Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dynamical quantum phase transition with divergent multipartite entanglement

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quenching a transverse-field Ising chain to its critical point drives the quantum Fisher information density to grow logarithmically with system size, a new dynamical quantum phase transition with divergent multipartite entanglement.

desk verdict The QFI peak is real, but its critical time grows with N, so the claim of a new DQPT in the thermodynamic limit does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13898 v1 pith:WLAETFTY submitted 2025-06-16 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Jie Chen , Ricardo Costa de Almeida , Hendrik Weimer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords dynamicalquantumphasetransitionFisherinformationmultipartiteentanglementtransverse-fieldIsingchainquenchdynamicsmetrologyGHZstateRydbergatomarrays
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

The paper reports a new kind of nonequilibrium phase transition in a one-dimensional transverse-field Ising chain. When the system is initialized in a fully polarized state and the transverse field is suddenly quenched to the quantum critical point $h/J=1$, the quantum Fisher information density develops a sharp peak at a critical time and grows logarithmically with system size. Because this density sets the metrological precision limit and certifies multipartite entanglement, the divergence means the quench generates entanglement whose depth grows with the system, going beyond conventional rate-function-based dynamical phase transitions. The authors attribute the effect to off-diagonal coherences among excited states, show it survives integrability-breaking perturbations, and find it robust under realistic decoherence, which is what would make the transition observable in experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum Fisher information density $f_Q[S_z] = F_Q[S_z]/N$, with $S_z$ the collective spin operator along the direction that becomes optimal at the critical time. The argument runs through the spectral decomposition $f_Q[S_z] = f_Q^D[S_z] + f_Q^O[S_z]$, where $f_Q^O[S_z]$ contains the oscillating off-diagonal terms $\sum_{m\neq n} C_m^* C_n e^{-i\omega_{mn}t}[S_z^2]_{mn}$ that carry the divergence while the diagonal part stays bounded. The Loschmidt-echo rate function $\lambda = -N^{-1}\log|\langle\psi_0|\psi(t)\rangle|^2$ supplies the standard DQPT diagnostic that the new transition is compared with, and the Husimi distribution on the Bloch sphere visualizes the GHZ-like structure. A data collapse of $f_Q[S_z]/\log(N/N_0)$ against $J(t - \alpha N)$ provides the evidence that the transition has a universal scaling form.

What would settle it

Compute the quantum Fisher information density $f_Q[S_z]$ at a fixed observation time $Jt = 5.34$ while increasing the system size $N$ in the integrable transverse-field Ising model; if the density saturates rather than growing logarithmically, the claimed divergence is an artifact of the moving peak time rather than a genuine nonequilibrium phase transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the quantum Fisher information density $f_Q[S_z]$ of the time-evolved state diverges logarithmically with system size at a critical post-quench time, for quenches to $h/J=1$. The divergence appears only through the off-diagonal, time-dependent part of the decomposition $f_Q[S_z] = f_Q^D[S_z] + f_Q^O[S_z]$; the diagonal part, equal to the infinite-time average, stays bounded. The authors interpret this as a genuine nonequilibrium transition driven by constructive interference of excited states, distinct from the ground-state quantum phase transition, which would give power-law scaling. The same behavior persists when integrability is broken, and the rescaled QFI dynamics show a data collapse, indicating a universal scaling regime. At the critical time the Husimi distribution concentrates at the poles of the Bloch sphere, corresponding to the dynamical formation of a GHZ-like state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the peak in the Fisher information marks a genuine phase transition, even though the time at which the peak occurs scales as $t_c = \alpha N + \beta$ and moves later as the system grows, so no divergence has been shown at a fixed time in the thermodynamic limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The QFI peak certifies up to $k$-partite entanglement with $k$ growing with system size, so the post-quench state is genuinely multipartite entangled rather than merely correlated.
  • Because the diagonal, time-averaged part of the QFI stays bounded, the divergence cannot be explained by equilibrium critical properties and must come from the nontrivial off-diagonal coherences of excited states.
  • The transition survives a strong next-nearest-neighbor coupling with a data collapse of the rescaled QFI dynamics, so it is not an integrability artifact.
  • At the critical time the Husimi distribution concentrates near the two poles of the Bloch sphere, dynamically forming a GHZ-like state with metrological sensitivity beyond shot noise.
  • Moderate dephasing and dissipation leave the first QFI peak nearly intact, so the effect should be observable in current Rydberg-atom and trapped-ion experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the logarithmic divergence is the upper-critical-dimension behavior the authors invoke, quenching higher-dimensional Ising models to their critical points should produce a stronger, power-law divergence in the QFI density; this is a direct extension of the scaling analysis.
  • The scaling $t_c = \alpha N + \beta$ implies the peak arrives later for larger systems, so an experimentalist must time the measurement to the system-size-dependent peak; whether the divergence survives a fixed-time thermodynamic limit remains an open question that separates a true transition from a finite-size crossover.
  • The dynamical formation of a GHZ-like state at $t_c$ suggests a single quench protocol could double as a state-preparation step for quantum metrology, with the QFI divergence translating directly into sub-shot-noise phase sensitivity.
  • The paper does not treat quenches from other initial states or at finite temperature; testing whether the divergence survives those changes would clarify whether the mechanism depends on the specific polarized initial state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies post-quench dynamics of the one-dimensional transverse-field Ising model, with an optional next-nearest-neighbor coupling to break integrability. Starting from a fully polarized initial state and quenching the transverse field to a finite value, the authors report that for quenches to the critical point the quantum Fisher information density f_Q[Sz] develops a sharp peak at a 'critical time'; the peak value f*_Q grows logarithmically with system size N, the off-diagonal (time-dependent) part of the QFI is identified as the origin of the growth, and the effect is claimed to persist for nonintegrable couplings with a data collapse under a shifted time. The authors interpret this as a new type of dynamical quantum phase transition distinct from conventional Loschmidt-echo DQPTs, and discuss metrological applications and robustness to dissipation.

Significance. If established, the result would be significant: it would identify a genuinely nonequilibrium transition signaled by divergent multipartite entanglement, with a different universality class from the ground-state transition, robust to integrability breaking, and potentially useful for quantum metrology. The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses exact numerics with the open-source QuTiP toolbox, gives a clean diagonal/off-diagonal decomposition of the QFI, connects the dynamics to GHZ-like states via Husimi distributions, and includes an open-system analysis showing persistence of large QFI under moderate decoherence. However, as detailed below, the central claim is not supported because the 'critical time' grows linearly with N and the logarithmic divergence is inferred from a short-range finite-size fit with several adjustable parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Divergent QFI density / Fig. 5] The paper's own data show that the QFI peak time scales as t_c = αN + β (Fig. 5), and the text states that the peak time 'scales with the system size.' In the thermodynamic limit this critical time diverges, so for any fixed physical time t the QFI density cannot develop a divergence as N → ∞. The data collapse in Fig. 5 uses the shifted variable J(t − αN), which is consistent with a size-dependent event time but does not establish nonanalytic behavior at a finite time in the thermodynamic limit. Since a dynamical quantum phase transition is conventionally defined by nonanalytic behavior at a finite critical time, this observation undermines the central claim; the peak could be a finite-size effect that migrates to later times as N grows.
  2. [Divergent QFI density / Fig. 1(b)] The logarithmic divergence f*_Q ∝ log(N/N0) is based on only eight system sizes (N = 10 to 24) with no error bars, no goodness-of-fit statistic, and a fitted constant N0. This short range cannot distinguish logarithmic growth from a slow power law or from saturation; moreover, since N0 is a fit parameter, the claimed scaling is a post-hoc description rather than a parameter-free prediction. This is load-bearing because the logarithmic divergence is the primary evidence for a phase transition.
  3. [Genuine nonequilibrium transition / Eq. (5) and Fig. 3] The claim that the diagonal contribution f^D_Q remains bounded while the off-diagonal part produces the divergence is supported only by numerical data up to N ≈ 18 in Fig. 3. Since the total QFI is claimed to diverge logarithmically, the difference between total and diagonal must also diverge; the figure shows bounded diagonal values for small N but does not prove a divergent off-diagonal contribution in the thermodynamic limit. The argument is suggestive but not conclusive.
  4. [Breaking integrability and universality / Fig. 5] The nonintegrable data collapse involves four fitted quantities: N0, α, β, and the critical field h/J ≈ 2.475(5). A collapse obtained with this many adjustable parameters is a weak test of universality, especially because the collapse is shown only near the peak and the text states that it breaks down outside J|t − t_c| ≲ 1/2. The claim that the transition 'persists deep in the nonintegrable regime' is therefore not strongly constrained by the presented data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typographical errors remain, including 'equilbirum' (Introduction), 'nonequlibrium' (section heading 'Genuine nonequilibrium transition'), and 'candiate' (Conclusion).
  2. [Fig. 1] The inset is referred to as 'Fig. 1(b)' in the text, while the main panel is labeled (a); this labeling should be made consistent to avoid confusion.
  3. [Fig. 2] The statement that the deviation between f_Q[S_o] and f_Q[Sz] vanishes at the critical time Jt_c = 5.34 relies on visual overlap of the dashed and solid curves; a quantitative measure of the difference would be more convincing.
  4. [Breaking integrability and universality] The procedure by which the nonintegrable critical field h/J ≈ 2.475(5) was determined is not described; please state the method and the uncertainty estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Universal-collapse evidence is self-definitional: fitted constants N0, α, β are inserted into the rescaling and then cited as proof of universality.

  1. self definitional [Section 'Breaking integrability and universality', Fig. 5]
    "Figure 5 depicts our results for a quench with J′ = J and h/J ≈ 2.475(5), the corresponding critical point, and shows a data collapse for the rescaled data. This unambiguously demonstrates that our novel DQPT is not merely a consequence of the integrability of the model and persists deep in the nonintegrable, consistent with the principle of universality. The nonuniversal constants N0, α and β describe the critical QFI density, f∗Q[Sz] ∝ log(N/N0), and the critical time, tc = αN + β."

    The rescaled plot uses fQ[Sz]/log(N/N0) against J(t − αN), where N0 is taken from the fitted peak-height relation and α, β from the fitted peak-time relation. The rescaling therefore removes the two fitted trends by construction, so the near-peak collapse is a restatement of the fits rather than an independent test of universal scaling. The paper presents this collapse as 'unambiguous' evidence for universality, but the supporting functional forms were not derived or predicted independently; they are the same fitted inputs used to define the collapse coordinates.

full rationale

The spectral decomposition of the QFI into diagonal and off-diagonal parts (Eq. 5) is an exact algebraic identity, and the boundedness of the diagonal part is checked numerically rather than presupposed, so the 'genuine nonequilibrium transition' argument is non-circular. The self-citations ([15], [28]) occur in broad literature lists and are not load-bearing. The remaining caveats—logarithmic fit with small sizes and no error bars, peak time tc = αN + β diverging with N, and the fitted nonintegrable critical field—are finite-size scaling and thermodynamic-limit validity concerns, not reductions to inputs. However, the universal-scaling demonstration in Fig. 5 is circular in the specific sense that the fitted constants define the collapse coordinates. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity in one load-bearing piece of evidence; the central QFI-divergence observation is not itself equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. It relies on standard QFI definitions, a parity-symmetry argument, and a cited bound on the diagonal contribution. The key unverified inputs are the fitted scaling constants and the extrapolation of small-system numerical data to the thermodynamic limit.

free parameters (4)
  • N0 = not given (fit parameter in f*_Q ∝ log(N/N0))
    Used to fit the claimed logarithmic divergence of the peak QFI density with system size in Fig. 1(b).
  • α = not given (slope of t_c = αN + β)
    Coefficient in the linear scaling of the critical time with system size used in the data collapse of Fig. 5.
  • β = not given
    Intercept in t_c = αN + β.
  • h_c (nonintegrable) = h/J ≈ 2.475(5)
    Critical field for J'=J determined by the authors, presumably by locating the maximum of the QFI divergence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian preserves parity symmetry, so the QFI decomposition in Eq. (5) holds (off-diagonal [S_z] matrix elements vanish for the even-parity initial state).
    Invoked when deriving the diagonal/off-diagonal decomposition of the QFI density in 'Genuine nonequilibrium transition'.
  • domain assumption The diagonal contribution f^D_Q to the QFI is equivalent to the infinite-time average and remains bounded in the thermodynamic limit.
    Cites ref. [12] (Pappalardi et al.) rather than proving it; this bounds the ground-state contribution and supports the claim that the divergence is nonequilibrium.
  • standard math The QFI for a pure state is four times the variance of the generating operator (Eq. (3)).
    Standard result from quantum metrology, used throughout.
  • standard math The rate function λ defined via the Loschmidt echo in Eq. (4) serves as the standard DQPT order parameter.
    Standard definition from the DQPT literature (refs. [34,45]).
  • ad hoc to paper The logarithmic divergence found in the finite-size data for N≤24 extrapolates to a divergence in the thermodynamic limit.
    This is the central extrapolation. It is not derived and conflicts with the peak time growing as αN+β, since then the peak occurs at diverging times for larger N.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical quantum phase transition with divergent multipartite entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLAETFTY

@misc{pith2026250613898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical quantum phase transition with divergent multipartite entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLAETFTY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13898}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the nonequilibrium quench dynamics of the one-dimensional transverse-field Ising model in both integrable and nonintegrable regimes. In particular, we report on a novel type of dynamical quantum phase transition (DQPT) that is characterized by a divergent multipartite entanglement at critical times in the post-quench dynamics. We quantify the multipartite entanglement of the state by the quantum Fisher information and demonstrate that the DQPT belongs to a different universality class than the ground-state phase transition. Furthermore, we perform a spectral analysis of the DQPT and demonstrate that it is a genuine nonequilibrium transition arising from the constructive interference of excited states of the system during the many-body dynamics. Finally, we discuss potential experimental realizations in Rydberg platforms as well as applications in the context of quantum metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time evolution of the QFI density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of the QFI density along the optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Diagonal contributions to the QFI density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Rescaled dynamics of the QFI density for the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. QFI density in an open system for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Fate of dynamical quantum phase transitions from sudden quench to slow quench limit

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Slow quenches filter out accidental dynamical quantum phase transitions, leaving only DQPTs associated with gap-closing equilibrium quantum phase transitions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phe- nomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Quanten- computer mit gespeicherten Ionen f¨ ur Anwendungen (ATIQ)

    To illustrate this, we employ the Husimi distribution, given by QH (θ, ϕ, t) = N +1 4π | ⟨ψ(t) | θ, ϕ⟩ |2 where |θ, ϕ⟩ are spin coherent states, i.e., product states of spins polarized along the same di- rection ⃗ n= (sin θ cos ϕ, sin θ sin ϕ, cos ϕ) [52–55]. Figure 4 shows the time evolution of the Husimi dis- tribution for N = 20 and h/J = 1.0. Since th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    M. E. Fisher, Renormalization group theory: Its basis and formulation in statistical physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 653 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  6. [6]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Na- ture 416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Vidal, J

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

    2003

  8. [8]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Entan- glement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    De Chiara and A

    G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Genuine quantum correla- tions in quantum many-body systems: a review of recent progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 074002 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

  3. [11]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  4. [12]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Mea- suring multipartite entanglement through dynamic sus- ceptibilities, Nat. Phys. 12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Pappalardi, A

    S. Pappalardi, A. Russomanno, A. Silva, and R. Fazio, Multipartite entanglement after a quantum quench, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2017 (5), 053104

    2017

  6. [14]

    Gabbrielli, A

    M. Gabbrielli, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezz` e, Multipartite En- tanglement at Finite Temperature, Sci. Rep. 8, 15663 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Brenes, S

    M. Brenes, S. Pappalardi, J. Goold, and A. Silva, Multi- partite Entanglement Structure in the Eigenstate Ther- malization Hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040605 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Costa de Almeida and P

    R. Costa de Almeida and P. Hauke, From entanglement certification with quench dynamics to multipartite en- tanglement of interacting fermions, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L032051 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Menon, N

    V. Menon, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, A. O. Scheie, D. A. Tennant, and J. E. Moore, Multipartite entangle- ment in the one-dimensional spin- 1 2 Heisenberg antifer- romagnet, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054422 (2023). 6

    2023

  10. [18]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher information and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states, Science 345, 424–427 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    L¨ ucke, M

    B. L¨ ucke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezz´ e, F. Deuret- zbacher, P. Hyllus, O. Topic, J. Peise, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Twin Matter Waves for Interferometry Beyond the Classical Limit, Science 334, 773–776 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    L¨ ucke, J

    B. L¨ ucke, J. Peise, G. Vitagliano, J. Arlt, L. Santos, G. T´ oth, and C. Klempt, Detecting Multiparticle Entan- glement of Dicke States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 155304 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Hales, U

    J. Hales, U. Bajpai, T. Liu, D. R. Baykusheva, M. Li, M. Mitrano, and Y. Wang, Witnessing light-driven en- tanglement using time-resolved resonant inelastic X-ray scattering, Nat. Commun. 14, 3512 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Y. Fang, M. Mahankali, Y. Wang, L. Chen, H. Hu, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, Amplified multipartite entangle- ment witnessed in a quantum critical metal, Nat. Com- mun. 16, 2498 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Pezz´ e and A

    L. Pezz´ e and A. Smerzi, Entanglement, Nonlinear Dy- namics, and the Heisenberg Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100401 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwem- mer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´ e, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entan- glement, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    T´ oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys

    G. T´ oth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    T´ oth and I

    G. T´ oth and I. Apellaniz, Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Phase transitions and Heisenberg limited metrology in an Ising chain interact- ing with a single-mode cavity field, New J. Phys. 13, 053035 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Raghunandan, J

    M. Raghunandan, J. Wrachtrup, and H. Weimer, High- Density Quantum Sensing with Dissipative First Order Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 150501 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    M. M. Rams, P. Sierant, O. Dutta, P. Horodecki, and J. Zakrzewski, At the Limits of Criticality-Based Quan- tum Metrology: Apparent Super-Heisenberg Scaling Re- visited, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021022 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Fr´ erot and T

    I. Fr´ erot and T. Roscilde, Quantum Critical Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 020402 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Y. Chu, S. Zhang, B. Yu, and J. Cai, Dynamic Frame- work for Criticality-Enhanced Quantum Sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 010502 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Gietka, L

    K. Gietka, L. Ruks, and T. Busch, Understanding and Improving Critical Metrology. Quenching Superradiant Light-Matter Systems Beyond the Critical Point, Quan- tum 6, 700 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Hotter, H

    C. Hotter, H. Ritsch, and K. Gietka, Combining Critical and Quantum Metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 060801 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in the Transverse-Field Ising Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Karrasch and D

    C. Karrasch and D. Schuricht, Dynamical phase transi- tions after quenches in nonintegrable models, Phys. Rev. B 87, 195104 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Heyl, Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in Sys- tems with Broken-Symmetry Phases, Phys

    M. Heyl, Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in Sys- tems with Broken-Symmetry Phases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 205701 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Canovi, P

    E. Canovi, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, First-Order Dy- namical Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 265702 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Vajna and B

    S. Vajna and B. D´ ora, Disentangling dynamical phase transitions from equilibrium phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B 89, 161105 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Dynamical Quan- tum Phase Transitions: A Geometric Picture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130603 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    De Nicola, A

    S. De Nicola, A. A. Michailidis, and M. Serbyn, Entan- glement View of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 040602 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    A. L. Corps and A. Rela˜ no, Theory of Dynamical Phase Transitions in Quantum Systems with Symmetry- Breaking Eigenstates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 100402 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    LeClair, G

    A. LeClair, G. Mussardo, H. Saleur, and S. Skorik, Boundary energy and boundary states in integrable quantum field theories, Nuclear Physics B 453, 581 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Clock with 8×10−19 Systematic Uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment, Science 381, 46 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep

    M. Heyl, Dynamical quantum phase transitions: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open- source Python framework for the dynamics of open quan- tum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760–1772 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Gogolin and J

    C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 056001 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

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

    2019

  44. [52]

    Kenna, Finite size scaling for O(N) φ4-theory at the upper critical dimension, Nuclear Physics B691, 292–304 (2004)

    R. Kenna, Finite size scaling for O(N) φ4-theory at the upper critical dimension, Nuclear Physics B691, 292–304 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    F. T. Arecchi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, Atomic Coherent States in Quantum Optics, Phys. Rev. A 6, 2211 (1972)

    1972

  46. [54]

    J. M. Radcliffe, Some properties of coherent spin states, J. Phys. A: Gen. Phys. 4, 313–323 (1971)

    1971

  47. [55]

    Zibold, E

    T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, C. Gross, and M. K. Oberthaler, Classical Bifurcation at the Transition from Rabi to Josephson Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 204101 (2010). 7

    2010

  48. [56]

    Tomkoviˇ c, W

    J. Tomkoviˇ c, W. Muessel, H. Strobel, S. L¨ ock, P. Schlagheck, R. Ketzmerick, and M. K. Oberthaler, Ex- perimental observation of the Poincar´ e-Birkhoff scenario in a driven many-body quantum system, Phys. Rev. A 95, 011602 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al. , Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator, Nature 551, 601–604 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Jurcevic, H

    P. Jurcevic, H. Shen, P. Hauke, C. Maier, T. Brydges, C. Hempel, B. P. Lanyon, M. Heyl, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Direct Observation of Dynamical Quantum Phase Transitions in an Interacting Many-Body System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 080501 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University PressOxford, 2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    ˇZunkoviˇ c, A

    B. ˇZunkoviˇ c, A. Silva, and M. Fabrizio, Dynamical phase transitions and Loschmidt echo in the infinite-range XY model, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 374, 20150160 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    P´ erez-Garc´ ea, L

    D. P´ erez-Garc´ ea, L. Santilli, and M. Tierz, Dynamical quantum phase transitions from random matrix theory, Quantum 8, 1271 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Y. Su, W. Lu, and H.-L. Shi, Quantum metrology en- hanced by the XY spin interaction in a generalized Tavis- Cummings model, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042614 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Z. H. Saleem, A. Shaji, A. M. Babu, D.-W. Luo, Q. Langfitt, T. Yu, and S. K. Gray, Quantum Fisher Information and the Curvature of Entanglement (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13729

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.