Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 77 references

At a special coupling, a p-body kicked Ising chain is exactly equivalent to a two-body chain with range p-1.

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

2026-08-01 20:25 UTC pith:WCBXZ3WS

load-bearing objection The order-range mapping is a real and useful result, but the dual-unitarity claim leans on an unpublished companion paper; refereeable after the proof details are cleaned up. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16642 v1 pith:WCBXZ3WS submitted 2026-07-18 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

p-Body simeq Range p-1: Exact Order-Range Mapping and Dual-Unitarity

Tanay Pathak This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords p-body Ising modelkicked Ising chainorder-range mappingdual unitarityFloquet dynamicsentanglement entropysolvable stateslevel statistics
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 proves an exact Floquet order-range mapping: for a kicked spin-1/2 Ising chain with contiguous p-body interactions, when the interaction strength is J = nπ/4, the full time-evolution operator equals, up to a global phase, that of a two-body Ising model whose interactions extend over at most p-1 neighboring sites. The mapped couplings are given explicitly. Because the mapping holds regardless of the kick strength, setting the kick to |b|=π/4 makes the p-body model dual-unitary, a space-time symmetry that lets many quantities be computed exactly. As a consequence, for a class of solvable initial states the entanglement entropy grows linearly in time with velocity 2(p-1) and saturates at N ln 2, which the paper verifies numerically for p=3 and p=4. The minimal p=3 case also reveals a parity effect: for even L the chain splits into two decoupled chains, for odd L it becomes the standard kicked Ising chain, explaining Poisson vs Wigner-Dyson level statistics.

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for the periodically kicked contiguous p-body Ising model of length L, at interaction strength J = nπ/4 (n an integer), U_KFIM^{(pB)} = exp[i φ(L)] U_KFIM^{((p-1)R)}, where U^{((p-1)R)} is the Floquet operator of a model with only two-body σ^z σ^z couplings of range r = 1,...,p-1, with coupling strengths (p-r)π/4 plus a renormalized longitudinal field h_i - p(p-2)π/4. The proof uses an identity that the exponential of a product of projectors is trivial at this coupling. This is the first concrete construction in the paper's setting of a dual-unitary Floquet model with genuine p-body interactions (for |J|=|b|=π/4), and it gives exact entanglement dynamics for T

What carries the argument

Lemma 1 and Lemma 2. Lemma 1 states that exp[-iJ (-1)^{p+1} ∏_{k=1}^p (1-σ^z_{i_k})] = I when J = nπ/2^{p-1}; at J = nπ/4 this holds for all p≥2 because the phase becomes a multiple of 2π on every basis state. Lemma 2 expands the product of projectors into a sum of σ^z strings of all orders. Together, and using the induction in the Supplemental that every p-body σ^z string exp(-iπ/4 σ^z_{i1}...σ^z_{ip}) reduces to a product of single-site and two-site phases, they convert the p-body interaction exponential into a two-body range-(p-1) exponential, with the global phase φ(L) carrying the constant terms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the algebraic identity that at J=nπ/4 the exponential of each p-body projector product is exactly the identity on every basis state; if that identity, or the induction that converts every p-body term into exactly the claimed two-body form, fails for some p, the exact order-range mapping would fail.

What would settle it

Take p=5, L=7, J=π/4, arbitrary b and h_i, and compare the full 2^L × 2^L matrix U_KFIM^{(5B)} element-by-element with exp[iφ] U_KFIM^{(4R)} using the couplings given in Eq. (9)/(B26); any entry differing by more than machine precision would refute the theorem. A cheaper check: numerically evolve a T-type initial state for p=5, L=19, N=8 and test whether S_A^{(2)}(t)=min(8t,N) ln 2 exactly for t=1,2,3; a slope different from 8 would falsify the dual-unitary entanglement claim.

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

If this is right

  • The order-range mapping makes every quantity computed for range-(p-1) kicked Ising chains (correlation functions, spectral form factor, operator spreading) automatically exact for the p-body model at J=nπ/4.
  • For T-type initial states and |J|=|b|=π/4, the α-Rényi entanglement entropies are exactly S_A^{(α)}(t)=min(2(p-1)t,N) ln 2 in the thermodynamic limit, i.e., entanglement spreads at speed 2(p-1) sites per period; L-type states show the same growth delayed by one period.
  • For odd p and even L, the mapped model decouples into two independent dual-unitary chains, so the level spacing statistics of the p-body model are Poisson despite each subchain being chaotic; for odd L the model is equivalent to a single standard kicked Ising chain with Wigner-Dyson statistics.
  • The mapping is independent of dual-unitarity and holds for generic kick strength b, so it provides a tool for studying p-body Floquet dynamics beyond the dual-unitary point.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mapping extends to kicked Potts models with local dimension q=3,4 as the paper conjectures, the same projector identity would give an order-range mapping for those higher-dimensional local Hilbert spaces, producing p-body dual-unitary circuits with local dimension 3 and 4.
  • The locality of the mapped model suggests a route to hardware-efficient quantum simulation: an n-qubit p-body Ising kick can be compiled into O(pL) two-body gates of bounded range, which are cheaper to implement than a generic p-body entangling gate.
  • A testable extension is to check whether the mapping survives when the field h_i is made time-dependent within the kick; the proof's commutativity arguments would need modification, and deviations from min(2(p-1)t,N) ln 2 would signal where the exact solvability breaks.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a one-dimensional spin-1/2 kicked Ising chain with contiguous p-body σ^z interactions, J∑σ^z_i⋯σ^z_{i+p-1}, plus longitudinal fields and a transverse kick. Its main result (Theorem 1) is an exact operator identity at J=nπ/4: the Floquet operator of the p-body model equals, up to a global phase, that of a two-body Ising model with interactions of range at most p−1, with explicitly determined couplings (p−r)J and shifted fields h_i−p(p−2)J. The proof is an induction on p using Lemma 1 and explicit expansions of products of projectors; p=3 and p=4 are worked out in the Supplemental. For |b|=π/4, the paper invokes a dual-unitarity criterion for range-r kicked Ising chains (Refs. [62,64]) to conclude that the p-body model is dual-unitary, and hence that T-type product initial states have Rényi entropy growth S_A(t)=min(2(p−1)t,N)ln2 in the thermodynamic limit. The paper also analyzes p=3 level statistics, showing Poisson for even L and COE for odd L, and numerically verifies entanglement growth for p=3,4.

Significance. If the dual-unitarity criterion is accepted, this is a valuable construction: it gives the first explicit family of contiguous p-body dual-unitary kicked Ising Floquet models and yields exact solvable entanglement dynamics beyond the usual two-body setting. The algebraic order-range mapping itself is elegant, parameter-free, and appears correct: Lemma 1 plus the expansion of ∏(1−σ^z) is a clean mechanism, and the explicit p=3,4 cases and numerical checks support it. The manuscript is transparent in placing the general induction in the Supplemental, and the central Claim 1 can be verified directly by eigenvalue counting. The main caveats are that the dual-unitarity step is imported from two unpublished preprints rather than proved, and one step of the Supplemental induction has a sign slip. Neither issue falsifies the mapping, but both require revision before the main claims are fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [After Eq. (9); Eq. (18)] The transfer of dual-unitarity from the mapped range-(p−1) model to the p-body model is load-bearing: it supports both the claim of a p-body dual-unitary Floquet model and the exact entanglement formula Eq. (18). The paper states that a range-r kicked Ising chain is dual unitary when the maximal-range coupling and |b| equal π/4, with shorter-range couplings arbitrary, citing Refs. [62,64]. Both citations are unpublished preprints (one by the author), and the criterion is not stated as a theorem or proved. This matters concretely: the mapped Hamiltonian Eq. (9)/B26 has couplings (p−r)π/4; for p=4 these are 3π/4, π/2, π/4. Although the π/2 term is a global phase on a ring and 3π/4 is equivalent to −π/4, the paper does not show that the cited criterion is applicable, nor that these reductions preserve dual-unitarity. Please include a precise statement and proof (or a published reference) of
  2. [Supplemental B, Eqs. (B18)-(B22)] The induction proof of Claim 1 has a sign error. After using the three-body identity, the exponent for the (p+1)-body term contains −A, so the factor exp[−iπ/4(1−(A+σ_p+σ_{p+1})+⋯)] requires exp[+iπ/4 A]; Eq. (B21), however, is written for exp[−iπ/4 A]. The transition to Eq. (B22) is therefore not justified as printed. The statement of Claim 1 is correct — direct eigenvalue evaluation confirms it — and the proof can be repaired by taking the inverse of Eq. (B21), but the Supplemental must be corrected before the proof of Theorem 1 is complete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 1 proof] There is a typographical error in the case condition: '∀k∈{1,⋯, p)' should be '∀k∈{1,⋯, p}'.
  2. [After Eq. (7)] The phrase 'reduced to the Floquet operator of the (p−1)-body model' is misleading; the result of Lemma 1+2 is a model whose terms have interaction order up to p−1, not a model with a single (p−1)-body interaction. Please rephrase as 'maximal interaction order p−1'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption does not identify which dashed curve is the Wigner surmise and which is the Poisson distribution in each panel. Since (a) and (b) are claimed to show different statistics, please label the curves or clarify the panel-specific curves.
  4. [Corollary 1 proof] The notation 'mod(p−1, i)' is nonstandard; write 'i mod (p−1)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the order–range mapping is derived from a self-contained algebraic identity; the dual-unitarity step is cited to an external source and numerically cross-checked.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 1, is derived from Lemma 1 (an elementary eigenvalue identity for the inserted projector product) and Lemma 2 (binomial expansion), followed by an induction in the Supplemental. The mapped couplings in Eq. (9) are obtained by exact algebra, not by fitting any target quantity, and the theorem is explicitly independent of dual-unitarity (valid for arbitrary kicking strength b). The only load-bearing use of a self-citation is Ref. [62] for the dual-unitarity criterion and the exact entanglement formula Eq. (18). However, the same criterion is also attributed to the independent external work Ref. [64], and the entanglement prediction is verified by the paper's own numerical simulations in Fig. 3 (slopes 4t and 6t). Thus the cited result is not assumed as the conclusion; it is applied to the mapped model as an external condition, and the mapping itself does not presuppose dual-unitarity. There is a proof gap / sign discrepancy in the Supplemental's Claim 1 (B17) noted in the reader's and skeptic's analyses, but that is a correctness risk in the induction, not a circularity: the theorem is not defined in terms of its conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained for the main order–range mapping, and the dual-unitarity/entanglement consequences rest on genuine external benchmarks and internal numerics rather than on circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on an elementary algebraic identity (Lemma 1 + Lemma 2), which is essentially self-contained. The only external inputs are the dual-unitarity criterion and the entanglement-growth formula from the author's own prior paper [62] and Ref. [64]. There are no fitted free parameters in the derivation itself; the special coupling values are chosen, not fitted. The main burden is the correctness of the general induction in the supplemental material.

free parameters (3)
  • Interactions strength J = pi/4 (or n*pi/4)
    The entire mapping only holds at this special value. It is not fitted to data, but it is the tuning condition that makes the algebraic identity work; in the dual-unitary construction it is additionally chosen as pi/4 to match the dual-unitarity gate angle.
  • Kicking strength b = pi/4 for dual unitarity
    Dual unitarity of the mapped model requires |b| = pi/4 (Ref. [62,64]); the order-range mapping itself is claimed for arbitrary b.
  • Field hi = Gaussian random with mean 0 and variance pi/4+1 in numerics
    The longitudinal fields are treated as arbitrary parameters; in the numerics they are drawn from a Gaussian distribution chosen for the level-statistics figures. They do not affect the mapping identity but are inputs to the numerical simulations.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Pauli operators on different sites commute, and the p-body interaction terms for different i commute (they are products of diagonal sigma^z operators).
    Used throughout to factor exponentials of sums of interaction terms (e.g., Eq. B2, B5). Standard and correct.
  • standard math Identity for the expansion of the product of projectors: product_{k=1}^p (1 - sigma^z_ik) expands as the alternating sum in Lemma 2.
    This is a direct algebraic identity (proved in supplemental Section A); it is effectively an axiom of the derivation, though elementary.
  • domain assumption Induction hypothesis in Claim 1 of the supplemental: the identity for p-body and (p-1)-body exponentials is assumed; the induction step then claims to prove the (p+1)-body case.
    The proof of the general p-body identity (Claim 1) is an induction whose base cases are the p=3 and p=4 computations. The induction step contains several algebraic manipulations (Eqs. B18-B22) that are not fully expanded; a reader must trust that the combinatorial sums (binomial factors) carry through exactly. This is the load-bearing internal assumption of the general mapping.
  • domain assumption The dual-unitarity criterion for range-r kicked Ising chains from Refs. [62,64] applies unchanged to the mapped Hamiltonians.
    The paper concludes dual unitarity of the p-body model by citing Refs. [62,64] for the statement that a range-r kicked Ising chain is dual unitary when the maximal range coupling and |b| are pi/4, with shorter-range couplings arbitrary. This is an external result, but the paper does not verify or reproduce it, and the entanglement formula (Eq. 18) is likewise imported from Ref. [62].
invented entities (1)
  • No new physical entities. no independent evidence
    purpose: The p-body model is a known Hamiltonian; the mapping introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities.
    The paper introduces no new physical degrees of freedom. The 'order-range mapping' is a mathematical identity relating two known model families; the dual-unitary property is a dynamical symmetry, not an entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21 in / 8713 out tokens · 364152 ms · 2026-08-01T20:25:04.738640+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce and study a periodically kicked version of a one-dimensional spin-$1/2$ Ising model with contiguous $p$-body interactions. At specific interaction strengths of the model, we establish an exact Floquet interaction $\textit{order-range}$ mapping: the Floquet evolution operator of the $p$-body Ising model is exactly mapped to a two body Ising model with interactions having maximum range $p-1$ and exactly determined couplings. Upon further tuning the kicking strength, the mapped model becomes dual-unitary, thus providing an explicit family of $p$-body dual unitary models. We then determine exact entanglement dynamics of the $p$-body model for a class of solvable initial states at all times. We further illustrate the nontrivial structures that can emerge from the $\textit{order-range}$ mapping using a minimal example of $p=3$ and generalize it for all odd $p$. These findings provide a systematic route to constructing and studying $p$-body dual-unitary Floquet models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16642 by Tanay Pathak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Level spacing distribution of the (unfolded) quasi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time evolution of 2-R´enyi entanglement entropy (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Let us now introduce a kicked version of this modelakinto the stan- dard KFIM [34–36]. Setting time interval between two kicks to be unity we have the following Hamiltonian H (pB) KFIM =H I +H K ∞X τ=−∞ δ(t−τ),(2) H (pB) I = LX j=1 J σz j σz j+1 · · ·σz j+p−1 + LX j=1 hjσz j ,(3) H (pB) K = LX j=1 b σx j .(4) The total Floquet operator of the system is U ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    If we have|s ik ⟩=|+1⟩for anyk∈ {1,· · ·, p}, then e−iJ(−1) p+1 Qp k=1(1−sik ) = 1 and the Lemma holds trivially

  3. [3]

    To ensure that LHS is equal to 1 we require:e −i2p(−1)p+1J = 1 =⇒J= nπ 2p−1

    The only remaining case is when|s ik ⟩=|−1⟩,∀k∈ {1,· · ·, p). To ensure that LHS is equal to 1 we require:e −i2p(−1)p+1J = 1 =⇒J= nπ 2p−1 . This concludes the proof. It is also possible to exactly determine the expansion of Qp k=1(1−σ z ik ) appearing in the left hand side of Lemma (1). It is explicitly given using the following Lemma. Lemma 2.Letσ z i , ...

  4. [4]

    Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains,

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, M. B. Hastings, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, “Matrix product states for dynamical simulation of infinite chains,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240603 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Particle- time duality in the kicked ising spin chain,

    M Akila, D Waltner, B Gutkin, and T Guhr, “Particle- time duality in the kicked ising spin chain,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 375101 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Exactly solvable many-body dynamics from space- time duality,

    Bruno Bertini, Pieter W. Claeys, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Exactly solvable many-body dynamics from space- time duality,” Rev. Mod. Phys.98, 025001 (2026), arXiv:2505.11489 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1 + 1 dimensions,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Exact correlation functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1 + 1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Exact local correlations in kicked chains,

    Boris Gutkin, Petr Braun, Maram Akila, Daniel Waltner, and Thomas Guhr, “Exact local correlations in kicked chains,” Phys. Rev. B102, 174307 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Ergodic and nonergodic dual-unitary quantum circuits with arbitrary local hilbert space dimension,

    Pieter W. Claeys and Austen Lamacraft, “Ergodic and nonergodic dual-unitary quantum circuits with arbitrary local hilbert space dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 100603 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,

    Lorenzo Piroli, Bruno Bertini, J. Ignacio Cirac, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Exact dynamics in dual-unitary quan- tum circuits,” Phys. Rev. B101, 094304 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Solvable models of many-body chaos from dual-koopman circuits,

    Arul Lakshminarayan, “Solvable models of many-body chaos from dual-koopman circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 170403 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Entan- glement spreading in a minimal model of maximal many- body quantum chaos,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Entan- glement spreading in a minimal model of maximal many- body quantum chaos,” Phys. Rev. X9, 021033 (2019), arXiv:1812.05090 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Exact quench dynamics of the floquet quantum east model at the deterministic point,

    Bruno Bertini, Cecilia De Fazio, Juan P. Garrahan, and Katja Klobas, “Exact quench dynamics of the floquet quantum east model at the deterministic point,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 120402 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Uni- tary circuits of finite depth and infinite width from quantum channels,

    Sarang Gopalakrishnan and Austen Lamacraft, “Uni- tary circuits of finite depth and infinite width from quantum channels,” Phys. Rev. B100, 064309 (2019), arXiv:1903.11611 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Opera- tor Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits I: Chaotic Dual-Unitary Circuits,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Opera- tor Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits I: Chaotic Dual-Unitary Circuits,” SciPost Phys.8, 067 (2020), arXiv:1909.07407 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Oper- ator Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits II: Soli- tons in Chains of Qubits,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Oper- ator Entanglement in Local Quantum Circuits II: Soli- tons in Chains of Qubits,” SciPost Phys.8, 068 (2020), arXiv:1909.07410 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Creating ensembles of dual unitary and maxi- mally entangling quantum evolutions,

    Suhail Ahmad Rather, S. Aravinda, and Arul Lakshmi- narayan, “Creating ensembles of dual unitary and maxi- mally entangling quantum evolutions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 070501 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Entanglement barriers in dual-unitary circuits,

    Isaac Reid and Bruno Bertini, “Entanglement barriers in dual-unitary circuits,” Phys. Rev. B104, 014301 (2021), arXiv:2103.12794 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,

    Tianci Zhou and Aram W. Harrow, “Maximal entangle- ment velocity implies dual unitarity,” Phys. Rev. B106, L201104 (2022), arXiv:2204.10341 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,

    Alessandro Foligno and Bruno Bertini, “Growth of entan- glement of generic states under dual-unitary dynamics,” Phys. Rev. B107, 174311 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Nonequilibrium dynamics of charged dual- unitary circuits,

    Alessandro Foligno, Pasquale Calabrese, and Bruno Bertini, “Nonequilibrium dynamics of charged dual- unitary circuits,” PRX Quantum6, 010324 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Mixed-State Entanglement in a Minimal Model of Quantum Chaos,

    Tanay Pathak, “Mixed-State Entanglement in a Minimal Model of Quantum Chaos,” (2026), arXiv:2603.14292 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Exact Spectral Form Factor in a Minimal Model of Many-Body Quantum Chaos,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Exact Spectral Form Factor in a Minimal Model of Many-Body Quantum Chaos,” Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 264101 (2018), arXiv:1805.00931 [nlin.CD]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Random Matrix Spectral Form Factor of Dual-Unitary Quantum Circuits,

    Bruno Bertini, Pavel Kos, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Random Matrix Spectral Form Factor of Dual-Unitary Quantum Circuits,” Commun. Math. Phys.387, 597–620 (2021), arXiv:2012.12254 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Statistics of the spectral form factor in the self-dual kicked ising model,

    Ana Flack, Bruno Bertini, and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Statistics of the spectral form factor in the self-dual kicked ising model,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043403 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Local pairing of feyn- man histories in many-body floquet models,

    S. J. Garratt and J. T. Chalker, “Local pairing of feyn- man histories in many-body floquet models,” Phys. Rev. X11, 021051 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Structural stability hypothesis of dual unitary quantum chaos,

    Jonathon Riddell, Curt von Keyserlingk, Tomaˇ z Prosen, and Bruno Bertini, “Structural stability hypothesis of dual unitary quantum chaos,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033226 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Operator dynamics in floquet many-body systems,

    Takato Yoshimura, Samuel J. Garratt, and J. T. Chalker, “Operator dynamics in floquet many-body systems,” Phys. Rev. B111, 094316 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Hierar- chical generalization of dual unitarity,

    Xie-Hang Yu, Zhiyuan Wang, and Pavel Kos, “Hierar- chical generalization of dual unitarity,” Quantum8, 1260 (2024), arXiv:2307.03138 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Infinite-Level Hierarchy of Solvable Quantum Circuits,

    Michael A. Rampp, Suhail A. Rather, and Pieter W. Claeys, “Infinite-Level Hierarchy of Solvable Quantum Circuits,” (2026), arXiv:2606.23803 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Triunitary quantum circuits,

    Cheryne Jonay, Vedika Khemani, and Matteo Ippoliti, “Triunitary quantum circuits,” Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043046 (2021), arXiv:2106.07686 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Entanglement membrane in exactly solvable lat- 6 tice models,

    Michael A. Rampp, Suhail A. Rather, and Pieter W. Claeys, “Entanglement membrane in exactly solvable lat- 6 tice models,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033271 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Quantum information spreading in generalized dual- unitary circuits,

    Alessandro Foligno, Pavel Kos, and Bruno Bertini, “Quantum information spreading in generalized dual- unitary circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 250402 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Solvable entanglement dy- namics in quantum circuits with generalized space-time duality,

    Chuan Liu and Wen Wei Ho, “Solvable entanglement dy- namics in quantum circuits with generalized space-time duality,” Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012011 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Geometric constructions of gener- alized dual-unitary circuits from biunitarity,

    Michael Alexander Rampp, Suhail A. Rather, and Pieter W. Claeys, “Geometric constructions of gener- alized dual-unitary circuits from biunitarity,” SciPost Phys.18, 182 (2025), arXiv:2411.07783 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    A new class of completely integrable quantum spin chains,

    Tomaz Prosen, “A new class of completely integrable quantum spin chains,” Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and General31, L397–L403 (1998)

    1998

  37. [37]

    Exact time-correlation functions of quantum ising chain in a kicking transversal magnetic field: Spectral analysis of the adjoint propagator in heisenberg picture,

    Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Exact time-correlation functions of quantum ising chain in a kicking transversal magnetic field: Spectral analysis of the adjoint propagator in heisenberg picture,” Progress of Theoretical Physics Sup- plement139, 191–203 (2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    General relation between quantum er- godicity and fidelity of quantum dynamics,

    Tomaˇ z Prosen, “General relation between quantum er- godicity and fidelity of quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. E65, 036208 (2002)

    2002

  39. [39]

    Chaos and complexity of quantum mo- tion,

    Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Chaos and complexity of quantum mo- tion,” J. Phys. A40, 7881 (2007), arXiv:0704.2247 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  40. [40]

    Universal and nonuniversal level statistics in a chaotic quantum spin chain,

    Carlos Pineda and Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Universal and nonuniversal level statistics in a chaotic quantum spin chain,” Phys. Rev. E76, 061127 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    Many-body quantum chaos and dual- unitarity round-a-face,

    Tomaˇ z Prosen, “Many-body quantum chaos and dual- unitarity round-a-face,” Chaos31, 093101 (2021), arXiv:2105.08022 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Reversible Cellular Automata as In- tegrable Interactions Round-a-Face: Deterministic, Stochastic, and Quantized,

    Tomaz Prosen, “Reversible Cellular Automata as In- tegrable Interactions Round-a-Face: Deterministic, Stochastic, and Quantized,” (2021), arXiv:2106.01292 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    From dual-unitary to biunitary: a 2-categorical model for exactly-solvable many-body quantum dynamics,

    Pieter W. Claeys, Austen Lamacraft, and Jamie Vicary, “From dual-unitary to biunitary: a 2-categorical model for exactly-solvable many-body quantum dynamics,” J. Phys. A57, 335301 (2024), arXiv:2302.07280 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,

    A.Yu. Kitaev, “Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons,” Annals of Physics303, 2–30 (2003)

    2003

  45. [45]

    Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,

    Alexei Kitaev, “Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,” Annals Phys.321, 2–111 (2006), arXiv:cond- mat/0506438

    arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories,

    S Chandrasekharan and U.-J Wiese, “Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories,” Nuclear Physics B492, 455–471 (1997)

    1997

  47. [47]

    t U ex- pansion for the hubbard model,

    A. H. MacDonald, S. M. Girvin, and D. Yoshioka, “ t U ex- pansion for the hubbard model,” Phys. Rev. B37, 9753– 9756 (1988)

    1988

  48. [48]

    Cyclic four-spin exchange on a two-dimensional square lattice: Possible applica- tions in high-T c superconductors,

    M. Roger and J. M. Delrieu, “Cyclic four-spin exchange on a two-dimensional square lattice: Possible applica- tions in high-T c superconductors,” Phys. Rev. B39, 2299–2303 (1989)

    1989

  49. [49]

    Spin waves and electronic interactions in la2cuo4,

    R. Coldea, S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, T. G. Perring, C. D. Frost, T. E. Mason, S.-W. Cheong, and Z. Fisk, “Spin waves and electronic interactions in la2cuo4,” Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5377–5380 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    Three-spin interactions in optical lattices and criticality in cluster hamiltonians,

    Jiannis K. Pachos and Martin B. Plenio, “Three-spin interactions in optical lattices and criticality in cluster hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 056402 (2004)

    2004

  51. [51]

    Long-range quantum entanglement in noisy cluster states,

    Robert Raussendorf, Sergey Bravyi, and Jim Harring- ton, “Long-range quantum entanglement in noisy cluster states,” Phys. Rev. A71, 062313 (2005)

    2005

  52. [52]

    Multiparty en- tanglement in graph states,

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, “Multiparty en- tanglement in graph states,” Phys. Rev. A69, 062311 (2004)

    2004

  53. [53]

    Multiparty entan- glement in graph states,

    M. Hein, J. Eisert, and H. J. Briegel, “Multiparty entan- glement in graph states,” Physical Review A69(2004), 10.1103/physreva.69.062311

    doi:10.1103/physreva.69.062311 2004

  54. [54]

    Four-body ring-exchange interac- tions and anyonic statistics within a minimal toric- code Hamiltonian,

    Han-Ning Dai, Bing Yang, Andreas Reingruber, Hui Sun, Xiao-Fan Xu, Yu-Ao Chen, Zhen-Sheng Yuan, and Jian-Wei Pan, “Four-body ring-exchange interac- tions and anyonic statistics within a minimal toric- code Hamiltonian,” Nature Phys.13, 1195–1200 (2017), arXiv:1602.05709 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    Demonstration of three- and four-body interactions between trapped-ion spins,

    Or Katz, Lei Feng, Andrew Risinger, Christopher Mon- roe, and Marko Cetina, “Demonstration of three- and four-body interactions between trapped-ion spins,” Na- ture Physics19, 1452–1458 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Re- alizing topologically ordered states on a quantum proces- sor,

    K. J. Satzinger, Y.-J Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. Newman, C. Jones, Z. Chen, C. Quintana, X. Mi, A. Dunsworth, C. Gidney, I. Aleiner, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, J. Basso, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, M. Broughton, B. B. Buckley, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, N. Bushnell, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, S. Demura, A. R....

    2021

  57. [57]

    Self-dual ising chain in a transverse field with multispin interactions,

    L Turban, “Self-dual ising chain in a transverse field with multispin interactions,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics15, L65 (1982)

    1982

  58. [58]

    First- and second-order phase transitions in a system with multispin interactions,

    A. Maritan, A. Stella, and C. Vanderzande, “First- and second-order phase transitions in a system with multispin interactions,” Phys. Rev. B29, 519(R)–521(R) (1984)

    1984

  59. [59]

    Phase transi- tions in systems with multispin interactions,

    K. A. Penson, R. Jullien, and P. Pfeuty, “Phase transi- tions in systems with multispin interactions,” Phys. Rev. B26, 6334(R)–6337(R) (1982)

    1982

  60. [60]

    Conformal invariance and the phase transition of a spin chain with three-spin interac- tion,

    M Kolb and K A Penson, “Conformal invariance and the phase transition of a spin chain with three-spin interac- tion,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 19, L779 (1986)

    1986

  61. [61]

    Conformal invariance and the critical behaviour of a quantum spin hamiltonian with three-spin coupling,

    F C Alcaraz and M N Barber, “Conformal invariance and the critical behaviour of a quantum spin hamiltonian with three-spin coupling,” Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General20, 179 (1987)

    1987

  62. [62]

    Series expansion study of first- and second-order phase tran- sitions in a model with multispin coupling,

    F Igloi, D V Kapor, M Skrinjar, and J Solyom, “Series expansion study of first- and second-order phase tran- sitions in a model with multispin coupling,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General19, 1189 (1986)

    1986

  63. [63]

    Weak universality, quantum many- body scars, and anomalous infinite-temperature autocor- 7 relations in a one-dimensional spin model with duality,

    Adithi Udupa, Samudra Sur, Sourav Nandy, Arnab Sen, and Diptiman Sen, “Weak universality, quantum many- body scars, and anomalous infinite-temperature autocor- 7 relations in a one-dimensional spin model with duality,” Phys. Rev. B108, 214430 (2023)

    2023

  64. [64]

    Thus our proposal is different from other similar proposals of p-spin models which consider all to all interactions such as in Ref

    We emphasize that we only consider contiguousp-body interactions. Thus our proposal is different from other similar proposals of p-spin models which consider all to all interactions such as in Ref. [70]

  65. [65]

    Exact Entanglement Dynamics Be- yond Nearest-Neighbor Dual-Unitary Floquet Systems,

    Tanay Pathak, “Exact Entanglement Dynamics Be- yond Nearest-Neighbor Dual-Unitary Floquet Systems,” (2026), arXiv:2606.11311 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher, with additional references, for details on proofs, numerical methods and additional supporting re- sults

  67. [67]

    Local cor- relations in long-range dual-unitary kicked Hamiltonian chains,

    Vladimir Al. Osipov, Marc Cedric Spyra, Jana Carolina Schumann, Thomas Guhr, and Boris Gutkin, “Local cor- relations in long-range dual-unitary kicked Hamiltonian chains,” (2026), arXiv:2606.13857 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Floquet integrability and long-range entangle- ment generation in the one-dimensional quantum potts model,

    A. I. Lotkov, V. Gritsev, A. K. Fedorov, and D. V. Kurlov, “Floquet integrability and long-range entangle- ment generation in the one-dimensional quantum potts model,” Phys. Rev. B105, 144306 (2022)

    2022

  69. [69]

    Operator dy- namics and entanglement in space-time dual Hadamard lattices,

    Pieter W. Claeys and Austen Lamacraft, “Operator dy- namics and entanglement in space-time dual Hadamard lattices,” J. Phys. A57, 405301 (2024), arXiv:2406.03781 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Techniques to Reduceπ/4-Parity-Phase Circuits, Moti- vated by the ZX Calculus,

    Niel de Beaudrap, Xiaoning Bian, and Quanlong Wang, “Techniques to Reduceπ/4-Parity-Phase Circuits, Moti- vated by the ZX Calculus,” EPTCS318, 131–149 (2020), arXiv:1911.09039 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Diagonal gates in the Clifford hierarchy,

    Shawn X. Cui, Daniel Gottesman, and Anirudh Krishna, “Diagonal gates in the Clifford hierarchy,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 012329 (2017), arXiv:1608.06596 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    Optimal, hardware native decomposition of parameter- ized multi-qubit Pauli gates,

    P. V. Sriluckshmy, Vicente Pina-Canelles, Mario Ponce, Manuel G. Algaba, Fedor ˇSimkovic IV, and Martin Leib, “Optimal, hardware native decomposition of parameter- ized multi-qubit Pauli gates,” Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 045029 (2023), arXiv:2303.04498 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Nonlinear dynamics and quantum chaos of a family of kicked p -spin models,

    Manuel H. Mu˜ noz-Arias, Pablo M. Poggi, and Ivan H. Deutsch, “Nonlinear dynamics and quantum chaos of a family of kicked p -spin models,” Phys. Rev. E103, 052212 (2021), arXiv:2103.00748 [quant-ph]. Supplemental Material for: p-Body≃Rangep−1: Exact Order–Range Mapping and Dual-Unitarity Tanay Pathak1 1Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakaw...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    −i π 4 LX i=1 (1−(σ z i +σ z i+1 +σ z i+2) +σ iσi+1 +σ i+1σi+2 +σ iσi+2)−i LX i=1 hiσz i # , = exp

    Three-body case Let us first consider the first case ofp= 3, for which we have the following H (3B) I = LX i=1 J σz i σz i+1σz i+2 + X i hiσz i , HK = LX i=1 b σx i .(B3) And the total Floquet operator is U (3B) KFIM =U KUI , pB≡p-body.(B4) Next, we consider theU I part of the total Floquet operator and use Lemma 1 to obtain the following decomposition UI...

  75. [75]

    −i π 4 X σz i σz i+1σz i+2σz i+3 −i LX i=1 hiσz i # 10 = exp

    F our-body case We next consider the case ofp= 4, for which we have the following Hamiltonian H (4B) I = LX i=1 J σz i σz i+1σz i+2σz i+3 + X i hiσz i , HK = LX i=1 b σx i .(B10) We setJ= π 4 andbis arbitrary. And the total Floquet operator is U (4B) KFIM =U KUI , pB≡p-body.(B11) Focusing on theU I part of the total Floquet operator and using Lemma 1 we o...

  76. [76]

    Note that rangep−1 interaction couples the sites within each of the sublattices together, while the sublattices are at present decoupled from each other

    EvenL Start by arranging theLlattice sites into sublattices where each of the sublattices consist of sites denotes byisuch that mod (p−1, i) =k;k∈ {0,1,· · ·, p−2}, together. Note that rangep−1 interaction couples the sites within each of the sublattices together, while the sublattices are at present decoupled from each other. Next, using the fact that ea...

  77. [77]

    However, we now note that we have one isolated site,L, which stands out

    OddL For the case of oddLwe can proceed the same as the evenLcase. However, we now note that we have one isolated site,L, which stands out. Since we are working with periodic boundary condition we get following interactions due to it (L, p−1),(L−1, p−2),(L−2, p−2),· · ·(L−(p−2),1) which results in an interaction between sublattices of typeAandBthus given ...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.