Thermal state entanglement entropy on a quantum graph

Alberto D. Verga; Ricardo Gabriel Elias

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Thermal state entanglement entropy on a quantum graph

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The thermal-state entanglement entropy of a quantum walker on a graph is the logarithm of the total node count of the graph's minimum cycle basis.

desk verdict Original conjecture, honest but thin evidence: Eq. (16) is not separated from the trivial log(2|E|) cap, and the string-net picture as stated predicts cycle rank, not sum of cycle lengths. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00449 v1 pith:IBJ5MMUO submitted 2019-09-01 quant-ph

Alberto D. Verga , Ricardo Gabriel Elias This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords thermalstateentanglemententropyquantumwalkminimumcyclebasisspinnetworkrandomgraphsstring-netgraph

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the entanglement entropy between a quantum walker and the spins sitting on the nodes of a random graph is not a featureless thermal quantity but carries a precise topological signal. In the thermal state reached by the walk, the spin entropy equals the logarithm of the total number of nodes belonging to the graph's minimum cycle basis. If correct, measurements of entanglement entropy in such systems can read off the cycle structure of the underlying graph. The authors support the formula numerically on Watts–Strogatz and Erdős–Rényi graphs with up to fifteen nodes, reporting agreement within two percent.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a discrete-time quantum walk on a graph whose nodes carry spins. Each time step applies a Fourier coin $C(d_x)$ on the walker's color degree of freedom, a swap $M$ that moves the walker between neighboring nodes, and a two-part interaction $ZX$: the $X$ part exchanges a node's color and spin values, and the $Z$ part is an Ising coupling that phases down–down spin pairs. The minimum cycle basis of the graph — the set of independent cycles of shortest total node count — is then used to build a closed-string picture of the thermal state, and the entropy formula (16) follows by counting the nodes in that basis as the number of distinguishable spin configurations.

What would settle it

Run the same walk on two graphs with the same minimum-cycle-basis node count but very different edge counts (for instance, a sparse cycle-rich graph versus a dense graph whose shortest independent cycles are all triangles); if the measured spin entropy changes while the cycle-basis length stays constant, Eq. (16) is falsified, whereas if it stays constant the closed-string counting is corroborated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (16): for the thermal state generated by the unitary walk $U = ZXMC$, the particle–spin entanglement entropy is $S_s \approx \log\left(\sum_{n=1}^{|B|} \mathrm{len}(b_n)\right)$, where the sum runs over the minimum cycle basis $B_G$ of the graph and $\mathrm{len}(b_n)$ is the number of nodes in basis cycle $b_n$. The argument is that the thermal state is dominated by a superposition of closed spin strings, each basis cycle corresponding to a distinct spin configuration maximally entangled with the walker, so that the effective number of contributing configurations is the total node count of the shortest independent cycles. The paper verifies the conjecture numerically for Watts–Strogatz and Erdős–Rényi random graphs, finding that the formula tracks the computed entropy within two percent.

Load-bearing premise

The formula assumes that the thermal state's entanglement entropy is dominated by spin configurations associated with the graph's independent cycles—closed spin strings maximally entangled with the walker—so that counting the nodes of the minimum cycle basis counts the contributing configurations; if this string picture fails, Eq. (16) has no physical derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The spin entanglement entropy of the thermal state becomes a graph-theoretic observable: graphs with different cycle structure but similar size can be distinguished by a single entropy number.
Formula (16) gives an estimate of the particle–spin entropy without simulating the full Hilbert space, using only the graph's minimum cycle basis.
The close agreement with the Page entropy for random graphs is explained as volume-law behavior with a hidden topological correction, connecting thermal states to string-net physics.
For graphs with larger cycle-basis rank, the entropy grows faster with node number, so the cycle space, not just the node count, sets the entanglement growth rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct test of the string-net picture would be to compute Rényi entropies of order $q$ and check whether they obey the same closed-string counting, e.g., $S_q \approx \frac{1}{1-q}\log\sum_n \mathrm{len}(b_n)^q$; this is not stated in the paper but follows naturally from its counting logic.
If the closed-string dominance holds, the model may provide a dynamical protocol for preparing string-net-like states in small quantum simulators, since the thermal state is reached after a few hundred unitary steps.
The formula's validity on graphs with widely different degree distributions suggests the entropy–cycle-basis relation may hold for any connected graph, a claim beyond the two random families tested here.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes a clean, parameter-free conjecture: in the thermal state of a quantum walker coupled to spins on a graph, the spin entanglement entropy equals log of the total length of the minimum cycle basis (Eq. 16). The model is well-defined, the numerics are straightforward to reproduce in spirit, and the idea of reading graph topology through entanglement is genuinely new. The reported agreement with Eq. (16) within 2% on the tested WS/ER graphs is a real fact.

But the evidence does not yet support the claim, for reasons that are mostly internal to the paper. First, Eq. (16) is posited, not derived. The string-net analogy in Sec. III suggests a superposition over the independent cycles; if taken literally, the number of configurations would be 2^{|B|} with |B| = |E|-|V|+1, giving entropy ≈ |B|. For the 15-node ER graph that is about 31 bits, while the measured S_s is around 6.5. The actual formula uses Σ len(b_n), an ad hoc weighting with no physical derivation. Second, the numerics do not distinguish Eq. (16) from the trivial Schmidt-rank cap: the spin reduced state has rank bounded by the walker–color complement dimension 2|E|, so a near-maximally mixed state gives S ≈ log₂(2|E|). On the graphs used, log₂ Σ len(MCB) is within a few tenths of a bit of log₂(2|E|), so the <2% fit is not selective. Third, the Page normalization in Fig. 3 looks misapplied: Eq. (12) is the small-subsystem limit, while the spin subsystem is much larger than the complement, so the ratio S_s/S_R cannot be used as a near-randomness test without swapping roles.

There are also smaller issues: one graph per size, no error bars, no code or detailed min-cycle-basis algorithm, and no test on a graph where the null model and Eq. (16) would diverge sharply (e.g., a simple cycle, where |B|=1 but Σ len = |V|, while 2|E| = 2|V|).

Who is this for? Researchers working on quantum-walk thermalization or graph entanglement could find the conjecture stimulating. It deserves a serious referee and a conditional pass: a good referee should demand a null-model comparison, varied graph families, multiple realizations, and a derivation—or at least a consistent physical picture. As it stands, the central claim is plausible but unsupported.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a unitary quantum walk on Watts-Strogatz and Erdős-Rényi graphs, where a walker with an internal color degree of freedom interacts with spins on the vertices through swap and Ising-type operations. The authors argue, following their earlier work, that the stationary state is thermal, and they compute the von Neumann entropy of the reduced spin state. Their central claim is Eq. (16), which asserts that this entropy is approximately log_2 of the total node length of a minimum cycle basis of the graph, motivated by an analogy to string-net states in spin liquids. The claim is tested numerically for one instance per graph size with 6 to 15 vertices, and reported agreement within 2% is used to support the conjecture.

Significance. If Eq. (16) were established, it would be a notable connection between nonequilibrium quantum-walk dynamics, thermalization, and graph topology, in the spirit of string-net representations. The conjecture is parameter-free and falsifiable, and the model is transparently defined. However, the paper does not provide a derivation of Eq. (16) from the stated string-net assumption; the numerical evidence does not distinguish the conjecture from the trivial Schmidt-rank bound log_2(2|E|); and the Page-entropy comparison used to justify 'randomness' is applied in the wrong parameter regime. As a result, the central claim is not currently supported, and the reported agreement appears to be explainable by the fact that both quantities are close to log_2(2|E|).

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (16)] The formula is presented without derivation. The preceding assumption—that the thermal state is dominated by a superposition of closed spin strings maximally entangled with the walker—does not lead to Eq. (16). If the state is an equal superposition over the 2^{|B|} configurations generated by the independent cycle basis, the spin entropy would be approximately |B| = |E| - |V| + 1, not log Σ len(b_n). For the 15-node ER graph, |B| is about 31, whereas the measured S_s is about 6.5, so the string-net picture as stated is inconsistent with Eq. (16). The additional weighting of each basis cycle by its node length is an ad hoc step that needs a physical derivation.
[Section III, Eq. (16) and Fig. 4] The numerical test does not compare with the null hypothesis S_null = log_2(2|E|). Since the walker-color subsystem has dimension 2|E| and the spin subsystem has dimension 2^{|V|}, the Schmidt rank of the spin reduced state is at most 2|E|. For |V|=15, ER mean degree 6, 2|E|≈90 and log_2(2|E|)≈6.49, which is essentially the value of S_s in Fig. 4. The same figure shows that Eq. (16) also gives values close to 6.5, so the 'within 2%' agreement does not select Eq. (16) over the simple entropy cap. The paper needs to show a quantitative separation between these two predictors, e.g., by plotting S_s versus log_2(2|E|) and versus Eq. (16) on the same axes.
[Section III, Eq. (12) and Fig. 3] The Page formula is used in the wrong regime. Eq. (12) is the Page entropy for a small subsystem A with D_A much smaller than D_B; here the spin subsystem has dimension 2^{|V|}, while the complement (walker and color) has dimension 2|E|. For all graphs considered, the spin subsystem is much larger than the complement (e.g., 2^{15}=32768 versus 90 for the 15-node ER graph). If Eq. (12) is applied with A equal to the spin subsystem, it is invalid; if it is applied to the smaller walker-color subsystem, it reduces to log_2(2|E|) minus a negligible correction. Either way, Fig. 3 does not provide independent evidence for the 'randomness' needed for the string-net analogy, because it only confirms near-saturation of the Schmidt bound.
[Section III, Fig. 4 and Section IV] The numerical evidence consists of a single graph realization per vertex number, with no error bars, no ensemble averaging, and no quoted standard deviations. The claim that Eq. (16) agrees 'within 2%' cannot be evaluated from the plotted markers, and the 'slope inversion' at |V|=11 is attributed to fluctuations in one instance. Without multiple random instances the stability of the alleged 2% agreement is unknown, and no conclusions about the graph-size scaling can be drawn.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, Eq. (2)] The notation '2|V|-1' in the definition of the spin string appears to be a typo for 2^{|V|}-1; the dimension of the spin Hilbert space is not stated consistently.
[Section III] The word 'weather' should be 'whether' in the question about comparing the entangled state with graph states or spin-liquid ground states.
[Section III, Fig. 4 caption] The caption of the third panel says '(left)' but it should say '(right)' when describing the comparison of numerical and theoretical entropies.
[Introduction] The text alternates between 'Rény' and 'Rényi' entropies; the correct spelling is 'Rényi'.
[Section II] The phrase 'the model do not contain dimensional parameters' should be 'the model does not contain dimensional parameters'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (16) is an explicit conjecture tested against independently computed entropies, with no fitted parameters; reliance on the author's prior thermalization result is a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the central formula.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Eq. (16), is introduced as a conjecture, not as a derived consequence of a fit: the authors write that they 'can guess an explicit expression of the entanglement entropy' and 'propose a formula of the spin entanglement entropy in terms of the cycle basis with minimum length.' The minimum cycle basis is computed from the graph independently of the entropy data, and Eq. (16) contains no free parameters estimated from the numerical S_s values. The numerical entropy is computed from exact evolution under U and then compared with Eq. (16); this is hypothesis testing, not fitting, so the 'prediction' is not forced by construction. The paper does cite the same author's prior work [32] to support the premise that the quantum walk reaches a thermal state, and that premise is needed for Eq. (16)'s stated range of applicability. However, this self-citation supports only the background thermalization claim, not the specific cycle-length formula; the formula itself stands or falls on the independent comparison with the computed entropies. The skeptic's objection that Eq. (16) is numerically close to the trivial Schmidt-rank cap log(2|E|), and that the string-net picture would predict the cycle rank rather than the summed cycle length, is a scientific-correctness concern about whether the conjecture is adequately discriminated from a null model. It is not a circularity, because it does not show that Eq. (16) is equivalent to its inputs by definition or that a fitted parameter was relabeled as a prediction. Overall, no circular step is exhibited; the only mild issue is the self-citation [32] for the thermal-state premise, which is not load-bearing for the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the thermalization assumption from prior work, the ad hoc string-net picture, and the applicability of Page entropy. No new physical entities are introduced. The formula itself has no free parameters, but the choice of the cycle-basis length as the relevant count is not derived, so it is the main post hoc modeling step.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The quantum walk reaches a thermal stationary state well described by the microcanonical ensemble after a few hundred steps.
Used to justify applying Page entropy and formula (16) at t=400; based on Fig. 2 and the authors' prior paper [32].
ad hoc to paper The thermal state is dominated by a superposition of closed spin strings maximally entangled with the walker, with each basis cycle contributing a number of configurations proportional to its node length.
Explicitly assumed in Section III before Eq. (16); this is the physical basis for the formula but is not derived from the unitary evolution U.
domain assumption The Page formula (12) with D_A taken as the spin subsystem dimension applies to the spin entanglement entropy.
Used for normalization in Fig. 3; as written the formula gives negative entropies when the spin dimension exceeds the complement dimension, which is the case here, so the application is questionable.
standard math The minimum cycle basis is computed exactly with the total node count as the weight, and the chosen basis is the true minimum.
The paper cites [54] for minimum cycle basis but does not state the algorithm or address degeneracy; for small graphs it is likely correct but unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal state entanglement entropy on a quantum graph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBJ5MMUO

@misc{pith2026190900449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal state entanglement entropy on a quantum graph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBJ5MMUO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00449}
}

read the original abstract

A particle jumps between the nodes of a graph interacting with local spins. We show that the entanglement entropy of the particle with the spin network is related to the length of the minimum cycle basis. The structure of the thermal state is reminiscent to the string-net of spin liquids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00449 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Thermal properties of the stationary state. (left) Position probability (‘num’ dotted line) showing good correspondence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Spin entanglement entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spin entanglement entropy for random graphs with 6 to 15 nodes; (left) WS, (center) ER. Numerical results are com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Schrödinger, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society31, 555 (1935)

E. Schrödinger, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society31, 555 (1935)

work page 1935
[2]

T. D. Stanescu, Introduction to Topological Quantum Matter & Quantum Computation (CRC Press, 2016)

work page 2016
[3]

B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter (Springer, New York, NY, 2019) arXiv:1508.02595

arXiv 2019
[4]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[5]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

2014
[6]

Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

E. Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

2013
[7]

Wen, Rev

X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

2017
[8]

Raussendorf, D

R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003)

2003

Show all 54 references

[9]

Laﬂorencie, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

N. Laﬂorencie, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

2016
[10]

X. G. Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B 04, 239 (1990)

1990
[11]

M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B71, 045110 (2005)

2005
[12]

Borgonovi, F

F. Borgonovi, F. M. Izrailev, L. F. Santos, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Physics Reports626, 1 (2016)

2016
[13]

D’Alessio, Y

L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

2016
[14]

J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

1991
[15]

Srednicki, Phys

M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

1994
[16]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature452, 854 (2008)

2008
[17]

Horodecki, P

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

2009
[18]

Islam, R

R. Islam, R. Ma, P. M. Preiss, M. Eric Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, and M. Greiner, Nature528, 77 (2015)

2015
[19]

Lukin, M

A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. E. Tai, A. M. Kauf- man, S. Choi, V. Khemani, J. Léonard, and M. Greiner, Science 364, 256 (2019)

2019
[20]

Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

L. Balents, Nature464, 199 (2010)

2010
[21]

Jiang, Z

H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Nature Physics 8, 902 (2012)

2012
[22]

A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science353, 794 (2016)

2016
[23]

Neill, P

C. Neill, P. Roushan, M. Fang, Y. Chen, M. Kolodru- betz, Z. Chen, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, E. Jeﬀrey, J. Kelly, J. Mutus, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, D. Sank, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. Polkovnikov, and J. M. Mar- tinis...

2016
[24]

Rousochatzakis, S

I. Rousochatzakis, S. Kourtis, J. Knolle, R. Moessner, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. B100, 045117 (2019)

2019
[25]

Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

2006
[26]

A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003)

2003
[27]

B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

2015
[28]

Hamma, R

A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022315 (2005)

2005
[29]

Lloyd, arXiv:1307.0378 [quant-ph] (2013), arXiv:1307.0378 [quant-ph]

S. Lloyd, arXiv:1307.0378 [quant-ph] (2013), arXiv:1307.0378 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[30]

Rigol and M

M. Rigol and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 110601 (2012)

2012
[31]

T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.51, 112001 (2018)

2018
[32]

A. D. Verga, Phys. Rev. E99, 012127 (2019)

2019
[33]

Kempe, Contemporary Physics44, 307 (2003)

J. Kempe, Contemporary Physics44, 307 (2003)

2003
[34]

Reitzner, D

D. Reitzner, D. Nagaj, and V. Bužek, Acta Physica Slo- vaca 61, 603 (2011)

2011
[35]

Kitagawa, Quantum Information Processing11, 1107 (2012)

T. Kitagawa, Quantum Information Processing11, 1107 (2012)

2012
[36]

D. S. Simon, S. Osawa, and A. V. Sergienko, New J. Phys. 20, 093032 (2018)

2018
[37]

Markham and B

D. Markham and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A78, 042309 (2008)

2008
[38]

Ionicioiu and T

R. Ionicioiu and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. A85, 062313 (2012)

2012
[39]

Garnerone, P

S. Garnerone, P. Giorda, and P. Zanardi, New J. Phys. 14, 013011 (2012)

2012
[40]

Perseguers, G

S. Perseguers, G. J. Lapeyre, D. Cavalcanti, M. Lewen- stein, and A. Acín, Rep. Prog. Phys.76, 096001 (2013)

2013
[41]

Biamonte, M

J. Biamonte, M. Faccin, and M. D. Domenico, Commun Phys 2, 1 (2019)

2019
[42]

D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature393, 440 (1998)

1998
[43]

Erdős and A

P. Erdős and A. Rényi, Publicationes Mathematicae (De- brecen) 6, 290 (1959)

1959
[44]

P. W. Shor, inFoundations of Computer Science, 1994 7 Proceedings., 35th Annual Symposium On (1994) pp. 124–134

1994
[45]

S. D. Berry and J. B. Wang, Phys. Rev. A83, 042317 (2011)

2011
[46]

H. J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 910 (2001)

2001
[47]

Kitaev and J

A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006)

2006
[48]

Levin and X.-G

M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110405 (2006)

2006
[49]

D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1291 (1993)

1993
[50]

Zhang, H

L. Zhang, H. Kim, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. E91, 062128 (2015)

2015
[51]

Mejía-Monasterio, G

C. Mejía-Monasterio, G. Benenti, G. G. Carlo, and G. Casati, Phys. Rev. A71, 062324 (2005)

2005
[52]

M. Hein, W. Dür, J. Eisert, R. Raussendorf, M. Nest, and H.-J. Briegel, arXiv preprint quant-ph/0602096 (2006)

2006 arXiv
[53]

J. L. Gross and J. Yellen,Graph Theory and Its Applica- tions (CRC press, 2005)

2005
[54]

Kavitha, C

T. Kavitha, C. Liebchen, K. Mehlhorn, D. Michail, R. Rizzi, T. Ueckerdt, and K. A. Zweig, Computer Sci- ence Review 3, 199 (2009)

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schrödinger, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society31, 555 (1935)

E. Schrödinger, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society31, 555 (1935)

work page 1935

[2] [2]

T. D. Stanescu, Introduction to Topological Quantum Matter & Quantum Computation (CRC Press, 2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, and X.-G. Wen,Quan- tum Information Meets Quantum Matter (Springer, New York, NY, 2019) arXiv:1508.02595

arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010

[5] [5]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

2014

[6] [6]

Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

E. Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

2013

[7] [7]

Wen, Rev

X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

Raussendorf, D

R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022312 (2003)

2003