Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

The paper proves that pure quantum states that look thermal on every additive observable cannot be used to extract extensive work, and have an entropy density that never decreases—two forms of the second law.

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

2026-08-03 03:49 UTC pith:X76QBI7G

load-bearing objection A serious paper that proves the second law for a macroscopic-equivalence equilibrium notion, with one unproven uniqueness assumption (2.B) carrying the entropy-law theorem. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06657 v2 pith:X76QBI7G submitted 2026-02-06 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Second law of thermodynamics in closed quantum many-body systems

Yuuya Chiba , Yasushi Yoneta , Ryusuke Hamazaki , Akira Shimizu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph
keywords second law of thermodynamicsclosed quantum many-body systemsiMATEmacroscopic thermal equilibriummacroscopic operationsquantum macroscopic entropy densityPlanck's principlelaw of increasing entropy
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.

This paper aims to show that the second law of thermodynamics can be derived from unitary quantum mechanics for closed many-body systems, rather than assumed. The obstacle is that pure quantum states that represent thermal equilibrium are not passive: some unitary operations can extract work from them. The authors' resolution is to define thermal equilibrium as iMATE—agreement with the Gibbs state on the expectation value of every additive observable—and to restrict operations to macroscopic operations: time-dependent additive Hamiltonians acting for a system-size-independent time. With these definitions they prove two forms of the second law: no extensive work can be extracted from any iMATE, and a quantum macroscopic entropy density that equals the thermodynamic entropy density for iMATE cannot decrease through any macroscopic operation followed by relaxation. If right, this reconciles pure-state thermalization with thermodynamics and gives an operational recipe for measuring thermodynamic entropy.

Core claim

The central claim is that thermodynamic irreversibility survives the transition to pure quantum states as long as equilibrium and operations are both characterized macroscopically. A state is an iMATE if, in the thermodynamic limit, the density of every additive observable matches the canonical Gibbs state at some inverse temperature; a macroscopic operation is unitary evolution generated by an additive Hamiltonian plus a finite number of time-dependent fields coupled to additive observables, with operation time O(L^0). Under these definitions, macroscopic passivity holds: the initial Hamiltonian's expectation value cannot decrease extensively (Corollary 3). The paper then defines the quantu

What carries the argument

Three objects carry the argument. iMATE is the notion of thermal equilibrium used: two states are macroscopically equivalent when all additive-observable densities agree in the thermodynamic limit, and an iMATE is any state equivalent to a canonical Gibbs state. Macroscopic operations are the allowed adiabatic operations: unitaries generated by time-dependent additive Hamiltonians; the Lieb-Robinson bound ensures their light cone is system-size independent, so macroscopic equivalence is preserved for O(L^0) operations (Theorem 1). The quantum macroscopic entropy density is built from spatially averaged ℓ-local reduced density matrices; because it is a functional of the macroscopic state alon

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 2.B—that macroscopically equivalent states must have macroscopically equivalent long-time averages under the final Hamiltonian—is the load-bearing premise; without it the proof of entropy non-decrease collapses.

What would settle it

Take a small spin chain with a local Hamiltonian and prepare two microscopically different states from the same iMATE class (identical densities for all additive observables). Apply the same macroscopic operation for an O(L^0) time, then compute the long-time-averaged expectation values of additive observables under the final Hamiltonian. If any such density differs between the two runs, Assumption 2.B is violated and Theorem 4's monotonicity is not guaranteed for that Hamiltonian. A direct numerical experiment of this kind can settle whether the condition holds.

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

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Thermodynamic entropy density can be read off from measurements of additive observables at a single temperature, without traversing a thermodynamic process.
  • Pure states such as energy eigenstates of nonintegrable systems, which represent iMATE, acquire a well-defined thermodynamic entropy even though their von Neumann or half-chain entropies do not match it.
  • No nonequilibrium state that is not iMATE can relax to iMATE in any system-size-independent time; thermalization in this sense requires a diverging timescale.
  • The system-size-independent operation time is optimal: at longer timescales the paper constructs explicit local models in which both macroscopic passivity and entropy increase fail, with the entropy density dropping from its maximum value to zero.
  • With thermalization, the result reduces to the standard adiabatic inequality between thermodynamic entropies of the initial and final Hamiltonians; with only the weaker uniqueness assumption, entropy still increases even without final equilibrium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to read the framework as assigning a thermodynamic entropy to every macroscopic state, equilibrium or not; if such a state later relaxes to an iMATE, the measured quantum macroscopic entropy density would have to settle at the Gibbs value, which is checkable on simulators.
  • The dependence on Assumption 2.B suggests that integrable systems with multiple conserved quantities form a natural test bed: two macroscopically equivalent states carrying different quasiparticle arrangements should be driven by an O(L^0) pulse and their long-time averages compared; any mismatch would show where the theorem's condition fails.
  • The longer-timescale counterexamples are concrete enough to attempt in a quantum simulator: preparing Bell-pair product states, implementing swap-based macroscopic operations for times much larger than O(L^0), and recording the quantum macroscopic entropy density would exhibit a Loschmidt-type second-law violation without any measurement-and-feedback.
  • One might also test the β=0 stability prediction: an iMATE at infinite temperature should keep every additive-observable density fixed under any O(L^0) macroscopic operation; a deviation would falsify Corollary 4.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces iMATE (macroscopic equivalence to the canonical Gibbs state for all additive observables) and macroscopic operations generated by time-dependent additive Hamiltonians. It proves preservation of macroscopic equivalence for O(L^0) times using a Lieb-Robinson bound (Theorem 1), macroscopic passivity of iMATE (Corollary 3), an entropy formula smac that equals thermodynamic entropy on iMATE (Theorem 2), and a law of increasing entropy (Theorems 3 and 4) under either thermalization (Assumption 2.A) or a weaker uniqueness-of-final-macroscopic-state condition (Assumption 2.B). It also provides explicit counterexamples showing that both laws fail for longer operation times t* = ω(L^0).

Significance. If the main results hold as stated, the paper is a serious step toward reconciling pure-state thermal equilibrium with the second law. The framework is well defined, the Lieb-Robinson-based preservation theorem is a substantial technical contribution, the entropy formula is explicit and measurable, and the numerical METTS demonstration supports Theorem 2. The counterexamples in Sec. XIII also usefully delimit the regime of validity. However, the central law of increasing entropy for arbitrary pure iMATE states is conditional on Assumption 2.B, which is neither derived nor independently supported; without it the proof only yields the inequality for the canonical Gibbs representative. The significance is therefore real but partial, and the paper's advertised claim needs qualification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. XI C, Eq. (82); proof of Theorem 4 (Appendix E5)] The central result for arbitrary pure iMATE states relies on Assumption 2.B. Proposition 12 gives a lower bound for the unital CPTP relaxation map applied to the canonical Gibbs state, namely smac[U(ρcan)] ≥ s_TD(β0|H0). To replace ρcan by an arbitrary representation ρL of the same iMATE, the proof must identify the final macroscopic states U(ρL) and U(ρcan). This is exactly Assumption 2.B, which is stated without proof or supporting evidence. Since Proposition 6 shows that such uniqueness can fail at t* = ω(L^0), the O(L^0) restriction does not by itself make the assumption evident. Unless Assumption 2.B is derived or a concrete physical condition implying it is supplied, Theorem 4 only establishes the inequality for Gibbs initial states, not for general pure iMATE states.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. II C (Main Result 4)] The abstract states that the entropy density 'cannot be decreased by any macroscopic operations' for 'any initial state in iMATE' without mentioning the assumption. Main Result 4 only refers to 'some mild assumption about the existence of a unique thermodynamic limit', which is vague and understates Assumption 2.B. The conditional nature of the law of increasing entropy should be clearly stated in the abstract and in the main-result summary, with a precise reference to Assumption 2.B (or to Assumption 2.A for Theorem 3).
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII A / Corollary 3] Corollary 3 assumes β ≥ 0, but the abstract says 'any quantum state in iMATE' without this restriction. Please state the β ≥ 0 condition explicitly in the abstract and in Main Result 2.
  2. [Sec. VII C, Example 4] The statement that local conserved quantities are restricted to HL itself is asserted without proof or citation. If this is not central, add a reference; if it is used, provide a derivation or a more careful statement.
  3. [General presentation] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including stray 'S' characters, broken spacing in Table II, and inconsistent use of ∥•∥ versus ∥•∥∞. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are conditional on explicit assumptions and nontrivial lemmas, not circular definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The notion of iMATE is defined by macroscopic equivalence to a Gibbs state for all additive observables, and macroscopic operations are generated by additive Hamiltonians; however, the key transfer step—that macroscopic equivalence is preserved under such operations—is not assumed by definition but proved via the Lieb-Robinson bound (Theorem 1, Sec. VI B, App. D). Macroscopic passivity (Corollary 3) then follows by combining that preservation theorem with the independent passivity of Gibbs states, so it is not merely an echo of the definitions. The entropy formula (Theorem 2) is also nontrivial: the quantum macroscopic entropy density is defined from spatially averaged local reduced states, whereas thermodynamic entropy density is defined from the full Gibbs state; their equality is proved using a maximum-entropy upper bound (Lemma 2) and a unital-CPTP lower bound (Proposition 12), rather than being built into the definition. The law of increasing entropy (Theorems 3 and 4) explicitly relies on Assumption 2.A or the weaker Assumption 2.B about the uniqueness of the final macroscopic state. This assumption is not derived, and it is load-bearing; but it is a stated dynamical assumption, not a hidden re-statement of the conclusion, and it is not equivalent to entropy non-decrease. Its unproven status is a correctness/limitation concern, not a circularity. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citations are used, and no known result is merely relabeled. The counterexamples at longer timescales (Propositions 5 and 6) further confirm that the O(L^0) restriction is substantive rather than definitionally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on explicit structural assumptions about Gibbs states, relaxation dynamics, and the absence of phase coexistence, plus standard many-body tools (Lieb-Robinson, Gibbs passivity, entropy inequalities). There are no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities; iMATE and quantum macroscopic entropy density are mathematical definitions, not invented degrees of freedom.

axioms (10)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.A: canonical Gibbs state ρ_can(β|H) represents a macroscopic state (expectation values of all additive observables converge in L→∞).
    Sec. V B; needed for iMATE equivalence to be well-defined and for Theorem 2's entropy formula.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.B: canonical Gibbs state represents a normal macroscopic state (variances of additive observables are macroscopically negligible).
    Sec. V B; used in the definition of normal iMATE and in fluctuation arguments.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.C: variance of additive observables composed of ℓmax_L-local observables is o(L^0) for a diverging ℓmax_L = o(L).
    Appendix C 1 a; used to prove typical METTS sequences represent iMATE.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1.D: Gaussian concentration bound for additive observables in the Gibbs state, with χ_L = O(N^{2-ν}).
    Appendix C 1 c; used to show typical METTS sequences represent iMATE almost surely; not proven for general interacting Hamiltonians.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.A: thermalization — if the post-operation state has macroscopically negligible energy fluctuation, its long-time average represents iMATE.
    Sec. XI B; needed for Theorem 3 and the thermodynamic inequality s_TD(β0|H0) ≤ s_TD(β1|H1).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.B: unique final macroscopic state — macroscopic equivalence at t* implies macroscopic equivalence of long-time averages under H1.
    Sec. XI C Eq. (82); the load-bearing premise of Theorem 4; weaker than thermalization but unproven.
  • domain assumption System class: translation-invariant short-range Hamiltonian, no first-order phase coexistence, no additive conserved quantities other than energy.
    Sec. V A-B; equilibrium states are specified only by β and N; extensions are deferred.
  • standard math Lieb-Robinson bound for locally interacting time-dependent Hamiltonians.
    Lemma 1 (Ref. [72]); used in Theorem 1 and Props 1-2 to show Heisenberg-evolved additive observables remain approximately additive for t*=O(L^0).
  • standard math Passivity of canonical Gibbs states at β ≥ 0 under arbitrary unitaries.
    Ref. [6]; used in Corollary 3 to transfer Gibbs passivity to every iMATE state.
  • standard math Monotonicity of quantum relative entropy, concavity of von Neumann entropy, and existence of the thermodynamic limit of free energy.
    Appendix E; used in Lemma 2 and Proposition 12 for entropy upper and lower bounds.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Second law of thermodynamics in closed quantum many-body systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X76QBI7G

@misc{pith2026260206657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Second law of thermodynamics in closed quantum many-body systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X76QBI7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.06657}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The second law of thermodynamics for adiabatic operations -- constraints on state transitions in closed systems under external control -- is one of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics. On the other hand, it is recently established that even pure quantum states can represent thermal equilibrium. However, pure quantum states do not satisfy the second law in that they are not passive, i.e., work can be extracted from them if arbitrary unitary operations are allowed. It therefore remains unresolved how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with thermodynamics. Here, based on our key quantum-mechanical notions of thermal equilibrium and adiabatic operations, we address the emergence of the second law for adiabatic operations in the thermodynamics limit. We first introduce infinite-observable macroscopic thermal equilibrium (iMATE); a quantum state, including pure states, is in iMATE if the expectation values of all additive observables agree with their equilibrium values. We also introduce a macroscopic operation as unitary evolution generated by a time-dependent additive Hamiltonian, which is regarded as corresponding to adiabatic operations. Employing these concepts, we show that no extensive work can be extracted from any quantum state in iMATE through any macroscopic operations. Furthermore, we introduce a quantum-mechanical form of entropy density such that it agrees with thermodynamic entropy density for any quantum state in iMATE. We then prove that for any initial state in iMATE, this entropy density cannot be decreased by any macroscopic operations, followed by a time-independent relaxation process. Our theory thus proves two different forms of the second law, by adopting macroscopically reasonable classes of observables, equilibrium states, and operations. We also discuss the time scales of macroscopic operations in these results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06657 by Akira Shimizu, Ryusuke Hamazaki, Yasushi Yoneta, Yuuya Chiba.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of how each primitive macroscopic subsystem grows as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Locality ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Clifford Ergotropy

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Clifford ergotropy is upper-bounded by a magic measure, exhibits a control transition in two qubits, and implies a second law under Clifford operations for typical many-body states.

  2. Clifford Ergotropy

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Defines Clifford ergotropy with universal upper bounds that decrease with magic (via infinite-order filtered stabilizer Rényi entropy), shows results for 1-2 qubit systems including a control landscape transition, and...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We divide the proof of this proposition into two parts: proof for the necessity and sufficiency of Eq

    Proof of Proposition 3 Here, we prove Proposition 3. We divide the proof of this proposition into two parts: proof for the necessity and sufficiency of Eq. (51). Proof for the necessity of Eq. (51). Take arbitrary k ∈ {1, ..., K} and ℓ ∈ N. As explained above, Eq. (50) holds for any observable α on C ℓ. If {ρL}L and {σL}L are macroscopically equivalent, w...

  2. [2]

    Proposition 10 (Infinite temperature iMATE without random variables)

    Infinite temperature iMA TE without random variables (details of Example 2) In this subsection, we provide a simple example of representations of iMATE at β = 0 that contains no random variables in contrast to the typical sequence of METTS. Proposition 10 (Infinite temperature iMATE without random variables) . For simplicity, we consider a one- dimensiona...

  3. [3]

    Importantly, it contains no random variables in contrast to METTS

    Finite temperature iMA TE without random variables (details of Example 3) In this subsection, we explicitly construct a representation of iMATE at finite temperature. Importantly, it contains no random variables in contrast to METTS. Proposition 11 (Finite temperature iMATE without random variables) . For simplicity, we consider a one- dimensional spin- 1...

  4. [4]

    Let (ρL)L∈N represent a macroscopic state

    Upper bound on the quantum macroscopic entropy density Lemma 2 (Principle of maximum entropy). Let (ρL)L∈N represent a macroscopic state. If its energy density coincides with that of an equilibrium state described by a Hamiltonian H at some inverse temperature β∗, lim L→∞ Tr[ρLH]/N = lim L→∞ Tr[ρcan L (β∗|H)H]/N, (E4) then the quantum macroscopic entropy ...

  5. [5]

    A CPTP map U (•) on the total Hilbert space is said to be unital when it satisfies U (IΛL ) = IΛL , (E16) where IΛL is the identity operator on the total Hilbert space

    Lower bound on the quantum macroscopic entropy density after a unital CPTP map Next we investigate how smac[•] can be decreased by a completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) map. A CPTP map U (•) on the total Hilbert space is said to be unital when it satisfies U (IΛL ) = IΛL , (E16) where IΛL is the identity operator on the total Hilbert space. For in...

  6. [6]

    (72) which is used in the proof of Theorem 2 Proof

    Proof of Eq. (72) which is used in the proof of Theorem 2 Proof. Inserting ρL = ρcan L (β|H) into Lemma 2, we have lim sup ℓ→∞ smac ℓ ρcan L (β|H) L∈N ≤ sTD(β|H). (E36) On the other hand, inserting ρL = ρcan L (β|H) into Proposition 12 and taking UL in Proposition 12 as the identity map, we have smac ℓ ρcan L (β|H) L∈N ≥ lim sup L→∞ SvN[ρcan L (β|H)] N = ...

  7. [7]

    We introduce UL(•) := lim T →∞ 1 T Z T 0 dt e−iH1tU (t∗, 0) • U †(t∗, 0)eiH1t, (E39) which is a unital CPTP map

    Proof of Theorem 4 Proof. We introduce UL(•) := lim T →∞ 1 T Z T 0 dt e−iH1tU (t∗, 0) • U †(t∗, 0)eiH1t, (E39) which is a unital CPTP map. The existence of the limit lim T →∞can be shown from the fact that the Hilbert space is finite dimensional. Inserting ρL = ρcan L (β|H) into Proposition 12 and taking UL(•) in Proposition 12 as the above one, we have s...

  8. [8]

    Proof of Theorem 3 using Theorem 4 Equation (78) of Theorem 3 readily follows from Theorem 4 as follows. Proof. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 3 are satisfied. First, we will show that Assumption 2.B is also satisfied. Consider two representations of the same iMATE, i.e., ( ρL)L∈N and ( σL)L∈N satisfying Eq. (80). From Corollary 1, the expectatio...

  9. [9]

    Direct proof of Theorem 3 We here give a more direct proof of Theorem 3. Proof. First, we will show that ρL(t > t∗) L∈N represents iMATE. Since ρL(0) L∈N represents normal iMATE, Proposition 2 implies that ρL(t∗) L∈N represents a normal macroscopic state. This means that Eq. (75) is satisfied. This fact combined with Assumption 2.A implies that ρL(t > t∗)...

  10. [10]

    iMATE + macroscopic operations

    Passivity to local controls In this Appendix, we extend our results for the setup “iMATE + macroscopic operations” to the setup “MITE + local control”. Precisely, MITE considered here corresponds to O(L0)-local MITE defined by Definition 16 and local control considered here is given as follows: Definition 17 (Local control). Let rH be a positive integer i...

  11. [11]

    MITE + local control

    Proof of Eq. (46) in Example 5 Thus, the passivity holds true for the “MITE + local control” setup, in addition to the “iMATE + macroscopic operation” setup (Corollary 3). One might expect that they could be extended to a broader setup of “iMATE + local control.” However, Example 5 shows that such an extension is impossible. Below, we prove Eq. (46) in Ex...

  12. [12]

    Since we can obtain a d-dimensional system by bundling Ld−1 copies of a one-dimensional system, it suffices to provide an example for the case of d = 1

    Proof of Proposition 5 We prove Proposition 5 by an explicit construction. Since we can obtain a d-dimensional system by bundling Ld−1 copies of a one-dimensional system, it suffices to provide an example for the case of d = 1. Moreover, since the timescale can be freely rescaled by a factor independent of L through multiplying the Hamiltonian by a consta...

  13. [13]

    The basic strategy is almost the same as that of Proposition 5

    Proof of Proposition 6 In this subsection, we prove Proposition 6 by an explicit construction. The basic strategy is almost the same as that of Proposition 5. a. Setup We choose the initial Hamiltonian H0 as H0 = π 4 LX j=1 ⃗ σj · ⃗ σj+1 (H15) 58 and the final Hamiltonian H1 as H1 = π 4 LX j=1 ⃗ σj · ⃗ σj+1 + π 8 LX j=1 ⃗ σj · ⃗ σj+2. (H16) The latter is ...

  14. [14]

    Kittel and H

    C. Kittel and H. Kroemer, Thermal Physics , 2nd ed. (W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1980)

    1980

  15. [15]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, 3rd ed. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1980) p. 544

    1980

  16. [16]

    H. B. Callen, Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics, 2nd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1985)

    1985

  17. [17]

    E. H. Lieb and J. Yngvason, The physics and mathe- matics of the second law of thermodynamics, Phys. Rep. 310, 1 (1999)

    1999

  18. [18]

    Pusz and S

    W. Pusz and S. L. Woronowicz, Passive states and KMS states for general quantum systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 273 (1978)

    1978

  19. [19]

    Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the Gibbs for- mula for elementary quantum systems, J

    A. Lenard, Thermodynamical proof of the Gibbs for- mula for elementary quantum systems, J. Stat. Phys. 19, 575 (1978)

    1978

  20. [20]

    Gorecki and W

    J. Gorecki and W. Pusz, Passive states for finite classical systems, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 433 (1980)

    1980

  21. [21]

    H. A. M. Dani¨ els, Passivity and equilibrium for classical Hamiltonian systems, J. Math. Phys. 22, 843 (1981)

    1981

  22. [22]

    Tasaki, The second law of Thermodynamics as a the- orem in quantum mechanics (2000)

    H. Tasaki, The second law of Thermodynamics as a the- orem in quantum mechanics (2000)

    2000

  23. [23]

    S. Z. Baba, N. Yoshioka, and T. Sagawa, Work ex- tractability from energy eigenstates under optimized lo- cal operations (2023), arXiv:2308.03537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Brand˜ aoa, M

    F. Brand˜ aoa, M. Horodecki, N. Ng, J. Oppenheim, and S. Wehner, The second laws of quantum thermodynam- ics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 3275 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    Tasaki, Statistical mechanical derivation of the second law of thermodynamics (2000), arXiv:cond- mat/0009206 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    H. Tasaki, Statistical mechanical derivation of the second law of thermodynamics (2000), arXiv:cond- mat/0009206 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2000

  26. [26]

    L. F. Santos, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Entropy of Isolated Quantum Systems after a Quench, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 040601 (2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    T. N. Ikeda, N. Sakumichi, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Ueda, The second law of thermodynamics under uni- tary evolution and external operations, Ann. Phys. 354, 338 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    Tasaki, Quantum Statistical Mechanical Derivation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: A Hybrid Set- ting Approach, Phys

    H. Tasaki, Quantum Statistical Mechanical Derivation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: A Hybrid Set- ting Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 170402 (2016)

    2016

  29. [29]

    Kaneko, E

    K. Kaneko, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, Work extraction from a single energy eigenstate, Phys. Rev. E99, 032128 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Hokkyo and M

    A. Hokkyo and M. Ueda, Universal Upper Bound on Ergotropy and No-Go Theorem by the Eigenstate Ther- malization Hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010406 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Meier, T

    F. Meier, T. Rivlin, T. Debarba, J. Xuereb, M. Huber, and M. P. Lock, Emergence of a Second Law of Thermo- dynamics in Isolated Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum 6, 010309 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    von Neumann, Beweis des ergodensatzes und des H- theorems in der neuen mechanik, Z

    J. von Neumann, Beweis des ergodensatzes und des H- theorems in der neuen mechanik, Z. Phys.57, 30 (1929)

    1929

  33. [33]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    2046

  34. [34]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  35. [35]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum sys- tems., Nature (London) 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  36. [36]

    H. Kim, T. N. Ikeda, and D. A. Huse, Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052105 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    Beugeling, R

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Finite-size scaling of eigenstate thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 89, 042112 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Biroli, C

    G. Biroli, C. Kollath, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Effect of Rare Fluctuations on the Thermalization of Isolated Quan- tum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250401 (2010)

    2010

  39. [39]

    Mori, Weak eigenstate thermalization with large de- viation bound (2016), arXiv:1609.09776

    T. Mori, Weak eigenstate thermalization with large de- viation bound (2016), arXiv:1609.09776

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Iyoda, K

    E. Iyoda, K. Kaneko, and T. Sagawa, Fluctuation The- orem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    Srednicki, Thermal fluctuations in quantized chaotic systems, J

    M. Srednicki, Thermal fluctuations in quantized chaotic systems, J. Phys. A 29, L75 (1996)

    1996

  42. [42]

    I. Arad, T. Kuwahara, and Z. Landau, Connecting global and local energy distributions in quantum spin models on a lattice, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 10.1088/1742- 5468/2016/03/033301 (2016)

    doi:10.1088/1742- 2016

  43. [43]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, E. Crosson, M. B. S ¸ahino˘ glu, and J. Bowen, Quantum Error Correcting Codes in Eigen- states of Translation-Invariant Spin Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 110502 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    F. H. Essler and A. J. De Klerk, Statistics of Matrix El- ements of Local Operators in Integrable Models, Phys. Rev. X 14, 31048 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Tasaki, From Quantum Dynamics to the Canonical Distribution: General Picture and a Rigorous Example, Phys

    H. Tasaki, From Quantum Dynamics to the Canonical Distribution: General Picture and a Rigorous Example, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1373 (1998)

    1998

  46. [46]

    Reimann, Foundation of Statistical Mechanics under Experimentally Realistic Conditions, Phys

    P. Reimann, Foundation of Statistical Mechanics under Experimentally Realistic Conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 190403 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    Linden, S

    N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equi- librium, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061103 (2009)

    2009

  48. [48]

    A. J. Short and T. C. Farrelly, Quantum equilibration in finite time, New J. Phys. 14, 013063 (2012)

    2012

  49. [49]

    Reimann and M

    P. Reimann and M. Kastner, Equilibration of iso- lated macroscopic quantum systems, New J. Phys. 14, 10.1088/1367-2630/14/4/043020 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/4/043020 2012

  50. [50]

    Farrelly, F

    T. Farrelly, F. G. Brand˜ ao, and M. Cramer, Thermal- ization and Return to Equilibrium on Finite Quantum Lattice Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 140601 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Quantum many- body systems out of equilibrium, Nat. Phys. 11, 124 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 056001 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Ther- malization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: A theoretical overview, J. Phys. B 51, 112001 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Kinoshita, T

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, A quantum Newton’s cradle, Nature (London) 440, 900 (2006). 61

    2006

  56. [56]

    Gring, M

    M. Gring, M. Kuhnert, T. Langen, T. Kitagawa, B. Rauer, M. Schreitl, I. Mazets, D. A. Adu Smith, E. Demler, and J. Schmiedmayer, Relaxation and prethermalization in an isolated quantum system, Sci- ence 337, 1318 (2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    Trotzky, Y

    S. Trotzky, Y. A. Chen, A. Flesch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, J. Eisert, and I. Bloch, Probing the re- laxation towards equilibrium in an isolated strongly cor- related one-dimensional Bose gas, Nat. Phys. 8, 325 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quan- tum thermalization through entanglement in an isolated many-body system, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    2016

  59. [59]

    Goldstein, D

    S. Goldstein, D. A. Huse, J. L. Lebowitz, and R. Tu- mulka, Thermal Equilibrium of a Macroscopic Quantum System in a Pure State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 100402 (2015)

    2015

  60. [60]

    Tasaki, Typicality of Thermal Equilibrium and Ther- malization in Isolated Macroscopic Quantum Systems, J

    H. Tasaki, Typicality of Thermal Equilibrium and Ther- malization in Isolated Macroscopic Quantum Systems, J. Stat. Phys. 163, 937 (2016)

    2016

  61. [61]

    Goldstein, D

    S. Goldstein, D. A. Huse, J. L. Lebowitz, and R. Tu- mulka, Macroscopic and microscopic thermal equilib- rium, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 529, 1600301 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    Goldstein, J

    S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zangh ` ı, Canonical Typicality, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 050403 (2006)

    2006

  63. [63]

    Popescu, A

    S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics, Nat. Phys. 2, 754 (2006)

    2006

  64. [64]

    Sugita, On the foundation of quantum statistical mechanics (in Japanese), RIMS Kokyuroku 1507, 147 (2006)

    A. Sugita, On the foundation of quantum statistical mechanics (in Japanese), RIMS Kokyuroku 1507, 147 (2006)

    2006

  65. [65]

    Reimann, Typicality for generalized microcanonical ensemble, Phys

    P. Reimann, Typicality for generalized microcanonical ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160404 (2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    Sugiura and A

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Thermal Pure Quantum States at Finite Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240401 (2012)

    2012

  67. [67]

    Sugiura and A

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Canonical Thermal Pure Quantum State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010401 (2013)

    2013

  68. [68]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Re- laxation in a Completely Integrable Many-Body Quan- tum System: An Ab initioStudy of the Dynamics of the Highly Excited States of 1D Lattice Hard-Core Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 050405 (2007)

    2007

  69. [69]

    Sotiriadis and P

    S. Sotiriadis and P. Calabrese, Validity of the GGE for quantum quenches from interacting to noninteracting models, J. Stat. Mech. 2014, P07024 (2014)

    2014

  70. [70]

    Wouters, J

    B. Wouters, J. De Nardis, M. Brockmann, D. Fioretto, M. Rigol, and J. S. Caux, Quenching the Anisotropic Heisenberg Chain: Exact Solution and Generalized Gibbs Ensemble Predictions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 117202 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Pozsgay, M

    B. Pozsgay, M. Mesty´ an, M. A. Werner, M. Kormos, G. Zar´ and, and G. Tak´ acs, Correlations after Quantum Quenches in the XXZ Spin Chain: Failure of the Gen- eralized Gibbs Ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 117203 (2014)

    2014

  72. [72]

    Ilievski, M

    E. Ilievski, M. Medenjak, and T. Prosen, Quasilocal Conserved Operators in the Isotropic Heisenberg Spin- 1/2 Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 120601 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    Mierzejewski, P

    M. Mierzejewski, P. Prelovˇ sek, and T. Prosen, Identify- ing Local and Quasilocal Conserved Quantities in Inte- grable Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 140601 (2015)

    2015

  74. [74]

    Ilievski, J

    E. Ilievski, J. De Nardis, B. Wouters, J. S. Caux, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Complete Generalized Gibbs Ensembles in an Interacting Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 157201 (2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    Ilievski, M

    E. Ilievski, M. Medenjak, T. Prosen, and L. Zadnik, Quasilocal charges in integrable lattice systems, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 064008 (2016)

    2016

  76. [76]

    Doyon, Thermalization and pseudolocality in ex- tended quantum systems, Commun

    B. Doyon, Thermalization and pseudolocality in ex- tended quantum systems, Commun. Math. Phys. 351, 155 (2017)

    2017

  77. [77]

    Kuwahara and K

    T. Kuwahara and K. Saito, Eigenstate Thermalization from the Clustering Property of Correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 200604 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    Reimann, Generalization of von Neumann’s Ap- proach to Thermalization, Phys

    P. Reimann, Generalization of von Neumann’s Ap- proach to Thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 010403 (2015)

    2015

  79. [79]

    Sugimoto, R

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Test of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis Based on Local Random Matrix Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120602 (2021)

    2021

  80. [80]

    Sugimoto, R

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Eigenstate Thermalization in Long-Range Interacting Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 030602 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.