Cited by 664Quantum many-body systemsQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture

Lieb-Robinson Bounds and the Generation of Correlations and Topological Quantum Order

Open access
Bravyi, S., Hastings, M. B., Verstraete, F.·2006·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

The Lieb-Robinson bound states that local Hamiltonian evolution in nonrelativistic quantum mechanical theories gives rise to the notion of an effective light cone with exponentially decaying tails. We discuss several consequences of this result in the context of quantum information theory. First, we show that the information that leaks out to spacelike separated regions is negligible and that there is a finite speed at which correlations and entanglement can be distributed. Second, we discuss how these ideas can be used to prove lower bounds on the time it takes to convert states without topological quantum order to states with that property. Finally, we show that the rate at which entropy can be created in a block of spins scales like the boundary of that block.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.97.050401

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Strongly entangled models in more than one dimension are computationally hard, with examples including fermionic models, frustrated models, and disordered models.

    “Generally speaking, computationally hard are those 'strongly entangled' models in more than 1D such as”

    From Can one trust quantum simulators? (2012) · cites this paper as [90]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. E.H. Lieb, D.W. Robinson, Commun. Math. Phys. 28, 251 (1972).
  2. M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 69, 104431 (2004);
  3. M.B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140402 (2004);
  4. M.B. Hast- ings, T. Koma, math-ph/0507008. · arXiv
  5. B. Nachtergaele, R. Sims, math-ph/0506030. · arXiv
  6. T. S. Cubitt, F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052308 (2005).
  7. H. J. Briegel, W. Dür, J.I. Cirac, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998).
  8. F. Verstraete, M. Popp, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027901 (2004).
  9. X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9377 (1990).
  10. A.Y. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 303, 2 (2003).
  11. E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, J. Preskill, J. Math. Phys. 43, 4452 (2002).
  12. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics 58, 1131 (1990).
  13. A. M. Childs, D. W. Leung, F. Verstraete, G. Vidal, Quantum Information and Computation 3, 97 (2003).
  14. A. M. Childs, D. W. Leung, and G. Vidal, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory Vol. 50, No. 6, 1189-1197 (2004).
  15. G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003);
  16. F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, cond-mat/0505140; · arXiv
  17. M.B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085115 (2006);
  18. T.J. Osborne, quant-ph/0508031; · arXiv
  19. F. Ver- straete, D. Porras, J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 227205 (2004);
  20. U. Schollwoeck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005).
  21. M. B. Hastings and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045141 (2005).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bravyi, S., Hastings, M. B., & Verstraete, F.
Affiliations
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2006-07-31
Volume
97
Issue
5
Pages
050401-050401
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W1977658351
Cited by
664
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
12.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9907949, W-7405-ENG-36)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (W-7405, W-7405-ENG-36)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Keywords
Lieb-Robinson bound, quantum correlations, entanglement propagation, topological quantum order, quantum state conversion, entropy production, quantum information, spin systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review