Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Nature Is Stingy: Universality of Scrooge Ensembles in Quantum Many-Body Systems

Wai-Keong Mok1, Tobias Haug2, Wen Wei Ho3,4, and John Preskill1,5

Phys. Rev. X 16, 041003 – Published 2 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tb52-jxmx

Abstract

Recent advances in quantum simulators allow direct experimental access to ensembles of pure states generated by measuring part of an isolated quantum many-body system. These projected ensembles encode fine-grained information beyond thermal expectation values and provide a new window into quantum thermalization. In chaotic dynamics, projected ensembles exhibit universal statistics governed by maximum-entropy principles, known as deep thermalization. At infinite temperature, this universality is characterized by Haar-random ensembles. More generally, physical constraints such as finite temperature or conservation laws lead to Scrooge ensembles, which are maximally entropic distributions of pure states consistent with these constraints. Here, we introduce Scrooge k-designs, which approximate Scrooge ensembles, and we use this framework to sharpen the conditions under which Scrooge-like behavior emerges. We first show that global Scrooge designs arise from long-time chaotic unitary dynamics alone, without measurements. Second, we show that measuring a complementary subsystem of a scrambled global state drawn from a global Scrooge 2k-design induces a local Scrooge k-design. Third, we show that a local Scrooge k-design arises from an arbitrary entangled state when the complementary system is measured in a scrambled basis induced by a unitary drawn from a Haar 2k-design. These results show that the resources required to generate approximate Scrooge ensembles scale only with the desired degree of approximation, enabling efficient implementations. Complementing our analytical results, numerical simulations identify coherence, entanglement, nonstabilizerness, and information scrambling as essential ingredients for the emergence of local Scrooge-like behavior. Together, our findings advance theoretical explanations for maximally entropic, information-stingy randomness in quantum many-body systems.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Article Text

References (135)

  1. R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015).
  2. D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Colloquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019).
  3. J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991).
  4. M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994).
  5. M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature (London) 452, 854 (2008).
  6. L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016).
  7. F. Borgonovi, F. Izrailev, L. Santos, and V. Zelevinsky, Quantum chaos and thermalization in isolated systems of interacting particles, Phys. Rep. 626, 1 (2016).
  8. T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, and M. Ueda, Thermalization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: A theoretical overview, J. Phys. B 51, 112001 (2018).
  9. M. Ueda, Quantum equilibration, thermalization and prethermalization in ultracold atoms, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 669 (2020).
  10. C. Gogolin and J. Eisert, Equilibration, thermalisation, and the emergence of statistical mechanics in closed quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 056001 (2016).
  11. E. T. Jaynes, Information theory and statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. 106, 620 (1957).
  12. W. Grandy, Principle of maximum entropy and irreversible processes, Phys. Rep. 62, 175 (1980).
  13. L. Martyushev and V. Seleznev, Maximum entropy production principle in physics, chemistry and biology, Phys. Rep. 426, 1 (2006).
  14. J. R. Banavar, A. Maritan, and I. Volkov, Applications of the principle of maximum entropy: From physics to ecology, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22, 063101 (2010).
  15. S. Pressé, K. Ghosh, J. Lee, and K. A. Dill, Principles of maximum entropy and maximum caliber in statistical physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1115 (2013).
  16. M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Site-resolved measurement of the spin-correlation function in the Fermi-Hubbard model, Science 353, 1253 (2016).
  17. J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkelstein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, H. Pichler, F. G. S. L. Brandão, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Preparing random states and benchmarking with many-body quantum chaos, Nature (London) 613, 468 (2023).
  18. P. Schauß, M. Cheneau, M. Endres, T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, A. Omran, T. Pohl, C. Gross, S. Kuhr, and I. Bloch, Observation of spatially ordered structures in a two-dimensional Rydberg gas, Nature (London) 491, 87 (2012).
  19. M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 16, 145 (2025).
  20. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  21. Z. Yan, Z.-Y. Ge, R. Li, Y.-R. Zhang, F. Nori, and Y. Nakamura, Characterizing many-body dynamics with projected ensembles on a superconducting quantum processor, Sci. Adv. 12, eaeb8213 (2026).
  22. J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hernández, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Emergent quantum state designs from individual many-body wave functions, PRX Quantum 4, 010311 (2023).
  23. M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, Solvable model of deep thermalization with distinct design times, Quantum 6, 886 (2022).
  24. W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Exact emergent quantum state designs from quantum chaotic dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060601 (2022).
  25. H. Wilming and I. Roth, High-temperature thermalization implies the emergence of quantum state designs, arXiv:2202.01669.
  26. P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Emergent quantum state designs and biunitarity in dual-unitary circuit dynamics, Quantum 6, 738 (2022).
  27. H. Shrotriya and W. W. Ho, Nonlocality of deep thermalization, SciPost Phys. 18, 107 (2025).
  28. C. Liu, Q. C. Huang, and W. W. Ho, Deep thermalization in Gaussian continuous-variable quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 260401 (2024).
  29. T. Bhore, J.-Y. Desaules, and Z. Papić, Deep thermalization in constrained quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 108, 104317 (2023).
  30. M. Lucas, L. Piroli, J. De Nardis, and A. De Luca, Generalized deep thermalization for free fermions, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032215 (2023).
  31. D. K. Mark, F. Surace, A. Elben, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, G. Refael, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Maximum entropy principle in deep thermalization and in Hilbert-space ergodicity, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041051 (2024).
  32. A. Chan and A. De Luca, Projected state ensemble of a generic model of many-body quantum chaos, J. Phys. A 57, 405001 (2024).
  33. R.-A. Chang, H. Shrotriya, W. W. Ho, and M. Ippoliti, Deep thermalization under charge-conserving quantum dynamics, PRX Quantum 6, 020343 (2025).
  34. N. D. Varikuti and S. Bandyopadhyay, Unraveling the emergence of quantum state designs in systems with symmetry, Quantum 8, 1456 (2024).
  35. W.-K. Mok, T. Haug, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and J. Preskill, Optimal conversion from classical to quantum randomness via quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 180403 (2025).
  36. C. Liu, M. Ippoliti, and W. W. Ho, Coherence-induced deep thermalization transition in random permutation quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 100404 (2026).
  37. B. Zhang, P. Xu, X. Chen, and Q. Zhuang, Holographic deep thermalization for secure and efficient quantum random state generation, Nat. Commun. 16, 6341 (2025).
  38. S. Chakraborty, S. Choi, S. Ghosh, and T. Giurgic ă Tiron, Fast computational deep thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 210603 (2025).
  39. M. Bejan, B. Béri, and M. McGinley, Matchgate circuits deeply thermalize, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 020401 (2025).
  40. S. Manna, S. Roy, and G. J. Sreejith, Projected ensemble in a system with locally supported conserved charges, Phys. Rev. B 111, 144302 (2025).
  41. C. Vairogs and B. Yan, Extracting randomness from magic quantum states, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, L022069 (2025).
  42. H. Lóio, G. Lami, L. Leone, M. McGinley, X. Turkeshi, and J. De Nardis, Quantum state designs via magic teleportation, arXiv:2510.13950.
  43. S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, On the distribution of the wave function for systems in thermal equilibrium, J. Stat. Phys. 125, 1193 (2006).
  44. S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, C. Mastrodonato, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, Universal probability distribution for the wave function of a quantum system entangled with its environment, Commun. Math. Phys. 342, 965 (2016).
  45. N. D. Varikuti, S. Bandyopadhyay, and P. Hauke, Deep thermalization and measurements of quantum resources, arXiv:2512.09999.
  46. S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Entanglement and the foundations of statistical mechanics, Nat. Phys. 2, 754 (2006).
  47. S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, Canonical typicality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 050403 (2006).
  48. In Refs. [43, 44] this ensemble is called the “Gaussian Adjusted Projected (GAP)” ensemble.

  49. R. Jozsa, D. Robb, and W. K. Wootters, Lower bound for accessible information in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. A 49, 668 (1994).
  50. The term Scrooge ensemble was coined in Ref. [49]. It is most likely a reference to the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge from Charles Dickens’s 1843 novel A Christmas Carol, as this character was famous for being stingy with his money.

  51. C. Dankert, R. Cleve, J. Emerson, and E. Livine, Exact and approximate unitary 2-designs and their application to fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 80, 012304 (2009).
  52. D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert, Evenly distributed unitaries: On the structure of unitary designs, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 48, 052104 (2007).
  53. Y. Nakata, P. S. Turner, and M. Murao, Phase-random states: Ensembles of states with fixed amplitudes and uniformly distributed phases in a fixed basis, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012301 (2012).
  54. S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, Long-time behavior of macroscopic quantum systems, Eur. Phys. J. H 35, 173 (2010).
  55. N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. E 79, 061103 (2009).
  56. S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, I. Marvian, S. Choi, and W. W. Ho, Hilbert-space ergodicity in driven quantum systems: Obstructions and designs, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041059 (2024).
  57. S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, C. B. Dag, W. W. Ho, and S. Choi, Complete Hilbert-space ergodicity in quantum dynamics of generalized Fibonacci drives, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 250401 (2023).
  58. S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, S. Choi, and W. W. Ho, Critically slow Hilbert-space ergodicity in quantum morphic drives, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 140402 (2025).
  59. A. L. Shaw, D. K. Mark, J. Choi, R. Finkelstein, P. Scholl, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Experimental signatures of Hilbert-space ergodicity: Universal bitstring distributions and applications in noise learning, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031001 (2025).
  60. W. Liu, Z.-W. Pan, Y. Fu, W. W. Ho, and X. Rong, Observation of hierarchy of Hilbert space ergodicities in the quantum dynamics of a single spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 020401 (2026).
  61. F. G. S. L. Brandão, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, Local random quantum circuits are approximate polynomial-designs, Commun. Math. Phys. 346, 397 (2016).
  62. M. McGinley and T. Schuster, The Scrooge ensemble in many-body quantum systems, arXiv:2511.17172.
  63. S. Ghosh, A. Mirani, Y. Quek, and M. Xu, Design boosters: From constant-time quantum chaos to ∞-designs and beyond, arXiv:2511.08543.
  64. T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Random unitaries in extremely low depth, Science 389, 92 (2025).
  65. H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nat. Phys. 16, 1050 (2020).
  66. M. McGinley and M. Fava, Shadow tomography from emergent state designs in analog quantum simulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 160601 (2023).
  67. M. C. Tran, D. K. Mark, W. W. Ho, and S. Choi, Measuring arbitrary physical properties in analog quantum simulation, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011049 (2023).
  68. J. Preskill, Lecture Notes for Physics 229: Quantum Information and Computation, Lecture Notes (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1998).
  69. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2011).
  70. A. S. Holevo, Bounds for the quantity of information transmitted by a quantum communication channel, Probl. Inf. Transm. 9, 177 (1973).
  71. L. Mao, L. Cui, T. Schuster, and H.-Y. Huang, Random unitaries that conserve energy, arXiv:2510.08448 (2025).
  72. The relative error is a strictly stronger notion of approximation: A relative error ϵ implies an additive error ϵ, but the converse is not true.

  73. B. Collins and S. Matsumoto, Weingarten calculus via orthogonality relations: New applications, Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 14, 631 (2017).
  74. B. Collins, S. Matsumoto, and J. Novak, The weingarten calculus, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 69, 1 (2022).
  75. G. Köstenberger, Weingarten calculus, arXiv:2101.00921.
  76. In quantum many-body systems, ‖σ‖2=Tr(σ2) is often exponentially small in the system size (or, equivalently, inverse power in D). Therefore, we expect the low-purity condition to be valid up to exponentially high moments k.

  77. For brevity, we suppress constants in the definition of exp(k), writing exp(k)=ec1kc2 for some constants c1, c2>0.

  78. J. Riddell and N. Pagliaroli, No-resonance conditions, random matrices, and quantum chaotic models, J. Stat. Phys. 191, 141 (2024).
  79. This is consistent with the result of recent work by Ghosh et al. [63], though there they prove this for the weaker additive error and here we prove this for the stronger relative error.

  80. Z. Webb, The Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design, Quantum Inf. Comput. 16, 1379 (2016).
  81. H. Zhu, Multiqubit Clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062336 (2017).
  82. H. Zhu, R. Kueng, M. Grassl, and D. Gross, The Clifford group fails gracefully to be a unitary 4-design, arXiv:1609.08172.
  83. This can be derived by a counting argument: Measuring subsystem B of a stabilizer state |Ψ⟩AB in a stabilizer basis will only generate at most 2ℓ distinct stabilizer states on A, where ℓ≤NA is the number of ebits shared between A and B. This is insufficient to form approximate 2-designs, which require about 4NA states.

  84. J. Haferkamp, F. Montealegre-Mora, M. Heinrich, J. Eisert, D. Gross, and I. Roth, Efficient unitary designs with a system-size independent number of non-Clifford gates, Commun. Math. Phys. 397, 995 (2023).
  85. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, A. Hamma, J. Eisert, and L. Bittel, Non-Clifford cost of random unitaries, PRX Quantum 7, 020321 (2026).
  86. Note that in order to guarantee that the projected ensemble approximates a 2-design, the additive error must satisfy ϵ≪1/(DADB) since N-qubit stabilizer states form approximate 4-designs with additive error ϵ=Θ(2−N) [87, 88], yet their projected ensembles only form a 1-design.

  87. R. O. P. Damanik, Optimality in stabilizer testing, Report, 2018.
  88. L. Bittel, J. Eisert, L. Leone, A. A. Mele, and S. F. Oliviero, A complete theory of the Clifford commutant, Quantum 10, 2171 (2026).
  89. S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Canonical thermal pure quantum state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010401 (2013).
  90. Y. O. Nakagawa, M. Watanabe, H. Fujita, and S. Sugiura, Universality in volume-law entanglement of scrambled pure quantum states, Nat. Commun. 9, 1635 (2018).
  91. P. Reimann, Typicality for generalized microcanonical ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160404 (2007).
  92. If H has time-reversal symmetry, ξj is a real-valued Gaussian variable.

  93. Z. Davoudi, N. Mueller, and C. Powers, Towards quantum computing phase diagrams of gauge theories with thermal pure quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 081901 (2023).
  94. A. Dymarsky, N. Lashkari, and H. Liu, Subsystem eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Phys. Rev. E 97, 012140 (2018).
  95. J. R. Garrison and T. Grover, Does a single eigenstate encode the full Hamiltonian?, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021026 (2018).
  96. J. P. Keating, N. Linden, and H. J. Wells, Spectra and eigenstates of spin chain Hamiltonians, Commun. Math. Phys. 338, 81 (2015).
  97. M. Hartmann, G. Mahler, and O. Hess, Spectral densities and partition functions of modular quantum systems as derived from a central limit theorem, J. Stat. Phys. 119, 1139 (2005).
  98. L. Coopmans, Y. Kikuchi, and M. Benedetti, Predicting Gibbs-state expectation values with pure thermal shadows, PRX Quantum 4, 010305 (2023).
  99. C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and A. Gilyén, Quantum thermal state preparation, arXiv:2303.18224.
  100. C.-F. Chen, M. J. Kastoryano, and A. Gilyén, An efficient and exact noncommutative quantum Gibbs sampler, arXiv:2311.09207.
  101. M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and G. K.-L. Chan, Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution, Nat. Phys. 16, 205 (2020).
  102. S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Variational ansatz-based quantum simulation of imaginary time evolution, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 75 (2019).
  103. J. Maldacena and X.-L. Qi, Eternal traversable wormhole, arXiv:1804.00491.
  104. W. Cottrell, B. Freivogel, D. M. Hofman, and S. F. Lokhande, How to build the thermofield double state, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 058.
  105. These are certain properties of the state or evolution needed for quantum information processing to achieve quantum advantage over classical information processing.

  106. X. Feng, C. Liu, Z. Cheng, W. W. Ho, and M. Ippoliti, Quantum resource localizability transitions in deep thermalization, arXiv:2606.08756.
  107. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).
  108. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
  109. This can be rigorously quantified by so-called relative entropy of coherence C(|Ψ0⟩)=−∑z|cz|2ln(|cz|2), which is just the Shannon entropy of the populations in the computational basis, if the state |Ψ0⟩ is pure. Low coherence here means C=αN for some α less than the model-dependent critical value α*.

  110. X. Feng and M. Ippoliti, Dynamics of pseudoentanglement, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2025) 128.
  111. S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, S. Ghosh, U. Vazirani, C. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, Quantum Pseudoentanglement, in 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) Vol. 287, edited by V. Guruswami (Schloss Dagstuhl—Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2024), pp. 2:1–2:21.
  112. A. Y. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 303, 2 (2003).
  113. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005).
  114. Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022).
  115. G. Lami, T. Haug, and J. De Nardis, Quantum state designs with Clifford-enhanced matrix product states, PRX Quantum 6, 010345 (2025).
  116. R. Jozsa and N. Linden, On the role of entanglement in quantum-computational speed-up, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 459, 2011 (2003).
  117. S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004).
  118. H. Thomas, P.-E. Emeriau, R. Mezher, E. Kashefi, H. Ollivier, and U. Chabaud, Role of coherence for quantum computational advantage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 150602 (2025).
  119. D. Shepherd and M. J. Bremner, Temporally unstructured quantum computation, Proc. R. Soc. A 465, 1413 (2009).
  120. M. J. Bremner, R. Jozsa, and D. J. Shepherd, Classical simulation of commuting quantum computations implies collapse of the polynomial hierarchy, Proc. R. Soc. A 467, 459 (2010).
  121. These are closely related to instantaneous quantum polynomial (IQP) circuits [119, 120] studied in quantum complexity theory.

  122. X. Ni and M. V. den Nest, Commuting quantum circuits: Efficient classical simulations versus hardness results, Quantum Inf. Comput. 13, 54 (2013).
  123. More generally, we may also apply an arbitrary unitary UA on A, without affecting the discussion.

  124. Y. Nakata, M. Koashi, and M. Murao, Generating a state t-design by diagonal quantum circuits, New J. Phys. 16, 053043 (2014).
  125. L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum chaos is quantum, Quantum 5, 453 (2021).
  126. T. Haug, L. Aolita, and M. Kim, Probing quantum complexity via universal saturation of stabilizer entropies, Quantum 9, 1801 (2025).
  127. P. S. Tarabunga and T. Haug, Efficient mutual magic and magic capacity with matrix product states, SciPost Phys. 19, 085 (2025).
  128. P. Pfeuty, The one-dimensional Ising model with a transverse field, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 57, 79 (1970).
  129. T. Haug and L. Piroli, Quantifying nonstabilizerness of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 107, 035148 (2023).
  130. A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition, Nature (London) 416, 608 (2002).
  131. M. Walschaers, Non-Gaussian quantum states and where to find them, PRX Quantum 2, 030204 (2021).
  132. K.-D. Wu, T. V. Kondra, S. Rana, C. M. Scandolo, G.-Y. Xiang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, and A. Streltsov, Operational resource theory of imaginarity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 090401 (2021).
  133. A. Milekhin and S. Murciano, Observable-projected ensembles, Quantum 9, 1888 (2025).
  134. X.-H. Yu, W. W. Ho, and P. Kos, Mixed state deep thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 260402 (2025).
  135. A. W. Harrow, The church of the symmetric subspace, arXiv:1308.6595.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation