Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Nonlocal magic equals the stabilizer Rényi entropy of a sorted Schmidt reference state, turning hard local-unitary minimization into a direct spectral formula.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 09:47 UTC pith:WE2BKW7U

load-bearing objection Useful spectral shortcut for nonlocal SRE of weakly entangled states; the equality is still a well-supported conjecture, not a theorem. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10714 v1 pith:WE2BKW7U submitted 2026-07-12 quant-ph

Nonlocal nonstabilizerness for slightly entangled quantum many-body states

Lei-Yi-Nan Liu , Jian Cui This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords nonlocal nonstabilizernessstabilizer Rényi entropySchmidt spectrummagic resourcequantum many-body statesentanglement spectrumPXP modelcritical spin chains
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 the irreducible magic resource locked inside bipartite entanglement can be read straight off the sorted Schmidt spectrum. Instead of minimizing the stabilizer Rényi entropy over all local unitaries—an exponentially hard, nonconvex search—one builds a canonical reference state that simply assigns the ordered Schmidt coefficients to computational-basis product states. The authors conjecture that the nonlocal SRE of any pure bipartite state equals the ordinary SRE of this reference state. They prove that the reference state is a stationary point of the local-unitary landscape and show numerical agreement for rank-4 spectra and small many-body states. The resulting formula is practical precisely when entanglement is modest: once the entanglement spectrum is known (from free-fermion methods, DMRG, or tensor networks), nonlocal magic becomes a controlled spectral calculation, including a rigorous truncation bound. Applied to Haar states, critical Ising and XXZ chains, and scarred PXP dynamics, the quantity exposes nonstabilizer structure that ordinary entanglement entropy misses—logarithmic critical scaling whose coefficient varies inside a fixed central-charge phase, and a clear separation between entanglement growth and irreducible-magic growth.

Core claim

The nonlocal stabilizer Rényi entropy of a bipartite pure state is conjectured to equal the SRE of the descending-order Schmidt reference state that encodes the same spectrum in the computational basis; thus nonlocal nonstabilizerness is completely determined by a direct spectral expression that bypasses local-unitary optimization.

What carries the argument

The Schmidt reference state: the pure state whose Schmidt coefficients are the ordered entanglement spectrum of the original state, assigned to computational-basis product vectors. Its SRE supplies both an upper bound and, by conjecture, the exact nonlocal SRE (Eqs. 6 and 10).

Load-bearing premise

That the proven stationary point of the local-unitary landscape is the global minimum rather than a saddle or local minimum; the global claim remains a conjecture supported by numerics.

What would settle it

Find a bipartite pure state whose manifold-optimized nonlocal SRE is strictly smaller than the SRE of its descending-order Schmidt reference state, within numerical precision, for any Rényi index α ≥ 2.

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

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 manuscript introduces a Schmidt-reference-state construction for bipartite nonlocal stabilizer Rényi entropy (SRE): sorted Schmidt coefficients are assigned to a canonical computational-basis state, and the authors conjecture that the nonlocal SRE equals the SRE of this reference state (Eqs. 5–6, 10). They prove that any such reference-form state is a stationary point of the SRE under arbitrary local unitaries (Appendix A, Eq. 8), bound the truncation error of the spectrum by the discarded weight η (Appendix B), and prove that fermionic nonlocal magic (FNL) upper-bounds the reference-state SRE without using the conjecture (Appendix D). Numerical Riemannian optimization on the complex Stiefel manifold agrees with the reference SRE for rank-4 spectra across several Rényi indices (Sec. III, Fig. 1). Under the conjecture they evaluate nonlocal SRE for Haar-random states, critical Ising and XXZ chains, and PXP quench dynamics, arguing that it probes entanglement-spectrum structures invisible to ordinary entanglement measures and to FNL.

Significance. If the conjecture holds, the paper supplies a practical spectral formula for nonlocal nonstabilizerness that is especially useful for weakly entangled many-body states (MPS/VUMPS, free-fermion spectra). The stationarity proof, truncation bound, and FNL ≥ NL inequality are solid contributions independent of global minimality. The applications are physically interesting: an O(1) Haar nonlocal SRE, logarithmic critical scaling with a coefficient that varies across the XXZ Luttinger-liquid phase at fixed c=1, and a clear dynamical separation between entanglement growth and nonlocal-magic growth in scarred PXP dynamics. These results would open a concrete route from entanglement spectra to irreducible magic resources in and out of equilibrium. The work is transparent that the global claim is a conjecture and backs it with first-order optimality plus rank-4 optimization; that honesty is a strength, but the large-system conclusions still rest on the unproven step.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. II, Eq. (6) and Appendix A: The central identification M_NL,α = M_α(|ψ̃⟩) is a conjecture. Appendix A only proves that every reference-form state (not necessarily sorted) is a critical point: ∂_t F_α|t=0 = 0 under every local Hermitian generator. Compactness guarantees extrema exist but does not identify the global minimizer. The claim that descending order yields the global minimum among stationary points is observational (citing Ref. [33]), not proven. For a load-bearing claim used throughout Sec. IV, the manuscript needs either (i) substantially stronger numerical evidence that local Stiefel optimization never finds a lower value for χ>4 (e.g., random rank-8/16 spectra with multi-start Riemannian optimization and reported success rates), or (ii) a clear, repeated demarcation in Sec. IV that all large-system results are for the reference-state upper bound M_NL,ref, with the equali
  2. Sec. III and Fig. 1: Numerical support for the conjecture is essentially confined to Schmidt rank χ=4 (one-parameter family and the (r,θ,φ) scan) plus unspecified “representative many-body states” of small size. For χ>4 the Stiefel manifold is high-dimensional and non-convex; local optimizers can miss lower critical points. The paper should report explicit optimization-vs-reference comparisons for at least a few higher-rank spectra (e.g., χ=8) and for the small Ising/XXZ ground states where manifold optimization is still feasible, with quantitative residuals. Without that, the leap from rank-4 agreement to thermodynamic-limit applications is under-supported.
  3. Sec. IV B–C, Eqs. (23), (30), (32): Logarithmic scaling of nonlocal SRE (β_NL_ξ, β_NL_ℓ) is fitted over limited ranges of ξ and ℓ, and the authors themselves note that eventual saturation at large ξ cannot be excluded. The claim that β_NL varies across the XXZ critical phase at fixed c=1 is the most distinctive many-body result; it should be accompanied by a controlled check that the variation survives changes in bond dimension, truncation threshold η, and fitting window, and by an explicit statement that the coefficient is for M_NL,ref under the conjecture. Presenting β_NL as a robust interaction-dependent diagnostic without those controls overstates the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. Typos and spelling: “Schimidt” (Sec. II), “interralation” (Introduction), “tenser-network” (Introduction), “OPTIMIZA TION” / “SYTEMS” (section titles), “subsustem” (Fig. 5 caption). Clean these systematically.
  2. Eq. (10) and the padding rule for non-power-of-2 χ should be stated once with an explicit algorithm (sort, pad zeros to 2^⌈log2 χ⌉, evaluate the XOR sum); the present wording is easy to mis-implement.
  3. Fig. 2 is hard to read (overlapping LaTeX labels). A cleaner parameterization plot or a table of maximizers/minimizers would help.
  4. The low-rank formula Eq. (17) is useful for experiment; state clearly that it is exact only for χ≤4 and that the PXP orange curves are therefore early-time approximations, not full nonlocal SRE.
  5. Data availability: “available upon reasonable request” is weak for a methods paper whose main deliverable is a spectral formula. Depositing the rank-4 optimization scripts and the VUMPS/DMRG spectra used in Figs. 4–6 would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: nonlocal SRE equals reference-state SRE is an openly stated conjecture, not a derivation forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim (Eq. 6) is explicitly labeled a conjecture: the reference-state SRE is only an upper bound by construction (Eq. 5, via Huang et al. and local-unitary invariance of the Schmidt spectrum), and saturation is not derived from the definition of nonlocal SRE. Appendix A proves only first-order stationarity under local Hermitian generators for any reference-form state (not necessarily sorted); the authors do not claim this implies global minimality, and they support the conjecture with independent Riemannian Stiefel-manifold optimization that does not presuppose the reference state (Sec. III, Fig. 1). The FNL ≥ NL inequality (Appendix D) is proven without the conjecture. Large-system applications (Haar, Ising/XXZ, PXP) rest on the conjecture, which is a correctness/scope risk, not circularity: nothing reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation uniqueness theorem. Eq. (10) is properly attributed to prior work in a different context. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-parameter-as-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain by the present authors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing novelty is a single unproven equality (the conjecture). Everything else is either standard resource-theory definitions, a first-order calculus proof, or numerical evidence. Free parameters appear only in application-level fits (β coefficients, truncation cutoffs) and do not underwrite the central claim. No new physical entity is postulated; the reference state is a canonical encoding already introduced by Huang et al.

free parameters (2)
  • β_NL_ξ / β_NL_ℓ logarithmic scaling coefficients = ≈0.1077 (Ising ξ), ≈0.1037–0.163 (ℓ fits)
    Fitted from VUMPS or subsystem-size data for Ising and XXZ; used to claim interaction-dependent scaling inside the c=1 phase, but not required for the main conjecture.
  • Schmidt truncation threshold / discarded weight η = 10^{-15} (typical)
    Practical cutoff (e.g., retain λ_i > 10^{-15}) used for large-ℓ NL evaluation; error is bounded but the concrete threshold is a numerical choice.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Nonlocal α-SRE is defined by minimization of SRE over local unitaries U_A ⊗ U_B (Eq. 3).
    Standard definition from the nonlocal-magic literature (Qian-Wang, Cao et al.); taken as given.
  • domain assumption Bipartite nonlocal magic depends only on the nonzero Schmidt spectrum (Huang et al.).
    Cited as proven; used to reduce the problem to the reference state.
  • ad hoc to paper The descending-order Schmidt reference state realizes the global minimum of SRE under local unitaries (the central conjecture, Eq. 6).
    Only first-order stationarity is proven; global minimality is conjectured and checked numerically for small ranks.
  • domain assumption SRE with α≥2 is a magic monotone; focus on α=2 is legitimate.
    Standard in the stabilizer-Rényi literature (Leone et al., Haug-Piroli).
invented entities (1)
  • Schmidt reference state |ψ̃⟩ (descending computational-basis encoding of the ordered Schmidt spectrum) no independent evidence
    purpose: Canonical state whose SRE is conjectured to equal nonlocal SRE, enabling direct spectral evaluation.
    Coincides with the canonical encoding of Huang et al.; the paper’s contribution is the saturation claim, not the object itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 33992 in / 3359 out tokens · 43110 ms · 2026-07-14T09:47:52.349335+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nonlocal nonstabilizerness quantifies the irreducible magic resource encoded in bipartite entanglement, but its evaluation is generally hindered by a highly nonconvex optimization over local unitary transformations. Here we propose a Schmidt-reference-state framework that replaces this optimization by a direct construction from the sorted Schmidt spectrum. We conjecture that the nonlocal stabilizer R\'enyi entropy (SRE) is given by the SRE of the corresponding reference state, and support this conjecture through analytical and numerical evidences. Our framework makes nonlocal nonstabilizerness efficiently accessible for weakly entangled many-body states whenever the entanglement spectrum is available. Applying it to Haar-random states, critical spin chains, and PXP dynamics, we show that nonlocal SRE captures nonstabilizer structures in the entanglement spectrum that are invisible to conventional entanglement measures. Our results establish entanglement spectra as a powerful window into irreducible nonstabilizer correlations, opening a broadly applicable route to studying nonlocal magic resources of quantum many-body systems in and out of equilibrium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10714 by Jian Cui, Lei-Yi-Nan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Nonlocal SRE for the entanglement spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Average nonlocal SRE of Haar-random states as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Nonlocal SRE in the Ising model. For finite systems, we obtain the entanglement spectrum using DMRG, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. FNL and NL as the function of subsustem size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scaling coefficient of the nonlocal SRE in the critical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Entanglement and nonlocal magic dynamics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Long time evolution for PXP model with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_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

79 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    T. J. Osborne and M. A. Nielsen, Entanglement in a sim- ple quantum phase transition, Phys. Rev. A66, 032110 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

    N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Long-range entanglement from measuring symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. X14, 021040 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave func- tion renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Wen, Choreographed entanglement dances: Topo- logical states of quantum matter, Science363, eaal3099 (2019)

    X.-G. Wen, Choreographed entanglement dances: Topo- logical states of quantum matter, Science363, eaal3099 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum ther- malization through entanglement in an isolated many- 16 body system, Science353, 794–800 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Brenes, S

    M. Brenes, S. Pappalardi, J. Goold, and A. Silva, Mul- tipartite entanglement structure in the eigenstate ther- malization hypothesis, Physical Review Letters124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.040605 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.040605 2020

  10. [10]

    Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters91, 10.1103/physrevlett.91.147902 (2003)

    G. Vidal, Efficient classical simulation of slightly entan- gled quantum computations, Physical Review Letters91, 10.1103/physrevlett.91.147902 (2003)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.147902 2003

  11. [11]

    Sauerwein, A

    D. Sauerwein, A. Molnar, J. I. Cirac, and B. Kraus, Matrix product states: Entanglement, symmetries, and state transformations, Physical Review Letters123, 10.1103/physrevlett.123.170504 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.170504 2019

  12. [12]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Ver- straete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    D. Gottesman, The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers (1998), arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computa- tion with ideal clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Physical Review A71, 10.1103/physreva.71.022316 (2005)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.71.022316 2005

  15. [16]

    Veitch, C

    V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, and J. Emerson, Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation, New Journal of Physics14, 113011 (2012)

    2012

  16. [17]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  17. [18]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B107, 035148 (2023)

    2023

  18. [19]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, Many-body magic via pauli-markov chains—from criticality to gauge theories, PRX Quantum4, 040317 (2023)

    2023

  19. [20]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, M. C. Ba˜ nuls, and M. Dal- monte, Nonstabilizerness via matrix product states in the pauli basis, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010601 (2024)

    2024

  20. [21]

    P. S. Tarabunga, Critical behaviors of non-stabilizerness in quantum spin chains, Quantum8, 1413 (2024)

    2024

  21. [22]

    P. R. N. Falc˜ ao, P. Sierant, J. Zakrzewski, and E. Tirrito, Nonstabilizerness dynamics in many-body localized sys- tems, Physical Review Letters135, 10.1103/xfp5-hhs4 (2025)

    doi:10.1103/xfp5-hhs4 2025

  22. [23]

    Russomanno, G

    A. Russomanno, G. Passarelli, D. Rossini, and P. Lu- cignano, Nonstabilizerness in the unitary and monitored quantum dynamics of xxz-staggered and sachdev-ye- kitaev models, Physical Review B112, 10.1103/njgn- fksh (2025)

    doi:10.1103/njgn- 2025

  23. [24]

    Grabarits and A

    A. Grabarits and A. del Campo, Universal non- stabilizerness dynamics across quantum phase transitions (2026), arXiv:2603.08841 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [25]

    Odavi´ c, M

    J. Odavi´ c, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer en- tropy in nonintegrable quantum evolutions, Physical Re- view B112, 10.1103/y9r6-dx7p (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/y9r6-dx7p 2025

  25. [26]

    Xiao, H.-K

    Z. Xiao, H.-K. Zhang, and S. Liu, Nonstabilizerness mpemba effects (2026), arXiv:2605.04155 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [27]

    Maity and R

    S. Maity and R. Hamazaki, Local spreading of stabi- lizer r´ enyi entropy in a brickwork random clifford circuit, Physical Review Research8, 10.1103/68g7-8pdc (2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/68g7-8pdc 2026

  27. [28]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spread- ing in random quantum circuits, Nature Communications 16, 10.1038/s41467-025-57704-x (2025)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57704-x 2025

  28. [29]

    Szombathy, A

    D. Szombathy, A. Valli, C. P. Moca, J. Asb´ oth, L. Farkas, T. Rakovszky, and G. Zar´ and, Spectral properties ver- sus magic generation int-doped random clifford circuits, Physical Review Research7, 10.1103/557f-6tpb (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/557f-6tpb 2025

  29. [30]

    T. Haug, L. Aolita, and M. Kim, Probing quantum com- plexity via universal saturation of stabilizer entropies, Quantum9, 1801 (2025)

    2025

  30. [31]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits, Nature Physics 20, 1786–1792 (2024)

    2024

  31. [32]

    Qian and J

    D. Qian and J. Wang, Quantum nonlocal nonstabilizer- ness, Phys. Rev. A111, 052443 (2025)

    2025

  32. [33]

    C. Cao, G. Cheng, A. Hamma, L. Leone, W. Munizzi, and S. F. Oliviero, Gravitational backreaction is magical, PRX Quantum6, 040375 (2025)

    2025

  33. [34]

    Busoni, J

    G. Busoni, J. Gargalionis, E. N. V. Wallace, and M. J. White, Analytic formulae for non-local magic in bipartite systems of qutrits and ququints (2026), arXiv:2603.09155 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [35]

    Iannotti, B

    D. Iannotti, B. Magni, R. Cioli, A. Hamma, and X. Turkeshi, Non-local magic resources for fermionic gaussian states (2026), arXiv:2604.27049 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [36]

    Collura, B

    M. Collura, B. B´ eri, and E. Tirrito, Nonlocal nonstabi- lizerness in free fermion models (2026), arXiv:2604.27055 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [37]

    Huang, G

    X. Huang, G. Chen, and Y. Yao, Intrinsic spectral structure of bipartite nonlocal magic resource (2026), arXiv:2606.24368 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [38]

    S. E. Smart and P. Narang, Many-body eigenstates from quantum manifold optimization, Phys. Rev. A110, 052430 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    Townsend, N

    J. Townsend, N. Koep, and S. Weichwald, Pymanopt: A python toolbox for optimization on manifolds using automatic differentiation, Journal of Machine Learning Research17, 1–5 (2016)

    2016

  39. [40]

    J. Hu, X. Liu, Z. Wen, and Y. Yuan, A brief introduc- tion to manifold optimization (2019), arXiv:1906.05450 [math.OC]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [41]

    Haug and L

    T. Haug and L. Piroli, Stabilizer entropies and nonstabi- lizerness monotones, Quantum7, 1092 (2023)

    2023

  41. [42]

    Leone and L

    L. Leone and L. Bittel, Stabilizer entropies are mono- tones for magic-state resource theory, Phys. Rev. A110, L040403 (2024)

    2024

  42. [43]

    ˙Zyczkowski, K

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, K. A. Penson, I. Nechita, and B. Collins, Generating random density matrices, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics52, 10.1063/1.3595693 (2011)

    doi:10.1063/1.3595693 2011

  43. [44]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Physical Review Letters71, 1291–1294 (1993)

    1993

  44. [45]

    S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1148 (1994)

    1994

  45. [46]

    Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys

    S. Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1 (1996)

    1996

  46. [48]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  47. [49]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- 17 tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  48. [50]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V. Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Variational optimization algorithms for uniform matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B97, 045145 (2018)

    2018

  49. [51]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Tangent-space methods for uniform matrix product states, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 7 (2019)

    2019

  50. [52]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  51. [53]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Entangle- ment in Quantum Critical Phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

    2003

  52. [54]

    ground-state degeneracy

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, Universal noninteger “ground-state degeneracy” in critical quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 161 (1991)

    1991

  53. [55]

    Holzhey, F

    C. Holzhey, F. Larsen, and F. Wilczek, Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory, Nuclear Physics B424, 443 (1994)

    1994

  54. [56]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  55. [57]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  56. [58]

    S. Choi, C. J. Turner, H. Pichler, W. W. Ho, A. A. Michailidis, Z. Papi´ c, M. Serbyn, M. D. Lukin, and D. A. Abanin, Emergent su(2) dynamics and perfect quantum many-body scars, Physical Review Letters122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.220603 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.220603 2019

  57. [59]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michai- lidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Con- trolling quantum many-body dynamics in driven rydberg atom arrays, Science371, 1355 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg2530

    doi:10.1126/science.abg2530 2021

  58. [61]

    Lesanovsky and H

    I. Lesanovsky and H. Katsura, Interacting fibonacci anyons in a rydberg gas, Physical Review A86, 10.1103/physreva.86.041601 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physreva.86.041601 2012

  59. [62]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  60. [64]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum scarred eigenstates in a rydberg atom chain: Entanglement, breakdown of thermalization, and stability to perturbations, Physical Review B98, 10.1103/physrevb.98.155134 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.155134 2018

  61. [65]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspec- tive, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 443–469 (2023)

    2023

  62. [66]

    Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergod- icity, Nature Physics17, 675 (2021)

    2021

  63. [67]

    A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, Measuring entanglement growth in quench dynamics of bosons in an optical lattice, Physical Review Letters109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.020505 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.020505 2012

  64. [69]

    Islam, R

    R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Measuring entanglement en- tropy in a quantum many-body system, Nature528, 77–83 (2015)

    2015

  65. [70]

    Y.-N. Zhou, R. L¨ owenberg, and J. Sonner, Measuring R´ enyi entropy with an Echo Protocol, Quantum10, 2146 (2026)

    2026

  66. [71]

    Hoshino and Y

    M. Hoshino and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy en- codes fusion rules of topological defects and boundaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080402 (2026)

    2026

  67. [72]

    Hoshino, M

    M. Hoshino, M. Oshikawa, and Y. Ashida, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy and conformal field theory, Physical Re- view X16, 10.1103/ylsz-dm3y (2026)

    doi:10.1103/ylsz-dm3y 2026

  68. [73]

    Matsuda, M

    R. Matsuda, M. Hoshino, and Y. Ashida, Quantum com- putational resources and conformal field theory: Unify- ing spins, bosons, and fermions (2026), arXiv:2607.05343 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [74]

    H. T. Diep,Frustrated Spin Sys- tems(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2005) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/5697

    doi:10.1142/5697 2005

  70. [75]

    Wen, Symmetry-protected topological phases in noninteracting fermion systems, Physical Review B85, 10.1103/physrevb.85.085103 (2012)

    X.-G. Wen, Symmetry-protected topological phases in noninteracting fermion systems, Physical Review B85, 10.1103/physrevb.85.085103 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.085103 2012

  71. [76]

    Senthil, Symmetry-protected topological phases of quantum matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 299–324 (2015)

    T. Senthil, Symmetry-protected topological phases of quantum matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 299–324 (2015)

    2015

  72. [77]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  73. [78]

    Wen, Topological order: From long-range entan- gled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics2013, 1–20 (2013)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological order: From long-range entan- gled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics2013, 1–20 (2013)

    2013

  74. [79]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2–111 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2–111 (2006)

    2006

  75. [80]

    Tirrito, X

    E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Anticoncentration and nonstabilizerness spreading under ergodic quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 220401 (2025)

    2025

  76. [81]

    Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9, 245–259 (2018)

    A. Mitra, Quantum quench dynamics, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9, 245–259 (2018)

    2018

  77. [82]

    N. M. Linke, S. Johri, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, A. Y. Matsuura, and C. Monroe, Measuring the r´ enyi entropy of a two-site fermi-hubbard model on a trapped ion quan- tum computer, Physical Review A98, 10.1103/phys- reva.98.052334 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2018

  78. [83]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Probing r´ enyi entanglement entropy via randomized measurements, Science364, 260 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aau4963

    doi:10.1126/science.aau4963 2019

  79. [84]

    P. S. Tarabunga and C. Castelnovo, Magic in general- ized Rokhsar-Kivelson wavefunctions, Quantum8, 1347 (2024)

    2024