Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Response of macroscopic and microscopic dynamical quantifiers to the quantum critical region

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After a quench, absorbed energy, nearest-neighbor entanglement, and mutual information can demarcate the quantum critical region via a temperature threshold.

desk verdict Solid qualitative result on quench probes of the QCR, but the quantitative boundary is set by an uncalibrated tolerance and is not yet shown to match the equilibrium QCR. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06374 v2 pith:UUVIE34G submitted 2019-08-18 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Stav Haldar , Saptarshi Roy , Titas Chanda , Aditi Sen De This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el MSC 81P4082B2082B2682B27
keywords quantumcriticalregiontransverse-fieldXYmodelquenchdynamicsenergyabsorptionlogarithmicnegativitymutualinformationphasetransitionsfinite-temperature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the quantum critical region (QCR)—the fuzzy cone above a quantum critical point where thermal and quantum fluctuations are comparable—leaves a clear fingerprint in out-of-equilibrium dynamics. In the integrable transverse-field $XY$ chain, the maximum energy absorbed during a field pulse, the nearest-neighbor logarithmic negativity, and the quantum mutual information between neighboring spins all fall off with temperature much faster when the quench starts inside the QCR than when it starts deep in the ordered or disordered phase. For each quantifier the paper defines a temperature $T^*$ at which the fractional change of the maximized response exceeds a small tolerance $\eta = 10^{-6}$, and shows that plotting $T^*(h_0)$ reconstructs a cone in the $(h_0, T)$ plane much like the equilibrium QCR. Because the three probes are macroscopic, quantum, and information-theoretic in origin yet return overlapping QCR boundaries at both the Ising and multicritical transitions, the paper concludes that these dynamical quantifiers faithfully mimic equilibrium QCR detection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exactly solvable transverse-field quantum $XY$ chain, reduced by Jordan-Wigner and Bogoliubov transformations to non-interacting fermions, which lets correlators, entanglement, and absorbed energy be evaluated analytically after a quench. The paper uses two quench protocols—a square pulse that returns the field to $h_0$ for the energy probe, and a sudden quench to a fixed final field $h_1/J = 1$ for the entanglement and mutual-information probes—and records the maximal change of each quantifier normalized by its zero-temperature value. The demarcation mechanism is Eq. (14): the boundary of the QCR is declared at the temperature $T^*$ where the fractional deviation from the zero-temperature value reaches the tolerance $\eta = 10^{-6}$; below $T^*$ the response counts as temperature-independent, above it the initial point is counted as inside the QCR. The choice $h_1 = J$ is meant to maximize the temperature sensitivity of the response.

What would settle it

Recompute Eq. (14) with $\eta = 10^{-4}$ and $\eta = 10^{-8}$ and extract $T^*(h_0)$ for $h_0$ near $h_c$; also fit the slope of $T^*(h_0)$ versus $|h_0 - h_c|$. If the reconstructed boundary moves by more than the intrinsic fuzziness of the QCR, or if the slope does not match the Ising-universality constant $C$, the claim of faithful mimicry fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a quench starting inside the QCR produces a temperature-dependent response that is qualitatively different from quenches starting in the ordered or disordered phases. For $k_B T / J \lesssim 0.1$, the normalized maximal changes $\Delta\tilde{E}$, $\Delta\tilde{L}$, and $\Delta\tilde{I}$ stay nearly constant when $h_0$ is far from the critical field, but drop rapidly when $h_0$ lies in the QCR, with faster drop for $h_0$ closer to $h_c$. The paper converts this into a demarcation rule: for fixed $h_0$, the QCR boundary is the temperature $T^*(h_0)$ at which $|\Delta Q_{\max}(T) - \Delta Q_{\max}(0)| / |\Delta Q_{\max}(0)| = \eta$ with $\eta = 10^{-6}$. The resulting regions from the three quantifiers overlap closely, and the same procedure works for the Ising transition and for the multicritical point $\gamma = 1 - |h_0/J|$, which the paper reads as evidence that the dynamical quantifiers are tracking the equilibrium QCR rather than an artifact of one probe.

Load-bearing premise

The entire quantitative demarcation rests on an arbitrary tolerance $\eta = 10^{-6}$: if a different tolerance moves the extracted boundary substantially, or if the boundary does not match the equilibrium prediction $T \approx C|h - h_c|$ with the right universality constant, the claim that the dynamics faithfully mimics the equilibrium QCR fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One of the three probes alone can delineate the QCR in the $(h_0, T)$ plane, eliminating the need for an order parameter or a gap-closing criterion in the crossover region.
  • The signature is insensitive to quench length: altering $h_1/J$ while keeping it in the same regime preserves the fast-falloff feature, so the detector does not require fine-tuned quench amplitudes.
  • The criterion applies to distinct criticalities with different critical exponents, indicating that the method is not restricted to one universality class.
  • For non-integrable models, where exact analytics are unavailable, the authors expect similar signatures on time scales short compared with thermalization, suggesting the probes may work beyond exactly solvable chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test, not performed in the paper, is to compare the extracted $T^*(h_0)$ against the equilibrium cone $T \approx C|h - h_c|$ with the known Ising universality constant $C$; matching slopes would make "faithful mimicry" quantitative rather than qualitative.
  • The tolerance $\eta$ is an uncalibrated knob: scanning $\eta$ from, say, $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-8}$ and checking that the reconstructed cone retains its shape and slope would show whether the demarcation is a physical boundary or a numerical convention.
  • If the effect is controlled by critical scaling at the QCP rather than by integrability, short-time entanglement quenches could serve as a QCR probe in cold-atom or trapped-ion transverse-field Ising simulators, where no exact free-fermion solution exists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies finite-temperature quench dynamics in the one-dimensional transverse-field XY model. For a thermal initial state at temperature T and initial field h0, it computes (i) the maximum energy absorbed during a finite square pulse, (ii) the maximal change in logarithmic negativity, and (iii) the maximal change in quantum mutual information after a sudden quench. It reports that the scaled versions of these quantities fall off with temperature much more rapidly when h0 is in the quantum critical region (QCR) than when h0 is deep in the ordered or disordered phases. The authors then define a boundary temperature T*(h0) through Eq. (14), using a fractional-change tolerance η=10^-6, and use it to draw QCR boundaries in the (h0,T) plane for both the Ising and multicritical transitions. The central claim is that these dynamical quantifiers 'faithfully mimic' the equilibrium physics of the QCR.

Significance. If the quantitative claim were established, the proposed dynamical quantifiers would be experimentally relevant markers of the finite-temperature QCR and would connect macroscopic response (absorbed energy) with microscopic correlations in a single framework. The paper has genuine strengths: the exact analytic treatment in Appendix A, the simultaneous consideration of three different quantifiers, the check of quench-length independence in Fig. 3, and the explicit acknowledgment that the QCR boundary is intrinsically fuzzy. The main weakness is that the quantitative demarcation procedure is not calibrated to the equilibrium definition (1); this is fixable, and the underlying study is worth publishing after revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (14)] The boundary temperature T* is defined by the arbitrary tolerance η=10^-6, and the paper provides no sensitivity analysis and no comparison with the equilibrium QCR boundary T≈C|h-hc| quoted in Eq. (1). For h0 away from hc, the initial Hamiltonian has a gap Δ∝|h0-hc|, so the low-temperature fractional change in ΔQmax is exponentially small; solving Eq. (14) yields T* proportional to Δ/ln(1/η), roughly an order of magnitude below the equilibrium crossover scale. The shape of the region in Fig. 4 is therefore essentially a contour of fixed fractional change of the dynamical quantifier, not a demonstrated property of the equilibrium QCR. Unless the authors show that varying η over a reasonable range leaves T*(h0) consistent with Eq. (1), or explain why an alternative scale is physical, the central claim that the quantifiers 'faithfully mimic equilibrium physics' is not established.
  2. [Sec. III A and Fig. 3] The final quench field is fixed to h1/J=1 because it 'gives rise to strong temperature dependence,' but no quantitative criterion is given for this choice and only two alternative values (h1/J=0.3 and 2) are tested qualitatively. Since T* defined by Eq. (14) is computed for h1/J=1 throughout Fig. 4, the extracted boundary could depend on this choice. The authors should either demonstrate that the boundaries in Fig. 4 are stable under h1 variation or state the domain of validity of their quantitative demarcation.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The claim that the method is universal, made in the discussion of the multicritical and Ising transitions, rests on only two critical points. The two examples are useful, but 'universality' is stronger than what two representative points can establish; the text should be reworded to 'qualitatively similar for the two criticalities studied' unless additional universality classes are examined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A, bullet list] In the third bullet, the symbol Δ˜Q is used, but the surrounding text discusses Δ˜E; please use consistent notation.
  2. [Introduction] There are several typos, including 'characetrize' (should be 'characterize') and 'effected' (should be 'affected').
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (14)] The text should clarify that T* is the first solution of Eq. (14), since at higher temperatures the quantifier can cross the threshold again, as seen in the non-monotonic behavior of Δ˜L in Fig. 2(b).
  4. [Sec. III, low-temperature window] The choice of the analysis window kBT/J≲0.1 is stated without justification; a sentence explaining the choice relative to the relevant gap or crossover scale would strengthen the presentation.
  5. [References] Reference [24] is incomplete: it gives volume and page but no journal name.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative QCR demarcation is defined by the quantifier's own threshold in Eq. (14), not by the equilibrium line Eq. (1), so the faithful-mimicry claim is partly self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eq. (14) and Fig. 4]
    "T∗ can be computed from the solution of the following condition: |ΔQmax(T )− ΔQmax(T = 0)| / |ΔQmax(T = 0)| =η. ... In our analysis, we fixη to be 10−6. It means that if the fractional change in ΔQ~(T ) is below the cutoffη, it is considered to be constant, while ΔQ~(T ) > η = 10−6 implies entry into the QCR."

    T* is not obtained from the equilibrium QCR line Eq. (1) or from any independent criterion; it is defined as the temperature at which the proposed quantifier's own fractional change reaches the arbitrary tolerance η. Calling this crossing 'entry into the QCR' makes the demarcated region a contour of the detector, so the claimed faithful mimicry of equilibrium physics reduces to the definition in Eq. (14) unless η is calibrated against Eq. (1).

full rationale

The model is exactly solvable and the dynamical quantifiers are computed from the Hamiltonian without fitting to equilibrium data, and no load-bearing self-citation appears: refs. [16,36,37] are background citations for known entanglement/DQPT features. The central issue is the quantitative demarcation in Sec. IV: Eq. (14) defines T* as the temperature where |ΔQmax(T)-ΔQmax(0)|/|ΔQmax(0)| = η for η=10^-6, and Fig. 4 is constructed by solving this equation. The extracted boundary is therefore a threshold contour of the proposed quantifier, not an independent test of the equilibrium QCR line T≈C|h-hc| from Eq. (1). The paper neither varies η nor compares T*(h0) with Eq. (1), so the statement that these quantifiers 'faithfully mimic equilibrium physics' is partly self-referential at the quantitative level. The qualitative faster-falloff behavior near hc and the mutual overlap of the three quantifiers provide independent content, so the circularity is partial, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on exact solvability, the Gibbs-state initial condition, and the qualitative equilibrium picture of the QCR. The main ad hoc ingredient is Eq. (14), where the tolerance eta determines the detected boundary. There is no fitting to external data, but the quantitative demarcation depends on a hand-chosen threshold and a chosen final quench field.

free parameters (3)
  • eta (tolerance in QCR boundary criterion) = 10^-6
    Introduced in Eq. (14) as a numerical tolerance, but it acts as a physical threshold that sets the width and location of the demarcated QCR. No sensitivity analysis or calibration against an independent equilibrium boundary is provided.
  • final quench field h1/J = 1
    Chosen in Sec. IIIA because it maximizes the temperature dependence of Delta-E-tilde. The qualitative energy result is checked for other h1 values, but the entanglement and mutual information demarcations are only shown for h1/J = 1.
  • low-temperature analysis window kBT/J = 0.1
    The QCR signatures are analyzed for kBT/J less than about 0.1; above this window the behavior changes, including nonmonotonicity for logarithmic negativity. This window is a modeling choice that limits the claimed detection range.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The 1D transverse-field XY model is exactly solvable via Jordan-Wigner, Fourier, and Bogoliubov transformations.
    Invoked in Sec. II and Appendix A, following Refs. [28, 46, 47, 48]. This is the backbone of all analytic results for correlators, spectra, and absorbed energy.
  • domain assumption The initial state is a canonical Gibbs state at temperature T with respect to the initial Hamiltonian.
    Used in Sec. III and Eq. (A7). The entire finite-temperature analysis is based on this equilibrium initial condition.
  • domain assumption The quantum critical region at low temperature is bounded by T approximately C|h - hc|, with the zero-temperature QCP at the vertex.
    Quoted from Refs. [2, 4] in Eq. (1). The paper uses this picture qualitatively as the target that the dynamical markers should reproduce.
  • ad hoc to paper The criterion Eq. (14), with eta = 10^-6, is a valid operational definition of the QCR boundary.
    Introduced in Sec. IV. This is the load-bearing ad hoc assumption: it converts qualitative fall-off into a quantitative boundary without independent calibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Response of macroscopic and microscopic dynamical quantifiers to the quantum critical region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UUVIE34G

@misc{pith2026190806374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Response of macroscopic and microscopic dynamical quantifiers to the quantum critical region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UUVIE34G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06374}
}
abstract

At finite temperatures, the quantum critical region (QCR) emerges as a consequence of the interplay between thermal and quantum fluctuations. We seek for suitable physical quantities, which during dynamics can give prominent response to QCR in the transverse field quantum $XY$ model. We report that the maximum energy absorbed, the nearest neighbor entanglement and the quantum mutual information of the time evolved state after a quench of the transverse magnetic field exhibits a faster fall off with temperature when the initial magnetic field is taken from within the QCR, compared to the choice of the initial point from different phases. We propose a class of dynamical quantifiers, originated from the response of these physical quantities and show that they can faithfully mimic the equilibrium physics, namely detection of the QCR at finite temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online.) A schematic representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online.) Temperature dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online.) Independence of the fall off fea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online.) Quantum critical regions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    If the initial field strength,h0, is chosen from deep inside the ordered or disordered phases,∆ ˜E(T ) is an almost constant function ofT, i.e., it changes negligibly with changing temperature

    work page

  2. [2]

    from points close to the quantum critical point, there is a rapid fall of∆ ˜E(T ) with temperature

    Ifh0 is inside the quantum critical region, i.e. from points close to the quantum critical point, there is a rapid fall of∆ ˜E(T ) with temperature. The closer the initial quench point is to the QCP, the faster the fall

    work page

  3. [3]

    The relevant physics reported in 1 and 2 above is independent of the quench length,|h0/J−h1/J|, in the sense that they do not effect the fall off feature in ∆ ˜E(T ). For example, for the quench: h0 J (0.2) → h1 J (0.3, 2), we get that all the rele- vant quantities under consideration remain almost constant for kBT J ≲ 0.1, while for the quench: h0 J (0.95)...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Dutta, G

    A. Dutta, G. Aeppli, B. K. Chakrabarti, U. Divakaran, T. F. Rosenbaum, and D. Sen,Quantum Phase Transi- tions in Transverse Field Spin Models: From Statistical Physics to Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Now, after Fourier trans- formation, we have ∆E(T,τ ) = 1 2π ∫ dp [ Tr( ˆHp 0e−i ˆH p 1τρp 0ei ˆH p 1τ)−Tr( ˆHp 0ρp 0) ] , (A8) 7 where, ˆHp 0,1 is obtained from Eq

    Evaluation of energy absorbed in a time pulse The energy absorbed in a square time pulse that last a timeτ is evaluated as ∆E(T,τ ) = Tr( ˆH0e−i ˆH1τρ0ei ˆH1τ)−Tr( ˆH0ρ0) (A7) where ρ0 =e− ˆH0 kB T/Tre− ˆH0 kB T . Now, after Fourier trans- formation, we have ∆E(T,τ ) = 1 2π ∫ dp [ Tr( ˆHp 0e−i ˆH p 1τρp 0ei ˆH p 1τ)−Tr( ˆHp 0ρp 0) ] , (A8) 7 where, ˆHp 0,...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Evaluation of entanglement For ˆρAB(t,T ), we always get a state in which the only non-zero local magnetization is in the z-direction, mz(t,T ) and possess the following correlation matrix T (t,T ) =   Cxx(t,T ) Cxy(t,T ) 0 Cyx(t,T ) Cyy(t,T ) 0 0 0 Czz(t,T )  ,(A12) with Cxy(t,T ) = Cyx(t,T ). The computation of entan- glement simplifies with the obse...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of mutual information For computing the mutual information, we first eval- uate the spectrum of ˆρAB(t,T ), and its single site re- ductions, ˆρA(t,T ) = TrB ˆρAB(t,T ) which is equal to ˆρB(t,T ) = TrA ˆρAB(t,T ). The spectrum of ˆρAB(t,T ), XˆρAB(t,T), is obtained from the eigenvalues ofˆρAB(t,T ) and is given by X ˆρAB(t,T) = 1 4× { 1−Czz(t,T...

    work page

  8. [8]

    B. K. Chakrabarti, A. Dutta, and P. Sen, Quantum Ising phases and transitions in transverse Ising models (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Suzuki, J

    S. Suzuki, J. Inoue, and B. K. Chakrabarti, Quantum Ising Phases and Transitions in Transverse Ising Models 8 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 140602 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Sengupta, S

    K. Sengupta, S. Powell, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. A 69, 053616 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Sen(De), U

    A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052319 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Pollmann, S

    F. Pollmann, S. Mukerjee, A. G. Green, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. E81, 020101 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205701 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Žunkovič, M

    B. Žunkovič, M. Heyl, M. Knap, and A. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 130601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2411 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    Heyl, Rep

    M. Heyl, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    S. A. Weidinger, M. Heyl, A. Silva, and M. Knap, Phys. Rev. B96, 134313 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Vajna and B

    S. Vajna and B. Dóra, Phys. Rev. B89, 161105 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Canovi, E

    E. Canovi, E. Ercolessi, P. Naldesi, L. Taddia, and D. Vodola, Phys. Rev. B89, 104303 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Haldar, S

    S. Haldar, S. Roy, T. Chanda, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. B101, 224304 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Chakravarty, B

    S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B39, 2344 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    Amico and D

    L. Amico and D. Patanè, Europhysics Letters (EPL)77, 17001 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Sachdev and A

    S. Sachdev and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2220 (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    Sachdev, Science288, 475 (2000)

    S. Sachdev, Science288, 475 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Rüegg, B

    C. Rüegg, B. Normand, M. Matsumoto, A. Furrer, D. F. McMorrow, K. W. Krämer, H. U. Güdel, S. N. Gvasaliya, H. Mutka, and M. Boehm, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 205701 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Therefore, this intrinsic non-equilibrium quan- tity could mimic equilibrium properties

    that the energy absorbed in a square pulse quench of the magnetic field (see below), in the long time limit develops some kinks when the quench crosses an equilib- rium quantum critical point of the transverse fieldXY model. Therefore, this intrinsic non-equilibrium quan- tity c...

  22. [30]

    Q. Zhu, B. Wang, C. Sun, D. Xiong, H. Xiong, and B. Lü, New Journal of Physics17, 063015 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    feng Yang, D

    Y. feng Yang, D. Pines, and G. Lonzarich, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 6250 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Frérot and T

    I. Frérot and T. Roscilde,10, 577 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    A. D. Rane, U. Mishra, A. Biswas, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. E90, 022144 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    A. W. Kinross, M. Fu, T. J. Munsie, H. A. Dabkowska, G. M. Luke, S. Sachdev, and T. Imai, Phys. Rev. X4, 031008 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Barouch, B

    E. Barouch, B. M. McCoy, and M. Dresden, Phys. Rev. A 2, 1075 (1970)

    1970

  28. [36]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    S. Bhattacharyya, S. Dasgupta, and A. Das, Scientific Reports 5, 16490 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  30. [38]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Nature 416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Advances in Physics56, 243 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, and V. Ahufinger,Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices: Simulating quantum many- body systems (Oxford University Press, 2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Chanda, T

    T. Chanda, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, A. K. Pal, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A94, 042310 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    S. Roy, T. Chanda, T. Das, D. Sadhukhan, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. B99, 064422 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Peres,Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Fun- damental Theories of Physics Book 57) (Springer, 2006)

    A. Peres,Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Fun- damental Theories of Physics Book 57) (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas,Elements of Informa- tion Theory (Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing) (Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, USA, 2006) pp. 19–25

    2006

  43. [51]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J Phys A: Mathematical and General34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Groisman, S

    B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

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

    1961

  46. [54]

    Barouch and B

    E. Barouch and B. M. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A 3, 786 (1971)

    1971

  47. [55]

    Barouch and B

    E. Barouch and B. M. McCoy, Phys. Rev. A3, 2137 (1971)

    1971

  48. [56]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Quantum Information & Com- putation 7, 459 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    P. E. Mendonça, M. A. Marchiolli, and D. Galetti, An- nals of Physics351, 79 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.