Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Unitaries that permanently stop operators from spreading — 'walls' — are exactly those that preserve an embedded operator subalgebra, which forces a direct-sum block form, an entanglement area law, and an exact spectral form factor.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 03:44 UTC pith:SEYGKN7Q

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful algebraic characterization of wall unitaries, with the core theorems looking correct — but the many-body fragmentation narrative leans on a stipulated extensivity step that the paper itself flags. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06913 v2 pith:SEYGKN7Q submitted 2026-02-06 quant-ph cond-mat.othermath-phmath.MP

Non-ergodic quantum operator dynamics from causal constraints

Marcell D. Kov\'acs , Christopher J. Turner , Llu\'is Masanes This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.othermath-phmath.MP PACS 03.65.-w03.67.-a05.45.Mt
keywords wall unitarybounded light coneoperator space fragmentationcommutant algebracausal independencenon-ergodic quantum dynamicsspectral form factorentanglement area law
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.

Local operators in a quantum circuit usually spread ballistically; ergodic dynamics scrambles everything. This paper asks what a unitary must look like if instead it permanently confines every left-local operator to the left–centre region — a 'wall' with a bounded light cone. Its central claim: such walls are precisely the unitaries that leave an embedded operator subalgebra invariant, and that invariance forces a fixed block structure, U = ⊕ T_i ⊗ R_i, over irreducible subspaces. From this single structure the paper derives local conserved charges (the intersection of two commutants), a strict entanglement area law, and an exact spectral form factor for a random wall ensemble. The payoff is a rigorous, gate-agnostic model of non-ergodic quantum dynamics that needs no disorder, no stabiliser gates, and no integrability, and that ties operator localisation to quantum error-correcting codes.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper is a classification with consequences. A tri-partite unitary U on L–C–R is a wall if evolving any operator local to L never takes it outside L∪C — permanently, at every time step — and Theorem II.1 shows this is equivalent to the same condition for right-local operators. The paper proves that the causal condition is exactly the algebraic statement that U preserves the embedded subalgebra M_L ⊗ A_C ⊗ 1_R, a generalised super-operator symmetry, and that every such U decomposes as U = ⊕_i T^i_{LD_i} ⊗ R^i_{E_iR} relative to the block decomposition H = ⊕_i H_L ⊗ H_{D_i} ⊗ H_{E_i} ⊗ H_R, with the T and R factors arbitrary unitaries (Theorem III.1). The same algebra car

What carries the argument

The central object is the wall unitary together with its invariant embedded subalgebra; the engine of the argument is the representation theory of finite C*-algebras — the decomposition of Hilbert space into irreducible blocks D_i and degeneracy spaces E_i, the double-commutant theorem, and the normaliser group of unitary automorphisms of the embedded algebra. Theorem III.1's block form U = ⊕_i T^i_{LD_i} ⊗ R^i_{E_iR} is the load-bearing identity: it converts a dynamical localisation condition into a static algebraic classification. Two derived identities carry the physics: the conserved-charge algebra C = Comm(M_L) ∩ Comm(M_R) (Theorem II.7) and the operator-Schmidt bound rank ≤ dim(A_C) be

Load-bearing premise

Everything in the single-wall classification is proven, but the paper's many-body conclusions — exponential operator-space fragmentation and a super-polynomial spectral form factor — rest on the unproven stipulation in Section IV.A that a random gateset with finite wall probability produces walls on an extensive number of bonds in the thermodynamic limit; if walls are not extensive, those many-body claims collapse even though the single-wall theorems survive.

What would settle it

Simulate a one-dimensional brickwork circuit where each gate is an Abelian wall with probability p and Haar-random otherwise, and measure the operator-space fragment count and the spectral form factor versus chain length; if for any p > 0 the fragment count fails to grow exponentially (or the SFF stays polynomial in time), the extensive-fragmentation premise is refuted. Separately, exact diagonalisation of all small tri-partite walls should reproduce K(t) = Σ min(t, dim LD_i) min(t, dim E_iR), and a single unitary satisfying the wall condition that violates the block form of Theorem III.1 woul

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

If this is right

  • Wall localisation is stable: arbitrary local operations on L and R — even non-unitary, time-dependent ones interleaved with the wall — cannot break the bounded light cone, so walls are immune to the avalanche instability that plagues many-body localisation.
  • If walls appear with finite probability in a random gateset, the paper expects an extensive set of walls, exponential operator-space fragmentation, and a super-polynomial spectral form factor in the thermodynamic limit — an extrapolation from the proven single-wall theorems, not itself a theorem.
  • Central projective measurements that commute with the invariant algebra or its commutant leave the entanglement area law intact, while measurements outside both break the splitting and can restore volume-law entanglement — an algebraically characterised measurement-induced transition.
  • The spectral form factor of a random wall ensemble is exactly K(t) = Σ_i min(t, dim LD_i) min(t, dim E_iR); for an Abelian wall this reads d_C min(t,d)², with a Heisenberg time of order √d separating wall dynamics from Haar-typical chaos at all times.
  • Non-Abelian walls (e.g. the FSWAP gate localising Jordan–Wigner fermions) can have no local conserved charges at all, so causal confinement is more general than symmetry- or integrability-protected localisation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The many-body claims are stipulations, not theorems: a numerical 1D brickwork simulation with wall probability p that shows sub-exponential fragment growth (or only polynomial SFF growth) for any fixed p > 0 would refute the paper's extensive-fragmentation premise from Section IV.A while leaving the single-wall block form and area law intact.
  • Reading wall blocks as code spaces suggests a project the paper leaves implicit: assign a code distance to the invariant subspaces and test whether information encoded in the central 'logical' subsystem can be recovered despite coupling to L and R; the paper shows the codespace exists and is invariant but does not quantify error correction.
  • The authors conjecture (not prove) that bounded light cones are efficiently verifiable by Choi-state separability testing; with only a few entangling gates per wall, the FSWAP and Z-conditional examples are within reach of present-day processors, making the predicted √d Heisenberg time in the SFF a realistic experimental target.
  • The gauged wall sequences open a door the paper leaves mostly closed: time-dependent, non-periodic localisation not reducible to a Floquet wall, which the authors explicitly doubt is always possible; whether any continuous-time Hamiltonian can generate the wall normaliser without also generating ergodic directions is an open question worth a no-go search.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an algebraic theory of 'wall unitaries': tripartite unitaries whose adjoint action confines initially left-local and right-local operators to fixed subsystems for all times, producing strictly bounded light cones in Floquet brickwork circuits. The main single-wall results are: left-wall and right-wall conditions are equivalent (Theorem II.1); wall unitaries leave embedded subalgebras of the form M_L ⊗ A_C ⊗ 1_R and 1_L ⊗ B_C ⊗ M_R invariant (Theorem II.4); local conserved charges form the algebra C = Comm(M_L) ∩ Comm(M_R) (Theorem II.7); the most general wall has the block form U = ⊕_i T^i_{L D_i} ⊗ R^i_{E_i R} (Theorem III.1); entanglement across the wall obeys an area-law bound Sr ≤ dim(A_C) (Theorem IV.1); and the spectral form factor of the random wall ensemble is K(t) = Σ_i min(t, dim LD_i) min(t, dim E_i R) (Eq. (53)). The paper then proposes that random circuits with a finite probability of containing wall gates lead to extensive operator-space fragmentation and super-polynomial spectral form factors. This last step is explicitly stipulated rather than proved.

Significance. If the single-wall results are correct, they provide a rigorous, model-independent characterization of strictly bounded light cones in discrete unitary dynamics, going beyond Clifford and free-fermion examples and connecting to causal independence in quantum information and to quantum error correction. The block-form theorem, the conserved-charge characterization, and the entanglement bound are clean and internally consistent; the SFF formula is a concrete, testable prediction for an explicitly defined ensemble. However, the paper's advertised many-body implications — exponential operator-space fragmentation, super-polynomial SFF, and measurement-induced volume-law entanglement — are not derived from the proven single-wall theorems. The extensivity step in Section IV.A is a stipulation, and the measurement claim in Section IV.C is asserted without proof. Because the single-wall core is sound and the many-body claims can be recast as conjectures or supported by additional proof, the paper is salvageable with a major revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Eqs. (44)–(47)] The claim that any gateset with finite wall probability leads to an extensive set of walls and hence exponentially sized operator-space fragmentation is explicitly introduced as 'We stipulate...' rather than proved. This is load-bearing: the abstract and conclusion present fragmentation as a consequence of the theory, and §IV.D's super-polynomial SFF relies on 'extensively many walls'. The wall condition alone does not imply exponential fragmentation: for a non-Abelian wall with trivial central commutant (Section III.B.2), C = Z(A_C) = 1 and the wall simply factorizes the dynamics into independent ergodic segments, giving only O(L) spatially localized invariant operator subspaces rather than 2^Ω(L). Please either prove the percolation/extensivity step for a concrete gate ensemble, or explicitly label it a conjecture and adjust the abstract/conclusion claims accordingly.
  2. [§IV.D, Eq. (53)] The SFF formula is stated as 'easily shown' from multiplicativity over tensor-product ensembles and additivity over blocks. The final expression is plausible, but the derivation should be written out: for U = ⊕_i T_i ⊗ R_i with independent Haar-distributed blocks, E|Tr U^t|^2 = Σ_i E|Tr T_i^t|^2 E|Tr R_i^t|^2, with cross terms vanishing by Haar averages. More importantly, the subsequent claim that extensively many walls give super-polynomial K(t) ~ t^n depends on the unproved extensivity assumption of §IV.A. Please separate the rigorously derived single-wall SFF from the conjectural many-body scaling, and state clearly that the latter is conditional on the fragmentation conjecture.
  3. [§IV.C, 'Measurement-induced dynamics'] The statement that a projective measurement in M_C \ (A_C ∪ Comm(A_C)) can restore volume-law entanglement when iterated between wall unitaries is asserted without proof. This is a novel physical claim and is repeated in the conclusion. The classification of measurements according to membership in A_C, Comm(A_C), or neither is useful, but the volume-law claim needs either a derivation (even a sketch of a concrete protocol) or an explicit statement that it is a conjecture for future work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV.D, Eq. (53)] The variable t in min(t, dim LD_i) is implicitly an integer. State this explicitly when defining the SFF, since the formula is only valid for integer evolution times.
  2. [§IV.B, proof of Theorem IV.1] The proof is slightly compressed: Eq. (49) introduces coefficients λ_j, but Eq. (51) omits them and the index i in |β_i⟩ is not carried cleanly through. The final bound Σ_i dim^2 D_i = dim A_C is correct, but the presentation should be tidied.
  3. [§II.C, Theorem II.5] The proof that absence of entanglement creation implies a product unitary is stated in one sentence. This is a standard fact, but a short justification or citation would help the reader.
  4. [References] Reference [38] (Brézin and Hikami, spectral form factor) appears in the list among algebraic quantum field theory references [34]–[37]; this looks like a mis-placed citation. Please check.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript uses 'tri-partite' and 'tripartite' interchangeably; please standardize. Also, in Eq. (36) the notation π(a) for a permutation label is confusingly close to a superscript; consider writing π(a) as a subscript or defining it explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the wall algebra, block form, area law and single-wall SFF are derived from Definition II.1; only the extensive-fragmentation extrapolation in §IV.A is an explicitly stipulated gap.

specific steps
  1. other [Section IV.A, 'Operator space fragmentation' (pp. 12–13); relied on by the super-polynomial SFF claim in §IV.D]
    "We stipulate that any gateset which has a finite probability of satisfying the wall constraint (e.g. containing conditional unitaries as defined in Section F) will lead to phenomenologically equivalent non-ergodic evolution, with an extensive set of walls and consequently exponentially sized fragment space."

    This is the sole bridge from the proven single-wall theorems (Theorem III.1, II.7, IV.1, Eq. 53) to the extensive many-body claims of exponential operator-space fragmentation and the 'super-polynomial' SFF K(t)~t^n of §IV.D. The extensivity step is stipulated rather than derived, and the only cited precedent is the authors' own prior work [21] on Clifford circuits. This is not a circular reduction in the strict sense: the paper is transparent that it is a stipulation, and none of the central algebra results depend on it. It is, however, an omitted proof on which the many-body narrative rests, so it is flagged as a gap/limitation rather than circularity.

full rationale

Definition II.1 fixes a wall by the dynamical localisation condition Ad_U^t(M_L⊗1_CR) ⊆ M_LC⊗1_R for all t. The invariant embedded algebra M_L⊗A_C⊗1_R (Theorems II.4 and C.1), the commutant charge algebra C = Comm(M_L)∩Comm(M_R) (Theorem II.7), the block form U = ⊕_i T^i_{LD_i}⊗R^i_{E_iR} (Theorem III.1), the entanglement area law (Theorem IV.1) and the ensemble SFF of Eq. (53) are all derived consequences of that definition, not inputs. The SFF is computed for an ensemble defined by the derived block structure with Haar-random blocks; it is not used to define the blocks. No parameters are fitted to data, and no 'uniqueness theorem' is invoked to force a choice. The self-citation [21] appears in three places: (i) Theorem II.5 is stated to be equivalent to Lemma IV.1 of [21] but is proved here independently by an algebraic argument; (ii) §IV.A cites [21] as the specific Clifford instance of fragmentation and then explicitly stipulates the generalisation to arbitrary wall gatesets; (iii) §IV.D notes the polynomial SFF scaling was conjectured in [21] and is derived in the present paper. None of these citations carry the derivation chain, so the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. The only substantive caveat is the §IV.A stipulation of extensive fragmentation (and the conditional super-polynomial SFF claim in §IV.D), which is an explicitly unproven assumption: it is a correctness risk for the many-body narrative, but not a circular reduction, because the paper does not present it as derived and does not disguise an input as an output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated. 'Walls' is a term for a class of unitaries, not an invented entity. The main axioms are standard mathematics plus the modeling assumption of strict localisation; the extensivity stipulation is ad hoc and unproven.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Finite-dimensional C*-algebra structure theory: double commutant theorem, block decomposition, and normalizer structure
    Used throughout (Sections B, C, E) to decompose embedded algebras and derive wall structure; accepted mathematical background.
  • standard math Cesàro mean eigenprojector formula (Eq. 9): Π_λ = lim_{N→∞} (1/N) Σ λ^{-t} Ad_U^t
    Used in the proof of Theorem II.1 to extract eigenprojectors of Ad_U; standard result from functional analysis, cited to [48].
  • standard math Skolem-Noether theorem: all automorphisms of a full matrix algebra are inner
    Used in Theorem III.1 and Appendix E to characterize the normalizer group of the invariant algebra.
  • domain assumption Wall condition: strict localisation of L- and R-operators for all times (Definition II.1)
    Defines the object of study; the entire theory applies only to unitaries satisfying exact, permanent localisation, not approximate or transient localisation.
  • ad hoc to paper Extensivity stipulation: random gatesets with finite probability of satisfying the wall constraint yield exponential operator-space fragmentation
    Section IV.A states this without proof; it is needed for the many-body/fragmentation significance claims but not for the single-wall theorems.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21876 in / 22911 out tokens · 218870 ms · 2026-08-03T03:44:08.952198+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper explores a route to non-ergodic quantum dynamics where algebraic restrictions in operator space arise from local constraints on the causal light cone. We model this through tri-partite unitaries (we dub 'walls') that permanently arrest local operator spreading in periodic time-evolution. We show that the structure of the resulting causally independent subsystems can be understood rigorously through the invariance of embedded operator algebras (ie. super-operator symmetries). Our work involves a detailed study of local conserved quantities and generalisation to time-dependent dynamics. Using representation theory, the general form of wall gates is derived from the unitary automorphism group of the embedded algebra with links to quantum error-correcting codes. From the point of view of operator spreading, our theory is a minimal model for non-ergodic quantum circuit dynamics and we explore its effects on probes of many-body quantum chaos. We prove an entanglement area law due to causal constraints and discuss its stability against local measurements. In a random unitary ensemble with causally independent subsystems, we compare spectral correlations with the universal (chaotic) ensemble using the spectral form factor. Our results offer a rigorous understanding of locally constrained quantum dynamics from a quantum information perspective.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06913 by Christopher J. Turner, Llu\'is Masanes, Marcell D. Kov\'acs.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. We study the time-periodic evolution of lo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Localisation of left-evolving operators in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Stable embedding of a tri-partite wall uni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Algebraic structure of conserved operators. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Extending the wall condition to time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Catalogue of Abelian walls [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mesurement protocol with unitary evolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    By the same construction onM R, it follows that C ⊆Comm ML ∩Comm MR for allt≥0

    However, using Theorem II.1, elements of Adt U −1(ML)∈ ML and thusC ⊆Comm ML . By the same construction onM R, it follows that C ⊆Comm ML ∩Comm MR for allt≥0. Thus the existence of local charge implies mem- bership in the intersection of the left and right commutants. Corollary II.8.⟨1⟩ ⊆ C. Non-trivial intersec- tion imply non-trivial conserved quantitie...

  2. [2]

    In this case, we generate the algebra from pairwise or- thogonal projectorsA C =⟨Π (i) C ⟩dimC i=1 under The- orem C.2

    Abelian walls Consider the algebraA C = diag(M C) as the diagonal operators onCin an arbitraryC-local basis, which is a maximal Abelian algebra. In this case, we generate the algebra from pairwise or- thogonal projectorsA C =⟨Π (i) C ⟩dimC i=1 under The- orem C.2. The irreducible blocks are all one- dimensional scalars with multiplicity one. The unitary a...

  3. [3]

    Non-abelian walls As a minimal example, we will consider non- commutative algebras on qubit subspaces onC. 11 FIG. 6. Catalogue of Abelian walls.a)shows their general structure with two conditional gates on an or- thonormal operator basis{(q i)C =|i⟩ ⟨i|C}i. These enclose an off-diagonal unitary permutation gateπof the basis elements. We useZ-conditional ...

  4. [4]

    IfU∈ N(A), then AdU (b)∈Comm(A)

    Then, Ad U [a, b] = [Ad U (a),Ad U (b)] = 0 for any unitaryU. IfU∈ N(A), then AdU (b)∈Comm(A). IfU∈ N(Comm(A)), then AdU (a)∈Comm(Comm(A)) =Aunder the double-commutant theorem. This implies the de- sired statement. Corollary D.3.The normaliser of an algebra is the normaliser of its centre.N(Z(A)) =N(A). Appendix E: Representation theory of finite-dimensio...

  5. [5]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, SciPost Phys. 8, 067 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 1 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. c. v. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 264101 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Poll- mann, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. X8, 021013 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021033 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    E. P. Wigner, SIAM Review9, 1 (1967), https://doi.org/10.1137/1009001

    doi:10.1137/1009001 1967

  13. [13]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. c. v. Prosen, Phys. Rev. B105, 165142 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023118 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Br´ ezin and S

    E. Br´ ezin and S. Hikami, Phys. Rev. E55, 4067 (1997)

    1997

  16. [16]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. c. v. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 080401 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011050 (2022)

    2022

  18. [19]

    Chandran and C

    A. Chandran and C. R. Laumann, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024301 (2015)

    2015

  19. [20]

    Farshi, D

    T. Farshi, D. Toniolo, C. E. Gonz´ alez-Guill´ en, ´A. M. Alhambra, and L. Masanes, J. Math. Phys. 63, 032201 (2022). 20

    2022

  20. [21]

    Farshi, J

    T. Farshi, J. Richter, D. Toniolo, A. Pal, and L. Masanes, PRX Quantum4, 030302 (2023)

    2023

  21. [22]

    S¨ underhauf, D

    C. S¨ underhauf, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, D. A. Huse, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B98, 134204 (2018)

    2018

  22. [23]

    Hahn and L

    D. Hahn and L. Colmenarez, Phys. Rev. B109, 094207 (2024)

    2024

  23. [24]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  24. [25]

    M. D. Kov´ acs, C. J. Turner, L. Masanes, and A. Pal, Operator space fragmentation in perturbed Floquet-Clifford circuits (2024), arXiv:2408.01545 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [26]

    Y. Li, P. Sala, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043239 (2023)

    2023

  26. [27]

    Paszko, C

    D. Paszko, C. J. Turner, D. C. Rose, and A. Pal, Operator-space fragmentation and integrability in Pauli-Lindblad models (2025), arXiv:2506.16518 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    Paszko, D

    D. Paszko, D. C. Rose, M. H. Szyma´ nska, and A. Pal, PRX Quantum5, 030304 (2024)

    2024

  28. [29]

    V. F. R. Jones, Von-Neumann Algebras (2010)

    2010

  29. [30]

    B´ eny and F

    C. B´ eny and F. Richter, Algebraic approach to quantum theory: a finite-dimensional guide (2020), arXiv:1505.03106 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [31]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Annals of Physics455, 169384 (2023)

    2023

  31. [33]

    Lorenz and J

    R. Lorenz and J. Barrett, Quantum5, 511 (2021)

    2021

  32. [34]

    Ormrod, A

    N. Ormrod, A. Vanrietvelde, and J. Barrett, Quantum7, 1028 (2023)

    2023

  33. [35]

    DeFacio, Foundations of Physics5, 229 (1975)

    B. DeFacio, Foundations of Physics5, 229 (1975)

    1975

  34. [36]

    Buchholz and E

    D. Buchholz and E. H. Wichmann, Communica- tions in Mathematical Physics106, 321 (1986)

    1986

  35. [37]

    S. J. Summers, Reviews in Mathematical Physics 2, 201 (1990)

    1990

  36. [38]

    C. J. Fewster and K. Rejzner, Algebraic quan- tum field theory – an introduction (2019), arXiv:1904.04051 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [39]

    Haag,Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Parti- cles, Algebras, 2nd ed

    R. Haag,Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Parti- cles, Algebras, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  38. [40]

    Buchholz and K

    D. Buchholz and K. Fredenhagen, Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics (2023), arXiv:2305.12923 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [41]

    Brunetti, C

    R. Brunetti, C. Dappiaggi, K. Fredenhagen, and J. Yngvason, eds.,Advances in Algebraic Quan- tum Field Theory(Springer, Cham, 2015)

    2015

  40. [42]

    Br´ ezin and S

    E. Br´ ezin and S. Hikami, Spectral form factor in a random matrix theory (1996)

    1996

  41. [43]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, Commun. Math. Phys.28, 251 (1972)

    1972

  42. [44]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, SciPost Phys. 8, 068 (2020)

    2020

  43. [45]

    Toniolo and S

    D. Toniolo and S. Bose, Stability of slow Hamil- tonian dynamics from Lieb-Robinson bounds (2024), arXiv:2405.05958 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [46]

    Toniolo and S

    D. Toniolo and S. Bose, Dynamics of many- body localized systems: logarithmic lightcones and logt-law ofα-R´ enyi entropies (2025), arXiv:2408.02016 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [47]

    Holden-Dye, L

    T. Holden-Dye, L. Masanes, and A. Pal, Quantum 9, 1615 (2025)

    2025

  46. [48]

    J.-M. A. Allen, J. Barrett, D. C. Horsman, C. M. Lee, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. X7, 031021 (2017)

    2017

  47. [49]

    Morningstar, L

    A. Morningstar, L. Colmenarez, V. Khemani, D. J. Luitz, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B105, 174205 (2022)

    2022

  48. [50]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Ser- byn, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  49. [51]

    H. Ha, A. Morningstar, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 250405 (2023)

    2023

  50. [52]

    Yosida,Functional Analysis, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol

    K. Yosida,Functional Analysis, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 123 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1965)

    1965

  51. [53]

    Lastres, F

    M. Lastres, F. Pollmann, and S. Moudgalya, Phys. Rev. B113, 014310 (2026)

    2026

  52. [54]

    Logari´ c, J

    L. Logari´ c, J. Goold, and S. Dooley, Phys. Rev. B 111, 144310 (2025)

    2025

  53. [55]

    Floquet, Annales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole Nor- male Sup´ erieure 2,12, 47 (1883)

    G. Floquet, Annales scientifiques de l’ ´Ecole Nor- male Sup´ erieure 2,12, 47 (1883)

  54. [56]

    J. H. Shirley, Physical Review138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  55. [57]

    J. E. Humphreys,Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory, Graduate Texts in Math- ematics, Vol. 9 (Springer, New York, 1972)

    1972

  56. [58]

    Mathieu and A

    M. Mathieu and A. R. Villena, Journal of Func- tional Analysis202, 504 (2003)

    2003

  57. [59]

    Breˇ sar, E

    M. Breˇ sar, E. Kissin, and V. S. Shulman, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal)623, 73 (2008)

    2008

  58. [60]

    D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky, Operator quantum error correction (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0504189 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  59. [61]

    Poulin, Phys

    D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 230504 (2005)

    2005

  60. [62]

    Dauphinais, D

    G. Dauphinais, D. W. Kribs, and M. Vasmer, Quantum8, 1261 (2024)

    2024

  61. [63]

    L. G. Valiant, SIAM Journal on Computing 10.1137/S0097539700377025 (2002)

    doi:10.1137/s0097539700377025 2002

  62. [64]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Physical Re- view A65, 032325 (2002)

    2002

  63. [65]

    D. N. Page, Physical Review Letters71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  64. [66]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 277 (2010)

    2010

  65. [67]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vi- jay, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  66. [68]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  67. [69]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Physical Review X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  68. [70]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, Physical Review Letters71, 4287 (1993)

    1993

  69. [71]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review Letters80, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  70. [72]

    Ippoliti, M

    M. Ippoliti, M. J. Gullans, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and V. Khemani, Physical Review X11, 011030 (2021)

    2021

  71. [73]

    Haake, H.-J

    F. Haake, H.-J. Sommers, and J. Weber, J. Phys. 21 A: Math. Gen32, 6903 (1999)

    1999

  72. [74]

    Haake,Quantum Signatures of Chaos, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    F. Haake,Quantum Signatures of Chaos, 3rd ed., Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  73. [75]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. X8, 041019 (2018)

    2018

  74. [76]

    A. Chan, A. D. Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 060601 (2018)

    2018

  75. [77]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Commun. Math. Phys.387, 597 (2021)

    2021

  76. [78]

    M. L. Mehta,Random Matrices, 3rd ed. (Aca- demic Press, New York, 2004)

    2004

  77. [79]

    R. L. Baumgartner, L. V. Delacr´ etaz, P. Nayak, and J. Sonner, arXiv:2405.19260 [cond-mat.stat- mech] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19260 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19260 2024

  78. [80]

    Bouland, T

    A. Bouland, T. Giurgica-Tiron, and J. Wright, The state hidden subgroup problem and an efficient algorithm for locating unentanglement (2024), arXiv:2410.12706 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [81]

    Harlow, Communications in Mathematical Physics354, 865 (2017)

    D. Harlow, Communications in Mathematical Physics354, 865 (2017)

    2017

  80. [82]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

Showing first 80 references.