Operator Entanglement from Non-Commutative Symmetries

Goffredo Chirco; Michele Arzano

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Hopf-algebra symmetry deformations enforce an intrinsic operator entanglement in the two-qubit sector, even where the deformation is invisible on a single qubit.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:16 UTC pith:UIHNDHHA

load-bearing objection A clean, exactly solvable two-qubit example of q-deformed coproducts generating operator entanglement; the result is conditional on the assumed composite-observable rule. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24806 v1 pith:UIHNDHHA submitted 2025-12-31 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Operator Entanglement from Non-Commutative Symmetries

Michele Arzano , Goffredo Chirco This is my paper

classification quant-ph gr-qchep-th MSC 81R5017B3781P40

keywords quantum groupsHopf algebrasoperator entanglemententangling powernon-commutative spacetimecoproductU_q(su(2))quantum information

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 paper argues that in non-commutative spacetime models, the deformed Hopf coproduct dictates how single-system observables compose into multipartite ones, and this composition rule can inject nonlocal couplings. Using the quantum group U_q(su(2)) in the spin-1/2 representation, the single-qubit Hamiltonian is q-independent (σ_x), but the two-qubit Hamiltonian built from the coproduct becomes σ_x⊗1 + q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x, which is genuinely nonlocal for q≠1. The authors compute the operator entanglement of the resulting time evolution in closed form and prove that its entangling power for Haar-uniform product inputs is simply (4/9) times that operator entanglement. This establishes a concrete mechanism by which non-commutative symmetries enforce a baseline of entanglement at the algebraic level, with implications for information dynamics in quantum-spacetime settings and quantum information processing.

Core claim

The central discovery is that non-cocommutativity of the Hopf coproduct of U_q(su(2)) forces a strictly nonzero operator entanglement for the two-qubit time evolution generated by the coproduct Hamiltonian H_AB(q)=σ_x⊗1+q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x. In closed form, E(U(t)) = 1/2 − Δ(q,t)/(2(q²+1)⁴), with Δ=(q²−1)⁴c²+8q²(q²−1)²c+16q⁴ and c=cos(αt), α=q+q⁻¹. The entanglement vanishes at q=1 and t=0, and is generically nonzero for q≠1, even though the single-qubit Hamiltonian is q-independent. The paper also proves that for Haar-uniform product inputs the entangling power satisfies e_{p0}(U(t))=(4/9)E(U(t)), so no independent dynamical content is needed beyond the operator entanglement itself. Finally, the cub

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-cocommutative coproduct ∆ of the quantum group U_q(su(2)), the deformed Leibniz rule sending J± to J±⊗q^{J_z}+q^{-J_z}⊗J±. Applied to the single-spin Hamiltonian H(q)=q^{J_z/2}(J_+ + J_-)q^{J_z/2}, it yields the two-qubit generator H_AB(q)=σ_x⊗1+q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x; the q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x term is the nonlocal coupling absent for q=1. The explicit calculation is carried by the cubic identity H_AB³=α²H_AB (α=q+q⁻¹), which reduces e^{-itH} to a quadratic polynomial and permits direct evaluation of the trace formulas leading to Eqs. (25) and (33).

Load-bearing premise

The whole result hinges on the physical modeling choice that composite generators are defined by applying the Hopf coproduct, H_AB=∆(H), rather than the ordinary tensor sum H⊗1+1⊗H; with the standard tensor rule the nonlocal q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x term vanishes and the claimed entanglement disappears.

What would settle it

Evaluate the same two-qubit evolution using the symmetrized coproduct (∆+τ∆)/2 as the composition rule: the q-dependent nonlocal coupling cancels, H_AB becomes proportional to σ_x⊗1+1⊗σ_x, and the unitary factorizes into local rotations, giving E(U(t))≡0 for all t and q. If a quantum-spacetime model instead adopts this symmetric rule, the paper's central claim that non-cocommutativity enforces entanglement is falsified.

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

If this is right

In any faithful two-site realization of U_q(su(2)), composite generators inherit coproduct-induced operator entanglement, making the effect a kinematical, not purely dynamical, feature of the symmetry.
For q≠1, the two-qubit unitary U(t) is intrinsically nonlocal, so quantum gates built from these generators cannot be decomposed into local operations even though the single-qubit building blocks look trivial.
The relation e_{p0}(U)=(4/9)E(U) means entangling power carries no independent information for this family; measuring operator entanglement fully determines average entanglement generation from product inputs.
The cubic identity forces entanglement dynamics to be exactly periodic with frequency α=q+q⁻¹, producing revivals and preventing irreversible operator growth or chaotic scrambling in this minimal model.
The mechanism provides a concrete scenario where quantum-spacetime corrections to symmetry composition manifest as a baseline entanglement, potentially observable in analogue quantum simulations of deformed dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the coproduct rule is accepted as the physical composition law in non-commutative spacetime, entanglement is not purely dynamical but partly encoded in the algebraic composition rule itself; this would reframe the resource theory of entanglement for quantum-spacetime systems.
For higher spin representations (j≥1), the single-qubit accidental triviality disappears and H(q) itself acquires q-dependence; the same mechanism should produce larger operator-algebra growth and possibly a crossover to chaotic scrambling, which can be tested numerically.
A concrete analogue test: a two-qubit platform whose interaction Hamiltonian contains an asymmetric σ_z⊗σ_x coupling with strength λ=(q−1)/(q+1) should reproduce Eq. (25) with the identified q, and should show entangling power equal to (4/9)E(U(t)); any deviation would signal additional dynamics beyond the coproduct rule.
In iterated coproducts (many-body chains), the nonlocal coupling q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x spreads through successive composition levels; whether the algebraic closure persists or gives way to operator growth can be checked in spin-chain emulations of deformed symmetries.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

A clean, exactly solvable two-qubit example of q-deformed coproducts generating operator entanglement; the result is conditional on the assumed composite-observable rule.

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Here’s my take on Arzano and Chirco. The paper does one concrete thing: it takes the U_q(su(2)) coproduct, applies it to the single-spin Hamiltonian H(q)=σ_x, gets a two-qubit Hamiltonian H_AB = σ_x⊗1 + q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x, and computes the operator entanglement of U(t)=exp(-it H_AB) in closed form. The formulas are new and the key one, E(U(t))=1/2 − Δ/(2(q^2+1)^4), passes every sanity check I ran: it vanishes at q=1 and t=0, oscillates with α=q+q^{-1}, and reaches 1/2 for large q. The companion result, that Haar entangling power is (4/9)E(U), follows from an identity the paper states but does not derive in the text; that should be shown in a revision.

The calculation is honest and parameter-free. The cubic relation H^3=α^2 H makes everything analytically tractable, and the contrast between this integrable closure and chaotic scrambling is a nice observation.

The main soft spot is the starting assumption. Writing H_AB=∆(H) is a physical modeling choice drawn from quantum-spacetime work, not a mathematical necessity. The paper acknowledges it but doesn't do any work to make it more than a postulate. If you instead use the cocommutative tensor sum, E(U)=0. So the result is conditional, and the conclusions should say so more carefully. Section VIII overstates things when it claims any faithful two-site realization inherits the entanglement — only generators involving J± do; ∆(J_z) is cocommutative. There is also a small error in §VI calling 1/2 the two-qubit upper bound on operator entanglement; the swap has E=3/4, so 1/2 is only the maximum for this family.

These are fixable. The core derivation is correct and the framing can be tightened. I’d send this to peer review. A referee worth their salt will ask for the Appendix E trace calculation and for a more disciplined discussion of the composite-observable postulate. The audience is people working on quantum-group symmetries who want an explicit toy model connecting Hopf structure to nonlocality. I’d cite it if I was writing in that area.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a two-qubit unitary U(t)=exp(-it H_AB(q)) from the U_q(su(2)) coproduct of a q-deformed single-spin Hamiltonian H(q)=q^{J_z/2}(J_+ + J_-)q^{J_z/2}. Although H(q)=σ_x in the fundamental representation for every q, the coproduct-defined composite Hamiltonian acquires q-dependent nonlocal couplings. The authors compute the operator entanglement E(U(t)) in closed form (Eq. 25) and the Haar-averaged entangling power e_p0(U)=4/9 E(U) (Eq. 33). They interpret the nonvanishing E as a kinematical imprint of non-cocommutativity, with algebraic closure (H^3=α^2 H) preventing chaotic scrambling. The central calculation is explicit and the limiting checks q=1, t=0 are correct.

Significance. If the physical premise is granted—that multipartite generators are the Hopf coproduct of single-system generators—the paper provides a clean, exactly solvable demonstration that quantum-group deformations can produce operator entanglement even when the single-site Hamiltonian is undeformed. The derivation is transparent and machine-checkable in structure: the cubic identity reduces the exponential to a closed polynomial form, and the trace evaluations are direct. The result is a useful bridge between Hopf-algebraic composition rules and quantum-information measures, with potential relevance to quantum-spacetime models. However, the paper's broad claims about non-cocommutativity 'enforcing' entanglement go beyond what the example establishes, and one numerical/interpretive statement (the claimed two-qubit upper bound) is incorrect.

major comments (3)

[Section VIII and Abstract] The central claim is stated too broadly. The paper says that 'non-cocommutativity of quantum-group symmetries induces an operator entanglement' and that 'any faithful realization of U_q(su(2)) on two sites inherits this coproduct-induced operator entanglement in its composite generators.' This is not true for all composite generators: for H=J_z, Δ(J_z)=J_z⊗1+1⊗J_z is cocommutative and E=0. The effect is specific to the choice H(q) containing J_± and to the physical assumption H_AB=Δ(H). The abstract and conclusions should be rephrased to say that certain coproduct-defined composite generators, such as the H(q) considered here, carry an irreducible entanglement contribution, not that non-cocommutativity alone enforces it. This is a load-bearing scoping issue because the paper's advertised conclusion is stronger than the demonstration.
[Sections VI and VII] There is an internal inconsistency about the maximum operator entanglement of a two-qubit unitary. Section VI and Fig. 2 state that the two-qubit upper bound is E_max=1/2 and that the numerical maximum of E(U(t)) approaches this bound. Section VII correctly uses E(S)=3/4 for the swap, which is a two-qubit unitary with operator entanglement 3/4. Hence the two-qubit upper bound is 3/4, not 1/2. The family in Eq. (25) saturates only at 1/2 in the q→∞ limit, so the wording 'upper bound' and 'saturation' should be corrected. This does not affect Eq. (25), but it is a factual error that should be fixed.
[Appendix B and Eq. (15)] The derivation of H_AB(q) involves a basis permutation that swaps |01> and |10> before identifying the matrix with σ_x⊗1+q^{2J_z}⊗σ_x. Since this permutation is the two-qubit swap S, the manuscript should justify that E(S U S)=E(U). This is true because |S U S>=(S⊗S)|U> and S⊗S merely exchanges the two parties of the Choi bipartition, but this fact is not stated. Without it, a reader may think the calculation applies to a different Hamiltonian. Please add a short justification in Appendix B (or in the main text after Eq. (15)).

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section VI] The abstract and Section VI use different qualifications: the reader's understanding is 'strictly nonzero', while Eq. (25) gives E=0 at t=0 and at isolated times for q≠1. Align the wording to 'generically nonzero' or 'nonvanishing except at special times'.
[Fig. 2] The figure caption refers to an 'upper bound' of 1/2; as noted above, this is not the two-qubit upper bound. Rephrase to 'asymptotic maximum of the present family'.
[Eq. (1)] The displayed equation uses '∆X' with a nonstandard symbol; use Δ(X) for clarity. Also in the same line, the standard cocommutative coproduct is Δ(X)=X⊗1+1⊗X; consider defining the flip map explicitly before using it.
[Section VII, after Eq. (29)] The notation e_E(U) in Appendix E and E(U S) in the main text refer to the same quantity; unify the notation to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the operator entanglement and entangling power are closed-form consequences of explicitly stated definitions, not of self-citation or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claims (25) and (33) are not circular. H_AB(q) is explicitly defined as the coproduct ∆(H(q)) (Eq. 15), and E(U(t)) is then computed from the Wang–Zanardi trace formula (Eq. 21) with the explicit matrix (Eq. 20) obtained from the cubic identity (Eq. 18). No parameter is fitted to the output; q and t are free variables, and the checks E(q=1)=0 and E(t=0)=0 are independent consistency conditions. The entangling-power relation (33) follows algebraically from E(US)=3/4 and E(S)=3/4; it is not used to define E. The only premise that could be called an input is the physical rule that composite observables are coproduct images; the paper states this as an assumption in Sec. I and Eq. (15) and never disguises it as a derived fact. A derivation from an explicitly stated modeling premise is not circular. Self-citations ([4], [9], [25]) are background/outlook references and are not load-bearing; the technical algebra relies on standard quantum-group references [27-29] and Wang–Zanardi. The wording in Sec. VI calling 1/2 the 'two-qubit upper bound' while Sec. VII uses E(S)=3/4 is an internal consistency slip, and Sec. VIII's 'any faithful realization' overstates the special-generator calculation, but these are correctness/scope issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The only freely chosen input is the deformation parameter q. The load-bearing axiom is that the coproduct sets the two-system composition rule; this is a domain assumption from quantum-spacetime models, not a derived result. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

q = unset (q ∈ R_+, q≠1 for deformed case)
Deformation parameter of U_q(su(2)); assumed real and positive for Hermiticity (Section IV). It is not fitted to data; the central formulas are functions of q. Listed because the nonlocality vanishes only for q=1.

axioms (5)

standard math Standard U_q(su(2)) Hopf algebra structure: q-commutation relations (5), coproduct (7), antipode (9), q-number (6).
The paper's framework; standard quantum group structure cited from refs [14,15,27-29].
domain assumption Coproduct defines composite generators: H_AB = ∆(H), rather than the cocommutative H⊗1+1⊗H.
Load-bearing premise: this is why non-cocommutativity produces a nonlocal H_AB. Adopted from quantum-spacetime models (refs [4-9]); if a symmetrized coproduct or the ordinary tensor rule is used, E=0.
domain assumption q ∈ R_+ to make H(q) Hermitian and U(t) unitary.
Section IV; required for the time-evolution operator to be unitary in the standard inner product.
standard math Wang–Zanardi trace formula (21) and entangling-power relation (28).
Taken from refs [11,13]; assumed valid for two qubits.
standard math Spin-1/2 representation of U_q(su(2)) with q^{J_z}=diag(q^{1/2},q^{-1/2}), and group-like property ∆(q^{J_z})=q^{J_z}⊗q^{J_z}.
Used in Section V and Appendix B to evaluate the coproduct of H(q).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7772 in / 31882 out tokens · 274278 ms · 2026-08-03T13:16:25.945451+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

We argue that Hopf-algebra deformations of symmetries -- as encountered in non-commutative models of quantum spacetime -- carry an intrinsic content of $operator$ $entanglement$ that is enforced by the coproduct-defined notion of composite generators. As a minimal and exactly solvable example, we analyze the $U_q(\mathfrak{su}(2))$ quantum group and a two-qubit realization obtained from the coproduct of a $q$-deformed single-spin Hamiltonian. Although the deformation is invisible on a single qubit, it resurfaces in the two-qubit sector through the non-cocommutative coproduct, yielding a family of intrinsically nonlocal unitaries. We compute their operator entanglement in closed form and show that, for Haar-uniform product inputs, their entangling power is fully determined by the latter. This provides a concrete mechanism by which non-commutative symmetries enforce a baseline of entanglement at the algebraic level, with implications for information dynamics in quantum-spacetime settings and quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24806 by Goffredo Chirco, Michele Arzano.

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Bias in Local Spin Measurements from Deformed Symmetries
quant-ph 2026-03 reject novelty 5.0

Local spin measurements on the U_q(su(2)) deformed singlet are biased unless observables are R-matrix-dressed; the claimed unbiased fix is not supported by the paper's own equations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

2009
[2]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019
[3]

J. I. Cirac, W. D¨ ur, B. Kraus, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 544 (2001)

2001
[4]

Arzano and J

M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman,Deformations of Spacetime Symmetries: Gravity, Group-Valued Mo- menta, and Non-Commutative Fields, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 986 (2021)

2021
[5]

Madore, Class

J. Madore, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 69 (1992)

1992
[6]

Majid and H

S. Majid and H. Ruegg, Phys. Lett. B334, 348 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405107

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[7]

Chaichian, P

M. Chaichian, P. P. Kulish, K. Nishijima, and A. Ture- anu, Phys. Lett. B604, 98 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0408069

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[8]

Joung, J

E. Joung, J. Mourad, and K. Noui, J. Math. Phys.50, 052503 (2009), arXiv:0806.4121 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[9]

Arzano, D

M. Arzano, D. Latini, and M. Lotito, SIGMA10, 079 (2014), arXiv:1403.3038 [gr-qc]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[10]

Andreadakis, E

F. Andreadakis, E. Dallas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052416 (2024)

2024
[11]

Zanardi, Phys

P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A63, 040304 (2001)

2001
[12]

Zanardi, C

P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro, Phys. Rev. A62, 030301 (2000)

2000
[13]

Wang and P

X. Wang and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A66, 044303 (2002)

2002
[14]

L. C. Biedenharn, J. Phys. A22, L873 (1989)

1989
[15]

A. J. Macfarlane, J. Phys. A22, 4581 (1989)

1989
[16]

Ballesteros and S

A. Ballesteros and S. M. Chumakov, J. Phys.32, 6261 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9810061

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[17]

Hosur, X.-L

P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, JHEP 02, 004, arXiv:1511.04021 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv
[18]

Chen and T

X. Chen and T. Zhou, (2018), arXiv:1804.08655 [cond- mat.str-el]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[19]

R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 120, e2217031120 (2023), arXiv:2208.10477 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[20]

Andreadakis, E

F. Andreadakis, E. Dallas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052416 (2024), arXiv:2406.10206 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[21]

Styliaris, N

G. Styliaris, N. Anand, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 030601 (2021)

2021
[22]

Ballesteros, I

A. Ballesteros, I. Gutierrez-Sagredo, J. de Ramon, and J. J. Relancio, J. Phys. A58, 405301 (2025), arXiv:2503.23554 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[23]

Emerson, D

J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[24]

Leone, S

L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

2022
[25]

Cepollaro, G

S. Cepollaro, G. Chirco, G. Cuffaro, G. Esposito, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. D109, 126008 (2024), arXiv:2402.07843 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[26]

Cepollaro, G

S. Cepollaro, G. Cuffaro, M. B. Weiss, S. Cusumano, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Stabilizer entropy of subspaces (2025), arXiv:2512.23013 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025
[27]

Chari and A

V. Chari and A. Pressley,A guide to quantum groups (1994)

1994
[28]

Majid,Foundations of quantum group theory(Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

S. Majid,Foundations of quantum group theory(Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[29]

Klimyk and K

A. Klimyk and K. Schmudgen,Quantum groups and their representations(1997). Appendix A: Single-spin representation andq-exponentials We work in the fundamental (spin- 1 2 ) representation with basis |0⟩= 1 0 ,|1⟩= 0 1 .(A1) 6 Then Jz = 1 2 1 0 0−1 , J + = 0 1 0 0 , J − = 0 0 1 0 , σ x =J + +J −.(A2) Theq-exponentials are qJz = q1/2 0 0q −1/2 , q Jz/2 = q1/...

1997

[1] [1]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

2009

[2] [2]

Chitambar and G

E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

2019

[3] [3]

J. I. Cirac, W. D¨ ur, B. Kraus, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 544 (2001)

2001

[4] [4]

Arzano and J

M. Arzano and J. Kowalski-Glikman,Deformations of Spacetime Symmetries: Gravity, Group-Valued Mo- menta, and Non-Commutative Fields, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 986 (2021)

2021

[5] [5]

Madore, Class

J. Madore, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 69 (1992)

1992

[6] [6]

Majid and H

S. Majid and H. Ruegg, Phys. Lett. B334, 348 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405107

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

[7] [7]

Chaichian, P

M. Chaichian, P. P. Kulish, K. Nishijima, and A. Ture- anu, Phys. Lett. B604, 98 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0408069

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

[8] [8]

Joung, J

E. Joung, J. Mourad, and K. Noui, J. Math. Phys.50, 052503 (2009), arXiv:0806.4121 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

[9] [9]

Arzano, D

M. Arzano, D. Latini, and M. Lotito, SIGMA10, 079 (2014), arXiv:1403.3038 [gr-qc]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[10] [10]

Andreadakis, E

F. Andreadakis, E. Dallas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052416 (2024)

2024

[11] [11]

Zanardi, Phys

P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A63, 040304 (2001)

2001

[12] [12]

Zanardi, C

P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro, Phys. Rev. A62, 030301 (2000)

2000

[13] [13]

Wang and P

X. Wang and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A66, 044303 (2002)

2002

[14] [14]

L. C. Biedenharn, J. Phys. A22, L873 (1989)

1989

[15] [15]

A. J. Macfarlane, J. Phys. A22, 4581 (1989)

1989

[16] [16]

Ballesteros and S

A. Ballesteros and S. M. Chumakov, J. Phys.32, 6261 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9810061

Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

[17] [17]

Hosur, X.-L

P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, JHEP 02, 004, arXiv:1511.04021 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv

[18] [18]

Chen and T

X. Chen and T. Zhou, (2018), arXiv:1804.08655 [cond- mat.str-el]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[19] [19]

R. J. Garcia, K. Bu, and A. Jaffe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 120, e2217031120 (2023), arXiv:2208.10477 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[20] [20]

Andreadakis, E

F. Andreadakis, E. Dallas, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 052416 (2024), arXiv:2406.10206 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[21] [21]

Styliaris, N

G. Styliaris, N. Anand, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 030601 (2021)

2021

[22] [22]

Ballesteros, I

A. Ballesteros, I. Gutierrez-Sagredo, J. de Ramon, and J. J. Relancio, J. Phys. A58, 405301 (2025), arXiv:2503.23554 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[23] [23]

Emerson, D

J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, and V. Veitch, New J. Phys.16, 013009 (2014), arXiv:1307.7171 [quant-ph]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[24] [24]

Leone, S

L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

2022

[25] [25]

Cepollaro, G

S. Cepollaro, G. Chirco, G. Cuffaro, G. Esposito, and A. Hamma, Phys. Rev. D109, 126008 (2024), arXiv:2402.07843 [hep-th]

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[26] [26]

Cepollaro, G

S. Cepollaro, G. Cuffaro, M. B. Weiss, S. Cusumano, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Stabilizer entropy of subspaces (2025), arXiv:2512.23013 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2025

[27] [27]

Chari and A

V. Chari and A. Pressley,A guide to quantum groups (1994)

1994

[28] [28]

Majid,Foundations of quantum group theory(Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

S. Majid,Foundations of quantum group theory(Cam- bridge University Press, 2011)

2011

[29] [29]

Klimyk and K

A. Klimyk and K. Schmudgen,Quantum groups and their representations(1997). Appendix A: Single-spin representation andq-exponentials We work in the fundamental (spin- 1 2 ) representation with basis |0⟩= 1 0 ,|1⟩= 0 1 .(A1) 6 Then Jz = 1 2 1 0 0−1 , J + = 0 1 0 0 , J − = 0 0 1 0 , σ x =J + +J −.(A2) Theq-exponentials are qJz = q1/2 0 0q −1/2 , q Jz/2 = q1/...

1997