Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The slow growth of number entropy in many-body localized systems is caused by many-body quantum beats—interaction-modulated single-particle Rabi oscillations—and is compatible with the stability of MBL.

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

2026-08-02 17:05 UTC pith:2GA4JQK2

load-bearing objection Fresh many-body quantum-beat mechanism for slow number entropy growth in QP MBL chains, likely right in essence but with a fitted coupling and an untested frozen-environment reduction; deserves a serious referee. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.28721 v3 pith:2GA4JQK2 submitted 2026-03-30 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gas

Quantum Beats in Many-Body Localized Systems

Bernard Faulend , Hrvoje Buljan , Antonio \v{S}trkalj This is my paper
classification cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords many-body localizationnumber entropyquantum beatsquasiperiodic potentialamplitude modulationlocal integrals of motionRabi oscillationsMBL stability
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 aims to settle a long-standing puzzle: numerical experiments show that particle-number entropy keeps growing slowly even deep in the many-body localized (MBL) regime, which some have read as evidence that MBL is unstable. The authors claim this slow growth is not transport at all but the result of many-body quantum beats—interaction-induced modulation of the amplitude of single-particle Rabi oscillations between nearly resonant site pairs. They build a four-site effective model that produces an exact beat formula, and show it reproduces exact-diagonalization results for quasiperiodic chains across all accessible timescales, including the structured, step-like growth that distinguishes quasiperiodic from random potentials. Because the mechanism is local and bounded by ln 2, they conclude it is compatible with a stable MBL phase in the thermodynamic limit. The significance is that the microscopic mechanism is finally identified, and it points to observable collapse-and-revival signatures in cold-atom experiments.

Core claim

Deep in the MBL regime of the quasiperiodic XXZ chain, number entropy Sn(t) keeps growing long after single-particle dynamics saturates, in step-like increases that plateau only at t~10^5. The origin is amplitude modulation: hopping on one near-resonant pair is modulated by a second, distant near-resonant pair through interaction, giving Eq. (3), p(0,t)=1/2[1+cos(epsilon t/2)cos((1+epsilon/2)t)], with epsilon=4J_ab,cd, the LIOM coupling decaying as Jz e^{-d/xi}. Because the effective hoppings in H_AM do not depend on distance d between pairs, the beats survive at arbitrarily large separation and are generic to interacting systems. The same mechanism explains quasiparticle-width growth and th

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-site effective Hamiltonian H_AM (Eq. (2)) describing two near-resonant single-particle hoppings on pairs (a,b) and (c,d). Its eigenvalues form pairs E1=-E4, E2=-E3, and the interaction-induced correction epsilon=4J_ab,cd produces the beat formula Eq. (3), p(0,t)=1/2[1+cos(epsilon t/2)cos((1+epsilon/2)t)]. Single-particle resonances at all ranges are handled by Eq. (6) with effective tunnelling jeff(k)~W^{-k+1}. The mechanism is tied to LIOMs: the two hoppings are two local integrals of motion with coupling J_ab,cd ∝ Jz e^{-d/xi}.

Load-bearing premise

The entire four-site beat picture treats every particle outside a,b,c,d as frozen and only a static energy mediator, and it assumes any large quasiperiodic chain contains a near-resonant nearest-neighbour hopping pair at every distance d; if the environment dephases or absorbs beats, or if such pairs are rare, the conclusions would need revision.

What would settle it

In a quasiperiodic MBL chain with two implanted near-resonant pairs at controlled distance d, the local density difference across one pair should show collapse-and-revival at t≈π/epsilon with epsilon ∝ Jz e^{-d/xi}; absence of this beat, or a different d-scaling, falsifies the mechanism. A second test: unfreeze the environment in exact diagonalization; if the slow Sn growth persists when the four sites are decoupled from all mobile particles, the beat explanation fails.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The slow growth of Sn deep in MBL is a local, bounded effect (Sn≤ln2) driven by beats, not by long-range particle transport, so it does not by itself imply MBL instability.
  • The structured, step-like Sn(t) in quasiperiodic systems and the featureless growth in random systems both follow from the same mechanism, with the difference set by the narrow vs wide distribution of the beat timescale 1/epsilon.
  • The effective model quantitatively reproduces exact diagonalization for N up to 16 and time up to 10^9, including quasiparticle width, so the mechanism accounts for both number entropy and particle spreading.
  • Since epsilon ∝ Jz e^{-d/xi}, the saturation time is controlled by interaction strength Jz and pair distance d; this gives a direct experimental dial for testing the mechanism.
  • The proposed cold-atom signature—collapse and revival of Rabi oscillations on implanted near-resonant pairs at d=1 with |Jz|=3—lies within current experimental reach (timescales ~10^2 tunnelling times).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The frozen-environment approximation is the main vulnerability: if the rest of the chain is not a static mediator but dephases or resonantly absorbs the beat, the local-bounded picture and the stability conclusion would need revision.
  • The assertion that every sufficiently large quasiperiodic chain contains a near-resonant hopping pair at every required distance d is plausibly correct but not proven; a counting argument or large-scale numerical statistics would put the 'generic to many-body systems' claim on firmer ground.
  • The same beat mechanism might explain the long-range correlations and cat states reported near the MBL transition; a direct test would be to measure the LIOM-LIOM coupling J_ab,cd spectroscopically in a cold-atom chain.
  • By analogy, quantum beats should appear in any interacting system with two weakly coupled two-level subsystems, so similar slow dynamics should be observable in trapped-ion or Rydberg arrays with engineered disorder and interactions.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the slow growth of the number entropy S_n and the central quasiparticle width in one-dimensional quasiperiodic (Aubry-André) XXZ chains deep in the many-body localized (MBL) regime. It identifies a microscopic mechanism: many-body quantum beats arising from the interaction between two nearly resonant single-particle hopping processes. The mechanism is modeled by a four-site effective Hamiltonian H_AM, leading to Eq. (3), p(0,t)=1/2[1+cos(ε t/2) cos((1+ε/2)t)], where ε is an interaction-induced energy correction. The authors combine this amplitude-modulation (AM) model with a single-particle resonance model [Eqs. (4)-(6)] and compare the resulting effective model with exact diagonalization (ED), reporting excellent agreement. They argue that AM is local, does not require narrow resonances, survives at arbitrarily large distances between LIOM pairs, and is consistent with MBL stability in the thermodynamic limit. They also propose experimental signatures of AM in cold-atom setups.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it provides a concrete and generic microscopic origin for the long-timescale growth of S_n in the MBL regime, addressing an ongoing debate about whether such growth implies a destabilization of MBL. The paper connects the mechanism to the LIOM picture, explains quantitative differences between quasiperiodic and random potentials, and makes falsifiable predictions. The strength of the manuscript lies in its transparent analytical model, the use of ED for direct comparison, and the scaling checks in Appendix C (ε with distance d and interaction J_z). The experimental proposal for observing collapse and revival of Rabi oscillations is a valuable addition. However, the quantitative validation is weakened because the key parameter ε is not computed from the microscopic Hamiltonian but read off from the same eigenvalues used in the comparison, or treated as a free parameter in the averaged model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Mechanism, Eq. (3) and Fig. 2(a)] The central comparison in Fig. 2(a) is not a free prediction: for the single configuration, ε is taken directly from the exact eigenvalues as ε = E1+E4−E2−E3. The agreement therefore shows consistency between the four-site ansatz and the eigenenergies, but it does not independently verify the microscopic claim that ε = 4J_ab,cd ∝ J_z e^{−d/ξ}. In the averaged combined model (SM S.3), ε is explicitly described as 'the only free parameter', chosen to reproduce the AM timescale of a single phase. To make the test load-bearing, ε should be computed from the microscopic Hamiltonian or from LIOM perturbation theory, and then compared with the values needed to fit the ED curves, including the dependence on d and J_z shown in Appendix C.
  2. [Mechanism, 'frozen' environment] The four-site reduction assumes that all other particles are frozen: 'we treat other particles in the chain as being frozen and therefore having no effect on the dynamics of two particles on sites a,b,c,d.' This is a strong assumption. In the full XXZ chain the 'frozen' particles can hop and interact, causing energy shifts, dephasing, or absorption that could modify the beat envelope on the same timescales as 1/ε. No quantitative estimate is given for the validity of this reduction, and the agreement in Fig. 2 is weakened by the fitted ε. Please provide a bound on the influence of the environment, for example by comparing the full chain with a chain in which all sites outside the four-site subspace are pinned (infinite field), and assessing how the beat amplitude and timescale change.
  3. [Mechanism, 'every single-particle hopping process will eventually find its pair'] The genericity claim that in a sufficiently large system every hopping process finds a near-resonant partner at distance d is asserted without counting or phase-space reasoning. The AM mechanism requires two conditions: a near-resonant pair of single-particle hoppings, and a distance d such that 1/ε falls within the accessible time window. No estimate is provided for the density of such two-pair configurations as a function of d, W, and chain length, nor for the distribution of ε. Without this, it is unclear whether the observed S_n growth is generically due to AM or dominated by other, rarer processes. A statistical estimate or a finite-size scaling analysis of the number of near-resonant two-pair configurations would directly address this.
  4. [Appendix C, 'factor of order W smaller'] The statement that AM contributions from range k>1 hopping pairs are small 'by a factor of order W' is used to justify neglecting them in the effective model, which is central to the claim that the model captures all timescales. No derivation or numerical check is given. Please provide the explicit scaling argument or a numerical test showing that such contributions are indeed suppressed relative to the nearest-neighbour-pair AM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title mismatch] The header of the arXiv listing reads 'Quantum Beats in Many-Body Localized Systems', while the full-text title is 'Uncovering the Microscopic Mechanism of Slow Dynamics in Quasiperiodic Many-Body Localized Systems'. Please harmonize.
  2. [SM S.3, averaging interval] The choice of the interval [10^2, 5×10^3] over which the single-particle baseline is averaged is, as the authors note, 'somewhat arbitrary'. Some sensitivity analysis of the final combined-model prediction to this choice would strengthen the quantitative comparison.
  3. [Fig. C1(b)] The linear scaling of the AM timescale with J_z is demonstrated by fitting the J_z = −0.01 case and then scaling. This is a reasonable consistency check, but the proportionality constant remains an adjustable parameter. This should be stated explicitly in the main text.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The combinatorial factor f is introduced without a forward reference in the main text; the reader only learns its definition in SM S.2. Please add a brief parenthetical or footnote.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The beat timescale in the paper's central comparison is set by a parameter extracted from the exact dynamics of the same system, so the quantitative agreement of Eq. (3) with ED is partly a consistency check rather than an independent prediction of the beat mechanism.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Mechanism section, after Eq. (3) and Fig. 2(a); SM S.3]
    "From Fig. 2(a), we observe excellent agreement of Sn obtained from our effective model with the exact numerical calculation for N=12 and a particular phase ϕ. The parameter ϵ is taken from numerical eigenvalues as ϵ=E1+E4−E2−E3... The value of ϵ is therefore the only free parameter in our model and it is chosen so that the same AM timescale as the one obtained for a single phase ϕPR of point reflection symmetry is recovered."

    The claimed microscopic explanation identifies the slow growth with quantum beats whose timescale is set by 1/ϵ. But ϵ is not computed from the microscopic Hamiltonian; it is read off from the exact eigenvalues of the very same system whose time evolution the model is supposed to explain (Fig. 2a). In the averaged combined model (SM S.3), ϵ is the only free parameter and is fixed by matching the AM timescale of one chosen phase. Therefore the long-time beat/envelope timescale is an input to the model, not a prediction emerging from the four-site mechanism. The agreement in Fig. 2 tests the functional form of Eq. (3), but it does not independently confirm that interactions between two single-particle hoppings set the timescale of the observed slow growth.

full rationale

The central quantitative support for the many-body quantum beats mechanism is the agreement of the effective model, Eq. (3), with exact ED. That agreement is partly circular: ϵ sets the beat frequency, and ϵ is extracted from the exact eigenvalues of the same full system in Fig. 2(a) and, in the averaged model, is the only free parameter tuned to reproduce the AM timescale of a single phase (SM S.3). Thus the long-time growth timescale is fitted/read-off rather than independently predicted. Still, the claim does not reduce entirely to its inputs: Eq. (3) provides a nontrivial beat envelope, Fig. 3(a) shows the expected d-dependence of saturation times, and Appendix C checks exponential-in-d and linear-in-Jz scalings. These give the mechanism independent content, so a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate. The frozen-environment assumption is a strong approximation but not itself circular; it is a correctness/robustness concern. Self-citations in Refs. [20,24,36] are not load-bearing: the mirror-symmetry resonance property in Appendix A is supported by a Taylor-expansion argument, and Ref. [24] is only a forward pointer to future work on random systems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are postulated; 'quantum beats' is a mechanism, not an entity. The free parameters are dominated by the AM coupling ε, which is extracted from exact eigenvalues or chosen by hand, so the model's quantitative predictive power is limited. The axioms are mostly standard LIOM phenomenology plus two load-bearing modeling choices: freeze the environment outside the four sites, and assume the QP chain always provides a pair at distance d.

free parameters (3)
  • ε (AM coupling/timescale) = extracted from exact eigenvalues for a single phase; in averaged model chosen to match φ_PR timescale (SM S.3)
    In Eq. (3), ε=4J_ab,cd sets the beat period. For the single-configuration match (Fig. 2a) it is taken from exact numerical eigenvalues ε=E1+E4−E2−E3; in the averaged combined model it is the only free parameter, chosen so that the AM timescale equals that of the φ_PR configuration. This makes the quantitative prediction partially fitted.
  • proportionality constant in J_z scaling = fitted to J_z=−0.01 data
    In Appendix C, the predicted linear-in-J_z dependence of ε is anchored by fitting the analytical prediction to the J_z=−0.01 numerics; other lines follow by scaling. This is a free constant for that test.
  • moving-average window for splicing models = 10^2 to 5×10^3 tunnelling times
    SM S.3 calls the interval 'somewhat arbitrary'; it is a hand-chosen boundary used to add the AM growth to the single-particle model and affects the combined-model offset, though not the scaling checks.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Other particles in the chain are frozen and do not affect the four-site dynamics
    Used in the Mechanism section to justify the 4×4 H_AM; the rest of the chain is the mediator that generates ε, yet its internal dynamics is neglected. If it is not frozen, resonant pairs may decay or dephase and the AM picture may break.
  • domain assumption LIOM description with H_LIOM = h̃_ab τ^z_ab + h̃_cd τ^z_cd + J_ab,cd τ^z_ab τ^z_cd to lowest order, with J_ab,cd ∝ J_z e^{-d/ξ}
    Invoked in Mechanism to connect to LIOMs; taken from standard MBL phenomenology (Refs. [30-32]). The central claim about arbitrary distance relies on exponential-in-d coupling.
  • domain assumption Every sufficiently large QP chain contains pairs of near-resonant nearest-neighbor hoppings at every needed distance d
    Used in Mechanism and Appendix C to argue AM survives at arbitrarily large distances; no rigorous counting or proof is given for the QP potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of AM from range k>1 hopping pairs; their contribution to S_n is 'by a factor of order W smaller'
    Appendix C states this without derivation to justify using only nearest-neighbor pairs in the model; agreement with numerics is cited as validation.
  • domain assumption Small diagonal-difference condition |E_i^0−E_j^0|≲J for the approximate eigenvalues/vectors of H_AM
    Needed for the analytical form of Eq. (3); the paper states it is assumed and validated by agreement with ED.
  • domain assumption The W≥6 QP Heisenberg chain is in a deeply localized MBL phase with local integrals of motion
    Basis for interpreting the dynamics in terms of LIOMs and for saying the growth is not destabilizing; relies on prior numerical/analytical results [21,27-29], not proved here.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Beats in Many-Body Localized Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GA4JQK2

@misc{pith2026260328721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Beats in Many-Body Localized Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GA4JQK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.28721}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Slow particle dynamics observed numerically even deep inside the many-body localized (MBL) regime has called the stability of MBL in the thermodynamic limit into question, and its microscopic origin remains unknown. Here, we show that this slow dynamics originates from many-body quantum beats that arise from the interaction-induced modulation of oscillations associated with single-particle hopping processes. We relate this mechanism to local integrals of motion (LIOMs) and show that it survives at arbitrarily large distances between LIOMs, is consistent with the stability of MBL in the thermodynamic limit, and is generic to many-body systems. We present new numerical results for quasiperiodic potentials and, based on the quantum beats mechanism, develop an analytical model that explains number entropy growth and quasiparticle spreading, as well as clarifies the distinct MBL phenomenology observed in quasiperiodic and random potentials. Lastly, we propose concrete signatures for observing many-body quantum beats in existing experimental platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.28721 by Antonio \v{S}trkalj, Bernard Faulend, Hrvoje Buljan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. An asymptotically solvable model of many-body critical phases: mobility edges, scars, and inverted scars

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0

    A solvable spin-chain model with hierarchical mirror structure exhibits two many-body critical phases — one ETH-like, one MBL-like — separated by a finite-temperature transition.

  2. Thermal avalanches in a quasiperiodic XXZ model

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Two-point correlations fail to detect thermal avalanches in a quasiperiodic XXZ chain while particle-number entropy reveals them, challenging correlation-only avalanche diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958)

    1958

  2. [2]

    Implementa- tion of cutting-edge research and its application as part of the Scientific Center of Excellence for Quantum and Complex Systems, and Representations of Lie Algebras

    Arrows mark saturation times for differentd. Note that the choice of a rationalβ=p/qis numerically indistinguishable from the irrational case forq > N. (·) sat denotes the saturation value calculated numerically as the average of a given quantity for t >10 8. The inset shows AM on a timescale shorter than 102 tunnelling times for a particular configuratio...

    2021

  3. [3]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Interact- ing electrons in disordered wires: Anderson localization and low-Ttransport, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 206603 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Scaling theory of localization: Ab- sence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 673 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    Imbrie, On many-body localization for quantum spin chains, Journal of Statistical Physics163(2016)

    J. Imbrie, On many-body localization for quantum spin chains, Journal of Statistical Physics163(2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Basko, I

    D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Metal–insulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states, Annals of Physics 321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing, Reports on Progress in Physics88 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    J. H. Bardarson, F. Pollmann, and J. E. Moore, Un- bounded growth of entanglement in models of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 017202 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Lukin, M

    A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. E. Tai, A. M. Kauf- man, S. Choi, V. Khemani, J. L´ eonard, and M. Greiner, Probing entanglement in a many-body–localized system, Science364, 256 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    D. J. Luitz and Y. B. Lev, Absence of slow particle trans- port in the many-body localized phase, Phys. Rev. B102, 100202 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Singh, J

    R. Singh, J. H. Bardarson, and F. Pollmann, Signatures of the many-body localization transition in the dynamics of entanglement and bipartite fluctuations, New Journal of Physics18, 023046 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Slow delocalization of particles in many- body localized phases, Phys. Rev. B103, 024203 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Evidence for unbounded growth of the number entropy in many-body localized phases, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 243601 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Particle fluctuations and the failure of sim- ple effective models for many-body localized phases, Sci- Post Phys.12, 034 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Unlimited growth of particle fluctuations in many-body localized phases, Annals of Physics435, 168481 (2021), special Issue on Localisation 2020

    2021

  17. [17]

    Ghosh and M

    R. Ghosh and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Resonance-induced growth of number entropy in strongly disordered systems, Phys. Rev. B105, 144203 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleis- chhauer, and J. Sirker, Comment on ”resonance-induced growth of number entropy in strongly disordered systems”, arXiv:2203.06689 (2022), arXiv:2203.06689 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Aceituno Ch´ avez, C

    D. Aceituno Ch´ avez, C. Artiaco, T. Klein Kvorning, L. Herviou, and J. H. Bardarson, Ultraslow growth of number entropy in anℓ-bit model of many-body local- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 126502 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Ghosh and M

    R. Ghosh and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Response to ‘comment on the- ory of growth of number entropy in disordered systems’, arXiv:2205.05768 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Challenges to observation of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. B105, 224203 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    ˇStrkalj, E

    A. ˇStrkalj, E. V. H. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, and O. Zilber- berg, Many-body localization in the interpolating Aubry- Andr´ e-Fibonacci model, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033257 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, A. S. Aramthottil, P. Sierant, and J. Za- krzewski, Many-body localization crossover is sharper in a quasiperiodic potential, Phys. Rev. B110, 184209 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    ˇStrkalj, E

    A. ˇStrkalj, E. V. H. Doggen, and C. Castelnovo, Coexis- tence of localization and transport in many-body two- dimensional Aubry-Andr´ e models, Phys. Rev. B106, 184209 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Aubry and G

    S. Aubry and G. Andr´ e, Analyticity breaking and An- derson localization in incommensurate lattices, Annals of the Israel Physical Society3(1980)

    1980

  26. [26]

    Faulend, H

    B. Faulend, H. Buljan, and A. ˇStrkalj, (unpublished)

  27. [27]

    S. Iyer, V. Oganesyan, G. Refael, and D. A. Huse, Many- body localization in a quasiperiodic system, Phys. Rev. B87, 134202 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Jordan and E

    P. Jordan and E. Wigner, ¨Uber das paulische ¨ aquivalenzverbot, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik47, 631 (1928)

    1928

  29. [29]

    Singh, B

    H. Singh, B. Ware, R. Vasseur, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Local integrals of motion and the quasiperiodic many- body localization transition, Phys. Rev. B103, L220201 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    E. V. H. Doggen and A. D. Mirlin, Many-body delocaliza- tion dynamics in long Aubry-Andr´ e quasiperiodic chains, Phys. Rev. B100, 104203 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and V. Oganesyan, Phe- nomenology of fully many-body-localized systems, Phys. Rev. B90, 174202 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin, Local conserva- tion laws and the structure of the many-body localized states, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127201 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    Laflorencie, J

    N. Laflorencie, J. Colbois, and F. Alet, Cat states car- rying long-range correlations in the many-body localized phase, Phys. Rev. B112, 224207 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Chandran, I

    A. Chandran, I. H. Kim, G. Vidal, and D. A. Abanin, Constructing local integrals of motion in the many-body localized phase, Phys. Rev. B91, 085425 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    L´ eonard, S

    J. L´ eonard, S. Kim, M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, J. Kwan, E. Demler, D. Sels, and M. Greiner, Probing the onset of quantum avalanches in a many-body localized system, Nature Physics19, 481 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Padhan, J

    A. Padhan, J. Colbois, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Long- range resonances in quasiperiodic many-body localiza- tion (2026), arXiv:2510.24704 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    UNCOVERING THE MICROSCOPIC MECHANISM OF SLOW DYNAMICS IN QUASIPERIODIC MANY-BODY LOCALIZED SYSTEMS

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, QuSpin: a Python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems part I: spin chains, SciPost Phys.2, 003 (2017). SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL FOR “UNCOVERING THE MICROSCOPIC MECHANISM OF SLOW DYNAMICS IN QUASIPERIODIC MANY-BODY LOCALIZED SYSTEMS” 3.6 4.0 4.4 combined model10-2 N = 16 10 1 10 3 10 5 10 7 (b...

    2017

  38. [38]

    Tabanelli, C

    H. Tabanelli, C. Castelnovo, and A. ˇStrkalj, Reentrant localization transitions and anomalous spectral proper- ties in off-diagonal quasiperiodic systems, Phys. Rev. B 9 110, 184208 (2024)

    2024

  39. [2027]

    6 Appendix Appendix A: Structured behaviour of single-particle dynamics in quasiperiodic chains FIG

    All data that support the plots within this paper are available upon request. 6 Appendix Appendix A: Structured behaviour of single-particle dynamics in quasiperiodic chains FIG. A1. Sn(t) moving time average forW= 6 and N´ eel initial state. Let us now explain the structured behaviour in Sn(t) observed at short- and medium-timescales, i.e. fort < 103 in ...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.