Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Entanglement cost hierarchies in quantum fragmented mixed states

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a fragmented quantum chain's stationary mixed state, exact preparation costs order-$L$ entanglement while asymptotic preparation costs only order-$\sqrt{L}$.

desk verdict Exact entanglement measures for fragmented mixed states, with a real parametric separation that survives a prefactor error in the volume-law coefficient. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04637 v1 pith:OOAAXS6K submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Subhayan Sahu , Yahui Li , Pablo Sala This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords entanglementcostlogarithmicnegativityTemperley-LiebalgebraquantumHilbertspacefragmentationcommutantmaximallymixedinvariantstatessquashedmixed-state
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

The paper proves that for a class of highly symmetric mixed states built from singlet states with flat Schmidt spectra, every standard bipartite entanglement measure collapses to one of two computable numbers: $E^{<} = \sum_{\lambda} p_\lambda \log d_\lambda$ for entanglement of formation, squashed entanglement, entanglement cost, and distillable entanglement, and $E^{>} = \log\left(\sum_{\lambda} p_\lambda d_\lambda\right)$ for logarithmic negativity and the exact positive-partial-transpose (PPT) entanglement cost. For the maximally mixed invariant state of the Temperley-Lieb model with $N\ge 3$, these two numbers scale differently under an equal half-chain split of a $4L$ chain: $E^{<} \sim \log(q)\sqrt{2L}$ while $E^{>} \sim (\log^2 q/2)L$. That parametric difference means preparing the state exactly requires far more entanglement than preparing it asymptotically, and the gap grows with system size. Since such measures are normally intractable for many-body mixed states, this gives one of the first exact computations of these quantities for a physically motivated stationary state, with the exponential growth of symmetry representation sizes as the driving mechanism.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the singlet-ensemble decomposition of the invariant subspace, a basis $|\lambda;a,b\rangle = (1/\sqrt{d_\lambda}) \sum_m \eta_{\lambda,m}|\lambda,m;a\rangle\otimes|\bar\lambda,\bar m;b\rangle$ with a flat Schmidt spectrum of rank $d_\lambda$, constructed from the commutant algebra of the strong symmetries. Two structural facts carry the argument: these singlet states can be distinguished by local measurements and classical communication without destroying their entanglement, and every mixture of them is non-binegative, meaning $|\rho^{T_A}|^{T_A} \ge 0$. The first fact pins all LOCC measures between distillable entanglement and entanglement of formation to the single value $E^{<}$; the second upgrades the logarithmic negativity to an exact PPT entanglement cost $E^{>}$. The asymptotic scalings then follow from the Stirling approximation $p_\lambda \approx (8\sqrt{2}/\sqrt{\pi})(\lambda^2/L^{3/2})e^{-2\lambda^2/L}$ and from the exponentially growing irrep dimensions $d_\lambda = [2\lambda+1]_q$ of the Read-Saleur commutant.

What would settle it

Numerically compute the full commutant of the Temperley-Lieb generators on a small $4L$ chain and compare the irrep dimensions to $[2\lambda+1]_q$; a mismatch would break the scaling argument, as would a direct small-system check that $E^{>}/E^{<}$ grows as $\sqrt{L}$ rather than remaining constant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a pair of exact identities for any mixture of singlet states $\rho = \sum_{\lambda,a,b} q_{\lambda ab} |\lambda;a,b\rangle\langle\lambda;a,b|$, where each $|\lambda;a,b\rangle$ has a flat Schmidt spectrum and entanglement $\log d_\lambda$. For such states, entanglement of formation, entanglement cost, squashed entanglement, and distillable entanglement all equal $E^{<} = \sum_{\lambda} p_\lambda \log d_\lambda$, while logarithmic negativity and the exact PPT entanglement cost are both given by $E^{>} = \log\left(\sum_{\lambda} p_\lambda d_\lambda\right)$; the negativity identity follows from the states' non-binegativity. For the maximally mixed invariant state $\rho_{QF}$ of the Temperley-Lieb model with $N\ge 3$, the probability $p_\lambda$ is Gaussian in $\lambda$ with peak at $\lambda_{\max} = \sqrt{L/2}$, while the Read-Saleur irrep dimension $d_\lambda = [2\lambda+1]_q$ grows as $q^{2\lambda}$. The two formulas then give $E^{<} \sim \log(q)\sqrt{2L}$ and $E^{>} \sim (\log^2 q/2)L$. The paper reads this as a signature of quantum Hilbert space fragmentation: exact preparation is priced by the tail of large irreps, whereas all faithful local-operations-and-classical-communication (LOCC) measures are priced by the typical irrep near the peak.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation assumes that the Read-Saleur sectors, with dimensions $[2\lambda+1]_q$, are the complete set of conserved sectors for the $4L$ Temperley-Lieb chains used in the scaling analysis; any extra conserved quantity there would change the predicted $\sqrt{L}$ and $L$ growth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\rho_{QF}$, every bipartite entanglement measure that lies between distillable entanglement and entanglement of formation scales as $\sim\log(q)\sqrt{2L}$, so the volume-law logarithmic negativity does not reflect any faithful LOCC measure.
  • Exact preparation of $\rho_{QF}$ via PPT operations costs $\sim(\log^2 q/2)L$ entangled pairs, while asymptotic preparation costs only $\sim\log(q)\sqrt{2L}$, so the exactness gap is extensive rather than a constant.
  • For the $\mathrm{SU}(N)$-symmetric maximally mixed invariant states, the same formulas give $E^{<}$ and $E^{>}$ both scaling as $\sim c_N \log L$ with different additive constants, so the parametric separation is special to the Read-Saleur commutant's exponential irrep growth.
  • Truncating $\rho_{QF}$ at $\lambda = a_\varepsilon\sqrt{L/2}$ yields a state within trace distance $2\varepsilon$ that has $E^{>} \sim a_\varepsilon \log(q)\sqrt{2L}$ but $E^{<} \sim \log(q)\sqrt{2L}$, so locally indistinguishable states can have parametrically different exact PPT costs.
  • Because $E^{>} = E^{\text{PPT,exact}} > E^{<}$, the state $\rho_{QF}$ requires very different entanglement resources depending on whether an exact or an asymptotically-exact preparation is demanded.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-functional structure suggests the ratio $E^{>}/E^{<}$ could serve as a quantitative probe of quantum fragmentation: it grows as $\sqrt{L}$ here while staying order one for polynomial irrep dimensions such as $\mathrm{SU}(N)$.
  • A direct testable extension is to prepare the stationary state of a dissipative chain with Temperley-Lieb symmetry and measure logarithmic negativity and entanglement of formation; the predicted ratio $\sim\sqrt{L}$ should already be visible at moderate chain lengths.
  • The truncated-state construction indicates exact entanglement cost is not continuous in trace distance, which cautions against inferring exact costs from finite-size extrapolations that discard tail sectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies bipartite entanglement measures for strongly symmetric maximally mixed states whose commutant algebras admit a 'singlet ensemble' decomposition. Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 give exact expressions: for states of the form in Eq. (8), E^< = sum_λ p_λ log d_λ for the entanglement of formation, entanglement cost, squashed entanglement, and distillable entanglement, and E^> = log(sum_λ p_λ d_λ) for the logarithmic negativity and the exact PPT entanglement cost. The paper applies these formulas to the Temperley-Lieb model with Read-Saleur commutants, finding E^<_{2L:2L} ~ log(q) sqrt(2L) and claiming E^>_{2L:2L} ~ (log^2 q)/2 L. It also constructs a truncated state that has the same local expectation values up to epsilon but whose E^> scales only as sqrt(L), illustrating a parametric difference between exact and asymptotically exact preparation costs.

Significance. The central qualitative result—a parametric separation between E^< and E^> in a physically motivated fragmented mixed state—is interesting and, after the prefactor correction discussed below, robust. The framework makes several operationally meaningful entanglement measures, including squashed entanglement and the exact PPT entanglement cost, computable for a non-Abelian symmetry class, which is rare and valuable. The proofs are elementary, the non-binegativity computation is valid in substance, and the scaling predictions are concrete enough to be checked numerically. The paper also builds transparently on Refs. [15,16]. The main obstacles are the incorrect quantitative prefactor in Eq. (14) and the unspecified system-size restriction on the Read-Saleur commutant.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (14) and Appendix A4] The coefficient (log^2 q)/2 in Eq. (14) and in Fig. 1 is obtained by maximizing e^{-2λ^2/L} q^{2λ}, i.e. by evaluating the Stirling approximation (A11) at λ* = L log(q)/2. The text explicitly states that (A11) is valid only for 1 << λ << L, so this is an extrapolation outside the stated regime. Using the exact D_λ^{(2L)} from Eq. (A10) and a standard large-deviation estimate for the binomial, one obtains log(p_λ d_λ) ≈ L[2r log q - 2((1+r)log(1+r)+(1-r)log(1-r))] for λ = rL. Maximizing gives r_* = tanh(log(q)/2) and E^>_{2L:2L} = L · 4 log cosh(log(q)/2) + O(sqrt(L)), not (log^2 q)/2 L. For N=3 this changes the slope from about 0.463 to 0.443; for N=10, from about 2.63 to 2.22. The parametric O(L) vs O(sqrt(L)) separation survives, but Eq. (14), Fig. 1, and the associated text overstate the prefactor and should be corrected or explicitly labelled as a heuristic Gaussian estimate.
  2. [Quantum fragmentation: the Temperley-Lieb models] The manuscript states that the Read-Saleur commutants are characterized 'for all N ≥ 3 (and a specific restriction of the system size)' but never specifies the restriction. Since the subsequent scaling analysis is performed on 4L-site chains and relies on the decomposition in Eq. (6), on d_λ = [2λ+1]_q, and on p_λ = D_λ^{(2L)} D_{\bar λ}^{(2L)}/D_0^{(4L)}, the validity of the commutant description for those system sizes is load-bearing. Please state the precise system-size condition, or prove that all sizes used in Eqs. (13), (14), and Appendix A4 are covered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A2] The final sentence 'Thus ρ is not bi-negative' should read 'Thus ρ is binegative' (or '|ρ^{T_A}| is PPT'), because the argument just given establishes that |ρ^{T_A}| is separable and hence that its partial transpose is positive.
  2. [Eq. (14) and Eq. (A13)] The sums are written as running to λ = 2L, but for a 2L half-chain the admissible values are λ = 0, ..., L, as the text itself states in Appendix A4. The upper limit is harmless because D_λ^{(2L)} vanishes beyond L, but it should be made consistent.
  3. [Footnote 20] The footnote says that a many-body pure state with parametric separation was constructed in Ref. [46], but Ref. [46] appears to be about nonzero-temperature entanglement negativity of spin models. Please correct the citation or the description.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions] The term 'exact entanglement cost' is used without always specifying 'PPT'. Since the paper computes only the exact PPT entanglement cost, and the LOCC exact cost can be larger, please qualify the wording consistently throughout.
  5. [Introduction and Eq. (12)] The graphical notation for the Temperley-Lieb generators is introduced only through a diagram; a short algebraic definition of |alpha alpha> and the normalization factor would improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the loop-model convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: TL scaling is computed from exact formulas; overlapping-author citations are legitimate prior support, while the flagged Stirling-saddle and commutant-restriction issues are correctness caveats, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The general entanglement formulas (Theorem 1) are either proven in Appendices A2-A3 or quoted from Refs. [15,16] (which share authors with this paper); the paper's own new scaling analysis then uses the exact dimension formula (A10) and Stirling asymptotics (A11) to evaluate E_< and E_> for the Temperley-Lieb model. These asymptotic results do not assume the target scaling: they follow by maximizing p_lambda and p_lambda d_lambda, and no parameter is fitted to the predicted L or sqrt(L) behaviors. The non-binegativity argument in Appendix A2 is given in the paper and is independent of the later TL scalings. The citations to Refs. [15,16] are legitimate prior work: they are parameter-free, state their assumptions, and do not themselves contain the TL E_< vs E_> separation claimed here, so this is not a load-bearing self-citation loop. Two flagged caveats are not circularity. First, Eq. (A14) evaluates the Stirling expression e^{-2 lambda^2 / L} q^{2 lambda} at lambda* = L log q / 2, which lies outside the stated 1 << lambda << L validity of Eq. (A11); an exact large-deviation treatment of Eq. (A10) changes the O(L) prefactor (to 4 ln cosh(ln q / 2) rather than (ln q)^2 / 2) while preserving the parametric O(L) vs O(sqrt(L)) separation. Second, the paper says the Read-Saleur commutant holds 'for all N >= 3 (and a specific restriction of the system size)' without specifying that restriction; this is a missing assumption, not a self-referential reduction. Because the new claims are derived from explicit formulas rather than from the target statement, the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim rests on the Hopf-algebra/singlet-ensemble structure from prior work, the exact Read-Saleur commutant for the Temperley-Lieb model, and a Stirling approximation for the sector dimensions. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The commutant algebra C(L) admits a Hopf algebra structure in the L to infinity limit, giving the singlet-ensemble decomposition (Eq. 6) with flat Schmidt spectrum.
    This is the starting point for the entire calculation, inherited from Refs. [15,16]. If C(L) does not have this structure, the singlet states and the formulas (10)-(11) do not apply.
  • domain assumption For the Temperley-Lieb model with N>=3 (and a specific unstated restriction of system size), the commutant is the Read-Saleur algebra with irrep dimensions d_lambda=[2lambda+1]_q and sector dimensions D_lambda^{(L)} as in Eq. (A10).
    This is taken from Ref. [18]. The paper does not specify the required system-size restriction, which is a gap.
  • standard math The Stirling approximation (Eq. A11) for p_lambda is accurate in the regime that dominates the sums.
    Used to derive the sqrt(L) and L scalings. Standard saddle-point analysis, but no rigorous error bounds are given.
  • standard math The theorem of Audenaert et al. [11] equating logarithmic negativity with the exact PPT entanglement cost applies to non-binegative states.
    The paper verifies non-binegativity for the singlet ensemble, then invokes this known result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement cost hierarchies in quantum fragmented mixed states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOAAXS6K

@misc{pith2026250604637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement cost hierarchies in quantum fragmented mixed states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOAAXS6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04637}
}
read the original abstract

Strong symmetries enforce non-trivial quantum entanglement patterns on the stationary states of symmetric open quantum dynamics. Specifically, non-commuting conserved quantities lead to long-range quantum entanglement even for infinite temperature mixed states within fixed symmetry sectors. Leveraging the commutant algebra framework, we show that various bipartite entanglement measures for mixed states -- including exact and asymptotically-exact entanglement costs and squashed entanglement, which are generally intractable for a generic many-body mixed state -- can be computed for this class of states. In particular, we focus on strongly symmetric maximally mixed states arising from the Temperley-Lieb model, which features quantum Hilbert space fragmentation with exponentially large (in system size) non-Abelian commutants. We find that while both the logarithmic negativity and the `exact' entanglement cost for equal-size bipartitions scale with the volume of the system, the entanglement of formation, squashed entanglement, entanglement cost, and distillable entanglement exhibit subextensive scaling. We relate this separation in entanglement measures to a parametric difference between the entanglement cost of exact and asymptotically-exact state preparations, and infer this to be a consequence of a particular pattern of quantum Hilbert space fragmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Strong-to-Weak Symmetry Breaking Phases in Steady States of Quantum Operations

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-09 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Maximally mixed symmetric states are rigorously shown to exhibit strong-to-weak symmetry breaking, and only postselected, non-trace-preserving dynamics can drive a steady-state transition out of this phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The singlet states form a complete orthonormal basis set in the singlet subspace

    work page

  2. [2]

    The bipartite entanglement entropy of any singlet state is given by, EA:B(|λ, a, b⟩) = log(dλ). (9)

    work page

  3. [3]

    The states are locally distinguishable by LOCC (and hence by PPT operations), without destroying their bipartite entanglement. 4

    work page

  4. [4]

    |ρTA |TA ≥ 0

    Any mixed state in the singlet ensemble is non- binegative, i.e. |ρTA |TA ≥ 0. These imply the following results for the bipartite en- tanglement structure of mixtures of singlet states: Theorem 1. For a disjoint bipartition of ρ in Eq. (8) on L qudits, the bipartite entanglement measures are:

    work page

  5. [5]

    Entanglement of formation, entanglement cost, squashed entanglement, and distillable entanglement are equal, and given by, E < (A:B)(ρ) = X λ∈ΛLA ,LB pλ log(dλ), (10) This also implies that any mixed state entanglement measure (including squashed entanglement) EA:B which satisfies ED A:B ≤ EA:B ≤ EF A:B, takes the same form

    work page

  6. [6]

    (11) The proofs of the proposition and the theorem are elementary and provided in appendices A 2 and A 3

    Exact PPT entanglement cost and logarithmic neg- ativity are given by the following expression: E > (A:B)(ρ) = log   X λ∈ΛLA ,LB pλdλ  . (11) The proofs of the proposition and the theorem are elementary and provided in appendices A 2 and A 3. Quantum fragmentation: the Temperley Lieb models—The family of Temperley-Lieb models is the perfect ground to ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    arXiv 2009

  8. [9]

    Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    J. Preskill, Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018)

    2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [10]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Ran- dom quantum circuits, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 14, 335–379 (2023)

    2023

  2. [11]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement dynamics in hybrid quantum circuits, in Entanglement in Spin Chains (Springer International Publishing, 2022) p. 211–249

    2022

  3. [12]

    M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglement monotone that is not convex, Physical Review Letters 95, 10.1103/physrevlett.95.090503 (2005)

    2005 doi

  4. [13]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, A computable measure of entanglement, Physical Review A 65, 032314 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0102117

    2002 arXiv

  5. [14]

    M. M. Wolf, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Extremality of gaussian quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 080502 (2006)

    2006

  6. [15]

    Tserkis and T

    S. Tserkis and T. C. Ralph, Quantifying entanglement in two-mode gaussian states, Physical Review A 96, 10.1103/physreva.96.062338 (2017)

    2017 doi

  7. [17]

    Audenaert, M

    K. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, Entanglement cost under positive-partial-transpose-preserving opera- tions, Physical review letters 90, 027901 (2003)

    2003

  8. [18]

    squashed entanglement

    M. Christandl and A. Winter, “squashed entanglement”: an additive entanglement measure, Journal of mathemat- ical physics 45, 829 (2004)

    2004

  9. [19]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics 14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  10. [20]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in lindblad master equations, Physical Review A 89, 10.1103/physreva.89.022118 (2014)

    2014 doi

  11. [21]

    Y. Li, F. Pollmann, N. Read, and P. Sala, Highly entangled stationary states from strong symmetries, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011068 (2025)

    2025

  12. [22]

    Moharramipour, L

    A. Moharramipour, L. A. Lessa, C. Wang, T. H. Hsieh, and S. Sahu, Symmetry-enforced entanglement in maxi- mally mixed states, PRX Quantum 5, 040336 (2024)

    2024

  13. [23]

    Y. Li, P. Sala, and F. Pollmann, Hilbert space fragmenta- tion in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043239 (2023)

    2023

  14. [24]

    Read and H

    N. Read and H. Saleur, Enlarged symmetry algebras of spin chains, loop models, and s-matrices, Nuclear Physics B 777, 263–315 (2007)

    2007

  15. [26]

    A many-body pure state with a parametric separation in entanglement entropy and logarithmic negativity was constructed in [ 46], which was however not otherwise physically motivated

  16. [27]

    A similar observation was made for a different class of states in [47]

  17. [28]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky- rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  18. [29]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Manˇ cinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Mathe- matical Physics 328, 303–326 (2014)

    2014

  19. [30]

    The partial transpose ρTA AB with respect to subsystem A, is given by ⟨ψA, ψB|ρ|ψ′ A, ψ′ B⟩ = ⟨ψ′ A, ψB|ρTB |ψA, ψ′ B⟩ for an arbitrary orthonormal basis {|ψ⟩} such that |ψ⟩ = |ψA⟩ ⊗ |ψB⟩

  20. [31]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys- ical Review Letters 77, 1413–1415 (1996)

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys- ical Review Letters 77, 1413–1415 (1996)

    1996

  21. [32]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Mixed- state entanglement and distillation: Is there a “bound” entanglement in nature?, Physical Review Letters 80, 5239–5242 (1998)

    1998

  22. [33]

    For a concrete example of a PPT operation that is not LOCC, see [48])

  23. [34]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schu- macher, Concentrating partial entanglement by local op- erations, Physical Review A 53, 2046–2052 (1996)

    1996

  24. [35]

    see precise definition in App. A 1

  25. [36]

    P. M. Hayden, M. Horodecki, and B. M. Terhal, The asymptotic entanglement cost of preparing a quantum state, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 6891 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0008134

    2001 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Limits for entanglement measures, Physical Review Letters 84, 2014–2017 (2000)

    2000

  27. [38]

    Huang, Computing quantum discord is np-complete, New Journal of Physics 16, 033027 (2014)

    Y. Huang, Computing quantum discord is np-complete, New Journal of Physics 16, 033027 (2014)

    2014

  28. [39]

    A review of this formalism applied to open quantum systems can be found in Ref. [17]

  29. [40]

    Zanardi, Stabilizing quantum information, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Stabilizing quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012301 (2000)

    2000

  30. [41]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Refer- ence frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- tion, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555 (2007)

    2007

  31. [42]

    N. P. Landsman, Lecture notes on C*-algebras, Hilbert C*-modules, and quantum mechanics (1998), arXiv:math- ph/9807030 [math-ph]

    1998

  32. [43]

    Kassel, Quantum Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics (Springer New York, 2012)

    C. Kassel, Quantum Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathe- matics (Springer New York, 2012)

    2012

  33. [44]

    Aufgebauer and A

    B. Aufgebauer and A. Kl¨ umper, Quantum spin chains of temperley–lieb type: periodic boundary conditions, spectral multiplicities and finite temperature, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010, P05018 (2010). 7

    2010

  34. [45]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Hilbert space frag- mentation and commutant algebras, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011050 (2022)

    2022

  35. [46]

    A11,R ∞ aϵ √ L/2 pλdλ ≈ (2aϵe−a2 ϵ + √πErfc(aϵ))/√π, which can be made as small as necessary by choosing large enough aϵ

    This can be seen by explicitly computing the integral using the asymptotic form of the pλ given in Eq. A11,R ∞ aϵ √ L/2 pλdλ ≈ (2aϵe−a2 ϵ + √πErfc(aϵ))/√π, which can be made as small as necessary by choosing large enough aϵ

  36. [47]

    K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Entangle- ment measures under symmetry, Physical Review A 64, 10.1103/physreva.64.062307 (2001)

    2001 doi

  37. [48]

    Brighi, M

    P. Brighi, M. Ljubotina, and M. Serbyn, Hilbert space fragmentation and slow dynamics in particle-conserving quantum East models, SciPost Phys. 15, 093 (2023)

    2023

  38. [49]

    B.-T. Chen, A. Prem, N. Regnault, and B. Lian, Quantum fragmentation in the extended quantum breakdown model, Phys. Rev. B 110, 165109 (2024)

    2024

  39. [50]

    Mukherjee, D

    B. Mukherjee, D. Banerjee, K. Sengupta, and A. Sen, Minimal model for Hilbert space fragmentation with local constraints, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155117 (2021)

    2021

  40. [51]

    Classen-Howes, P

    J. Classen-Howes, P. Fendley, A. Pandey, and S. A. Parameswaran, Bipartite sachdev-ye models with read- saleur symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125140 (2024)

    2024

  41. [52]

    N. E. Sherman, T. Devakul, M. B. Hastings, and R. R. P. Singh, Nonzero-temperature entanglement negativity of quantum spin models: Area law, linked cluster expansions, and sudden death, Physical Review E 93, 10.1103/phys- reve.93.022128 (2016)

    2016 doi

  42. [53]

    Mori and B

    T. Mori and B. Yoshida, Does connected wedge imply dis- tillable entanglement?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03426 (2024)

    2024

  43. [54]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Quantum nonlocality without entanglement, Physical Re- view A 59, 1070–1091 (1999)

    1999

  44. [55]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, M. Christandl, and J. Yard, Faithful squashed entanglement, Communications in Mathemati- cal Physics 306, 805–830 (2011)

    2011

  45. [56]

    E. R. Livine and D. R. Terno, Entanglement of zero angu- lar momentum mixtures and black hole entropy, Physical Review A 72, 022307 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0502043. Appendix A: Proofs and computations In this section we complete the proofs and computations in the paper and also...

    2005 arXiv

  46. [57]

    Definitions of entanglement measures The entanglement cost and the exact entanglement cost defined in the main text are given by the following expressions, EC (A:B)(ρAB) = inf r {r : lim n→∞ inf Φ ||ρ⊗n AB − Φ(ρ⊗rn EPR)||1 = 0} (A1) EC,exact (A:B) (ρAB) = lim n→∞ inf rn {rn : ...

  47. [58]

    (6), and also shown in [ 15, 16]

    Proofs of Proposition 1 Statements 1 and 2 follow directly from the decomposi- tion HA(L) λ=0 = M λ∈ΛLA ,LB h HA(LA) λ ⊗ HA(LB ) ¯λ i , (A5) spanned by the orthonormal basis in Eq. (6), and also shown in [ 15, 16]. Statement 3 was proven in [ 16] and adapted from [ 50]. It is ...

  48. [59]

    Proofs of Theorem 1 Statement 1 was proved in [16], and we provide a sketch of the proof here. Consider the mixed state defined in Eq (8) - the averaged entanglement of this particular decomposition in terms of singlet states is an upper bound to the entanglement of formation ...

  49. [60]

    Asymptotic analysis of bipartite entanglement in T LL(N ) The dimension of the bond algebra irreps HA(L) λ for the Temperley Lieb models is the same as the dimension of the Krylov subspaces of the SU(2) symmetric systems, and are given by D(L) λ = 2λ + 1 L/2 + λ + 1 L L/2 + λ ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.