REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references
The Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in a Quantum Point Contact Geometry
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a small number of quantum point contacts makes the entanglement entropy of typical excited free-fermion eigenstates sub-extensive, $S_A = a L_A + \alpha m L_A E$, not extensive.
desk verdict Sub-extensive L_A E scaling in QPC-coupled fermions is new and plausible, but the evidence needs error bars, a microcanonical check, and the alpha/b mismatch resolved before I fully trust it. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The key object is the s-wave scattering channel formed by each quantum point contact: the in-going and out-going fermion modes on the two lattices are combined into a single spinor with periodic boundary conditions, and bosonized into one right-moving boson on an interval of length $L_A$. Each well-separated contact therefore acts as an independent 1D gapless entanglement channel, giving a per-contact entropy $\sim \log L_A$ in the ground state and $\sim L_A E$ at finite energy. The dimensionless product $L_A E$ plays the role of the aspect ratio of space to imaginary time in a 1D conformal field theory, and the conjectured Eq. (8) is the interpolation formula that collapses the per-contact increments onto one universal curve.
What would settle it
A concrete check is to diagonalize the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) exactly for $L_A=9$, $L_B=41$, and $m=1,2,3$, select eigenstates with energy per particle $E$ near 0.05, compute $S_A$ from the correlation matrix, and verify that the slope per contact is $\alpha L_A E$; a mismatch would show that the Metropolis Monte-Carlo ensemble is not representative of typical eigenstates.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is Eq. (6): for a typical excited eigenstate of two 2D free-fermion lattices connected by $m$ quantum point contacts, the entanglement entropy of the smaller subsystem is $S_A = a L_A + \alpha m L_A E$ in the regime of small $m$ and low $E$. The first term allows for ground-state degeneracy entropy; the second says each contact contributes the finite-energy entanglement entropy of a gapless 1D system, $\sim \alpha L_A E$. The paper also conjectures the full interpolation $\Delta S_A = \alpha \log[(1/E)\sinh(L_A E)]$ per contact, which reduces to $\log L_A$ as $E\to 0$ and to $L_A E$ at larger $L_A E$. The authors contrast this sub-extensive entropy with classical ergodic and quantum chaotic expectations, where boundary geometry affects relaxation times but not extensive equilibrium entropy.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that eigenstates generated by Metropolis Monte-Carlo sampling at temperature $T=E$ are representative of typical excited eigenstates with energy per particle $E$; if the sampling is biased, the reported sub-extensive scaling would be an artifact.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For small $m$ and small $E$, the entanglement entropy of the smaller lattice scales as $L_A$, not $L_A^2$, so the reduced state is less mixed than the volume-law and thermal expectations.
- Each additional well-separated contact contributes an independent entropy increment: $\sim b \log L_A$ at zero energy and $\sim \alpha L_A E$ at finite energy, with the crossover controlled by $L_A E$.
- Saturation occurs once $\alpha m L_A E$ reaches the extensive value $L_A^2 E_{\rm sat}$, giving a contact-number threshold $m_{\rm sat}\sim 0.5 L_A/E$; beyond it, the QPC restriction no longer limits entropy.
- In the special case $L_A=L_B$, a single QPC can already produce extensive entropy because of the near-degenerate spectrum, so the sub-extensive rule applies specifically to a smaller subsystem coupled to a larger bath.
- The sub-extensive entropy result implies that boundary geometry can alter an equilibrium property of an eigenstate, not just relaxation times, for free-fermion systems satisfying ETH.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond the paper, a quench experiment that starts with uncoupled lattices and then switches on the QPCs would test whether the growth of $S_A(t)$ is controlled by contact geometry rather than by fast internal thermalization.
- Beyond the paper, if Eq. (8) is the correct interpolation, the per-contact entropy increment should be independent of the detailed shape of each contact as long as contacts are separated by more than the inverse Fermi momentum $k_F^{-1}$; varying contact spacing in the numerics would test this independence.
- Beyond the paper, an exact microcanonical computation at fixed energy per particle on small lattices, rather than Metropolis Monte-Carlo sampling at $T=E$, would remove the main source of sampling bias and place the formula on firmer footing.
- Beyond the paper, in any realistic solid phonon and radiative coupling add many parallel entanglement channels, so the clean sub-extensive signature would likely be masked; the paper notes this, and the natural experimental target would be a cold-atom or mesoscopic device where QPCs are the only coupling between the two systems.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript studies the bipartite entanglement entropy of noninteracting fermions on two 2D square lattices coupled by a small number of quantum point contacts (QPCs). In the ground state, each QPC contributes a logarithmic term b log L_A (Eq. (4)). For finite energy per particle E, the paper claims that a typical excited eigenstate has entanglement entropy S_A = a L_A + alpha m L_A E for small m and low E (Eq. (6)), so the entropy is sub-extensive in the linear size L_A and each additional QPC contributes an entropy proportional to L_A E. The authors also conjecture an interpolating form, Eq. (8), Delta S_A = alpha log[(1/E) sinh(L_A E)], which would connect the ground-state logarithmic behavior to the finite-energy linear behavior. The numerical evidence is based on Metropolis Monte-Carlo generation of 30 eigenstates per parameter set, followed by averaging of the entanglement entropy.
Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is genuinely interesting: it would demonstrate that the geometry of the coupling between a subsystem and a reservoir can change the scaling of entanglement entropy in an excited eigenstate, in contrast to the usual extensive volume-law expectations for ETH-satisfying systems. The paper leverages established free-fermion techniques and is clearly presented. The strongest part is the numerical demonstration that for small numbers of QPCs the entropy grows with L_A rather than L_A^2, which is a concrete and falsifiable prediction. However, the numerical evidence is weakened by the sampling methodology and by an internal inconsistency between the ground-state and finite-energy coefficients; these issues must be addressed before the claims can be accepted.
major comments (4)
- [Sec. III, Numerical Methods] The central claim, Eq. (6), is about typical excited eigenstates at energy per particle E, but the numerical states are generated by a Metropolis Monte-Carlo procedure sampling at temperature T = E. This is a canonical ensemble, not a microcanonical one. For noninteracting fermions with a strongly energy-dependent many-body density of states, the energy fluctuations of a canonical sample can be significant, and because the entanglement entropy increases with energy, the averaged entropy may be dominated by higher-energy states. The paper does not report the variance of the sampled energy, the acceptance statistics, or a comparison of the canonical average with the microcanonical average at the same mean energy. Without such a validation, the numerical data do not directly test the stated eigenstate typicality assumption. I request either microcanonical (fixed-energy) sampling, exact diagonalization on small lattices, or at least a quantitative demonstration that the canonical distribution at T = E yields the same mean entropy as the typical eigenstate at energy E.
- [Sec. II, Eq. (8) and associated text] There is a load-bearing internal inconsistency between the ground-state coefficient b in Eq. (4) and the finite-energy coefficient alpha in Eq. (8). In the limit L_A E -> 0, Eq. (8) reduces to alpha log(L_A), so Eq. (8) can only accommodate the ground-state term m b log L_A if alpha = b. The paper reports b approximately 0.238 (Fig. 4) and alpha approximately 0.6 (Fig. 8), a factor of about 2.5 difference. The claim that Eq. (8) accommodates the second term of both equations (4) and (6) is therefore not correct as stated. The authors should either reconcile the two coefficients, show that the universal curve has a crossover with an effective alpha that changes with L_A E, or restrict the interpolation claim to a regime where the discrepancy is explained.
- [Sec. II, Figs. 5-8 and surrounding text] The slopes Delta S_A that form the basis for Eq. (5) and Fig. 8 are computed from only the first four data points (first three for E = 1.0), with no justification for this truncation beyond the onset of saturation. Because the saturation effect is present even at low E, the fitted slope alpha is sensitive to the number of points included and to the chosen energy and lattice sizes. No error bars are given for any averaged entropy or for the fitted slopes, despite the data coming from only 30 Monte-Carlo-generated eigenstates per point. The universal scaling claim would be much stronger if the fit were done with a full functional form including saturation, or at least with a systematic check that the slopes are stable as the fit range is varied, together with some estimate of statistical uncertainty.
- [Abstract and Sec. IV, Discussion and Conclusion] The abstract states as fact that it is shown that the entropy scales as S_A ~ L_A E, but the body repeatedly qualifies the results as approximate and calls Eq. (8) a conjecture. More importantly, the claim in the abstract that the entropy is sub-extensive is only demonstrated numerically for small m and low E; the crossover to the ground-state logarithmic behavior is not observed because of computational difficulty, as the authors acknowledge in Sec. IV. The manuscript should clearly separate the numerically demonstrated scaling of Eq. (6) from the conjectured interpolation of Eq. (8), and the abstract should be phrased accordingly. This is a presentation issue, but it affects the reader's ability to judge what is established.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. III, Numerical Methods] There is a typographical error in the definition of the energy: 'E = (E_ex - E0)/N where is the many-fermion ground state energy' is missing the symbol E0 before 'is'. This should read 'where E0 is the many-fermion ground state energy'.
- [Sec. III, Numerical Methods] The phrase 'we refer to the average energy E following this procedure as the MMC energy' is confusing because E was already introduced as the excited-state energy per particle. It would be clearer to define a separate symbol for the ensemble-averaged energy, for example E_bar, and to state explicitly whether the reported values of E in Figs. 5-8 are the desired target energies or the measured ensemble averages.
- [Sec. II, Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that entropy for finite energy states shows proportionality to L_A and that for comparison the ground state entropy is proportional to log L_A, without mentioning that the finite-energy data are averaged over 30 Monte-Carlo states. The reader should be reminded of this in the caption.
- [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] The notation in Eq. (8) uses log without specifying the base; since the rest of the paper uses natural log (as in log L_A for the ground state), it would be helpful to state that all logarithms are natural.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central Eq. (6) scaling is presented as an openly numerical observation, and Eq. (8) is explicitly labeled a conjecture rather than a derived prediction.
full rationale
The load-bearing claim, Eq. (6), is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the quantity it then claims to predict; it is an empirical scaling law extracted from Metropolis-sampled eigenstate entropies and displayed in Figs. 5-8. The paper's own language is honest about this: the abstract says "it is demonstrated numerically," and the body repeatedly uses "appears," "suggest," and "we conjecture" when introducing the interpolating form Eq. (8). The coefficient α≈0.6 is the slope of the measured ΔS_A vs L_A E plot, so Eq. (6) is a fit, but the paper does not disguise that fit as a first-principles prediction. Eq. (8) is explicitly called a conjecture that "interpolates between" the two observed scalings, and it is not used to generate or test new data, so it is a post hoc ansatz rather than a circular derivation. The self-citations to the authors' prior work [8,9] establish the ground-state log L_A scaling and the QPC-to-1d mapping; these are context for the new finite-energy calculation and do not force Eq. (6), which rests on the new Monte-Carlo data. The assumption that Metropolis sampling at T=E produces typical eigenstates at energy per particle E is a physical correctness risk, not a circularity: the MMC energy E is measured from the generated eigenstates, and the entanglement entropy is computed independently from those eigenstates. I therefore find no step in the paper's derivation chain that reduces by construction to its own input.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- alpha (per-QPC entropy coefficient) =
approximately 0.6 (slope in Fig. 8)
- E_sat (saturation energy density) =
approximately 0.249 (Fig. 3)
- S0 (saturation offset) =
approximately 8.55 (Fig. 3)
- b (ground-state per-QPC coefficient) =
approximately 0.238 (Fig. 4)
assumptions (5)
- standard math Free-fermion entanglement entropy is exactly computable via the two-point correlation matrix restricted to the subsystem (Peschel's method).
- domain assumption A single QPC between two 2-d fermion lattices maps to a single chiral 1-d fermion channel (s-wave scattering, bosonization).
- domain assumption QPCs separated by more than k_F^{-1} act independently and their entropy contributions add.
- domain assumption Metropolis Monte-Carlo sampling at temperature T=E produces typical excited eigenstates at energy per particle E.
- domain assumption The finite-size/finite-temperature entanglement entropy of a gapless 1-d system has the form S = alpha log[(1/E) sinh(L_A E)] (from refs. [15], [17]).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of The Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in a Quantum Point Contact Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWR3EAYW
@misc{pith2026250103076,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: The Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in a Quantum Point Contact Geometry},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWR3EAYW}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03076}
}
abstract
It is known that the long-range quantum entanglement exhibited in free fermion systems is sufficient to "thermalize" a small subsystem in that the subsystem reduced density matrix computed from a typical excited eigenstate of the combined system is approximately thermal. Remarkably, fermions without any interactions are thus thought to satisfy the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH). We explore this hypothesis when the fermion subsystem is only minimally coupled to a quantum reservoir (in the form of another fermion system) through a quantum point contact (QPC). The entanglement entropy of two 2-d free fermion systems connected by one or more quantum point contacts (QPC) is examined at finite energy and in the ground state. When the combined system is in a typical excited state, it is shown that the entanglement entropy of a subsystem connected by a small number of QPCs is sub-extensive, scaling as the linear size of the subsystem ($L_A$). For sufficiently low energies ($E$) and small subsystems, it is demonstrated numerically that the entanglement entropy $S_A \sim L_A E$, what one would expect for the thermodynamics of a one-dimensional system. In this limit, we suggest that the entropy carried by each additional QPC is quantized using the one-dimensional finite size/temperature conformal scaling: $\Delta S_A = \alpha \log{(1/E)\sinh{(L_AE)}}$. The sub-extensive entropy in the case of a small number of QPCs should be contrasted with the expectation for both classical, ergodic systems and quantum chaotic systems wherein a restricted geometry might affect the equilibrium relaxation times, but not the equilibrium properties themselves, such as extensive entropy and heat capacity.
Figures
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Entanglement Entropy Scaling Laws and Eigenstate Typicality in Free Fermion Systems
Lai, H.-H. & Yang, K. ”Entanglement entropy scaling laws and eigenstate typicality in free fermion systems,” Physical Review B 91, 081110 (2015) [arXiv:1409.1224]
work page Pith review arXiv 2015
-
[2]
was conducted for interacting, hard core, bosons; one might question whether the presence of interactions in the fermionic case would restore the expected exten- sive property of the entropy. However, for a d >1 inter- acting fermi system, interactions other than in the BCS channel are irrelevant and the low energy properties are essentially identical to ...
-
[3]
”Chaos and quantum thermalization,” Phys
Srednicki, M. ”Chaos and quantum thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994) [arXiv:cond-mat/9403051]
arXiv 1994
-
[4]
Deutsch, J. M. ”Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,” Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)
work page 1991
-
[5]
D’Alessio, L., Kafri, Y., Polkovnikov, A., & Rigol, M. ”From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics,” Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016) [arXiv:1509.06411]
arXiv 2016
-
[6]
Deutsch, J. M. ”Eigenstate thermalization hypothe- sis,” Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 082001 (2018) [arXiv:1805.01616]
arXiv 2018
-
[7]
Random free fermions: An analytical example of eigenstate thermalization
J. M. Magan, “Random free fermions: An an- alytical example of eigenstate thermalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no. 3, 030401 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.030401 [arXiv:1508.05339 [quant-ph]]
work page Pith review arXiv 2016
-
[8]
”Subsystem eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” Phys
Dymarsky, A., Lashkari, N., & Liu, H. ”Subsystem eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. E 97, 012140 (2018) [arXiv:1611.08764]
arXiv 2018
Show all 36 references
-
[9]
A., & Levine, G
Caravan, B., Friedman, B. A., & Levine, G. C. ”Scal- ing of entanglement entropy in point-contact, free- fermion systems,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 052305 (2014) [arXiv:1402.5437]
2014 arXiv
-
[10]
C., & Miller, D
Levine, G. C., & Miller, D. J. ”Zero-dimensional area law in a gapless fermionic system,” Phys. Rev. B 77, 205119 (2008) [arXiv:0711.0957]
2008 arXiv
-
[11]
”Entanglement entropy with interface de- fects,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 38, 4327 (2005) [arXiv:cond-mat/0502034]
Peschel, I. ”Entanglement entropy with interface de- fects,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 38, 4327 (2005) [arXiv:cond-mat/0502034]
2005 arXiv
-
[12]
Levine, G. C. ”Entanglement Entropy in a Boundary Impurity Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 266402 (2004) [arXiv:cond-mat/0408366]
2004 arXiv
-
[13]
”Entanglement Entropy of Fermions in Any Dimension and the Widom Conjec- ture,” Phys
Gioev, D., & Klich, I. ”Entanglement Entropy of Fermions in Any Dimension and the Widom Conjec- ture,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100503 (2006) [arXiv:quant- ph/0504151]
2006
-
[14]
”Critical entanglement of XXZ Heisenberg chains with defects,” Phys
Zhao, J., Peschel, I., & Wang, X. ”Critical entanglement of XXZ Heisenberg chains with defects,” Phys. Rev. B 73, 024417 (2006) [arXiv:cond-mat/0509338]
2006 arXiv
-
[15]
”Eigenstate entanglement: Crossover from the ground state to volume laws,” arXiv e-prints arXiv:1905.07760 (2019) [arXiv:1905.07760]
Miao, Q., & Barthel, T. ”Eigenstate entanglement: Crossover from the ground state to volume laws,” arXiv e-prints arXiv:1905.07760 (2019) [arXiv:1905.07760]
2019 arXiv
-
[16]
”Entanglement Entropy and the Fermi Surface,” Phys
Swingle, B. ”Entanglement Entropy and the Fermi Surface,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050502 (2010) [arXiv:0908.1724]
2010 arXiv
-
[17]
Asplund, C
This result is consistent with the following work demon- strating that within the AdS/CFT correspondence, ev- ery typical finite energy state corresponds to a mi- crostate of a BTZ black hole. Asplund, C. T., Berna- monti, A., Galli, F., & Hartman, T. ”Holographic en- tangleme...
2015 arXiv
-
[18]
A. O. Gogolin, A.A. Nersesyan and A. M. Tsvelik, Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems, Cam- bridge University Press (1998)
1998
-
[19]
Imry, Y, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics, Oxford University Press; 2nd edition (2008)
2008
-
[20]
Landauer, IBM J
R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 1, 233 (1957)
1957
-
[21]
Entangle- ment entropy of excited states,
V. Alba, M. Fagotti and P. Calabrese, “Entangle- ment entropy of excited states,” J. Stat. Mech. 0910, P10020 (2009) doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2009/10/P10020 [arXiv:0909.1999 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]
2009 arXiv
-
[22]
Blencowe, M. P. ”Quantum energy flow in mesoscopic dielectric structures,” Phys. Rev. B 59, 4992 (1999) [arXiv:cond-mat/9803319]
1999 arXiv
-
[23]
”Entan- glement Entropy of Eigenstates of Quadratic Fermionic Hamiltonians,” Phys
Vidmar, L., Hackl, L., Bianchi, E., & Rigol, M. ”Entan- glement Entropy of Eigenstates of Quadratic Fermionic Hamiltonians,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 020601 (2017) [arXiv:1703.02979]
2017 arXiv
-
[24]
”Volume-Law Entanglement Entropy of Typical Pure Quantum States,” PRX Quantum 3, 030201 (2022) [arXiv:2112.06959]
Bianchi, E., Hackl, L., Kieburg, M., Rigol, M., & Vid- mar, L. ”Volume-Law Entanglement Entropy of Typical Pure Quantum States,” PRX Quantum 3, 030201 (2022) [arXiv:2112.06959]
2022 arXiv
-
[25]
Vol- ume Law and Quantum Criticality in the Entanglement Entropy of Excited Eigenstates of the Quantum Ising Model,
L. Vidmar, L. Hackl, E. Bianchi and M. Rigol, “Vol- ume Law and Quantum Criticality in the Entanglement Entropy of Excited Eigenstates of the Quantum Ising Model,” arXiv:1808.08963 [cond-mat.stat-mech]
-
[26]
Jafarizadeh, A., & Rajabpour, M. A. ”Bipartite entan- glement entropy of the excited states of free fermions and harmonic oscillators,” Phys. Rev. B 100, 165135 (2019) [arXiv:1907.09806]
2019 arXiv
-
[27]
In the present case, we study an inherently non-local quantity—the en- tropy itself—and show that it is non-extensive, contrary to the expectation of thermal equilibrium
to hold, at least for local operators. In the present case, we study an inherently non-local quantity—the en- tropy itself—and show that it is non-extensive, contrary to the expectation of thermal equilibrium. The study
-
[28]
”LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 36, L205 (2003) [arXiv:cond-mat/0212631]
Peschel, I. ”LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Calculation of reduced density matrices from correlation functions,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 36, L205 (2003) [arXiv:cond-mat/0212631]
2003 arXiv
-
[29]
”Thermal- ization and its mechanism for generic isolated quan- tum systems,” Nature (London) 452, 854 (2008) [arXiv:0708.1324]
Rigol, M., Dunjko, V., & Olshanii, M. ”Thermal- ization and its mechanism for generic isolated quan- tum systems,” Nature (London) 452, 854 (2008) [arXiv:0708.1324]
2008 arXiv
-
[30]
”Quantum quenches and thermalization in one-dimensional fermionic systems,” Phys
Rigol, M. ”Quantum quenches and thermalization in one-dimensional fermionic systems,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 053607 (2009) [arXiv:0908.3188]
2009 arXiv
-
[31]
F., Polkovnikov, A., & Rigol, M
Santos, L. F., Polkovnikov, A., & Rigol, M. ”Entropy of Isolated Quantum Systems after a Quench,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 040601 (2011) [arXiv:1103.0557]
2011 arXiv
-
[32]
”Time evo- lution of entanglement entropy after quenches in two- dimensional free fermion systems: A dimensional re- duction treatment,” Phys
Yamashika, S., Ares, F., & Calabrese, P. ”Time evo- lution of entanglement entropy after quenches in two- dimensional free fermion systems: A dimensional re- duction treatment,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 125122 (2024) [arXiv:2310.18160]
2024 arXiv
-
[33]
”Quench dynamics in lattices above one di- mension: The free fermionic case,” Phys
Gibbins, M., Jafarizadeh, A., Gammon-Smith, A., & Bertini, B. ”Quench dynamics in lattices above one di- mension: The free fermionic case,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 224310 (2024) [arXiv:2310.18227]
2024 arXiv
-
[34]
M., Li, H., & Sharma, A
Deutsch, J. M., Li, H., & Sharma, A. ”Microscopic origin of thermodynamic entropy in isolated systems,” Phys. Rev. E 87, 042135 (2013) [arXiv:1202.2403]
2013 arXiv
-
[35]
R., & Grover, T
Garrison, J. R., & Grover, T. ”Does a Single Eigenstate Encode the Full Hamiltonian?,” Physical Review X 8, 021026 (2018) [arXiv:1503.00729]
2018 arXiv
-
[36]
”Quantum Noise as an Entan- glement Meter,” Phys
Klich, I., & Levitov, L. ”Quantum Noise as an Entan- glement Meter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100502 (2009) [arXiv:0804.1377]
2009 arXiv
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.