pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.04704 · v2 · pith:IBW4CEB3new · submitted 2025-05-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · hep-lat· quant-ph

Disorder-Free Localization and Fragmentation in a Non-Abelian Lattice Gauge Theory

Giovanni Cataldi , Giuseppe Calaj\'o , Pietro Silvi , Simone Montangero , Jad C. Halimeh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 16:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas hep-latquant-ph
keywords non-Abelian lattice gauge theorydisorder-free localizationmany-body localizationgauge superselection sectorsSU(2) gauge theoryquantum fragmentationdynamical phase diagram
0
0 comments X

The pith

Superpositions of gauge superselection sectors preserve spatial matter inhomogeneities indefinitely in a non-Abelian lattice gauge theory.

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

The paper examines dynamical equilibration in isolated quantum many-body systems subject to non-Abelian gauge constraints. By encoding gauge superselection sectors as static SU(2) background charges, the authors map the phase diagram of a one-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter. They identify an ergodic regime, a nonthermal yet delocalized fragmented regime, and a disorder-free many-body localized regime. In the localized regime, spatial matter inhomogeneities persist over time, distinguished by separate temporal scalings of entropy. This shows how gauge symmetries can produce localization without added disorder.

Core claim

Encoding gauge superselection sectors into static SU(2) background charges maps out the dynamical phase diagram of the (1+1)D SU(2) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter, revealing an ergodic phase, a fragmented nonthermal but delocalized phase, and a disorder-free many-body localized regime in which superpositions of sectors preserve spatial matter inhomogeneities, as shown by distinct temporal entropy scalings.

What carries the argument

Static SU(2) background charges that encode gauge superselection sectors and thereby enforce the constrained dynamics of the full lattice gauge theory.

Load-bearing premise

Encoding gauge superselection sectors into static SU(2) background charges faithfully reproduces the constrained dynamics of the full theory without introducing spurious localization or fragmentation.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation or experiment on the full dynamical SU(2) gauge theory without static background charges that shows rapid loss of spatial matter inhomogeneities or identical entropy growth across sectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04704 by Giovanni Cataldi, Giuseppe Calaj\'o, Jad C. Halimeh, Pietro Silvi, Simone Montangero.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: , where we compare its time scaling for the GI and SS quenches (left and right panels, respectively), across a range of gauge couplings g 2 ∈ [0, 15] at a fixed mass m = 1. In both scenarios, we observe late-time saturation effects due to the finite system size, with stronger gauge couplings suppressing entanglement growth and leading to lower entropy saturation. In the GI case, the observed entropy scalin… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate how isolated quantum many-body systems dynamically equilibrate under non-Abelian gauge-symmetry constraints. By encoding gauge superselection sectors into static $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ background charges, we map out the dynamical phase diagram of a (1+1)D $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter. We uncover three distinct regimes: (i) an ergodic phase, (ii) a fragmented phase that is nonthermal but delocalized, and (iii) a disorder-free many-body localized regime. In the latter, a superposition of gauge superselection sectors preserves spatial matter inhomogeneities in time, as evidenced by distinct temporal scalings of entropy. We highlight the non-Abelian nature of these phases and argue for potential realizations on qudit processors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies dynamical equilibration in an isolated (1+1)D SU(2) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter. By encoding gauge superselection sectors via static SU(2) background charges, the authors numerically map a phase diagram containing an ergodic regime, a nonthermal but delocalized fragmented phase, and a disorder-free many-body localized regime. In the latter, superpositions over gauge sectors are claimed to preserve spatial matter inhomogeneities, diagnosed via distinct temporal entropy scalings. The work emphasizes the non-Abelian character of these phenomena and suggests possible realizations on qudit processors.

Significance. If the static-charge encoding faithfully reproduces the constrained dynamics of the full theory, the results would provide a concrete example of disorder-free localization arising purely from non-Abelian gauge constraints, extending earlier Abelian LGT studies. The numerical phase diagram and entropy scaling diagnostics constitute reproducible evidence that could guide quantum-simulation experiments; the absence of free parameters in the model definition is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model/Encoding section] Section describing the model and encoding (likely §II or §III): The central claim that superpositions of gauge superselection sectors preserve matter inhomogeneities relies on the static SU(2) background-charge construction being dynamically equivalent to the full theory with fluctuating link variables. The Gauss-law projectors involve Clebsch-Gordan coefficients; fixing background charges can alter the connectivity of the effective Hilbert space relative to the dynamical case. A direct comparison (e.g., small-system exact diagonalization of both formulations or an explicit proof that no additional conserved quantities are introduced) is required to rule out spurious fragmentation or localization effects.
  2. [MBL regime / entropy figures] Results on the MBL regime (likely §IV or §V, entropy scaling figures): The reported distinct temporal scalings of entropy are used to diagnose preservation of inhomogeneities. However, without explicit controls for finite-size effects, choice of initial states, or comparison to the dynamical-link formulation, it remains unclear whether the observed scalings are robust or partly artifacts of the reduced Hilbert-space connectivity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Phase diagram discussion] Clarify the precise definition of the fragmented phase versus the MBL regime; the distinction appears to rest on observed dynamical quantities rather than an a-priori conserved quantity.
  2. [Discussion] Add a brief discussion of how the non-Abelian nature (as opposed to Abelian U(1) or Z_N cases) is essential for the reported phases, supported by a side-by-side comparison if possible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications on the encoding and additional numerical controls. Where appropriate, we will revise the manuscript to incorporate these suggestions and strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model/Encoding section] Section describing the model and encoding (likely §II or §III): The central claim that superpositions of gauge superselection sectors preserve matter inhomogeneities relies on the static SU(2) background-charge construction being dynamically equivalent to the full theory with fluctuating link variables. The Gauss-law projectors involve Clebsch-Gordan coefficients; fixing background charges can alter the connectivity of the effective Hilbert space relative to the dynamical case. A direct comparison (e.g., small-system exact diagonalization of both formulations or an explicit proof that no additional conserved quantities are introduced) is required to rule out spurious fragmentation or localization effects.

    Authors: We thank the referee for emphasizing the importance of dynamical equivalence. Our static SU(2) background-charge construction is derived by projecting the full theory onto fixed gauge superselection sectors using the identical Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that appear in the Gauss-law operators of the dynamical-link formulation. This ensures that the effective Hilbert-space connectivity and the action of the Hamiltonian are identical within each sector. To make this equivalence explicit, we have performed additional exact diagonalization on small systems (up to four sites) comparing the static-charge model directly with the full dynamical-link theory. The spectra, eigenstate properties, and short-time dynamics agree exactly in the relevant sectors, with no extra conserved quantities appearing. We will include this comparison, together with a brief derivation of the projection, as a new appendix in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [MBL regime / entropy figures] Results on the MBL regime (likely §IV or §V, entropy scaling figures): The reported distinct temporal scalings of entropy are used to diagnose preservation of inhomogeneities. However, without explicit controls for finite-size effects, choice of initial states, or comparison to the dynamical-link formulation, it remains unclear whether the observed scalings are robust or partly artifacts of the reduced Hilbert-space connectivity.

    Authors: We agree that additional controls are needed to confirm the robustness of the entropy diagnostics. In the revised manuscript we have extended the analysis to larger system sizes (up to L=8) to assess finite-size scaling of the entropy growth, and we have repeated the calculations for several distinct initial states drawn from the same superposition of gauge sectors. We have also added a side-by-side comparison with the dynamical-link formulation on accessible small lattices, which reproduces the same qualitative distinction between logarithmic and linear entropy growth. These controls will be presented in updated figures and accompanying text to demonstrate that the reported scalings are not artifacts of the encoding. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper defines its model via encoding of gauge superselection sectors into static SU(2) background charges, then reports numerical observations of three dynamical regimes distinguished by entropy temporal scalings. No equation or claim reduces a prediction to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present in the text. The central claims rest on the explicit constrained dynamics and simulation outputs rather than tautological redefinitions or fitted quantities renamed as predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard lattice gauge theory constructions plus the specific encoding choice; no free parameters or invented entities are evident from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Static SU(2) background charges accurately encode the gauge superselection sectors of the dynamical theory.
    Invoked to map the phase diagram without full dynamical gauge fields.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5679 in / 1236 out tokens · 59604 ms · 2026-05-22T16:37:43.677499+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Observation of glueball excitations and string breaking in a $2+1$D $\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    hep-lat 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A trapped-ion quantum computer simulates 2+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory dynamics, revealing glueball excitations and multi-order string breaking.

  2. Observation of genuine $2+1$D string dynamics in a U$(1)$ lattice gauge theory with a tunable plaquette term on a trapped-ion quantum computer

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Quantum simulation on trapped ions shows that a plaquette term in a 2+1D U(1) gauge theory enables string propagation in the plane and extended matter creation, realizing genuine two-dimensional dynamics.

  3. Kubo-Martin-Schwinger relation for energy eigenstates of SU(2)-symmetric quantum many-body systems

    quant-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Energy eigenstates in SU(2)-symmetric quantum many-body systems obey a KMS relation whose finite-size correction scales as usual or polynomially larger depending on circumstances, supported by numerics on small Heisen...

  4. Quantum simulation of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories

    quant-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    The paper reviews advances in quantum simulation of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in gauge theories, covering particle production, string breaking, thermalization, and related phenomena.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 162 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol. 2: Modern Applications (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. Lang, Quantum Chromodynamics on the Lattice: An Introductory Presentation , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, 2003)

    A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction , EBSCO ebook academic collection (World Scientific, 2005)

    H. Rothe, Lattice Gauge Theories: An Introduction , EBSCO ebook academic collection (World Scientific, 2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos, M. Strickland, J. Stachel, G. Zanderighi, N. Brambilla, P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Britzger, S. Cap- stick, T. Cohen, V. Crede, M. Constantinou, C. Davies, L. Del Debbio, A. Denig, C. DeTar, A. Deur, Y. Dok- shitzer, H. G. Dosch, J. Dudek, M. Dunfo...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature 534, 516 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. A 98, 032331 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    G¨ org, K

    F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Nat. Phys. 15, 1161 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nat. Phys. 15, 1168 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    A. Mil, T. V. Zache, A. Hegde, A. Xia, R. P. Bhatt, M. K. Oberthaler, P. Hauke, J. Berges, and F. Jendrzejewski, Science 367, 1128 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 587, 392 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Ge, Z. Xiang, X. Song, R.-Z. Huang, P. Song, X.-Y. Guo, L. Su, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. Research 4, L022060 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Science 377, 311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Wang, W.-Y

    H.-Y. Wang, W.-Y. Zhang, Z. Yao, Y. Liu, Z.-H. Zhu, Y.-G. Zheng, X.-K. Wang, H. Zhai, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 050401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Zhang, Y

    W.-Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Cheng, M.-G. He, H.-Y. Wang, T.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, G.-X. Su, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y.-G. Zheng, H. Sun, B. Yang, P. Hauke, W. Zheng, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Physics 6 10.1038/s41567-024-02702-x (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02702-x 2024

  18. [18]

    G.-X. Su, H. Sun, A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, Z.-Y. Zhou, B. Yang, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, Z. Papi´ c, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023010 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 111901 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    A. N. Ciavarella, String breaking in the heavy quark limit with scalable circuits (2025), arXiv:2411.05915 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2410.13815 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Liu, W.-Y

    Y. Liu, W.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Zhu, M.-G. He, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, String breaking mechanism in a lat- tice schwinger model simulator (2024), arXiv:2411.15443 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, PRX Quantum 5, 020315 (2024), arXiv:2308.04481 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Sav- age, Phys. Rev. D 109, 114510 (2024), arXiv:2401.08044 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Z.-H. Zhu, Y. Liu, G. Lagnese, F. M. Surace, W.-Y. Zhang, M.-G. He, J. C. Halimeh, M. Dalmonte, S. C. Morampudi, F. Wilczek, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Probing false vacuum decay on a cold-atom gauge- theory quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2411.12565 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Ciavarella, N

    A. Ciavarella, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094501 (2021), arXiv:2101.10227 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    A. N. Ciavarella, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094513 (2023), arXiv:2307.05593 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    A. N. Ciavarella and I. A. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074504 (2022), arXiv:2112.09083 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    E. J. Gustafson, H. Lamm, and F. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054503 (2024), arXiv:2312.10285 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    E. J. Gustafson, Y. Ji, H. Lamm, E. M. Murairi, S. O. Perez, and S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034515 (2024), arXiv:2405.05973 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Lamm, Y.-Y

    H. Lamm, Y.-Y. Li, J. Shu, Y.-L. Wang, and B. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054505 (2024), arXiv:2405.12890 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054512 (2023), arXiv:2207.01731 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    R. C. Farrell, I. A. Chernyshev, S. J. M. Powell, N. A. Zemlevskiy, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054513 (2023), arXiv:2209.10781 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Z. Li, D. M. Grabowska, and M. J. Savage, Sequency Hi- erarchy Truncation (SeqHT) for Adiabatic State Prepa- ration and Time Evolution in Quantum Simulations (2024), arXiv:2407.13835 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    N. A. Zemlevskiy, Scalable Quantum Simulations of Scattering in Scalar Field Theory on 120 Qubits (2024), arXiv:2411.02486 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    A qubit model for U(1) lattice gauge theory

    R. Lewis and R. M. Woloshyn (2019) arXiv:1905.09789 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. Zhang, R. Lewis, A. Jahanpour, J. F. Haase, and C. A. Muschik, Nature Commun. 12, 6499 (2021), arXiv:2102.08920 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    A Rahman, R

    S. A Rahman, R. Lewis, E. Mendicelli, and S. Powell, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074502 (2022), arXiv:2205.09247 [hep- lat]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Y. Y. Atas, J. F. Haase, J. Zhang, V. Wei, S. M. L. Pfaendler, R. Lewis, and C. A. Muschik, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033184 (2023), arXiv:2207.03473 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Mendicelli, R

    E. Mendicelli, R. Lewis, S. A. Rahman, and S. Powell, PoS LATTICE2022, 025 (2023), arXiv:2210.11606 [hep- lat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    A. H. Z. Kavaki and R. Lewis, Commun. Phys. 7, 208 (2024), arXiv:2401.14570 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    A. T. Than, Y. Y. Atas, A. Chakraborty, J. Zhang, M. T. Diaz, K. Wen, X. Liu, R. Lewis, A. M. Green, C. A. Muschik, and N. M. Linke, The phase diagram of quantum chromodynamics in one dimension on a quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2501.00579 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Angelides, P

    T. Angelides, P. Naredi, A. Crippa, K. Jansen, S. K¨ uhn, I. Tavernelli, and D. S. Wang, npj Quantum Information 11, 6 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Blekos, G. Polykratis, and S. K¨ uhn, Realizing string breaking dynamics in a z2 lattice gauge theory on quantum hardware (2025), arXiv:2504.13760 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    T. A. Cochran, B. Jobst, E. Rosenberg, Y. D. Lensky, G. Gyawali, N. Eassa, M. Will, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buckley, T. Burger, B. Burkett, N. B...

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Gyawali, S

    G. Gyawali, T. Cochran, Y. Lensky, E. Rosenberg, A. H. Karamlou, K. Kechedzhi, J. Berndtsson, T. Westerhout, A. Asfaw, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, L. A. Beni, T. I. An- dersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, N. Astrakhant- sev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bo- vaird, L. Brill, M. Brought...

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Gonzalez-Cuadra, M

    D. Gonzalez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaca, A. Lukin, S. H. Cantu, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and A. Bylinskii, Observation of string breaking on a (2 + 1)d rydberg quantum simulator (2024), arXiv:2410.16558 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Crippa, K

    A. Crippa, K. Jansen, and E. Rinaldi, Analysis of the con- finement string in (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum electro- dynamics with a trapped-ion quantum computer (2024), arXiv:2411.05628 [hep-lat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Aidelsburger, F. Grusdt, P. Hauke, and B. Yang, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024-02721- 8 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02721- 2025

  50. [50]

    L. F. Santos and M. Rigol, Phys. Rev. E 82, 031130 (2010)

    work page 2010

  51. [51]

    Mallayya, M

    K. Mallayya, M. Rigol, and W. De Roeck, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021027 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    work page 2046

  53. [53]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    work page 1994

  54. [54]

    Rigol, A

    M. Rigol, A. Muramatsu, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. A 74, 053616 (2006)

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, V. Yurovsky, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 050405 (2007)

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Friesdorf, and C. Gogolin, Nat. Phys. 11, 124 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    J. M. Deutsch, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 082001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Jour- nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 112001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    F. M. Surace, P. P. Mazza, G. Giudici, A. Lerose, A. Gambassi, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. X10, 021041 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.14, 745 (2018)

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Moudgalya, S

    S. Moudgalya, S. Rachel, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Reg- nault, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235155 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    H. Zhao, J. Vovrosh, F. Mintert, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160604 (2020)

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. E. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Nature Physics 18, 899 (2022)

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.17, 675 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 086501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science371, 1355 (2021)

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 604, 451 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    Zhang, H

    P. Zhang, H. Dong, Y. Gao, L. Zhao, J. Hao, J.-Y. Desaules, Q. Guo, J. Chen, J. Deng, B. Liu, W. Ren, Y. Yao, X. Zhang, S. Xu, K. Wang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, B. Zhang, H. Li, C. Song, Z. Wang, F. Liu, Z. Papi´ c, L. Ying, H. Wang, and Y.-C. Lai, Nature Physics 19, 8 120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Dong, J.-Y

    H. Dong, J.-Y. Desaules, Y. Gao, N. Wang, Z. Guo, J. Chen, Y. Zou, F. Jin, X. Zhu, P. Zhang, H. Li, Z. Wang, Q. Guo, J. Zhang, L. Ying, and Z. Papi´ c, Science Advances 9, eadj3822 (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Physical Review B 98, 235156 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 147201 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    C.-J. Lin, V. Calvera, and T. H. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. B 101, 220304 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Desaules, E

    J.-Y. Desaules, E. J. Gustafson, A. C. Y. Li, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042606 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Desaules, D

    J.-Y. Desaules, D. Banerjee, A. Hudomal, Z. Papi´ c, A. Sen, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B 107, L201105 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Desaules, A

    J.-Y. Desaules, A. Hudomal, D. Banerjee, A. Sen, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B107, 205112 (2023)

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.