Arxiv:0704.3906V2 [Quant-Ph]

Home , Correlation function

arXiv:0704.3906v2 [quant-ph] 10 Mar 2008 tr;(i tmaue h oa muto nomto fon of information of amount total the tempe measures zero it at tha entropy (ii) is entanglement ature; the quantity with this coincides for it motivation (i) Theory—the by The Information problems Quantum information. both of mutual address concept we a tem- work to zero present beyond resorting latter the a the lacking In of still extension and thus perature. proof is the a law is between area as connection the well firm and correlations A however, of rigorous can, decay made which argument be an easily law, not correl area of an localization imply apparent should this de Intuitively correlations two-point (Fig.1). which on sca length, length characteristic correlation a the of existence the from comes tems 17]. aspec [16, relevant systems the many-body quantum cover correlated to strongly tailored of are classe which powerful the states insight of to ansatz These constructions contrast law. recent ex- area sharp an which guided in than space fruitfully is rather Hilbert scaling Both in volume states a of 11]. hibit majority 10, the 9, devi- of behavior 8, (logarithmic) small 7, for [6, allow ations to cri known while are systems i systems lattice scaling cal quantum entropy non-critical similar a in one Remarkably, observed of area. content law information Planck area maximal per an a bit with that case say this horizon—we ar in event the holds, the with at scales surfaces holes the black of of entropy the that insight the the by measured correlatio then all is where turn 13] entropy. in 12, which 11, entanglement 10, to 9, due tem- 8, are zero 7, at recentl 6, systems 5, has quantum [4, question of perature This variety a region. for that addressed of been how size environmen asks the its Fig.1) with and (see region scale connected approach a second between The correlations Information 3]. Quantum 2, in [1, entanglement Theory developed of and study used Matter the being Condensed in now further is in and acquired direction this been distanc in has Physics the knowledge with of correlations lot two-point A of investig decay the the is of approach traditional tion more com The models flavors. lattice two equilibrium in in correlations of study The ersi xlnto fteae a nnnciia sys- non-critical in law area the of explanation heuristic A from came 15] 14, 13, [12, topic this in interest original The another. about system one of information are Correlations unu ytm.I ssonta nae a sgnrlyimp information. generally mutual is law the area of an terms fre that in shown of is degrees It of number systems. an the quantum obeys on equilibrium only o thermal classically in models depends system area lattice a in of also part but we in paper contained laws this Planck-scale In new volume. for its on search than rather area surface its on h oorpi rnil ttsta nafnaetlleve fundamental a on that states principle holographic The ralw nqatmsses uulifrainadcorrel and information mutual systems: quantum in laws Area 1 a-lnkIsiu ¨rQatnpi,Hans-Kopfermann für Quantenoptik, Max-Planck-Institut ihe .Wolf M. Michael 2 auta ¨rPyi,Uiesta in Boltzmanngasse Wien, Universität Fakultät Physik, für o lmsNtoa aoaoy o lms e eio8754 Mexico New Alamos, Los Laboratory, National Alamos Los 3 etrfrNnlna tde n hoeia Division, Theoretical and Studies Non-linear for Center 1 rn Verstraete Frank , Dtd ac 0 2008) 10, March (Dated: ations of s cay le, ti- ea ns es a- e. ts r- 2 y e s s s t t ate .Hastings B. Matthew , nageetbetween entanglement than nlattices on state. repres correlated exact finitely a an a has that as state show tation the and that detail, implies for more law information 1D-area in strict systems mutual states 1D the pair of of classes entangled certain behavior projected the mixed area discuss all an (PEPS), a that by of prove fulfilled form will is the we law in Moreover, rigorous made c implication. be of one-way can decay law relating area and picture fini relations any heuristic at the proven rigourously (iv) be temperature; can correla law area hidden the ’overlooking’ (iii) tions; without another about system boundar the at sites of number the by bounded thus is glement) orlto length correlation I.1 eaeitrse ntemta nomto o entan (or information mutual the regions in two interested the between are ment) We 1: FIG. ieo h atc orsod oacasclo unu spi quantum or classical a space to configuration Ea corresponds with lattice the invariant). of translational site (e.g., homogeneous ficiently ie rbblt distribution probability a Given orsodn odson sets disjoint to corresponding inbtenteergosi endby defined is regions these between tion hwta hspeoeo o nyeegsi the in emerges only not phenomenon this that show h nomto otn fargo huddepend should region a of content information the l ebgnb xn oentto.W osdrsystems consider We notation. some fixing by begin We dm tmydvrea h nes eprtr in temperature inverse the as diverge may it edom, lsia n unu hsc:teinformation the physics: quantum and classical f ralw hl h aia nomto e unit per information maximal the While law. area idb nt orlto eghwe measured when length correlation finite a by lied ξ tesae tie hudntcnrbt oteinformatio the to contribute not should stripe) shaded (the Sr1 54 acig Germany. Garching, 85748 -Str.1, I ( Λ A ,A19 in Austria. Wien, A-1090 5, ⊆ : B B ξ Z = ) hnstsin sites then 3 D .IncoCirac Ignacio J. , A in H and D ( ,USA 5, Z ρ A d B pta iesoswihaesuf- are which dimensions spatial A + ) A rHletspace Hilbert or h uulifrain(rentan- (or information mutual The . A ,B A, and and ρ H ations on ( B B ρ ⊆ B ersial,i hr sa is there if Heuristically, . 1 Λ htaesprtdb more by separated are that Λ ) n marginals and − h uulinforma- mutual the , H ( C ρ AB d respectively. ) , ρ A y. ρ , or n gle- en- (1) or- ch te B n - 2

where H(ρ) = − x ρ(x)log ρ(x) is the Shannon entropy. temperature β. In fact, it is known that at zero temperature In the quantum caseP the ρ’s become density operators (and the boundary area scaling of the mutual information, which their partial traces) and H has to be replaced by the von Neu- then becomes I(A : B)=2S(A), breaks down for certain mann entropy S(ρ) = −tr[ρ log ρ]. The mutual information critical systems [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Eq.(3) shows that all the has a well defined operational meaning as the total amount of logarithmic corrections appearing in these models disappear correlations between two systems [19]. It quantifies the in- at any finite temperature. formation about B which can be obtained from A and vice By comparingthe area laws (2) and (3) we notice that quan- versa. Elementary properties of the mutual information are tum states may have higher mutual information than classical positivity, that it vanishes iff the system factorizes, and it is ones as the information per unit area is no longer bounded by non-increasing under discarding parts of the system [20]. We the number of degrees of freedom. In fact, our results imply will occasionally write SA meaning S(ρA). that if a system violates inequality (2), then it must have a Area laws for classical and quantum systems: Let us start quantum character. Note that Eqs.(2,3) directly generalize the findings of [21] for systems of harmonic oscillators. considering classical Gibbs distributions of finite range in- Let us now turn to an important class of quantum states teractions. All such distributions are Markov fields, i.e., if which goes beyond Gibbs states, namely projected entangled x , x , x are configurations of three regions where C sep- A C B pair states (PEPS) [16]. These states bear their name from arates A from B such that no interaction directly connects A projecting ‘virtual spins’, obtained from assigning entangled with B, then ρ(x |x , x ) = ρ(x |x ) holds for all con- A C B A C pairs |Φi = D |iii to the edges of a lattice, onto physical ditional probabilities [with ρ(x|y) := ρ(x, y)/ρ(y)]. Let us i=1 sites correspondingP to the vertices. A natural generalization denote by ∂A, ∂B the sets of sites in A, B which are connected to the exterior by an interaction. Exploiting the Markov of this concept to mixed states is to use completely positive property together with the fact that we can express the mu- maps for the mapping from the virtual to the physical level [18]. Since every such map can be purified, these mixed PEPS tual information in terms of a conditional entropy H(A|B)= can be interpreted as pure PEPS with an additional physical H(A) − I(A : B) then leads to an area law system which gets traced out in the end. For all these states I(A : B)= I(∂A : ∂B) ≤ H(∂A) ≤ |∂A| log d, (2) one can now easily see that the mutual information between a block A and its complement B satisfies a boundary area law where the first inequality follows from positivity of the classical conditional information. Equation (2) shows that correla- I(A : B) ≤ 2|∂A| log D, (4) tions in classical thermal states are localized at the boundary. since it is upper bounded by the mutual information, i.e., In particular if we take B the complement of A, then we ob- twice the block entropy, of the purified state which is in turn tain that the mutual information scales as the boundary area bounded by the number of bonds cut. An interesting class of of the considered region and the maximal information per unit mixed PEPS are Gibbs states of Hamiltonians of commuting area is determined by the number of microscopic degrees of finite range interactions (see appendix). Note that these are freedom. not necessarily classical systems, as a simultaneous diagonal- For quantum systems less information can be inferred from ization need not preserve the local structure of the interaction. the boundary and the Markov property does no longer hold The Kitaev model [22] on the square lattice, the cluster state in general. Remarkably enough, for the case of the mutual [23] Hamiltonian and all stabilizer Hamiltonians fall in this information between a region A and its complement B we class. Moreover, Gibbs states of arbitrary local Hamiltonians can also derive an area law for finite temperatures. In order are approximately representable as mixed PEPS [24]. to show that, we consider again a finite range Hamiltonian H = HA +H∂ +HB, where HA, HB are all interaction terms Mutual information and correlations: We will now dis- within the two regions and H∂ collects all those crossing the cuss the correlationsmeasured in terms of the mutual informa- boundary. The thermal state ρAB corresponding to the inverse tion between separate regions. Traditionally, correlations are temperature β minimizes the free energy F (ρ) = tr[Hρ] − measured by connected correlation functions C(MA,MB) := 1 β S(ρ). In particular, F (ρAB) ≤ F (ρA ⊗ ρB) from which we hMA ⊗ MBi − hMAihMBi of observables MA, MB. In fact, obtain these two concepts can be related by expressing the mutual information as a relative entropy S(ρAB|ρA ⊗ ρB)= I(A : B), I(A : B) ≤ β tr H∂ (ρA ⊗ ρB − ρAB) (3) 1 2 using the norm bound S(ρ|σ) ≥ 2 ||ρ − σ||1 [25] and the inequality ||X||1 ≥ tr[XY ]/||Y ||. In this way we obtain since HA, HB have the same expectation values in both cases. As the r.h.s. of Eq.(3) depends solely on the boundary we 2 C(MA,MB) obtain again an area law scaling similar to that in Eq.(2). I(A : B) ≥ . (5) 2||M ||2k|M ||2 For example, if we just have two–site interactions we obtain A B I(A : B) ≤ 2β||h|||∂A|, where ||h||| is the maximal eigen- Hence, if I(A : B) decays for instance exponentially in the value of all two–site Hamiltonians across the boundary, i.e., distance between A and B then so will C. One of the advan- the strength of the interaction. Note that the scale at which the tages of the mutual information is, that there cannot be cor- area law becomes apparent is now determined by the inverse relations ‘overlooked’, whereas C might be arbitrarily small 3

H1, H2 Hilbert spaces of dimension D, d respectively. Define further E(x) = tr2[T (x)] and assume the generic condition that E has only one eigenvalue of magnitude one. The second largest eigenvalue, η, is related to the standard correla- L R tion length through ξ ∼ −1/ ln η. In order to estimate ξM A we exploit the fact that ρAB factorizes exponentially with in- −L/ξ creasing separation L, i.e., ||ρAB − ρA ⊗ ρB ||1 = O(e ) (see appendix). Moreover, T can be locally purified thereby B 2 increasing the size of H2 by a factor of dD . Denoting the additional purifying systems by A′ and B′ respectively, we ob- ′ ′ tain on the one hand I(A : B) ≤ I(AA : BB )= S(ρAA′ ⊗ ρBB′ )−S(ρAA′BB′ ). Onthe otherhandwe canapplyFannes’ FIG. 2: Left: We consider regions A and B separated by a spherical inequality[29], |S(ρ)−S(σ)|≤ ∆ log(δ −1)+H(∆, 1−∆), shell of thickness L ≪ R; Right: Simple 1D model for a state which 1 where ∆= 2 ||ρ − σ||1 and δ is the dimension of the support- is formed by singlet pairs (indicated by lines joining them) whose ing Hilbert space, to I(AA′ : BB′). Due to the purification length follows a given probability distribution. we deal with finite dimensional systems (δ = D2) so that putting things together leads to while the state is still highly correlated—a fact exploited in quantum data hiding and quantum expanders[26]. −L/ξ IL(R) ≤ log(D)OLe . (7) In the following we will relate the correlation length as defined by the mutual information with the area law mentioned Since I (R) increases (decreases) with R (L), and is lower previously. To this end consider a spherical shell C of outer L bounded by correlation function (5) this inequality immedi- radius R and thickness L ≪ R which separates the inner re- ately implies that ξ is finite and directly related to ξ. gion A from the exterior B (see Fig. 2). We denote the mutual M The case considered above includes several interesting information between A and B by I (R) and define ξ as the L M situations of systems in 1D with finite–range interactions: minimal length L such that IL(R) < I0(R)/2 for all R, i.e., a correlation length measured by the mutual information. Note frustration–free Hamiltonians at T = 0, all classical Gibbs states, and all quantum ones for commuting Hamiltonians. In that ξM can be infinite (e.g., for critical systems) and that it takes into account the decay of all possible correlations. Us- all cases, the area law is fulfilled following the results given ing the subadditivity property of the entropy we obtain the in the previous sections. However, it is known that for certain critical local Hamiltonians the area law is violated at T = 0. general inequality I(A : BC) ≤ I(A : B)+2SC which leads to In order to analyze how this behavior may emerge, we will considered a simple toy model in 1D for which IL(R) can be

I0 ≤ IξM +2SC ≤ 4|∂A|ξM . (6) exactly determined. 1 Let us consider a spin 2 system formed of singlets (see Fig. Here the first inequality implies the second one by inserting 2). The state is such that from any given site, i, the probability 1 IξM ≤ 2 I0 and the fact that S(C) ≤ ξM |∂A| . So, indeed, of having a singlet with another site, j, is a function f(|i−j|). we get an area law for the mutual information solely from the The mutual information between two regions is equal to the existence of the length scale ξM , which expresses the common number of singlets that connect those regions, and thus it can sense explanation of Fig. 1. This area law is also valid for be easily determined (if we take a large region, so that we zero temperature and when violated immediately implies an can average this number). If we take f(x) ∝ e−x/ξ we have infinite correlation length ξM . The converse is, however, not that: (i) all (averaged) correlation functions decay exponen- true since there are critical lattice systems which obey an area tially with the distance and that ξ gives the correlation length; law [21, 27]. Surprisingly, an area law can even hold under (ii) IL(R) decays exponentially with L and that ξM ∼ ξ; (iii) algebraically decaying two-point correlations [21, 27]. an area law is fulfilled. If we take f(x) ∝ 1/(x2 + a2) we Examples in one dimension: We will now investigate the obtain that: (i) the correlation functions decay as power laws decay of correlations in terms of the mutual information for with the distance; (ii) IL(R) ∼ log(2R − L) and thus ξM certain simple cases. We will show that in all of them ξM is is infinite; (iii) the area law is violated. Thus, for this spe- directly connected to the standard correlation length. We will cific model we see how the violation of the area law naturally consider infinite lattices in 1 spatial dimension (see Fig. 2). implies an infinite correlation length. We start out by considering an important class of states, For zero temperature there is another simple connection be- the so–called finitely correlated states (FCS) [28], which nat- tween the area law and the decay of IL(R) as a function of urally appear in several lattice systems in 1D. They can be the separation L. If for a pure state the entropy of a block viewed as 1D PEPS (or matrix product states). Every FCS is of length L goes to a constant K as SL = K − f(L) with most easily characterized by a completely positive, trace pre- f(L) → 0 for increasing L, then IL(R) → f(L) as R → ∞ serving map (a channel) T : B(H1) → B(H1 ⊗ H2) with for sufficiently large L. If the block entropy diverges instead, 4 then IL(R) → ∞ for every finite separation. PEPS representation of thermal stabilizer states Saturation of mutual information implies FCS: For one- dimensional systems the area law just means a saturation of PEPS [16] bear their name from projecting ‘virtual spins’, obtained from assigning entangled pairs |Φi = D |iii to the mutual information. Let us finally gain some first insight Pi=1 into the structure of states having this property. So consider the edges of a lattice, onto physical sites corresponding to the a general (mixed) 1D translational invariant state and denote vertices. A natural generalization of this concept to mixed the mutual information between a block of length L and the states is to use completely positive maps for the mapping from rest of the system by I(L) and similarly its entropy by S(L). the virtual to the physical level [18]. Since every such map The latter can be shown to be a concave function can be purified, these mixed PEPS can be interpreted as pure PEPS with an additional physical system which gets traced out in the end. To become more specific let us consider a S(L) ≥ S(L − 1) + S(L + 1) /2, (8) 2D square lattice. Then every pure PEPS is characterized by assigning a 5’th order tensor Ai to each lattice site. Here which is nothing but the strong subadditivity inequality ap- r,l,u,d the upper index corresponds to the physical site and the lower plied to a region of length L − 1 surrounded by two single ‘virtual’ ones (running from 1 to D) get contracted according sites. Eq.(8) has strong implications on the behavior of . I(L) to the lattice structure. A mixed PEPS is then obtained by Assume that the system is a finite ring of length N, then increasing the range of i from d to ddE and finally tracing over these additional environmental degrees of freedom, which can I(L) − I(L − 1) = [S(L) − S(L − 1)] (9) be thought of as a second layer of the square lattice. −[S(N − L + 1) − S(N − L)] Let us now prove that all Gibbs states of Hamiltonians of commuting finite range interactions are mixed PEPS. For sim- is a difference between two slopes of the entropy function. plicity consider again a 2D square lattice. Starting point is to −βH/2 −βH/2 Due to concavity of S(L), I(L) is increasing as long as write the un-normalized Gibbs state as e ½e and

(id ⊗ T˜)(ρL−1)= ρL, (10) Schmidt decompositions in the Hilbert-Schmidt Hilbert space. That is, the operators Uα,Dα, Rβ,Lβ form four sets of or- where ρL is the reduced density operator of L sites and suc- thogonal operators, which by assumption commute with each cessive applications of T˜ to the last L−1 sites generates larger other but not necessarily among themselves (e.g. [U1,U2] 6= and larger parts of the chain. For inﬁnite systems these states 0). Using that the Gibbs state is up to normalization a product form a subset of the FCS where now D = d(L−1), i.e., the of terms as in Eq.(11) leads then to its PEPS representation scale at which saturation sets in determines the ancillary di- with D = d2 and mension needed to represent the state. Ai = L R U D , (12) r,l,u,d r l d u i1,i2 Acknowledgements: Portions of this work were done at the ESI-Workshop on Lieb-Robinson Bounds. MBH was sup- where i = (i1,i2) with i2 corresponding to the environmental ported by US DOE DE-AC52-06NA25396. We acknowledge degrees. ﬁnancial support by the European projects SCALA and CON- QUEST and by the DFG (Forschungsgruppe 635 and Munich Center for Advanced Photonics (MAP)). Decay of correlations for Finitely correlated states

We consider now so called finitely correlated states (FCS) [28], which naturally appear in several lattice systems in 1D. APPENDIX They can be viewed as 1D PEPS (or matrix product states) where all the local projectors are the same. Every FCS is most In this appendix we show that (i) every Gibbs state of a easily characterized by a completely positive, trace preserving local quantum Hamiltonian with mutually commuting inter- map (a channel) T : B(H1) → B(H1 ⊗ H2) with H1, H2 actions is a mixed projected entangled pair state (PEPS) with Hilbert spaces of dimension D, d respectively. Define further small bond dimension, and (ii) finitely correlated states fac- E(x) = tr2[T (x)] and assume the generic condition that E torize exponentially, i.e., exhibit an exponential split property. has only one eigenvalue of magnitude one, corresponding to a 5

fixed point ̺ = E(̺). The second largest eigenvalue, η, is re- [9] P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech. P06002 (2004). lated to the standard correlation length through ξ = −1/ ln η. [10] M.M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010404 (2006). With this notation, it is very simple to express the states cor- [11] D. Gioev, I. Klich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100503 (2006). responding to regions A, B, and AB (which are required in [12] L. Bombelli, R.K. Koul, J. H. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D 34, 373 (1986). order to determine the mutualinformation). We now show that [13] M. Sredniicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 666 (1993). as L gets larger, ρAB approaches exponentially fast ρA ⊗ ρB. [14] G.’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 727 (1985). The reduced density matrix ρA of NA = R − L contiguous [15] C.G. Callan and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 333, 55 (1994). sites is obtained as [16] F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac. Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions. NA ρA = tr1hT (̺)i. (13) http:/xxx.lanl.gov/cond-mat/0407066 (2004). [17] G. Vidal, cond-mat/0512165. Similarly the joint reduced state of two regions A and B which [18] F. Verstraete, J.J. Garcia-Ripoll, J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 207204 (2004). are separated by L sites is given by [19] B. Groisman, S. Popescu, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032317 (2005). NB L NA L NB ρAB = lim tr1 T E T E T (̺) . (14) [20] M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum NB →∞ h i information, Cambridge University Press, 2000. For sufficiently large L write [21] M. Cramer, J. Eisert, M.B. Plenio, and J. Dreißig, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012309 (2006). EL(x)= 1 − cηL tr[x]̺ + cηLE′(x), (15) [22] A.Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003). [23] R. Raussendorf, H.J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 910 (2001). where E′ is some channel and c an L-independent constant. [24] M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 73, 085115 (2006). [25] M. Ohya, D. Petz, Quantum Entropy and its Use, Springer, Hei- Taken together Eqs.(13-15) enable us to bound the norm dis- delberg (1993). tance [26] P. Hayden, D. Leung. P.W. Shor, and A. Winter, Comm. L in Math. Phys. 250 371 (2004); M. B. Hastings, ||ρAB − ρA ⊗ ρB ||1 ≤ 4cη (16) cond-mat/0701055 (2007); Ben-Aroya and Ta-Shma, quant-ph/0702129 (2007). independent of NA,NB. That is, the two regions factorize ex- [27] F. Verstraete, M.M. Wolf, D. Perez-Garcia, J.I. Cirac, Phys. ponentially on a scale ξ = −1/ ln η which can be regarded Rev. Lett. 96, 220601 (2006). the correlation length of the system. We cannot use this result [28] M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, R.F. Werner, Commun. Math. directly for the mutual information since the dimension of the Phys. 144, 443 (1992). Hilbert space of system B is infinite. However, we can pro- [29] K.M.R. Audenaert, J. Phys. A 40, 8127 (2007). ceed by noting that each T can be locally purified thereby [30] P. Hayden, R. Jozsa, D. Petz, A. Winter, Commun. Math. Phys. 2 246, 359 (2004). increasing the size of H2 by a factor of dD (with E un- changed). Denoting the additional purifying systems by A′ and B′ respectively, we obtain on the one hand I(A : B) ≤ ′ ′ I(AA : BB ) = S(ρAA′ ⊗ ρBB′ ) − S(ρAA′BB′ ). On the other hand we can apply Fannes’ inequality, |S(ρ) − S(σ)|≤ 1 ∆ log(δ − 1) + H(∆, 1 − ∆), where ∆ = 2 ||ρ − σ||1 and δ is the dimension of the supporting Hilbert space, to I(AA′ : BB′). The advantage is that in this system we deal with finite dimensional systems with δ = D2.

[1] A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Nature 416, 608 (2002). [2] T.J. Osborne and M.A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. A 66, 032110 (2002). [3] F. Verstraete, M. Popp, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 027901 (2004). [4] M. Plenio, J. Eisert, J. Dreißig, and M. Cramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 060503 (2005). [5] A. Botero and B. Reznik, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052329 (2004). [6] H. Casini, C.D. Fosco, and M. Huerta, J. of Stat. Mech. 507, 007 (2005). [7] G. Vidal, J.I. Latorre, E. Rico, A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003) [8] B.-Q- Jin and V. Korepin, J. Stat. Phys. 116, 79 (2004).