Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A clean, non-integrable dual-unitary circuit shows at most logarithmic growth of operator entanglement.

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

2026-07-13 22:04 UTC pith:EOTCYH55

load-bearing objection Exact qutrit-qubit mapping gives a clean, disorder-free example of slow operator entanglement; the log-growth claim itself remains a finite-window conjecture. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.19363 v1 pith:EOTCYH55 submitted 2026-03-19 cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph

Logarithmic growth of operator entanglement in a clean non-integrable circuit

Mao Tian Tan , Toma\v{z} Prosen This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mech quant-ph
keywords dual-unitary circuitsoperator entanglementsemi-ergodic dynamicsoperator size distributionSO(3) matricesquantum chaosmany-body localization
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 constructs a finite-volume brickwork dual-unitary circuit that is ergodic along one light ray and non-ergodic along the other. Heisenberg evolution of a single-site Pauli operator then stays inside a restricted subspace that maps exactly onto a single qutrit scattering sequentially with a train of qubits. Despite the circuit being non-integrable and free of disorder, the resulting operator entanglement grows no faster than logarithmically in time. Auto-correlations admit an exact rewriting as products of SO(3) matrices whose late-time average is predicted by Haar random-matrix theory, and the operator-size distribution becomes bimodal at special times. The result supplies a concrete intermediate regime between full chaos and free or many-body-localized dynamics, and it suggests that semi-ergodic circuits may be classically tractable far longer than their entangling power alone would imply.

Core claim

In a semi-ergodic dual-unitary brickwork circuit of finite width, a local Pauli operator evolves inside an exponentially reduced subspace that is equivalent to a qutrit scattering one-by-one with L/2 qubits; the operator entanglement of this dynamics grows at most logarithmically in time, even though the model is non-integrable and clean.

What carries the argument

The exact mapping of the Heisenberg evolution onto sequential qutrit–qubit scattering, whose update rule is multiplication by a 6×6 orthogonal matrix that, after a U(1) change of basis, factors into products of SO(3) matrices A±.

Load-bearing premise

That the slow, at-most-logarithmic growth of operator entanglement seen up to system sizes of about sixty qubits continues indefinitely rather than eventually becoming linear.

What would settle it

Compute the operator entanglement for the same family of gates at system sizes L ≫ 60 (or at times far beyond (L/2)^{2}) and check whether the growth remains logarithmic or crosses over to linear.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies finite-volume brickwork dual-unitary circuits engineered so that single-site two-point correlations are non-ergodic along one light ray and ergodic along the other ("semi-ergodic" dynamics). Heisenberg evolution of a single-site traceless Pauli is shown to remain in a 3 imes2^{L/2}-dimensional invariant subspace and is mapped exactly onto sequential scattering of one qutrit with L/2 qubits (Eqs. 10–13, Fig. 1). A U(1) symmetry of the 6 imes6 scattering matrix reduces the update to multiplication by SO(3) matrices A± (Eqs. 18–21), so that autocorrelations at times that are multiples of L/2 become sums of products of those matrices and admit a Haar/RMT late-time prediction of 1/3. Numerically (L up to ≈60), operator entanglement of an initial single-site Pauli grows at most logarithmically up to t~(L/2)^2, autocorrelations approach the RMT value in a semi-ergodic parameter region, and the operator-size distribution is bimodal near those special times.

Significance. The exact reduction of semi-ergodic dual-unitary Heisenberg dynamics to qutrit–qubit scattering and the SO(3) rewriting of correlators are clean, reusable analytical contributions that enable exact numerics at unusually large sizes. If the reported logarithmic operator-entanglement growth persists beyond the accessible window, the work supplies a rare disorder-free, non-integrable example of slow operator entanglement growth and a concrete intermediate regime between chaos and free/integrable dynamics (bimodal size distributions, non-decaying autocorrelations at special times). Even if a late-time crossover exists, the restricted-subspace structure and the RMT prediction for autocorrelations remain of clear interest for complexity classification of quantum circuits. The numerics are reproducible in principle from the stated 6×6 matrix iteration and reach L≈60, which is a genuine strength.

major comments (3)
  1. The abstract and title state that operator entanglement "grows at most logarithmic in time" as an established fact, while §III.B (final paragraph) correctly presents this as a conjecture based on numerics up to L≲60 and t~(L/2)^2. The exact mapping only bounds the maximum entanglement by the subsystem dimension (~log(3·2^{l_A/2})); it does not constrain the growth rate. The abstract and title should be aligned with the body (e.g., "numerical evidence for at most logarithmic growth" / "conjectured logarithmic growth"), and the discussion should explicitly address the possibility of a later crossover to linear growth before the ultimate plateau.
  2. §III.B and Figs. 4–5: the evidence for asymptotic logarithmic growth is visual inspection of S(t) on a log-time axis for fixed L=50 (and a few subsystem sizes). There is no extraction of an effective growth rate dS/d(log t), no finite-size scaling of the late-time slope versus L, and no comparison against the expected approach-to-saturation form near the subsystem-dimension plateau. For the semi-ergodic point the curves already sit near ln 3 for a long intermediate window; the subsequent slow rise could be saturation physics rather than unbounded log growth. A quantitative finite-size analysis (or an analytical argument why products of A± cannot produce linear growth of the operator wavefunction entanglement) is needed to make the central claim load-bearing.
  3. §III.B: non-integrability is asserted because "with the inclusion of the single-site gates, U as defined in (3) no longer produces an integrable circuit." Dual-unitary circuits with generic local unitaries are expected to be non-integrable, but a short, concrete argument (absence of an extensive set of local conserved charges, or reference to known results on dual-unitary integrability criteria for the chosen gauge) should be given, since the surprise of the result rests on the model being clean and non-integrable.
minor comments (6)
  1. §II.A–B: the distinction between number of layers t and Floquet steps is clear in the text but easy to lose in the figures; label Fig. 1 and the horizontal axes of Figs. 3–5 explicitly as "number of layers" (or "single-layer steps").
  2. Fig. 2 caption and surrounding text: "semi-ergodic" vs "non-semi-ergodic" is defined by proximity of the time-averaged autocorrelator to 1/3 at t=(L/2)^2. State the numerical threshold used (if any) and note more prominently that the partition may be L-dependent, as already remarked in the text.
  3. Eq. (22) and the RMT argument (26): the Haar average is taken over U(3) (or SO(3)?) acting on the qutrit; a one-sentence clarification that the product of generic A± is assumed to equidistribute with respect to Haar measure on SO(3) would help readers not steeped in random-matrix lore.
  4. Figs. 4–5: the three thin gray lines log(3×2^{2,4,6}) are useful; add them (or analogous saturation guides) to the non-semi-ergodic panel as well for direct comparison.
  5. Appendix A heat maps (Fig. 7): the garbled characters in the axis labels of panel (b) should be fixed (θ, π symbols).
  6. References: the many-body localization comparison (§III.B) is appropriate; a brief pointer to other clean systems with slow operator entanglement (if any) would place the result more sharply.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: log-growth claim is an independent numerical conjecture from an exact restricted-subspace mapping, not forced by definition or self-cited uniqueness.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (operator entanglement grows at most logarithmically under semi-ergodic dual-unitary evolution despite non-integrability) rests on two independent pillars: (i) an explicit algebraic mapping of the Heisenberg evolution of a single-site Pauli into sequential scattering of one qutrit with L/2 qubits (Eqs. 7–21 and Fig. 1), which follows directly from the dual-unitary gate properties (Eqs. 3, 10–11) and the choice of non-ergodic M+ / ergodic M− channels; and (ii) direct numerical evaluation of the von Neumann entropy of the resulting operator wavefunction up to L≈60 and t~(L/2)^2 (Figs. 4–5, §III.B). The mapping bounds the Hilbert-space dimension but does not force the growth rate to be logarithmic; the authors themselves label the log growth a conjecture based on the numerics. The late-time auto-correlator prediction of 1/3 (Eq. 26) is a standard Haar-average argument applied to the rewritten product of SO(3) matrices (Eq. 22), then checked against data rather than fitted. Dual-unitary literature is cited (including prior work by one co-author), but only for the well-established infinite-volume light-ray channels; nothing in the log-growth claim reduces by construction to those citations or to a fitted parameter. Minor self-citation of the dual-unitary framework is normal and non-load-bearing. Hence circularity is negligible.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard dual-unitary parametrization and on the exact light-ray correlation formula of Bertini et al.; the only new structural ingredients are the restriction to one non-ergodic and one ergodic channel and the finite-volume periodic setting. Free parameters are the gate angles chosen for numerics; no new particles or forces are postulated. The logarithmic-growth claim is an empirical output, not an axiom.

free parameters (3)
  • J (Heisenberg exchange) = 11π/160 (main figures)
    Controls entangling power of the two-site dual-unitary gate; scanned numerically and fixed to 11π/160 for the main plots.
  • θ (Euler angle of v−) = 21π/80 and 39π/80
    Tunes the ergodicity of the M− channel; two representative values (21π/80 semi-ergodic, 39π/80 non-semi-ergodic) are selected after inspecting heat-maps.
  • ψ, ϕ (remaining Euler angles of v−) = ψ=(1+√5)/2 · π/2, ϕ=(1+√2)π/2
    Fixed to irrational multiples of π/2 to ensure generic ergodicity of M−; not fitted but chosen by hand.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Two-point correlations of single-site traceless operators in dual-unitary brickwork circuits vanish off the light rays and are controlled by unital quantum channels M± (Eq. 5).
    Taken from Bertini-Kos-Prosen 2019; used throughout §II to define semi-ergodicity.
  • ad hoc to paper The 6×6 scattering matrix A of a dual-unitary gate with the chosen gauge satisfies the U(1) symmetry A(e^{iλσ^x}⊗I_3)=(I_3⊗e^{iλσ^x})A, allowing reduction to SO(3) matrices A± (Eq. 18).
    Derived for the specific parametrization (3)+(6) in §II.C; essential for the random-matrix prediction of late-time autocorrelations.
  • standard math Operator entanglement of a Pauli string is the von Neumann entropy of its coefficient vector in the Pauli basis (standard definition).
    Used without modification in §III.B.
invented entities (1)
  • semi-ergodic dual-unitary dynamics no independent evidence
    purpose: Name the intermediate regime in which one light-ray channel is ergodic and the other is non-ergodic, producing the restricted operator subspace and the observed slow entanglement growth.
    The term is introduced in the abstract and §I; it is a classification label rather than a new physical object, and the underlying channels already exist in the dual-unitary literature.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21843 in / 3149 out tokens · 35138 ms · 2026-07-13T22:04:36.169447+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study a so-called semi-ergodic brickwork dual-unitary circuits where, in the infinite volume limit, the two-point correlation functions of single-site operators exhibit ergodic behavior along one light ray and non-ergodic behavior along the other light ray. Here, however, we study intermediate and long-time dynamics of a system in a finite, large volume. Under such dynamics, the Heisenberg evolution of a single traceless single-site operator lies within a restricted subspace, and this time evolution can be mapped to a simpler problem of a single qutrit scattering with a bunch of qubits sequentially. Despite the model being non-integrable and free from any quenched disorder, the operator entanglement grows at most logarithmic in time, contrary to prior expectations. The auto-correlation function can be written in terms of a sum of products of $SO(3)$ matrices, allowing for a random matrix prediction for the auto-correlation function at late times. The operator size distribution also becomes bimodal at certain times, displaying intermediate behavior between chaotic and free systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Influence-solvability: a systematic theory of $(1+1)D$ solvability and its application to brickwork circuits

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Defines influence-solvability for (1+1)D circuits via finite-χ uniform MPS influence matrices, derives local necessary and sufficient conditions from the MPS fundamental theorem, and classifies new solvable brickwork ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    π 2 (24) A. Correlation Functions The simpest physical quantities to consider are the cor- relation function Cab(t) = 1 2L Tr(aU †(t)bU(t)) (25) whereU(t) is the brickwork circuit containingtlayers of unitariesU o orU e in (2). The auto-correlation function is given by a simple ma- trix product form (22). When the number of such matri- ces applied is larg...

  2. [2]

    The top plot (a) corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the bottom plot (b) corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80

    π 2 and various system sizesL. The top plot (a) corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the bottom plot (b) corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80 . (Insets) The insets show the autocorrelators but only at time steps that are multiples ofL/2. The horizontal axis is the number of multiples ofL/2 unitaries that have been applied. duced ...

  3. [3]

    Plot (a) corresponds to the semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the plot (b) cor- respond to the non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80

    π 2 and the total system size is fixed atL= 50. Plot (a) corresponds to the semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the plot (b) cor- respond to the non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80 . The plots are made with a logarithmic horizontal axes. The insets of these top two plots simply zoom in to the time when the different graphs start to diverge from one another. The...

  4. [4]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- 10 0 20 40 60 80 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 38 42 46 50-0.05 0.05 0.15 (a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 38 42 46 50-0.05 0.15 0.35 (b) FIG. 8: (Main Plots) Plots of the correlation functi...

  5. [5]

    The top plot, (a), corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 , while the bottom plot, (b), corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80

    π 2 and various system sizesL. The top plot, (a), corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 , while the bottom plot, (b), corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80 . (Insets) The insets show are the same plots but zoomed in around the spikes. body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Chertkov, J

    E. Chertkov, J. Bohnet, D. Francois, J. Gaebler, D. Gresh, A. Hankin, K. Lee, D. Hayes, B. Neyenhuis, R. Stutz, A. C. Potter, and M. Foss-Feig, Holographic dynamics simulations with a trapped-ion quantum com- puter, Nature Physics18, 1074 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    L. E. Fischer, M. Leahy, A. Eddins, N. Keenan, D. Fer- racin, M. A. C. Rossi, Y. Kim, A. He, F. Pietracap- rina, B. Sokolov, S. Dooley, Z. Zimbor´ as, F. Tacchino, S. Maniscalco, J. Goold, G. Garc´ ıa-P´ erez, I. Tavernelli, A. Kandala, and S. N. Filippov, Dynamical simulations of many-body quantum chaos on a quantum computer, Nature Physics22, 302 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    J. W. Z. Lau, K. H. Lim, H. Shrotriya, and L. C. Kwek, Nisq computing: where are we and where do we go?, AAPPS Bulletin32, 27 (2022). 0 20 40 60 80 100-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 84 96 -0.1 0 0.1 (a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 (b) FIG. 9: (Main Plots) Plots of the correlation functions CZX against the number of single laye...

    2022

  9. [9]

    The top plot, (a), corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the bottom plot, (b), corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80

    π 2 and various system sizesL. The top plot, (a), corresponds to a semi-ergodic pointθ= 21π 80 while the bottom plot, (b), corresponds to a non-semi-ergodic pointθ= 39π 80 . (Insets) The insets show are the same plots but zoomed in around the spikes

  10. [10]

    Eisert and J

    J. Eisert and J. Preskill, Mind the gaps: The fraught road to quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19928 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Huang, S

    H.-Y. Huang, S. Choi, J. R. McClean, and J. Preskill, The vast world of quantum advantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05720 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Lanes, M

    O. Lanes, M. Beji, A. D. Corcoles, C. Dalyac, J. M. Gam- betta, L. Henriet, A. Javadi-Abhari, A. Kandala, A. Mez- zacapo, C. Porter,et al., A framework for quantum ad- vantage, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20658 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Haghshenas, E

    R. Haghshenas, E. Chertkov, M. Mills, W. Kadow, S.- H. Lin, Y.-H. Chen, C. Cade, I. Niesen, T. Beguˇ si´ c, M. S. Rudolph,et al., Digital quantum magnetism at the frontier of classical simulations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20870 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, 11 0 10 20 300 0.06 0.12 (a) 0 10 20 300 0.06 0.12 (b) FIG. 10: Plots of the sum of amplitudesS l (29) for a given sizelagainst the operator sizel. The left (a) and right (b) plots corresponds toL= 58 andL...

    2019

  15. [15]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  16. [16]

    DeCross, R

    M. DeCross, R. Haghshenas, M. Liu, E. Rinaldi, J. Gray, Y. Alexeev, C. H. Baldwin, J. P. Bartolotta, M. Bohn, E. Chertkov, J. Cline, J. Colina, D. DelVento, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, C. N. Gilbreth, J. Giles, D. Gresh, A. Hall, A. Hankin, A. Hansen, N. Hewitt, I. Hoffman, C. Holliman, R. B. Hutson, T. Jacobs, J. Johansen, P...

    2025

  17. [17]

    D. A. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. Aghababaie-Beni, G. Aigeldinger, A. Ajoy, R. Alcaraz, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute,et al., Constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodic dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10191 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Tindall, M

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s eagle kicked ising experiment, PRX Quantum5, 010308 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Tindall, A

    J. Tindall, A. Mello, M. Fishman, M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, Dynamics of disordered quantum systems with two-and three-dimensional tensor networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05693 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    R. Or´ us, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Annals of Physics349, 117 (2014)

    2014

  21. [21]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Exact correlation func- tions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Random matrix spec- tral form factor of dual-unitary quantum circuits, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics387, 597 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Entanglement spread- ing in a minimal model of maximal many-body quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. X9, 021033 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Maximum velocity quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033032 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Ergodic and noner- godic dual-unitary quantum circuits with arbitrary local hilbert space dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 100603 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Liu and W

    C. Liu and W. W. Ho, Solvable entanglement dynamics in quantum circuits with generalized space-time duality, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012011 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. W. Claeys, and T. Prosen, Exactly solv- able many-body dynamics from space-time duality, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11489 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    R. M. Milbradt, L. Scheller, C. Aßmus, and C. B. Mendl, Ternary unitary quantum lattice models and circuits in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 090601 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    S. A. Rather, S. Aravinda, and A. Lakshminarayan, Cre- ating ensembles of dual unitary and maximally entan- gling quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 070501 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Jonay, V

    C. Jonay, V. Khemani, and M. Ippoliti, Triunitary quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043046 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Emergent quantum state designs and biunitarity in dual-unitary circuit dynamics, Quantum6, 738 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. W. Harrow, Maximal entanglement ve- locity implies dual unitarity, Phys. Rev. B106, L201104 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Kasim and T

    Y. Kasim and T. Prosen, Dual unitary circuits in ran- dom geometries, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Gutkin, P

    B. Gutkin, P. Braun, M. Akila, D. Waltner, and T. Guhr, Exact local correlations in kicked chains, Phys. Rev. B 102, 174307 (2020). 12

    2020

  35. [35]

    Piroli, B

    L. Piroli, B. Bertini, J. I. Cirac, and T. Prosen, Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B101, 094304 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Christopoulos, A

    A. Christopoulos, A. D. Luca, D. L. Kovrizhin, and T. Prosen, Dual symplectic classical circuits: An exactly solvable model of many-body chaos, SciPost Phys.16, 049 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Suzuki, K

    R. Suzuki, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, Computational power of one- and two-dimensional dual-unitary quan- tum circuits, Quantum6, 631 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    M. Song, Z. Zeng, T.-T. Wang, Y.-Z. You, Z. Y. Meng, and P. Zhang, Monte Carlo Simulation of Operator Dynamics and Entanglement in Dual-Unitary Circuits, Quantum9, 1681 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Hu and D.-B

    X.-D. Hu and D.-B. Zhang, Exact correlation func- tions for dual-unitary quantum circuits with exceptional points, Phys. Rev. B111, 024301 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    In the infinite width case this kind of dynamics has been studied in a different context in Ref. [41]

  41. [41]

    Prosen and M

    T. Prosen and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Is the efficiency of classical simulations of quantum dynamics related to integrabil- ity?, Phys. Rev. E75, 015202 (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    Prosen and I

    T. Prosen and I. Pizorn, Operator space entanglement entropy in a transverse ising chain, Phys. Rev. A76, 032316 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    In particular,U(2) =U F

  44. [44]

    Zanardi, C

    P. Zanardi, C. Zalka, and L. Faoro, Entangling power of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. A62, 030301 (2000)

    2000

  45. [45]

    Vatan and C

    F. Vatan and C. Williams, Optimal quantum circuits for general two-qubit gates, Phys. Rev. A69, 032315 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Operator Entangle- ment in Local Quantum Circuits II: Solitons in Chains of Qubits, SciPost Phys.8, 068 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. A63, 040304 (2001)

    2001

  48. [48]

    Pizorn and T

    I. Pizorn and T. Prosen, Operator space entanglement en- tropy inxyspin chains, Phys. Rev. B79, 184416 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, Chaos in quantum channels, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 4 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    L. Nie, M. Nozaki, S. Ryu, and M. T. Tan, Signature of quantum chaos in operator entanglement in 2d cfts, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2019, 093107 (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    Kudler-Flam, M

    J. Kudler-Flam, M. Nozaki, S. Ryu, and M. T. Tan, Quantum vs. classical information: operator negativity as a probe of scrambling, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 31 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Kudler-Flam, M

    J. Kudler-Flam, M. Nozaki, S. Ryu, and M. T. Tan, En- tanglement of local operators and the butterfly effect, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033182 (2021)

    2021

  53. [53]

    MacCormack, M

    I. MacCormack, M. T. Tan, J. Kudler-Flam, and S. Ryu, Operator and entanglement growth in nonthermalizing systems: Many-body localization and the random singlet phase, Phys. Rev. B104, 214202 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    K. Goto, A. Mollabashi, M. Nozaki, K. Tamaoka, and M. T. Tan, Information scrambling versus quantum re- vival through the lens of operator entanglement, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 100 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    K. Goto, M. Nozaki, K. Tamaoka, and M. T. Tan, Entan- glement dynamics of the non-unitary holographic chan- nel, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 101 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    K. Goto, M. Nozaki, S. Ryu, K. Tamaoka, and M. T. Tan, Scrambling and recovery of quantum information in inhomogeneous quenches in two-dimensional conformal field theories, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023001 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, T

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, T. Prosen, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Many-body localization in the heisenbergxxzmagnet in a random field, Phys. Rev. B77, 064426 (2008)

    2008

  58. [58]

    J. H. Bardarson, F. Pollmann, and J. E. Moore, Un- bounded growth of entanglement in models of many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 017202 (2012)

    2012

  59. [59]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin, Local conserva- tion laws and the structure of the many-body localized states, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127201 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond (2018), arXiv:1801.00862v3, 1801.00862

    J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond (2018), arXiv:1801.00862v3, 1801.00862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018