Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Temperature exists out of equilibrium once quantum energy coherence is held fixed.

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

2026-08-02 07:49 UTC pith:OMABEYQ3

load-bearing objection A clear and explicit finite-volume construction of nonequilibrium temperature whose thermodynamic-limit cornerstone is an admitted sketch—worth engaging, but the central claim is not yet closed. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08655 v2 pith:OMABEYQ3 submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP

Temperature Beyond Equilibrium in Isolated Quantum Many-Body Systems and Their Subsystems

Maurizio Fagotti This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP MSC 82B1082B3081P17 PACS 05.30.-d05.70.Ln
keywords nonequilibrium temperaturequantum coherenceminimum-variance foliationcanonical flowquantum thermodynamicsquantum spin chainspseudolocal chargesquantum Fisher information
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that temperature — usually defined only for equilibrium states — can be assigned to any regular state of an isolated quantum spin chain, even far from equilibrium, as long as the state's quantum energy-coherence structure is held fixed. It constructs a one-parameter family of 'leaf-canonical' states sharing that coherence structure, and defines the inverse temperature as the parameter at which the energy density vanishes. The construction replaces the maximum-entropy principle with a minimum-discrimination-information principle, and the resulting temperature generally differs from the derivative of entropy with respect to energy. If this works, it gives a thermodynamic coordinate to non-equilibrium quantum states, with implications for quench experiments and for how 'temperature' should be interpreted in quantum thermodynamics.

Core claim

On the regular state space of a quantum spin chain, the paper defines a foliation — the minimum-variance foliation — whose leaves group states that share the same optimal decomposition minimizing averaged energy variance, equivalently the same symmetric logarithmic time derivative. On each leaf, a canonical flow generalizes the equilibrium Gibbs flow: the ω-dressed Hamiltonian H_ω generates states ω_β, and the inverse temperature β^h_ω of a given state ω is the unique value for which the energy density is zero (Eq. 45–46). The flow is shown (at the level of a sketched cluster expansion) to preserve exponential clustering near the reference state. The paper then argues that the inverse temper

What carries the argument

The key object is the minimum-variance foliation: a partition of full-rank quantum states into leaves of equal energy-coherence structure, defined by the optimal pure-state decomposition that minimizes the averaged energy variance (equivalently, by the symmetric logarithmic time derivative). On each leaf, the canonical flow is generated by the pseudolocal charge bH_ω(O) = ⟨⟨H,O⟩⟩^c_ω + (i/2)ω([H~[ω],O]), which generalizes the equilibrium Hamiltonian flow. The ω-dressed Hamiltonian H_ω — obtained from an analytic continuation of the time evolution — fixes the leaf and the canonical family; the anchor is the state with zero energy density under this dressed Hamiltonian. This machinery converts

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction relies on the unproven assumption that the finite-volume leaf-canonical flow converges in the thermodynamic limit to regular states that are analytic in inverse temperature and exponentially clustering; the paper's Appendix A supplies only a sketch of a cluster expansion, explicitly not a complete proof.

What would settle it

Choose a non-integrable spin chain (e.g., the rotated XY model with Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction of Section 6), prepare a low-temperature KMS state (large β0), and compute the finite-volume functionals F^{(I)}_O(Δβ) of Eq. (43) for increasing I. If the limit fails to exist, or if the limiting state loses exponential clustering for arbitrarily small |Δβ| (a nonanalyticity at Δβ=0), the canonical flow does not define the inverse temperature of Eq. (45) and the central claim collapses.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, temperature can be assigned to a broad class of non-equilibrium quantum states, including states created by quantum quenches, without comparing them to equilibrium reservoirs.
  • The inverse temperature of a full isolated system is time-independent; its dynamical role emerges only after restricting to subsystems, where the rate of change of temperature is a local thermodynamic quantity.
  • The maximum-entropy principle fails outside equilibrium: the temperature coordinate differs from the entropy-derivative β, so thermodynamic reasoning based on entropy maximization needs revision for coherent states.
  • Leaves can be generic (one temperature direction) or non-generic (additional pseudolocal directions leading to leaf grand-canonical or generalized Gibbs ensembles); genericity is a property of the leaf, not the Hamiltonian alone.
  • The framework supplies a response formula for how the assigned temperature changes under Hamiltonian perturbations, connecting temperature to the Kubo–Mori–Bogoliubov inner product at equilibrium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The rate equation for subsystem temperature suggests that temperature profiles may become emergent mesoscopic fields, potentially allowing a hydrodynamic description of energy-coherence transport.
  • The paper leaves open whether the analyticity of the canonical flow extends beyond a small neighbourhood of the reference state; if it fails, noncommuting leaves would exhibit phase transitions, a phenomenon the paper itself flags as worth investigating.
  • The construction effectively makes quantum coherence a conserved thermodynamic coordinate; this may give a new angle on Mpemba-like effects, since the temperature coordinate is transverse to the direction of equilibration.
  • Operationally, the dressed Hamiltonian and canonical flow are computable for spin chains (e.g., via tensor networks), so the predicted temperatures could be compared with existing quench experiments on Rydberg or trapped-ion platforms.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a definition of inverse temperature for isolated quantum spin chains out of equilibrium. The construction is geometric: states are grouped into leaves of the minimum-variance foliation, which encode the energy-coherence structure, and temperature becomes the coordinate of a canonical 'leaf-canonical' flow on the thermodynamic leaf. The central object is the finite-volume functional F_O^(I)(z) in Eq. (43), defined through the ω-dressed Hamiltonian and its left/right representatives. The inverse temperature β^h_ω is defined implicitly by Eq. (45) as the value at which the energy density of the leaf-canonical flow vanishes, and the leaf-canonical ensemble is given by Eq. (46). The paper claims that this temperature is not generally equal to the entropy derivative, that generic leaves support a unique canonical direction, and that for subsystems the time derivative of the local inverse temperature is a local quantity, Eq. (77). Numerical evidence in Section 6 illustrates the construction in integrable and non-generic examples.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper provides a genuinely new notion of nonequilibrium temperature for isolated quantum many-body systems, going beyond equilibrium Gibbs states and beyond maximum-entropy prescriptions. The proposal is falsifiable and algorithmic: given a state ω and a Hamiltonian H, β^h_ω is computed by solving Eq. (45) after constructing the ω-dressed Hamiltonian via Eq. (14). The manuscript also contains explicit finite-volume formulas and reproducible numerical checks. The idea of attaching a thermodynamic coordinate to a leaf of fixed energy coherence is original and could be influential. However, the central mathematical claim—that the leaf-canonical flow exists in the thermodynamic limit and preserves exponential clustering—is not proven; Appendix A is an explicit sketch. Moreover, several finite-volume identities that underpin the uniqueness of the root and the interpretation of the flow are demonstrably incorrect in simple noncommuting examples. The significance is therefore conditional on a substantial repair of the technical foundations.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A and Eqs. (43)–(46)] The thermodynamic-limit definition of β^h_ω rests on the analyticity of F_O^(I)(z) in a uniform neighborhood |z|<Δβ* and on the convergence of the limit states ω_z to exponentially clustering states. Appendix A explicitly states that the argument is a sketch that 'could be developed into a complete proof' and that 'we do not work out all the technical details.' The three inputs listed there—exponential summability of the layer-1 interaction, validity of the polymer estimates for non-Hermitian complex-z layers, and preservation of the strict margin after e^{μ|X|} weighting—are load-bearing. The numerical evidence in Section 6 (chains of length ≤14) cannot certify uniform-in-I analyticity. Without a rigorous closure of this expansion, Eqs. (45)–(46) have no established thermodynamic limit, and the central temperature notion is not well defined in the I→∞ limit.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (21)–(22)] The claim that H̃_[ω] equals half the symmetric logarithmic time derivative is false for generic noncommuting finite systems. Concrete counterexample: take H0=-(J0/2)σ_x, β0>0, H=σ_z, and ω the Gibbs state of H0. The dressed quantities from (14) are H^±_ω = σ_z ± i tan(β0 J0/2) σ_y, so H̃_[ω] = tan(β0 J0/2) σ_y, while the SLD for ρ̇=i[ρ,H] is L = tanh(β0 J0/2) σ_y. Equation (22) would require 2 tan(β0 J0/2) σ_y = tanh(β0 J0/2) σ_y, which fails. This invalidates the interpretation of the canonical flow as the flow of the SLD and undermines the derivation of Eq. (48) and the associated uniqueness argument for Eq. (45).
  3. [Section 4, after Eq. (45)] The finite-volume uniqueness argument uses the assertion that 'the spectrum of H_(ω) coincides with the spectrum of the (traceless) Hamiltonian H.' This is not true. A simple counterexample: H=σ_x and ρ=(I+r σ_z)/2 with r∈(0,1) gives H_(ω)=r σ_x, whose spectrum is ±r, not ±1. The trace-zero property of H_(ω) does survive (trace H_(ω)=0), but the claim about the spectral interval (min E_i, max E_i) ∋ 0 is unsupported. Consequently, the proof that Eq. (45) has a unique finite-volume solution is missing. The thermodynamic-limit uniqueness is also merely assumed ('we assume that Eq. (45) retains a unique solution'). This is a load-bearing gap in the definition of β^h_ω.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (48)] The formula ∂_β ω_β(H) = -⟨H,H⟩_{ω_β} + 1/4 F_Q(ω_β,H) is not an identity for the leaf-canonical flow defined by Eq. (43). Using the same qubit example as in the previous comment, the exact derivative at β=0 is -(1 - a r) with a=tan(β0 J0/2), r=tanh(β0 J0/2), whereas the right-hand side equals -1 + r^2. These differ for generic β0 J0. Thus the claimed strict monotonicity of the energy along the flow—used to establish uniqueness of the root—is not proven by the given argument. While a different argument may establish monotonicity, none is supplied.
  5. [Section 5.3 and Appendix B] The derivation of the local inverse-temperature rate, Eq. (77), depends on the alignment assumption that the virtual state obtained by parallel transport differs from the actual reduced state only along the canonical direction, with transverse contributions subleading. The manuscript itself flags this as nontrivial and says its validity 'deserves a separate investigation.' This is an unproven load-bearing assumption for the subsystem extension, not a mere presentation detail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The table is helpful, but the entry 'Leaf canonical ensemble through ω' could more explicitly state that the parameter Δβ is relative and the absolute inverse temperature requires the anchor of Eq. (45).
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (45)] The phrase 'the spectrum of H_(ω) coincides with the spectrum of H' should be corrected or removed; the needed zero-mean property of H_(ω) follows from trace cyclicity, not from spectral coincidence.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption refers to β_h^ω as 'the nonequilibrium inverse temperature' without recalling that the plotted curve is the stabilized late-time local value; a brief definition in the caption would improve readability.
  4. [Section 6.1, table after Eq. (84)] The table reports β_h^ω to five digits for chains of length 6–14, but the text says the value is 'already practically indistinguishable' from the thermodynamic limit; it would be useful to state the extrapolation procedure or the expected finite-size correction.
  5. [Section 4.1] The notation β^(I)_bare in Eq. (49) is used before it is defined in the text; a forward reference or a one-line explanation would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the nonequilibrium inverse temperature is computed from the state and Hamiltonian by an energy-matching equation on a state-dependent flow; the main caveat is an unproven cluster-expansion regularity assumption, not circularity.

full rationale

The central construction is self-contained. Given the state ω and the Hamiltonian H, the dressed Hamiltonian H_(ω) is fixed by Eq. (17) through the integral representation (14), and the canonical flow is the finite-volume functional F_O^(I)(Δβ) in Eq. (43). The inverse temperature β^h_ω is then defined as the root of the zero-energy condition (45), and the leaf-canonical ensemble is given by (46). No known temperature is fed into the construction; the output is solved from the input (ω,H) by an implicit equation, exactly as a Gibbs inverse temperature is solved from an energy density. The numerical comparisons are between independent quantities: β_loc is the Gibbs inverse temperature with the same energy density, and β_bare is the maximum-entropy estimator (49); their disagreement with β^h_ω is a substantive finding, not a renaming. The only flagged weakness is Appendix A, which explicitly concedes that the regularity proof is only sketched: 'We do not, however, work out all the technical details.' That is a rigor/correctness gap, not a circular reduction, and does not raise the circularity score. Self-citations to Ref. [26] supply the finite-volume foliation framework, but the decisive identities are either re-derived in Section 3 or rest on independent results such as Ref. [35]; the temperature definition does not reduce to [26]. Hence no significant circularity; score 1 reflects the mild reliance on the author's prior foliation work while the central derivation remains independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The ledger is unusually empty of fitted numbers: the framework introduces no free parameters — β^h_ω is the output of the self-consistent Eq. (45), and the constants in Section 6 (J, γ, h, D, β0, J0) are physical inputs describing the quench protocol, not tuning constants fitted to data. The burden instead sits in the axioms: four ad-hoc-to-paper postulates (thermodynamic-limit analyticity, uniqueness of (45), the zero-temperature gauge, subsystem alignment) that are flagged by the author but unproven, plus the imported foliation from the author's own Ref. [26]. The invented entities are mathematical operators (ω-dressed Hamiltonian, harmonic conjugate, thermodynamic leaf, leaf modular Hamiltonian) rather than empirical postulates; accordingly none carries an independent falsifiable handle yet, though Eq. (77) and the β_loc vs β inequality are intended as the first testable handles.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The minimum-variance foliation groups full-rank states by their symmetric logarithmic time derivative; optimal decompositions solve the Lyapunov equation (7); every leaf contains a unique barycenter.
    Imported from Ref. [26] (same author) and Yu [35]; the paper re-derives some identities, but the foliation's validity and leaf structure are taken as established background. Invoked throughout Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The leaf-canonical functional F^{(I)}_O(z) is analytic in |z| < Δβ* uniformly in volume, and the limit states ω_z are exponentially clustering.
    Appendix A sketches an adaptation of Nguyen–Fernández [58]; the paper explicitly stops short of a proof ('could be developed into a complete proof... We do not, however, work out all the technical details'). Eqs. (45)–(46) depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (45) has a unique solution in the thermodynamic limit.
    'In the thermodynamic limit, we assume that Eq. (45) retains a unique solution within the regularity domain' — Section 4. The finite-volume monotonicity argument is not extended rigorously to I → ∞.
  • ad hoc to paper The zero-inverse-temperature reference state is the state on the orbit invariant under generic time rescaling, equivalently the state with zero energy density.
    Gauge choice anchoring relative temperature to an absolute one; physically motivated by the equilibrium tracial convention (traceless H) but not derived. Section 4, 'Reference state' paragraph.
  • standard math The reference state ω is a KMS (Gibbs) state of a 1D spin chain with exponentially decaying correlations; the initial dynamics is regular enough to make the dressed operators quasi-local.
    Attributed to Araki [27], Kishimoto [32], Fröhlich–Ueltschi [57], Pérez-García–Pérez-Hernández [46]; standard background, not checked in this review.
  • ad hoc to paper Alignment/parallel-transport: for large subsystem A, the finite-volume virtual state (populations transported across neighbouring effective leaves) differs from the actual reduced state only along the canonical direction; transverse components contribute subleading entropy.
    Appendix B; the author notes 'A breakdown of this assumption would undermine the assignment of a single inverse-temperature coordinate to the subsystem', and the Discussion defers its validity to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Generic leaves (unique canonical pseudolocal charge) are dense and typical among regular states.
    'We expect the set of states lying on generic leaves to be dense in the regular state space' — Sections 2 and 4.1; stated as an expectation, used to promote the single-coordinate description to a genericity claim.
invented entities (3)
  • ω-dressed Hamiltonian H_{(ω)} and harmonic conjugate H̃[ω] no independent evidence
    purpose: Define the leaf-canonical ensemble and canonical flow; give thermodynamic-limit meaning to 'same energy-coherence structure'.
    New state-dependent operators defined by Eqs. (14)–(19); mathematical constructions fixed by (ω, H), not empirical postulates. Their physical content is the claim that β^h_ω is a measurable coordinate of the flow.
  • Thermodynamic leaf (equivalence class of regular states satisfying the same local leaf conditions) no independent evidence
    purpose: Infinite-volume replacement of finite-volume leaves; carrier of the one-dimensional temperature coordinate.
    Defined via leaf condition (24); its existence as a regular equivalence class depends on the Appendix A regularity assumptions.
  • Leaf modular Hamiltonian K^leaf_A no independent evidence
    purpose: Express the subsystem inverse-temperature rate (77) in terms of the thermodynamic entropy and its heat-capacity-like susceptibility.
    Defined by Eqs. (71)–(73) as the modular Hamiltonian of the diagonal ensemble on the effective subsystem leaf; no standalone falsifiable handle yet, only the structure of Eq. (77).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37433 in / 27726 out tokens · 268510 ms · 2026-08-02T07:49:17.801736+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Temperature is one of the central concepts of thermodynamics, yet its meaning far from equilibrium remains unclear. The problem is especially challenging in isolated quantum many-body systems, whose states evolve unitarily, may remain far from equilibrium, and retain energy coherence, a genuinely quantum feature with no direct classical counterpart. Specifically, energy fluctuations in a nonstationary quantum state have two distinct origins. Part of them comes from uncertainty in the energy populations and has the usual thermodynamic meaning. The rest comes from quantum coherence between energy sectors and is responsible for the state's time dependence. We propose that, even away from equilibrium, temperature identifies the state within the family of regular states sharing the same energy-coherence structure. This provides a natural definition of temperature for a broad class of nonequilibrium quantum states. The resulting inverse temperature is not, in general, obtained by differentiating entropy with respect to energy. The usual maximum-entropy principle is instead replaced by a principle of minimum discrimination information, which selects the least distinguishable state compatible with the prescribed energy and coherence structure. We also extend the construction to subsystems and show that, although their inverse temperature is not determined by the reduced state alone, its instantaneous rate of change is a local quantity, determined by the thermodynamic structure induced on the subsystem at that time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08655 by Maurizio Fagotti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two foliations of state space. The cartoon compares the commutant foliation and the minimum-variance foliation of the state space of a two-dimensional Hilbert space. The state space is represented by the Bloch ball. The commutant foliation is defined on the state space with the tracial state 1 2 I removed; its leaves are half-open radial segments. By contrast, the leaves of the minimum-variance foliation a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: From foliations to thermodynamics. Left: The six leaves of the commutant foliation that contain stationary states of the Hamiltonian H3 = P3 i=1 Ei|φi⟩⟨φi| on a three-dimensional Hilbert space. Since each such leaf is two-dimensional, a generic state on it requires two coordinates. For local observables, however, the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis suggests an effective reduction of the relevant state… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustration of four possible types of leaves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic illustration of four possible types of leaves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometric construction of subsystem temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometric construction of subsystem temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature vs local temperature vs bare temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature vs local temperature vs bare temperature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bipartitioning protocol. The half-chain inverse temperature after having prepared the subchains at inverse temperature (β0,L, β0,R) (shown on the upper-left corner of the plots in units of J −1 0 ) for the Hamiltonian H (I) 0,p in (67). The Hamiltonian is the same as in (5) with the additional interaction (73) with δy = 0.3. The symbols correspond to different chain’s lengths (in the legend). The inverse t… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bipartitioning protocol. The half-chain inverse temperature after having prepared the subchains at inverse temperature (β0,L, β0,R) (shown on the upper-left corner of the plots in units of J −1 0 ) for the Hamiltonian H (I) 0,p in (80). The Hamiltonian is the same as in Figure (5) with the additional interaction (86) with δy = 0.3. The symbols correspond to different chain’s lengths (in the legend). The in… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Casas-V´ azquez J and Jou D 2003Reports on Progress in Physics661937–2023 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/66/11/R03

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/11/r03 2023

  2. [2]

    Puglisi A, Sarracino A and Vulpiani A 2017Physics Reports709-7101–60 ISSN 0370-1573 URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157317303265

  3. [3]

    Zhang D, Zheng X and Di Ventra M 2019Physics Reports8301–66 ISSN 0370-1573 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157319303114

  4. [4]

    Muschik W and Brunk G 1977International Journal of Engineering Science15377–389 ISSN 0020-7225 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020722577900477

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Cugliandolo L F, Kurchan J and Peliti L 1997Phys. Rev. E55(4) 3898–3914 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.55.3898

    doi:10.1103/physreve.55.3898

  6. [6]

    Kurchan J 2005Nature433222–225 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nature03278

    doi:10.1038/nature03278

  7. [7]

    Cugliandolo L F 2011Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical44483001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/48/483001

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/48/483001

  8. [8]

    Meair J, Bergfield J P, Stafford C A and Jacquod P 2014Phys. Rev. B90(3) 035407 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.035407

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.035407

  9. [9]

    Ye L, Zheng X, Yan Y and Di Ventra M 2016Phys. Rev. B94(24) 245105 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.245105

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.94.245105

  10. [10]

    Alipour S, Benatti F, Afsary M, Bakhshinezhad F, Ramezani M, Ala-Nissila T and Rezakhani A T 2021 Temperature in Nonequilibrium Quantum Systems (Preprint2105.11915) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.11915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Goldhirsch I 2008Powder Technology182130–136 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032591007006109

  12. [12]

    Buchholz D, Ojima I and Roos H 2002Annals of Physics297219–242 ISSN 0003-4916 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491602962226

  13. [13]

    Rigol M, Dunjko V and Olshanii M 2008Nature452854–858 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06838

    doi:10.1038/nature06838

  14. [14]

    D’Alessio L, Kafri Y, Polkovnikov A and Rigol M 2016Advances in Physics65239–362 URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134

    arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Lu Z and Raz O 2017Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America1145083–5088 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701264114

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1701264114

  16. [16]

    Klich I, Raz O, Hirschberg O and Vucelja M 2019Physical Review X9021060 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.021060

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.021060

  17. [17]

    Carollo F, Lasanta A and Lesanovsky I 2021Physical Review Letters127060401 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.060401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.060401

  18. [18]

    Ares F, Murciano S and Calabrese P 2023Nature Communications142036 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37747-8

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37747-8

  19. [19]

    Haag R, Hugenholtz N M and Winnink M 1967Communications in Mathematical Physics5 215–236 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646342

    doi:10.1007/bf01646342

  20. [20]

    Deutsch J M 1991Phys. Rev. A432046–2049 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.43.2046

    doi:10.1103/physreva.43.2046 2049

  21. [21]

    Srednicki M 1994Phys. Rev. E50888–901 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.50.888

    doi:10.1103/physreve.50.888

  22. [22]

    Streltsov A, Adesso G and Plenio M B 2017Reviews of Modern Physics89041003 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003 33 xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(2026) xxxxxx M. Fagotti

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.041003 2026

  23. [23]

    Lostaglio M, Jennings D and Rudolph T 2015Physical Review X5021001 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.021001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.5.021001

  24. [24]

    Marvian, Iman and Spekkens, Robert W and Zanardi, Paolo 2016Physical Review A93 052331 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052331

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.93.052331

  25. [25]

    Polkovnikov, Anatoli and Sengupta, Krishnendu and Silva, Alessandro and Vengalattore, Mukund 2011Reviews of Modern Physics83863–883 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.863

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.83.863

  26. [26]

    Fagotti M 2026 Quantum-Coherent Thermodynamics: Leaf Typicality via Minimum-Variance Foliation (Preprint2602.12212) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12212

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Araki H 1969Communications in Mathematical Physics14120–157 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645134

    doi:10.1007/bf01645134

  28. [28]

    Bluhm A, Capel ´A and P´ erez-Hern´ andez A 2022Quantum6650 URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2022-02-10-650

    doi:10.22331/q-2022-02-10-650 2022

  29. [29]

    Models in Quantum Statistical Mechanics2nd ed (Springer) URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03444-6

    Bratteli O and Robinson D W 1997Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 2: Equilibrium States. Models in Quantum Statistical Mechanics2nd ed (Springer) URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03444-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03444-6

  30. [30]

    Araki H 1974Communications in Mathematical Physics381–10 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646450

    doi:10.1007/bf01646450

  31. [31]

    Araki H 1975Communications in Mathematical Physics441–7 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01609082

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01609082

  32. [32]

    Kishimoto A 1976Communications in Mathematical Physics47167–170 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01608374

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01608374

  33. [33]

    Takesaki M 1970Tomita’s Theory of Modular Hilbert Algebras and Its Applications(Lecture Notes in Mathematicsvol 128) (Berlin: Springer) URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0065832

    doi:10.1007/bfb0065832

  34. [34]

    Connes A and Rovelli C 1994Classical and Quantum Gravity112899–2917 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/11/12/007

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/11/12/007

  35. [35]

    Yu S 2013 Quantum Fisher Information as the Convex Roof of Variance (Preprint1302.5311) URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    T´ oth G and Petz D 2013Phys. Rev. A87(3) 032324 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032324

    doi:10.1103/physreva.87.032324

  37. [37]

    Bennett C H, DiVincenzo D P, Smolin J A and Wootters W K 1996Physical Review A54 3824–3851 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.3824

    doi:10.1103/physreva.54.3824

  38. [38]

    Vidal G 2000Journal of Modern Optics47355–376 URL https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340008244048

    doi:10.1080/09500340008244048

  39. [39]

    Comput.71–51 ISSN 1533-7146 URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2011706.2011707

    Plenio M B and Virmani S 2007Quantum Info. Comput.71–51 ISSN 1533-7146 URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2011706.2011707

    arXiv

  40. [40]

    Uhlmann A 2010Entropy121799–1832 ISSN 1099-4300 URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/7/1799

  41. [41]

    Braunstein S L and Caves C M 1994Physical Review Letters723439–3443 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3439

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.72.3439

  42. [42]

    Taddei M M, Escher B M, Davidovich L and de Matos Filho R L 2013Physical Review Letters 110050402 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.050402

  43. [43]

    Doyon B 2017Communications in Mathematical Physics351155–200 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-017-2836-7

    doi:10.1007/s00220-017-2836-7

  44. [44]

    Essler F H L and Fagotti M 2016Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2016064002 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064002 34 xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(2026) xxxxxx M. Fagotti

    doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064002 2016

  45. [45]

    Vidmar L and Rigol M 2016Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2016 064007 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064007

    doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064007 2016

  46. [46]

    P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa D and P´ erez-Hern´ andez A 2023Communications in Mathematical Physics399 929–970 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-022-04573-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-022-04573-w

  47. [47]

    Jakubsky V 2007Modern Physics Letters A221075–1084 URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732307023419

    doi:10.1142/s0217732307023419

  48. [48]

    Mostafazadeh A 2010International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics07 1191–1306 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887810004816

    doi:10.1142/s0219887810004816

  49. [49]

    Cao K and Kou S P 2023Phys. Rev. Res.5(3) 033196 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033196

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033196

  50. [50]

    Hauke P, Heyl M, Tagliacozzo L and Zoller P 2016Nature Physics12778–782 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3700

    doi:10.1038/nphys3700

  51. [51]

    Liu J, Chen J, Jing X X and Wang X 2016Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49275302 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/49/27/275302

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/27/275302

  52. [52]

    Rev.106(4) 620–630 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.106.620

    Jaynes E T 1957Phys. Rev.106(4) 620–630 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.106.620

    doi:10.1103/physrev.106.620

  53. [53]

    Rev.108(2) 171–190 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.171

    Jaynes E T 1957Phys. Rev.108(2) 171–190 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.171

    doi:10.1103/physrev.108.171

  54. [54]

    Jozsa R, Robb D and Wootters W K 1994Physical Review A49668–677 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.668

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.49.668

  55. [55]

    Shore J and Johnson R 1980IEEE Transactions on Information Theory2626–37 URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1056144

    arXiv

  56. [56]

    Kullback S and Leibler R A 1951Annals of Mathematical Statistics2279–86 URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:120349231

  57. [57]

    Fr¨ ohlich J and Ueltschi D 2015Journal of Mathematical Physics56053302 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4921305

    doi:10.1063/1.4921305

  58. [58]

    Nguyen T X and Fern´ andez R 2024Journal of Statistical Physics19113 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-024-03231-w

    doi:10.1007/s10955-024-03231-w

  59. [59]

    Lieb E H and Robinson D W 1972Communications in Mathematical Physics28251–257 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01645779

    doi:10.1007/bf01645779

  60. [60]

    Bravyi S, Hastings M B and Verstraete F 2006Physical Review Letters97050401 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.050401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.050401

  61. [61]

    Nachtergaele B and Sims R 2010Contemporary Mathematics529141–176 URL https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/529/10429

    work page doi:10.1090/conm/529/10429

  62. [62]

    Petz D and Ghinea CINTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM FISHER INFORMATIONpp 261–281 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1142/9789814338745_0015

    doi:10.1142/9789814338745_0015

  63. [63]

    Campisi M, Talkner P and H¨ anggi P 2009Physical Review Letters102210401 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.210401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.210401

  64. [64]

    Talkner P and H¨ anggi P 2020Reviews of Modern Physics92041002 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.041002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.92.041002

  65. [65]

    Trushechkin A S 2022A VS Quantum Science4012301 URL https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0073853

    doi:10.1116/5.0073853

  66. [66]

    Burke P C 2024Physical Review E110014111 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.110.014111

    doi:10.1103/physreve.110.014111

  67. [67]

    Kliesch M, Gogolin C, Kastoryano M J, Riera A and Eisert J 2014Physical Review X4 031019 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031019 35 xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(2026) xxxxxx M. Fagotti

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.4.031019 2026

  68. [68]

    Capel ´A, Moscolari M, Teufel S and Wessel T 2025Communications in Mathematical Physics URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-024-05198-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220-024-05198-x

  69. [69]

    Hern´ andez-Santana S, Riera A, Hovhannisyan K V, Perarnau-Llobet M, Tagliacozzo L and Ac ´ ın A 2015New Journal of Physics17085007 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/085007

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/8/085007

  70. [70]

    Hartmann M, Gemmer J, Mahler G and Hess O 2004Europhysics Letters65613–619 URL https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2003-10166-3

    work page doi:10.1209/epl/i2003-10166-3

  71. [71]

    De Pasquale A, Rossini D, Fazio R and Giovannetti V 2016Nature Communications712782 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12782

    doi:10.1038/ncomms12782

  72. [72]

    Rigol M, Dunjko V, Yurovsky V and Olshanii M 2007Physical Review Letters98050405 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.050405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.050405

  73. [73]

    Ilievski E, De Nardis J, Wouters B, Caux J S, Essler F H L and Prosen T 2015Physical Review Letters115157201 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.157201

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.157201

  74. [74]

    Ilievski E, Medenjak M, Prosen T and Zadnik L 2016Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2016064008 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064008

    doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064008 2016

  75. [75]

    Fagotti M 2016Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50034005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/50/3/034005

    doi:10.1088/1751-8121/50/3/034005

  76. [76]

    Sala P, Rakovszky T, Verresen R, Knap M and Pollmann F 2020Physical Review X10 011047 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.011047

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.011047

  77. [77]

    Core4010 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.4.2.010

    Zadnik L and Fagotti M 2021SciPost Phys. Core4010 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.4.2.010

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyscore.4.2.010

  78. [78]

    Zadnik L, Bidzhiev K and Fagotti M 2021SciPost Phys.10099 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.5.099

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.10.5.099

  79. [79]

    Moudgalya S, Bernevig B A and Regnault N 2022Reports on Progress in Physics85086501 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac73a0

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac73a0

  80. [80]

    Moudgalya S and Motrunich O I 2022Physical Review X12011050 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011050

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.011050

Showing first 80 references.