogrette, H

    F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. Béguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Single-atom trapping in holographic 2d arrays of micro- traps with arbitrary geometries, Phys. Rev. X4, 021034 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Léséleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Scalable spin squeezing in a dipolar Ry- dberg atom array, Nature621, 728 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Le- clerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee,et al., Continuous symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional Rydberg array, Nature616, 691 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das paulische äquivalen- zverbot, Zeitschrift für Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  35. [35]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Kolmogorov-arnold-moser stability for con- served quantities in finite-dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 150401 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Grabowski and P

    M. Grabowski and P. Mathieu, Structure of the con- servation laws in quantum integrable spin chains with short range interactions, Annals of Physics243, 299–371 8 (1995)

    1995

  37. [37]

    J. M. Luttinger, Fermi Surface and Some Simple Equi- librium Properties of a System of Interacting Fermions, Phys. Rev.119, 1153 (1960)

    1960

  38. [38]

    T.Antal, Z.Rácz, A.Rákos,andG.M.Schütz,Transport in theXXchain at zero temperature: Emergence of flat magnetization profiles, Phys. Rev. E59, 4912 (1999)

    1999

  39. [39]

    Fagotti, Higher-order generalized hydrodynamics in one dimension: The noninteracting test, Phys

    M. Fagotti, Higher-order generalized hydrodynamics in one dimension: The noninteracting test, Phys. Rev. B 96, 220302 (2017)

    2017

  40. [40]

    Fagotti, Locally quasi-stationary states in noninter- acting spin chains, SciPost Phys.8, 048 (2020)

    M. Fagotti, Locally quasi-stationary states in noninter- acting spin chains, SciPost Phys.8, 048 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Eisler and I

    V. Eisler and I. Peschel, Surface and bulk entanglement in free-fermion chains, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2014, P04005 (2014)

    2014

  42. [42]

    Dubail, J.-M

    J. Dubail, J.-M. Stéphan, J. Viti, and P. Calabrese, Con- formal field theory for inhomogeneous one-dimensional quantum systems: the example of non-interacting Fermi gases, SciPost Phys.2, 002 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    Scopa, A

    S. Scopa, A. Krajenbrink, P. Calabrese, and J. Dubail, Exact entanglement growth of a one-dimensional hard- core quantum gas during a free expansion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54, 404002 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Scopa and D

    S. Scopa and D. X. Horváth, Exact hydrodynamic de- scription of symmetry-resolved rényi entropies after a quantum quench, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: The- ory and Experiment2022, 083104 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Scopa, P

    S. Scopa, P. Calabrese, and J. Dubail, Exact hydro- dynamic solution of a double domain wall melting in the spin-1/2 XXZ model, SciPost Phys.12, 207 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    F. Ares, S. Scopa, and S. Wald, Entanglement dynamics of a hard-core quantum gas during a joule expansion, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55, 375301 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Scopa and D

    S. Scopa and D. Karevski, Scaling of fronts and en- tanglement spreading during a domain wall melting, The European Physical Journal Special Topics232, 1763–1781 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  49. [49]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    U.Schollwöck,Thedensity-matrixrenormalizationgroup in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011), january 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  51. [51]

    Robertson, R

    J. Robertson, R. Senese, and F. Essler, A simple the- ory for quantum quenches in the annni model, SciPost Physics15, 10.21468/scipostphys.15.1.032 (2023)

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.1.032 2023

  52. [52]

    M. V. Berry and M. Tabor, Level clustering in the regular spectrum, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences356, 375 (1977)

    1977

  53. [53]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Characteriz- ation of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1 (1984)

    1984

  54. [54]

    M. L. Mehta,Random matrices, Vol. 142 (Elsevier, 2004)

    2004

  55. [55]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    Y. Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 084101 (2013)

    2013

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.