Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Classification of symmetry-protected topological phases in two-dimensional many body-localized systems

T0 review · 3 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 paper proves that two-dimensional many-body localized phases with an on-site abelian (anti-)unitary symmetry are labeled by elements of the third cohomology group of the symmetry group, and that this label is a topological invariant…

desk verdict A careful, honest derivation of H^3 classification for 2D MBL SPT phases via quantum circuits; the physical claim is conditional on an unproven circuit ansatz, but the circuit lemma is a real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03928 v2 pith:K5OUINZV submitted 2019-08-11 cond-mat.dis-nn quant-ph

Joey Li , Amos Chan , Thorsten B. Wahl This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nnquant-ph
keywords many-bodylocalizationsymmetry-protectedtopologicalphasesthirdcohomologygroupquantumcircuitstensornetworksgerbalrepresentationstwo-dimensionaldisorderedsystems
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 aims to classify symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases in two-dimensional many-body localized (MBL) systems. The central claim is that, for an on-site (anti-)unitary abelian symmetry group $G$, every two-dimensional MBL phase carries a label in the third cohomology group $H^3(G,U(1))$ (or its generalized version for anti-unitary symmetries), and that this label is the same for all eigenstates. The label cannot change under symmetry-preserving perturbations, and two circuits in different cohomology classes cannot be continuously connected while remaining symmetry-preserving and MBL-like. If this is right, the classification of 2D MBL SPT phases mirrors the ground-state cohomology classification, and the topological protection extends to finite energy density. The paper also notes that its classification may be incomplete: it does not prove that every cohomology class is connected or that additional topological indices do not exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a four-layer quantum circuit with gates acting on plaquettes of size $\ell \times \ell$, where $\ell = c' N^{\nu}$ grows sublinearly with the linear system size $N$, with $\nu < 1$ and larger than the maximum localization length. This circuit approximates the unitary that diagonalizes the MBL Hamiltonian. By blocking the four-layer circuit along one direction, the two-dimensional equality $v_g^{\otimes N^2} U = U \Theta_g$ is reduced to an equality of two one-dimensional two-layer quantum circuits; the one-dimensional classification then supplies gauge tensors $W_j(g)$ that form a projective representation of $G$. The $W_j(g)$ play the role of matrix product operators on the edge of a two-dimensional tensor network, and a combining operation $W(g,h)$ is constructed from them. The pentagon equation for these combining operators forces the phase $\alpha(g,h,k)$ to be a 3-cocycle, so each quantum circuit representation of $G$ is labeled by an element of $H^3(G,U(1))$ (a gerbal representation).

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier is to compute the projective operators $W_j(g)$ from exact diagonalization of a small two-dimensional disordered spin model with an on-site symmetry and extract the phase $\alpha(g,h,k)$ from the pentagon equation; if $\alpha$ is not a 3-cocycle, differs between eigenstates, or changes under an infinitesimal symmetry-preserving perturbation, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two-dimensional FMBL systems invariant under an on-site (anti-)unitary abelian symmetry are classified by elements of the (generalized) third cohomology group $H^3(G,U(1))$. Concretely, the unitary diagonalizing the Hamiltonian can be approximated by a four-layer quantum circuit with long gates; pushing the symmetry operator through this circuit yields, after reduction to one dimension, operators $W_j(g)$ that projectively represent $G$ and satisfy a pentagon relation. The associated 3-cocycle $\alpha(g,h,k)$ is invariant under gauge freedom up to a 3-coboundary, so it defines a well-defined element of $H^3(G,U(1))$. Quantum circuits whose projective representations lie in different cohomology classes cannot be continuously deformed into each other while preserving the projective symmetry action, and the label is independent of the eigenstate and of the position in the lattice. Consequently all eigenstates of a 2D MBL phase carry the same topological label, and this label is robust to symmetry-preserving perturbations; the classification, however, is not proven to be complete.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the unitary diagonalizing a two-dimensional many-body localized Hamiltonian can be efficiently approximated by a four-layer quantum circuit whose long gates have length $\ell = c' N^{\nu}$, sublinear in system size and much longer than the largest localization length; the paper cites area-law entanglement and one-dimensional evidence, but provides no proof in two dimensions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the classification is correct, two 2D MBL Hamiltonians whose diagonalizing circuits realize different elements of $H^3(G,U(1))$ cannot be connected by a path that keeps the symmetry unbroken and the system many-body localized; the only routes are breaking the symmetry or delocalizing.
  • Every eigenstate of a 2D FMBL system with the symmetry carries the same $H^3$ label, so the topological protection applies not only to the ground state but across the whole spectrum.
  • For quasi-periodic disorder the labels should be stable for arbitrarily long times; for true random disorder they persist up to times that grow superexponentially with inverse interaction strength, which can be much longer than experimental observation times.
  • The same circuit-based argument could, in principle, supply a rigorous proof of the cohomology classification of two-dimensional SPT ground states, a problem the paper identifies as still open.
  • The proof does not establish completeness: Hamiltonians in the same cohomology class might still be separated by additional, as-yet-unknown topological indices, and topologically ordered MBL systems are outside the classification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof's dependence on a four-layer circuit suggests a direct numerical test: for small disordered 2D spin systems, extract the 3-cocycle $\alpha(g,h,k)$ from exact-diagonalization data and check that it is independent of eigenstate and of the circuit approximation; a violation would signal either missing topological data or failure of the circuit assumption.
  • If additional 2D MBL indices exist, a natural place to look is in the parts of the diagonalizing unitary that are not captured by the four-layer long-gate ansatz (for instance, long-range resonances or topological order); the paper explicitly excludes topologically ordered MBL systems.
  • The same blocking-to-one-dimension strategy could be iterated to propose classifications in three dimensions, although the paper notes the cohomology classification is known to be incomplete in $d \ge 3$, so any such extension would have to include beyond-cohomology data.
  • For non-abelian symmetry groups the classification likely does not extend as stated, because the paper (following earlier 1D arguments) relies on the symmetry group being abelian to avoid symmetry-enforced degeneracies; a non-abelian group would either be spontaneously broken or delocalize.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a classification of two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological many-body localized (SPT MBL) phases with on-site abelian symmetries, including anti-unitary symmetries. The main technical device is a four-layer quantum circuit with gates acting on plaquettes of size ℓ × ℓ, with ℓ growing sublinearly with system size, used to approximate the unitary that diagonalizes the FMBL Hamiltonian. The authors show that the symmetry action forces the diagonal matrix Θ_g to itself be representable as a four-layer circuit, that the two-dimensional circuit equation can be reduced to a one-dimensional circuit equation, and that the resulting gauge tensors W^g_j form projective representations of the symmetry group. They then prove a lemma that quantum circuit projective representations of a group G carry a topological label in H³(G,U(1)), derive a 3-cocycle condition from a pentagon-type argument, and argue that this label is independent of position, independent of the eigenstate, and stable under symmetry-preserving perturbations. For anti-unitary symmetries the same construction yields a label in the generalized third cohomology group. The paper explicitly states that it does not prove completeness of the classification, i.e., it leaves open the possibility of additional topological indices.

Significance. If the main claim holds, this is an important step toward classifying two-dimensional MBL SPT phases and would establish that all eigenstates of a two-dimensional FMBL system carry the same H³(G,U(1)) label, in close analogy to the one-dimensional H² classification. The paper is careful in several ways: it repeatedly and explicitly disclaims completeness, it restricts to abelian symmetry groups with a physical justification, it treats anti-unitary symmetries, and it builds the main lemma on the established MPO pentagon construction rather than inventing an ad hoc formalism. The derivation is diagrammatically detailed and appears to follow the known one-dimensional blueprint closely. The main value lies in extending the quantum-circuit approach from one to two dimensions and in identifying explicitly which assumptions are needed for that extension.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A] The classification is conditional on an unproven circuit-approximability assumption: the diagonalizing unitary of a two-dimensional FMBL Hamiltonian is assumed to be efficiently approximable by a four-layer circuit with gates on ℓ × ℓ plaquettes, ℓ = c'N^ν with μ < ν < 1. This assumption is load-bearing because every subsequent statement — the form of Θ_g, the reduction to a one-dimensional circuit equation, the existence of the projective representations W^g_j, and the H³ label — is a theorem about this circuit class rather than about generic two-dimensional local Hamiltonians. The paper justifies the assumption by area-law entanglement and by one-dimensional evidence (Refs. 54,55), but area-law entanglement alone is not known to imply a short-depth long-gate circuit approximation in two dimensions, and no numerical or analytical evidence for the specific four-layer form is supplied. The authors should either provide additional support for this assumption, or explicitly reframe the central claim as a classification of a restricted class of quantum-circuit representable MBL-like systems rather than of all two-dimensional FMBL Hamiltonians.
  2. [Sec. IV.D.1, Eqs. (76)-(77)] The continuous-deformation argument used to prove that W^g_{2k-1} ⊗ W^g_{2k} is topologically trivial is not justified. The text defines u_{j,λ} = e^{iL_j(1-λ)} and v_{j,λ} = e^{iM_j(1-λ)} and then asserts that 'for all λ, W̃_λ(g)W̃_λ(h) = W̃_λ(gh)', but no construction of the corresponding family W̃_λ(g) is given and no proof is supplied that the linear-representation property is preserved along the deformation. Since this step is what allows the paper to conclude that a product of two adjacent W tensors carries the trivial cohomology class, and since that conclusion is subsequently used for eigenstate-independence in Sec. IV.E, this gap is load-bearing. The authors need to provide an explicit homotopy that preserves the group property, or replace this step with a rigorous argument.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eq. (103)] The robustness-to-perturbations result relies on the assertion that, in the limit ε→0, the diagonalizing unitaries on the two sides of a degeneracy point can differ only by a permutation matrix, i.e., U(λ-ε)P(λ) = U(λ+ε). This is stated as 'according to perturbation theory' without proof. The unitary diagonalizing an MBL Hamiltonian is not unique, and it is not established that the chosen circuit approximation can be made to vary continuously along the FMBL path. Because this step is the basis for the claim that the topological label cannot change along a symmetry-preserving FMBL path, the argument needs to be made rigorous or explicitly weakened to a statement about the circuit representatives rather than about the Hamiltonians.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I] There is a typo in the reference list in the introduction: 'Refs 19? ,20' should presumably read 'Refs. 19,20'.
  2. [Sec. IV.D] In the sentence 'cannot be continuously connected while preserving the fact that they projetively represent the group G', 'projetively' should be 'projectively'.
  3. [Sec. IV.A.1, Eqs. (44)-(46)] The text states that the functions q^g_r are 'functions of five l_k indices', but the displayed arguments in Eqs. (44) and (45) contain eight and seven indices respectively. This inconsistency makes the sweep argument difficult to follow and should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. III.A] The notation for the gate length is used inconsistently: the four-layer circuit is described with gates on ℓ × ℓ plaquettes, but the derived Θ_g circuit in Sec. IV.A.1 acts on plaquettes of size 2ℓ × 3ℓ. The relationship between these two length scales should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Sec. III.C] The intuitive overview refers to 'injective MPO' and cites Ref. 50, but the definition of injectivity and its role in excluding χ(g,h)=0 is not spelled out. A brief reminder would help readers not working directly in tensor network language.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No in-paper circularity: the H^3 label follows from an independent pentagon lemma, while the self-cited 1D circuit algebra in Ref. 47 is prior parameter-free work, not the 2D target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The starting point (Sec. III.A) is an explicit assumption that the diagonalizing unitary of a 2D FMBL Hamiltonian is efficiently approximated by a four-layer quantum circuit with long gates; this is stated as an assumption, not disguised as a prediction. From the symmetry relation Eq. (18), Sec. IV.A.1 shows within the paper, via a causal-cone argument, that the Theta_g matrix is also a four-layer circuit. The blocking step in Sec. IV.B reduces Eq. (47) to a one-dimensional two-layer circuit equation, and the existence of the gauge unitaries W^g_k and their projective-representation property are taken from Ref. 47: 'As shown in Ref. 47, this equation implies that there have to exist unitaries W_1, W_2, ..., W_{2n} such that...'. This is a self-citation by overlapping authors, and it is used for an important part of the construction. It is not, however, circular: Ref. 47 is a separate parameter-free derivation of the one-dimensional circuit algebra, with stated assumptions that do not include the two-dimensional H^3 classification that the present paper targets. The genuinely new step is Sec. IV.C, where the paper constructs the combining operators W(g,h), derives the phase alpha(g,h,k), verifies the pentagon relation Eq. (71) - the 3-cocycle condition - and the coboundary gauge freedom Eq. (65) directly from circuit manipulations. The eigenstate-independence (Sec. IV.E) and perturbation-robustness (Sec. VI) arguments then follow from internal features of that label. The unproven circuit-approximability assumption and the transient-time caveat for true random disorder are correctness risks explicitly acknowledged by the authors, but they are not instances of a fitted input being renamed as a prediction or of a claim being equivalent to its definition. No circular step was found; the score reflects the minor self-citation dependence rather than any in-paper circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several domain assumptions about MBL stability and circuit approximability; no free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced. The heaviest burden is the long-gate circuit approximation, which the authors explicitly flag as an assumption.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Existence of FMBL or MBL-like behavior in 2D systems, either stable for quasi-periodic disorder or up to superexponential times for random disorder under the avalanche scenario.
    Sec. II.B defines FMBL and relies on avalanche time-scale estimates from Ref 24; the classification applies to such phases.
  • domain assumption The diagonalizing unitary U can be efficiently approximated by a four-layer quantum circuit with gates of length ℓ ∝ N^ν, ν < 1.
    Sec. III.A states this as an assumption, motivated by area-law entanglement and 1D evidence (Refs 54,55). It is the load-bearing premise of the derivation.
  • domain assumption One-dimensional MBL unitaries can be efficiently approximated by two-layer long-gate quantum circuits.
    Sec. III.A end, inherited from Refs 46,47,55; the 2D reduction uses this 1D result as a black box.
  • domain assumption The symmetry group G is abelian, allowing exact degeneracies to be lifted and Θ_g to be diagonal.
    Sec. III.A and Ref 48 argue non-abelian groups are incompatible with FMBL. This is a stated hypothesis of the theorem.
  • standard math Standard group cohomology facts about H^3(G,U(1)) and gerbal representations.
    Appendix A and Refs 49,83,86 provide the mathematical background used to interpret the 3-cocycle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classification of symmetry-protected topological phases in two-dimensional many body-localized systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5OUINZV

@misc{pith2026190803928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classification of symmetry-protected topological phases in two-dimensional many body-localized systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5OUINZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03928}
}
read the original abstract

We use low-depth quantum circuits, a specific type of tensor networks, to classify two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological many-body localized phases. For (anti-)unitary on-site symmetries we show that the (generalized) third cohomology class of the symmetry group is a topological invariant; however our approach leaves room for the existence of additional topological indices. We argue that our classification applies to quasi-periodic systems in two dimensions and systems with true random disorder within times which scale superexponentially with the inverse interaction strength. Our technique might be adapted to supply arguments suggesting the same classification for two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological ground states with a rigorous proof.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of the 4-layer quantum circuit ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Top equation: On-site symmetry operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Layers of the lower half of the causal cone ordered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Layers of the Θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Three ways of blocking: original 4-blocking (red), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A schematic diagram depicting two adjacent blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Altman \ and\ author R

    author author E. Altman \ and\ author R. Vosk ,\ @noop journal journal Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 383 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  2. [2]

    author author D. J. \ Luitz \ and\ author Y. B. \ Lev ,\ 10.1002/andp.201600350 journal journal Ann. d. Phys. \ volume 529 ,\ pages 1600350 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1002/andp.201600350 2017

  3. [3]

    author author D. A. \ Abanin \ and\ author Z. Papi \' c ,\ 10.1002/andp.201700169 journal journal Ann. d. Phys. \ volume 529 ,\ pages 1700169 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1002/andp.201700169 2017

  4. [4]

    author author J. Z. \ Imbrie , author V. Ros , \ and\ author A. Scardicchio ,\ 10.1002/andp.201600278 journal journal Ann. d. Phys. \ volume 529 ,\ pages 1600278 ( year 2017 ) ,\ note 1600278 NoStop

    doi:10.1002/andp.201600278 2017

  5. [5]

    Alet \ and\ author N

    author author F. Alet \ and\ author N. Laflorencie ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1711.03145 \ ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Anderson ,\ @noop journal journal Phys

    author author P. Anderson ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 109 ,\ pages 1492 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    1958

  7. [7]

    author author I. V. \ Gornyi , author A. D. \ Mirlin , \ and\ author D. G. \ Polyakov ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 206603 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  8. [8]

    author author D. M. \ Basko , author I. L. \ Aleiner , \ and\ author B. L. \ Altshuler ,\ @noop journal journal Ann. Phys. \ volume 321 ,\ pages 1126 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Oganesyan \ and\ author D

    author author V. Oganesyan \ and\ author D. A. \ Huse ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 75 ,\ pages 155111 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  2. [10]

    Z nidari c , author T

    author author M. Z nidari c , author T. Prosen , \ and\ author P. Prelov s ek ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 77 ,\ pages 064426 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  3. [11]

    Pal \ and\ author D

    author author A. Pal \ and\ author D. A. \ Huse ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 174411 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  4. [12]

    author author J. H. \ Bardarson , author F. Pollmann , \ and\ author J. E. \ Moore ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 109 ,\ pages 017202 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  5. [13]

    author author J. Z. \ Imbrie ,\ @noop journal journal J. Stat. Phys. \ volume 163 ,\ pages 998 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  6. [14]

    Schreiber , author S

    author author M. Schreiber , author S. S. \ Hodgman , author P. Bordia , author H. P. \ L \"u schen , author M. H. \ Fischer , author R. Vosk , author E. Altman , author U. Schneider , \ and\ author I. Bloch ,\ 10.1126/science.aaa7432 journal journal Science \ volume 349 ,\ pa...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Lukin , author M

    author author A. Lukin , author M. Rispoli , author R. Schittko , author M. E. \ Tai , author A. M. \ Kaufman , author S. Choi , author V. Khemani , author J. L\' e onard , \ and\ author M. Greiner ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1805.09819 \ ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Smith , author A

    author author J. Smith , author A. Lee , author P. Richerme , author B. Neyenhuis , author P. W. \ Hess , author P. Hauke , author M. Heyl , author D. A. \ Huse , \ and\ author C. Monroe ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3783 journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 907...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Roushan , author C

    author author P. Roushan , author C. Neill , author J. Tangpanitanon , author V. M. \ Bastidas , author A. Megrant , author R. Barends , author Y. Chen , author Z. Chen , author B. Chiaro , author A. Dunsworth , author A. Fowler , author B. Foxen , author M. Giustina , author ...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Choi , author J

    author author S. Choi , author J. Choi , author R. Landig , author G. Kucsko , author H. Zhou , author J. Isoya , author F. Jelezko , author S. Onoda , author H. Sumiya , author V. Khemani , author C. von Keyserlingk , author N. Y. \ Yao , author E. Demler , \ and\ author M. D...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Ovadia , author D

    author author M. Ovadia , author D. Kalok , author I. Tamir , author S. Mitra , author B. Sac \' e p \' e , \ and\ author D. Shahar ,\ @noop journal journal Sci. Rep. \ volume 5 ,\ pages 13503 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  12. [20]

    author author K. X. \ Wei , author C. Ramanathan , \ and\ author P. Cappellaro ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 120 ,\ pages 070501 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  13. [21]

    author author W. D. \ Roeck \ and\ author J. Z. \ Imbrie ,\ 10.1098/rsta.2016.0422 journal journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A \ volume 375 ,\ pages 20160422 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2016

  14. [22]

    \ Potirniche , author S

    author author I.-D. \ Potirniche , author S. Banerjee , \ and\ author E. Altman ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.99.205149 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 205149 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Chandran , author A

    author author A. Chandran , author A. Pal , author C. R. \ Laumann , \ and\ author A. Scardicchio ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.144203 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 144203 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Gopalakrishnan \ and\ author D

    author author S. Gopalakrishnan \ and\ author D. A. \ Huse ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.99.134305 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 134305 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    \ Choi , author S

    author author J.-y. \ Choi , author S. Hild , author J. Zeiher , author P. Schau , author A. Rubio-Abadal , author T. Yefsah , author V. Khemani , author D. A. \ Huse , author I. Bloch , \ and\ author C. Gross ,\ 10.1126/science.aaf8834 journal journal Science \ volume 352 ,\ ...

    doi

  18. [26]

    Rubio-Abadal , author J

    author author A. Rubio-Abadal , author J. yoon Choi , author J. Zeiher , author S. Hollerith , author J. Rui , author I. Bloch , \ and\ author C. Gross ,\ 10.1103/physrevx.9.041014 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 9 ,\ pages 041014 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  19. [27]

    author author S. J. \ Thomson \ and\ author M. Schir \' o ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 060201(R) ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  20. [28]

    author author T. B. \ Wahl , author A. Pal , \ and\ author S. H. \ Simon ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 164 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  21. [29]

    author author D. M. \ Kennes ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1811.04126 \ ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bertoli , author B

    author author G. Bertoli , author B. L. \ Altshuler , \ and\ author G. V. \ Shlyapnikov ,\ 10.1103/physreva.100.013628 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 100 ,\ pages 100.013628 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    author author G. D. \ Tomasi , author F. Pollmann , \ and\ author M. Heyl ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.99.241114 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 241114(R) ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Th\' e veniaut , author Z

    author author H. Th\' e veniaut , author Z. Lan , \ and\ author F. Alet ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1902.04091 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1902 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kshetrimayum , author M

    author author A. Kshetrimayum , author M. Goihl , \ and\ author J. Eisert ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1910.11359 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1910 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gei ler \ and\ author G

    author author A. Gei ler \ and\ author G. Pupillo ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1909.09247 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1909 arXiv

  27. [35]

    o hler , author A. Swoboda , author S. R. \ Manmana , author U. Schollw\

    author author S. Paeckel , author T. K\" o hler , author A. Swoboda , author S. R. \ Manmana , author U. Schollw\" o ck , \ and\ author C. Hubig ,\ 10.1016/j.aop.2019.167998 journal journal Ann. Phys. \ volume 411 ,\ pages 167998 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  28. [36]

    Kloss , author Y

    author author B. Kloss , author Y. B. \ Lev , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2003.08944 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nietner , author B

    author author A. Nietner , author B. Vanhecke , author F. Verstraete , author J. Eisert , \ and\ author L. Vanderstraeten ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2003.01142 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2003 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bordia , author H

    author author P. Bordia , author H. L\" u schen , author S. Scherg , author S. Gopalakrishnan , author M. Knap , author U. Schneider , \ and\ author I. Bloch ,\ 10.1103/physrevx.7.041047 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 7 ,\ pages 041047 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  31. [39]

    Bauer \ and\ author C

    author author B. Bauer \ and\ author C. Nayak ,\ @noop journal journal J. Stat. Mech. \ ,\ pages P09005 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  32. [40]

    author author D. A. \ Huse , author R. Nandkishore , author V. Oganesyan , author A. Pal , \ and\ author S. L. \ Sondhi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.014206 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 88 ,\ pages 014206 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Chandran , author V

    author author A. Chandran , author V. Khemani , author C. R. \ Laumann , \ and\ author S. L. \ Sondhi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.144201 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 144201 ( year 2014 a ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    author author A. C. \ Potter \ and\ author A. Vishwanath ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1506.00592 \ ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bahri , author R

    author author Y. Bahri , author R. Vosk , author E. Altman , \ and\ author A. Vishwanath ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Comm. \ volume 6 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  36. [44]

    Goihl , author N

    author author M. Goihl , author N. Walk , author J. Eisert , \ and\ author N. Tarantino ,\ 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.013120 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 2 ,\ pages 013120 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    author author S. A. \ Parameswaran \ and\ author R. Vasseur ,\ @noop journal journal Rep. Prog. Phys. \ volume 81 ,\ pages 082501 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  38. [46]

    author author T. B. \ Wahl ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 054204 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  39. [47]

    Chan \ and\ author T

    author author A. Chan \ and\ author T. B. \ Wahl ,\ 10.1088/1361-648x/ab7f01 journal journal J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. \ volume 32 ,\ pages 305601 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    author author A. C. \ Potter \ and\ author R. Vasseur ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 224206 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  41. [49]

    Chen , author Z.-C

    author author X. Chen , author Z.-C. \ Gu , author Z.-X. \ Liu , \ and\ author X.-G. \ Wen ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.87.155114 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 155114 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    P\' e rez-Garc\' i a , author F

    author author D. P\' e rez-Garc\' i a , author F. Verstraete , author M. M. \ Wolf , \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2011832.2011833 journal journal Quant. Inf. Comp. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 401 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007

  43. [51]

    Verstraete \ and\ author J

    author author F. Verstraete \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 \ ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Verstraete , author V

    author author F. Verstraete , author V. Murg , \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ @noop journal journal Advances in Physics \ volume 57 ,\ pages 143 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  45. [53]

    Or\` u s ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013 journal journal Ann

    author author R. Or\` u s ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2014.06.013 journal journal Ann. Phys. \ volume 349 ,\ pages 117 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    Pollmann , author V

    author author F. Pollmann , author V. Khemani , author J. I. \ Cirac , \ and\ author S. L. \ Sondhi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.041116 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 041116 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    author author T. B. \ Wahl , author A. Pal , \ and\ author S. H. \ Simon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021018 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 7 ,\ pages 021018 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Friesdorf , author A

    author author M. Friesdorf , author A. H. \ Werner , author W. Brown , author V. B. \ Scholz , \ and\ author J. Eisert ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.170505 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 114 ,\ pages 170505 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    doi

  49. [57]

    Verstraete \ and\ author J

    author author F. Verstraete \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 73 ,\ pages 094423 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  50. [58]

    Pekker \ and\ author B

    author author D. Pekker \ and\ author B. K. \ Clark ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.035116 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 035116 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    Devakul , author V

    author author T. Devakul , author V. Khemani , author F. Pollmann , author D. A. \ Huse , \ and\ author S. L. \ Sondhi ,\ 10.1098/rsta.2016.0431 journal journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A \ volume 375 ,\ pages 20160431 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2016

  52. [60]

    Yu , author D

    author author X. Yu , author D. Pekker , \ and\ author B. K. \ Clark ,\ 10.1103/physrevlett.118.017201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 017201 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    author author J. I. \ Cirac , author J. Garre-Rubio , \ and\ author D. Pérez-García ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1903.09439 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1903 arXiv

  54. [62]

    author author T. B. \ Wahl \ and\ author B. B\' e ri ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2001.03167 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2001 arXiv

  55. [63]

    author author D. J. \ Luitz , author N. Laflorencie , \ and\ author F. Alet ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.91.081103 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 91 ,\ pages 081103 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Serbyn , author Z

    author author M. Serbyn , author Z. Papi \'c , \ and\ author D. A. \ Abanin ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 111 ,\ pages 127201 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  57. [65]

    author author D. A. \ Huse , author R. Nandkishore , \ and\ author V. Oganesyan ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 90 ,\ pages 174202 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  58. [66]

    author author E. V. H. \ Doggen , author F. Schindler , author K. S. \ Tikhonov , author A. D. \ Mirlin , author T. Neupert , author D. G. \ Polyakov , \ and\ author I. V. \ Gornyi ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.98.174202 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 174202 ( year 20...

    doi

  59. [67]

    author author D. A. \ Abanin , author J. H. \ Bardarson , author G. De Tomasi , author S. Gopalakrishnan , author V. Khemani , author S. A. \ Parameswaran , author F. Pollmann , author A. C. \ Potter , author M. Serbyn , \ and\ author R. Vasseur ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:...

    1911 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Goihl , author J

    author author M. Goihl , author J. Eisert , \ and\ author C. Krumnow ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.99.195145 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 99 ,\ pages 195145 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Sparaciari , author M

    author author C. Sparaciari , author M. Goihl , author P. Boes , author J. Eisert , \ and\ author N. H. Y. \ Ng ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1912.04920 \ ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    1912 arXiv

  62. [70]

    author author A. K. \ Kulshreshtha , author A. Pal , author T. B. \ Wahl , \ and\ author S. H. \ Simon ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.98.184201 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 184201 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    author author E. V. H. \ Doggen , author I. V. \ Gornyi , author A. D. \ Mirlin , \ and\ author D. G. \ Polyakov ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2002.07635 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2002 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kuno ,\ 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.032026 journal journal Phys

    author author Y. Kuno ,\ 10.1103/physrevresearch.1.032026 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 1 ,\ pages 032026 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    author author K. S. C. \ Decker , author D. M. \ Kennes , author J. Eisert , \ and\ author C. Karrasch ,\ 10.1103/physrevb.101.014208 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 101.014208 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    Orito , author Y

    author author T. Orito , author Y. Kuno , \ and\ author I. Ichinose ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2004.07634 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2004 arXiv

  67. [75]

    author author C. Z. \ Xiong ,\ 10.1088/1751-8121/aae0b1 journal journal J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. \ volume 51 ,\ pages 445001 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    Gaiotto \ and\ author T

    author author D. Gaiotto \ and\ author T. Johnson-Freyd ,\ 10.1007/jhep05(2019)007 journal journal Journal of High Energy Physics \ ,\ pages 2019 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    Chandran , author V

    author author A. Chandran , author V. Khemani , author C. Laumann , \ and\ author S. Sondhi ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 144201 ( year 2014 b ) NoStop

    2014

  70. [78]

    Schuch , author D

    author author N. Schuch , author D. P\' e rez-Garc\' i a , \ and\ author I. Cirac ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 165139 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  71. [79]

    Chen , author Z.-C

    author author X. Chen , author Z.-C. \ Gu , \ and\ author X.-G. \ Wen ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 035107 ( year 2011 a ) NoStop

    2011

  72. [80]

    author author S. R. \ White ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 69 ,\ pages 2863 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  73. [81]

    author author S. R. \ White ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 48 ,\ pages 10345 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993 doi

  74. [82]

    Affleck , author T

    author author I. Affleck , author T. Kennedy , author E. H. \ Lieb , \ and\ author H. Tasaki ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 59 ,\ pages 799 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987

  75. [83]

    author author D. J. \ Williamson , author N. Bultinck , author M. Mari\"en , author M. B. \ S S ahino g g lu , author J. Haegeman , \ and\ author F. Verstraete ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.205150 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 205150 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  76. [84]

    Chen , author Z.-X

    author author X. Chen , author Z.-X. \ Liu , \ and\ author X.-G. \ Wen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.235141 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 235141 ( year 2011 b ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    P \'e rez-Garc \' a , author M

    author author D. P \'e rez-Garc \' a , author M. M. \ Wolf , author M. Sanz , author F. Verstraete , \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ @noop journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 12 ,\ pages 025010 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  78. [86]

    Frenkel \ and\ author X

    author author E. Frenkel \ and\ author X. Zhu ,\ 10.1093/imrn/rnr159 journal journal Int. Math. Res. Not. \ volume 2012 ,\ pages 3929 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  79. [87]

    Nayak , author S

    author author C. Nayak , author S. H. \ Simon , author A. Stern , author M. Freedman , \ and\ author S. Das Sarma ,\ @noop journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 80 ,\ pages 1083 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  80. [88]

    Bultinck , author D

    author author N. Bultinck , author D. J. \ Williamson , author J. Haegeman , \ and\ author F. Verstraete ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 075108 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

Pith tools

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