Arxiv:2105.09694V1 [Cond-Mat.Dis-Nn] 20 May 2021 Siderations Did Not Include MBL

Topologically ordered time crystals

Thorsten B. Wahl,1 Bo Han,2 and Benjamin Béri1, 2 1DAMTP, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK 2T.C.M. Group, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, UK (Dated: May 2021) We deﬁne topological time crystals, a dynamical phase of periodically driven quantum many-body systems capturing the coexistence of topological order with the spontaneous breaking of discrete time-translation symmetry. We show that many-body localization can stabilize this phase against generic perturbations and establish some of its key features and signatures. We link topological and ordinary time crystals through three complementary perspectives: higher-form symmetries, quantum error-correcting codes, and a holographic correspondence. We also propose an experimental realization of a surface-code-based topological time crystal for the Google Sycamore processor.

Introduction— Topologically ordered (TO) sys- OMs) [40], an MBL framework that has been instrumen- tems [1–3] display quantized nonlocal features such as tal for ordinary TCs [18, 23–25]. Such topological LI- fractional braiding statistics or groundstate degener- OMs (tLIOMs) will give a similarly useful framework for acy depending only on the topology of the underlying TTCs. On the conceptual level, our approach highlights manifold. These striking phenomena motivated numer- QEC codes as another unifying perspective bridging TCs ous conceptual advances (e.g., symmetry-protected or - and TTCs. We illustrate our findings, including both enriched topological phases [4–8]) and applications [e.g., the QEC and the higher-form symmetry perspective, on quantum error correcting (QEC) codes [1,9–11]] based TTCs in surface code systems [10]; this will also allow on topological low-energy physics. More recently, stud- us to highlight yet another unifying view: a holographic ies of topological matter expanded beyond the low-energy TTC–to–TC correspondence. We also explain how these regime to include far-from-equilibrium problems such as surface-code-based TTCs can be created in the Google quenches [12–14] or driven systems [15–21]. Sycamore Processor [41] from native ingredients. Time Crystals (TCs)[22] are periodically driven (“Flo- Topological time crystals— We shall describe quet”) systems that spontaneously break discrete time TTCs using the stabilizer formalism [42, 43]. We briefly translation and a global internal symmetry [18, 19, 23– summarize the ingredients for our purposes, focusing on 25]. To form a dynamical phase of matter [26, 27], TCs a system with N qubits although the ideas are more gen- are protected from the drive-induced heating by many- eral. The stabilizer group S is an Abelian subgroup of body localization [28–31] (MBL): they are strongly disor- the Pauli group; S is generated by a set {A } of suitable dered, with effective local degrees of freedom that remain s tensor products As of Pauli operators (i.e., Pauli strings). inert if their energies are much below the driving fre- Logical operators {W } are Pauli strings that commute quency 2π/T [18, 23–25, 32]. TCs display spatiotempo- l with all As but are not in S. The {As}, together with ral order [23–25]: local order parameters Oj (at location a maximal mutually commuting subset of {Wl}, form j) exist such that hψ|Oj(mT )Ok(0)|ψi are nonconstant a complete mutually commuting set: their eigenstates functions of the integer m for large distances |j − k| and uniquely specify a complete basis in the Hilbert space. for any eigenstate |ψi of the time-evolution operator. In this work, we expand the TC concept to include We focus on systems with nonchiral TO; the kind of TO. A key ingredient is to lift the global internal symme- TO admitting a commuting-projector limit and MBL [2, tries in TCs to “higher-form” global symmetries [33]: TO 39, 44]. In the commuting-projector limit, the Hamil- P can be viewed as the spontaneous breaking of these [33] tonian H = s αsAs with all the As geometrically and this provides a route for introducing topological time local [1,2]. We will mostly focus on 2D systems. crystals (TTCs) along regular TC principles. While sim- There, the {Wl} run along noncontractible paths and ilar ideas were briefly mentioned earlier [23, 24], the con- via their commutator algebra span topologically degen- arXiv:2105.09694v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 20 May 2021 siderations did not include MBL. Hence, even the ex- erate eigenspaces [1,2]. MBL is expected when |αs| are istence of TTCs as dynamical phases, as much as MBL large and random; then, even in the presence of weak systems can be in two dimensions (2D) and higher (as re- local perturbations, the eigenstates of the system are † quired for TO) [34–38], is an open question. Here, we an- simultaneous eigenstates of tLIOMs [39] Ts = Ue AsUe swer this in the affirmative and establish some key TTC where Ue is a local unitary [4, 40]. These tLIOMs imply features, as well as observable signatures. TO in all eigenstates [39]. The dressed logical operator † To establish our results, we formulate TTCs as Wfl = Ue WlUe contributes to the Hamiltonian via cou- Floquet-MBL versions of TO systems related to QEC plings that decay exponentially with the minimal path codes. On the technical level, this allows us to use a length ` for Wl. Unless stated otherwise, we assume large topological variant [39] of local integrals of motion (LI- ` for all the Wl and ignore these exponentially small cor- 2 rections: we view Wfl as non-local integrals of motion. small in the system size, θγ is a pure phase depending As with ordinary TCs, we seek TTCs in Floquet MBL only on the equivalence class, but not the local details, † 2 systems. Over a driving period T , the time evolution is of γ. This, together with Wfγ θγ = UF Wfγ UF and Wfγ = 1 R T −i H(t)dt implies θγ = ±1 to the same accuracy. Due to MBL, UF , generated by the Floquet unitary UF ≡ T e 0 , where T is the time-ordering operator and H(t) is a lo- Wfγ , and hence θγ change continuously under perturba- cal Hamiltonian at time t. In particular, O(t + mT ) = tion, i.e., θγ = ±1 is topologically protected. Therefore, m m† {W ,U } = 0 is also protected, i.e., U remains odd in UF O(t)UF for any operator O. With the ingredients fγ F F −if({TP }) above, we can define a TTC as follows. OeL. The decomposition UF = OeLe is thus ro- m bust. It implies Wfγ (mT ) = (−1) Wfγ (0), i.e., period 2T Definition 1. A system is a TTC if 1) the eigen- oscillations for the expectation values in Definition1. states |ψi of UF are topologically ordered; 2) there Comparison to other TCs— We first compare the exists a (dressed) logical operator W such that −if({TP }) fl TTC drive UF = OeLe to the canonical drive hψ|Wfl(mT )Wfl(0)|ψi is a nonconstant function of the in- structure of ordinary TCs [23–25]: There, instead of OeL teger m for any |ψi; 3) this property is robust to small, we have the (dressed) operator P of the global symme- local, but otherwise generic perturbations to the drive. try, and for f an MBL Hamiltonian ensuring spontaneous breaking of P in all eigenstates. The TTC drive Compared to ordinary TCs, in 1) we replace sponta- has similar ingredients in terms of higher-form symme- neous symmetry breaking in eigenstates [23–25] by TO. tries [33]: from this viewpoint, 2D TO in f is the spon- Hence, in 2) instead of a local order parameter, we use taneous breaking of “1-form” symmetries corresponding a suitable nonlocal order parameter. Due to working to (dressed) logical operators (such as OeL), while the or- with eigenstates |ψi, we have hψ|Wfl(mT )Wfl(0)|ψi = der parameters (“charged objects”) are their conjugates 0 0 shψ|Wfl(mT )Wf (0)|ψi (with s = ±1) for any product Wf l l (such as Wfγ ). Owing to this unifying perspective, the of Wfl and tLIOMs (i.e., path-deformed variants of Wfl). TTCs we consider are arguably the most “natural” forms Hence our definition also implies a generalization of long- of TCs with intrinsic TO. They are distinct from TO range correlations of the nonlocal order parameter. We drives that implement symmetry transformation of bulk require 3) to capture a phase of matter: we exclude fine- anyons [45], and by their intrinsic 2D TO also differ from tuned systems from our definition. We next consider the 1D, symmetry-protected, or weak TTC phases [19, 46]. canonical drive structure that gives rise to a TTC. Comments and some generalizations— As in reg- Proposition 1. If the Floquet unitary can be written as ular TCs, the decomposition of UF implies the organiza- −if({TP }) tion of the TTC Floquet spectrum into eigenstate mul- UF = OeLe and the system is many-body localized, this decomposition is stable, i.e., the system is a tiplets with rigid phase patterns [18, 23–25]. For the O2 = 1 case we considered, the O prefactor imprints TTC. Here, TP are the corresponding tLIOMs, OeL is a eL eL a robust π eigenphase difference for eigenstates of op- dressed logical operator (hence [OeL,TP ] = 0), and posite OeL eigenvalue. This topological π spectral pair- X X ing is in interplay with the topological degeneracy from f({TP }) = c0 + cP TP + cPQTP TQ + ..., (1) P P,Q TO: on a manifold (or with boundary conditions) such that f has g-fold spectral degeneracies [with degener- where the cP QR... decay exponentially with the largest dis- acy spaces labeled by OeL and log2(g) − 1 complemen- tance between the centers of the corresponding tLIOMs. tary dressed logical operators], the OeL prefactor in UF imprints π spectral pairing between g/2-fold degenerate We demonstrate this using an approach similar to that eigenspaces. Thus far we focused on the case with logi- in Ref. [23]. For simplicity, we consider qubit systems; 2 cal operator algebra WlWl0 = ±Wl0 Wl and Wl = 1; this here, OeL has a conjugate logical operator Wfγ with which corresponds to Z2 TO. More generally, one can consider, it anticommutes, {OeL, Wfγ } = 0. We choose Wfγ to be i2π/n n e.g., WlWl0 = e Wl0 Wl and Wl = 1 as in Zn TO localized around a noncontractible path γ. The quantity (corresponding to qudit QEC codes) [2]; in this case we θ = W U W U † indicates to what extent W and U γ fγ F fγ F fγ F get the TTC counterpart of ordinary Zn TCs [23–25]. (anti)commute. Since UF is a finite-time evolution by a −if({TP }) Signatures of TTCs— While UF = OeLe local Hamiltonian, it is a local unitary [4]. Hence, θ has γ implies a TTC in the sense of Definition1, the associated non-trivial matrix elements only around γ. Via multi- observable Wfγ is Hamiltonian dependent, hence can be plying by a suitable product of tLIOMs, W and hence fγ difficult to access experimentally. What signatures might θ can be deformed into W 0 and θ 0 localized around a γ fγ γ TTCs have via the easier accessible bare operators Wγ ? 0 path γ in a large distance from γ, while [OeL,TP ] = 0 For such signatures to exist, the thermodynamic limit has ensures {OeL, Wfγ0 } = 0. Since [UF ,TP ] = [Wfγ ,TP ] = 0, to be qualified by how the shortest ` scales with system 0 we have θγ0 = θγ under this deformation despite γ and γ size. To see this, we consider a system with a single being far apart. Hence, up to corrections exponentially conjugate pair OeL, Wfγ of dressed logical operators, and 3

allow finite ` for Wfγ but take a sufficiently long OeL so aX XL X b X X XL X X that now f = f({TP }, Wfγ ). We inspect Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X X Z X Z X Z X 0 Z X Z X Z Cα(mT ; γ, γ ) = hα|Wγ (mT )Wγ0 |αi X X Z X ZL X Z X X −imT (α−β ) 0 Z X Z X Z = e hα|Wγ |βihβ|Wγ |αi, (2) X Z X X Z X β ZL Z X Z X Z X Z X X X Z X 0 where γ is a deformation of γ as before and |αi, |βi X X X Z X Z X Z X are eigenstates of U with eigenvalues e−iα,β T . In reg- F X Z X Z X Z X Z X ular TCs one considers long-range correlations [23, 24]; 0 X X X X here we take γ and γ to be far apart. Wγ(0) can be expanded in terms of products among the complete set c Z Z x x Z = Z = {TP ,TP }, Wfγ , OeL of operators (here TP flips TP ). Ow- Z Z Z Z ing to the local unitarity of the transformation Ue between bare and dressed Pauli strings, only operators near (0) Figure 1. a: Odd-by-odd surface code. b: Even-by-even sur- γ contribute; in particular OeL has negligible contribu- face code with a hole. c: The stabilizer generators As (pla- tion. Furthermore, the T x-type terms in W act far from P γ quette operators). The logical operators ZL (red) and XL 0 those in Wγ0 , hence connect |αi to |βi= 6 |β i and thus (blue) are Pauli strings along noncontractible paths; the path cancel. The only surviving contributions are those from can be deformed via multiplication by a suitable As. Q {TP } and Wfγ . Since for any product O0 = P TP and m m† jm O1 = Wfγ O0 we have UF OjUF = (−1) Oj, we find QEC perspective (which we shall explain), another based 0 0 0 m Cα(mT ; γ, γ ) = c0(γ, γ ; α) + c1(γ, γ ; α)(−1) , (3) directly on the 1-form symmetry picture. As we shall also explain, our examples also illustrate a holographic where the cj terms come from Oj-type contributions. TTC–to–TC correspondence, a dynamical version of the The TTC signal strength is controlled by c1. To bulk-anyon-to-edge-symmetry relation of Refs. 47–50. assess its asymptotic scaling in `, we take ` large For the QEC perspective, note that for 1D Z TCs enough that we can use O as an integral of motion 2 eL −iH0 −iH1 P UF = e e where H0 = i giXi and H1 = for UF to a good approximation. Then, in terms of P i JiZiZi+1 over all sites i; a TC arises for gi near π/2, the sum O (0) of all O -like contributions to W (0) , we 1γ 1 γ −iH0 Q 0 i.e., e near the Z2 symmetry Xi. Now observe have c (γ, γ ; α) = hα|O O 0 |αi. Due to MBL none i 1 1γ 1γ that {Z Z } and {X } are complementary sets of sta- of the eigenstates is special; combining this with the i i+1 i 0 2 bilizer generators: respectively for a repetition code [51] Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we estimate |c1(γ, γ ; α)| . 2 2 N 2 N (related to Z2-symmetry-breaking states), and for prod- Tr[O ]Tr[O 0 ]/4 . Furthermore, Tr[O ]/2 = 1γ 1γ 1γ(0) uct states; the generators of one code flip those of the P 2 j∈O |ηjγ(0) | in terms of the coefficients ηjγ(0) from 1γ(0) other. (Viewing the system as a fermion chain via x Jordan-Wigner transformation, it also exemplifies a Ma- the expansion of Wγ(0) in terms of {TP ,TP } and Wfγ(0) . jorana TTC with 1D TO [18, 19].) Because Ue is local, the non-negligible terms in the expan- The surface code counterpart of this is U = sion of Wγ(0) all act within a ribbon of width ∼ ξ (the F −iH0 −iH1 P (0) e e with H1 = − JP AP comprised of surface localization length) around γ . Within this ribbon, the P Q 2 −`(0)ξ code stabilizer generators AP = i∈P Qi (with Q = X,Z expansion generically has no structure: |ηjγ(0) | ∼ 4 (0) depending on the plaquette P , see Fig.1), and again due to normalization and since effectively ` ξ tLIOMs H = P g X . We first focus on an N = d2 system with participate around γ(0).(`0 is the length of γ0; we measure 0 i i i d odd [Fig.1(a)]. As in regular TCs, we inspect gi = π/2; 0 all lengths in units of the lattice spacing.) The number of −iH1 (0) 0 in this case UF = XLe with XL a logical operator ` ξ 0 2 −(`+` )ξ 0 terms in O (0) is ∼ 2 thus |c (γ, γ ; α)| 2 . −iH −iH0(gi=π/2) 1γ 1 . and e 1 absorbing the AP product XLe (0) −iH1 For finite ` the coefficient c1 is nonetheless nonzero. into e . This UF has the canonical structure and Hence we find: hence the associated robustness. Does the construction generalize to other layouts, topologies, or other codes Proposition 2. For generic local perturbations, the time for H1? This is guaranteed if (i) the As are purely crystallinity of U = O e−if({TP }) is witnessed in the F eL X- or Z-strings (they generate a Calderbank-Shor-Steane correlators of bare logical operators W only if the ther- γ code [43]), (ii) the Z-stabilizers are even-length, and (iii) modynamic limit keeps the minimal length ` of γ finite. the code has an odd-length Z = Q Z : then U = L i∈ZL i 0 −iH0(gi=π/2) Q TTCs in surface codes— We next show how TTCs e ∝ i Xi satisfies [U0,As] = {U0,ZL} = 0 can arise in 2D surface codes. We consider two exam- hence U0 is a logical operator odd in XL. (For similar ples: one motivated by bridging TCs and TTCs via a conditions in the QEC context, cf. Ref. 52.) 4 a For the bare ZL to give TTC signatures when N → ∞ in this layout, one may require that perturbations respect ZeL = ZL thus sidestepping Proposition2. Alternatively, one may allow generic perturbations but change the as- pect ratio with N so that ZL has fixed length; this leads to a quasi-1D surface code when N → ∞. Maintaining a 2D N → ∞ limit while retaining TTC signatures in bare operators is possible, e.g., in a surface code with a hole [Fig.1(b)]. For UF , here we adopt the 1-form symmetry viewpoint: we directly get UF (gi = −iH1 P π/2) ∝ XLe by taking H0 = i∈C giXi, where C is any path from the hole to the outer boundary. [In this way, we can relax conditions (i-iii) above, but we give up having a purely 2D H0.] The TTC signatures can survive in bare ZL operators, even with generic perturbations, b provided the N → ∞ limit keeps the hole perimeter fixed. There is still a tradeoff in separating γ from γ0 (both encircling the hole) beyond ξ while keeping `(0)ξ finite ZP = for an appreciable signal; the most favorable regime to |0i e−i∆tZ |0i observe TTCs is that with small ξ (strong MBL). Holographic TTC–to–TC correspondence— The systems in Fig.1 also exemplify a dynamical variant of TO √ ⊗4 √ ⊗4 XP = Y ZP Y † with gapped boundaries: they are TTCs (and as such TO MBL) with MBL boundaries. The phases of 1D (clean) systems with global symmetries are equivalent Figure 2. a: The Google Sycamore processor [41] (shown with qubits as crosses and two-qubit gates as blue boxes) with to the boundary phases of (clean) nonchiral 2D TO sys- an N = 27 TTC. Data qubits (measure qubits) are shown tems; e.g., the 1-form symmetry XL implements a Z2 as crosses at corners (midpoints) of shaded squares. b: The symmetry for a boundary on which ZL can end, ZL im- Q plaquette evolution exp(−i∆t j∈P Zj ) on four data qubits. plements the boundary order parameter, anyonic symme- The surrounded measure qubit starts in |0i; the CNOT gates tries imply boundary dualities [47–50]. These relations couple to the data√ qubits. The X-plaquette evolution arises naturally generalize to a link between 1D regular TCs via conjugating by Y on the data qubits. −if({TP }) and 2D TTCs. In particular, for UF = OeLe , if a boundary B along OeL exists, one can view B as a regular TC with the corresponding symmetry, while an interface of UF for a surface√ code TTC. All the ingredients, namely between B and a boundary on which OeL can end as one √the phase gate, Y , and CNOT (via conjugating CZ by between a TC and an MBL paramagnet. It would be in- Y ) are natively available in Sycamore [41]. The de- teresting to explore how this link might enrich (e.g., via tection of Cα [Eq. (2)] can proceed via the interferomet- correspondence to 1D symmetry-protected TCs [19, 25]) ric protocol demonstrated in Ref. 53. The robustness of the possible TTC phases or the kind of insights it might TTCs guarantees resilience against static gate inaccura- provide into 1D TC phase diagrams. cies. The effect of noise (e.g., fluctuating gate parame- TTC in Google Sycamore— The surface code ters, decoherence) has been estimated to be compatible groundstate, anyons, and logical operators have seen a re- with TC physics [54] and we expect the same to hold for cent Google Sycamore realization [53] and the same plat- TTC systems. form has been argued to be excellently suited for realizing Conclusions— We have defined TTCs and showed TCs [54]. (See also Ref. 55 for an IBM realization.) We that, combined with MBL, they form a dynamical phase now describe how the Sycamore can be used to create and of matter. Higher-form symmetries and QEC codes of- detect a TTC. As in Ref. 10, we divide the square grid of fer complementary ways to link regular TCs to this qubits into “data qubits” and “measure qubits” (Fig.2a). new phase, while the holographic correspondence be- Data qubits are to be evolved under UF ; measure qubits tween TTCs and their MBL boundaries, as illustrated facilitate the desired multi-qubit gates. For the plaquette by our surface code example, offers a reverse link to reg- Q evolution exp(−i∆t j∈P Zj), this follows the standard ular TCs. Logical operators serve both as (emergent) approach (Fig.2b) [43]. For exp(−i∆t Q X ), one √ j∈P j symmetries and as order parameters for TTCs and this √conjugates√ the above by Y on the data qubits, using leads to interesting interplay, not only between spec- † YZ Y = X. For exp (−iH0), one applies suitable tral pairing patterns and topological degeneracies, but phase gates on data qubits. This completes the creation also between MBL and the nonlocality of these opera- 5 tors. The latter interplay results in a need for a qualified 352, 1091 (2016). thermodynamic limit (as, e.g., in a surface code with a [22] F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160401 (2012); hole) for observability of TTCs via bare operators. The A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 160402 most favorable settings for TTCs are for short localiza- (2012); H. Watanabe and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 251603 (2015). tion lengths (strong MBL); in this case TTCs can ap- [23] C. W. von Keyserlingk, V. Khemani, and S. L. Sondhi, pear already in moderate-sized systems. In particular Phys. Rev. B 94, 085112 (2016). the Google Sycamore has all the ingredients for creating [24] V. Khemani, C. W. von Keyserlingk, and S. L. Sondhi, such a TTC. In the future, it would be interesting to Phys. Rev. B 96, 115127 (2017). explore TTCs in other TO QEC code systems (includ- [25] V. Khemani, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, ing those above 2D), such as Floquet-MBL versions of arXiv:1910.10745; K. Sacha and J. Zakrzewski, Rep. color codes [56] where one could study the role of the Prog. Phys. 81, 016401 (2018); D. V. Else, C. Monroe, C. Nayak, and N. Y. Yao, Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. transversal gates, or fracton systems [57]. 11, 467 (2020). [26] U. C. Täuber, Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. 8, 185 This project was supported by the ERC Starting Grant (2017). No. 678795 TopInSy. [27] T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019). [28] L. Fleishman and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. B 21, 2366 (1980). [29] I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Phys. [1] A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003). Rev. Lett. 95, 206603 (2005); D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, [2] A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 321, 2 (2006); M. A. Levin and B. L. Altshuler, Ann. Phys. 321, 1126 (2006). and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005). [30] R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. [3] C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and Phys. 6, 15 (2015); E. Altman and R. Vosk, 6, 383 S. Das Sarma, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1083 (2015); D. A. Abanin and Z. Papić, Ann. d. Phys. 529, (2008). 1700169 (2017); F. Alet and N. Laflorencie, Comptes [4] X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 82, Rendus Physique 19, 498 (2018). 155138 (2010). [31] J. Z. Imbrie, V. Ros, and A. Scardicchio, Ann. Phys. [5] X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. 529, 1600278 (2017). Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013). [32] D. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, and F. Huve- [6] M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 neers, Communications in Mathematical Physics 354, (2010). 809 (2017). [7] T. Senthil, Annu. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. 6, 299 (2015). [33] Z. Nussinov and G. Ortiz, Ann. Phys. 324, 977 (2009); [8] A. Mesaros and Y. Ran, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155115 (2013). A. Kapustin and N. Seiberg, Journal of High Energy [9] E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour- Physics 2014, 1 (2014); D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, nal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4452 (2002). N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Journal of High Energy [10] A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Physics 2015, 172 (2015); B. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. B Cleland, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324 (2012). 93 (2016); X.-G. Wen, 99, 205139 (2019); E. Lake, [11] B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015). arXiv:1802.07747; J. Zhao, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. [12] M. Caio, N. Cooper, and M. Bhaseen, Phys. Rev. Lett. Meng, arXiv:2011.12543. 115, 236403 (2015). [34] A. Chandran, A. Pal, C. R. Laumann, and A. Scardic- [13] Y. Hu, P. Zoller, and J. C. Budich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, chio, Phys. Rev. B 94, 144203 (2016). 126803 (2016). [35] W. D. Roeck and J. Z. Imbrie, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [14] J. H. Wilson, J. C. Song, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 375, 20160422 (2017). 117, 235302 (2016). [36] I.-D. Potirniche, S. Banerjee, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. [15] T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Phys. B 99, 205149 (2019). Rev. B 82, 235114 (2010). [37] S. Gopalakrishnan and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 99, [16] M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, 134305 (2019). Phys. Rev. X 3, 031005 (2013). [38] E. V. H. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. [17] P. Titum, E. Berg, M. S. Rudner, G. Refael, and N. H. Polyakov, arXiv:2002.07635. Lindner, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021013 (2016). [39] T. B. Wahl and B. Béri, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033099 [18] V. Khemani, A. Lazarides, R. Moessner, and S. L. (2020). Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250401 (2016). [40] M. Serbyn, Z. Papić, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [19] C. W. von Keyserlingk and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 93, 111, 127201 (2013); D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and 245145 (2016); Phys. Rev. B 93, 245146 (2016); R. Roy V. Oganesyan, Phys. Rev. B 90, 174202 (2014); A. Chan- and F. Harper, Phys. Rev. B 94, 125105 (2016); A. C. dran, I. H. Kim, G. Vidal, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Potter, T. Morimoto, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. X Rev. B 91, 085425 (2015); V. Ros, M. Mueller, and 6, 041001 (2016). A. Scardicchio, Nuclear Physics B 891, 420 (2015); S. In- [20] I.-D. Potirniche, A. C. Potter, M. Schleier-Smith, glis and L. Pollet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 120402 (2016); A. Vishwanath, and N. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, L. Rademaker and M. Ortuño, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 123601 (2017). 010404 (2016); C. Monthus, J. Stat. Mech. 2016, 033101 [21] N. Fläschner, B. S. Rem, M. Tarnowski, D. Vogel, D. S. (2016); M. Goihl, M. Gluza, C. Krumnow, and J. Eis- Lühmann, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Science ert, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134202 (2018); A. K. Kulshreshtha, 6

A. Pal, T. B. Wahl, and S. H. Simon, 98, 184201 (2018); [47] P. Severa, Journal of High Energy Physics 2002, 049 99, 104201 (2019). (2002). [41] F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, [48] D. S. Freed and C. Teleman, arXiv:1806.00008. et al., Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019). [49] T. Lichtman, R. Thorngren, N. H. Lindner, A. Stern, [42] D. Gottesman, Stabilizer codes and quantum error cor- and E. Berg, arXiv:2003.04328. rection, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology [50] D. Aasen, P. Fendley, and R. S. K. Mong, (1997). arXiv:2008.08598. [43] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation [51] R. W. Bomantara, arXiv:2102.09113. and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, [52] F. Venn and B. Béri, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043412 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011). (2020). [44] A. C. Potter and A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1506.00592; [53] K. J. Satzinger, Y. Liu, A. Smith, C. Knapp, M. New- A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. B 94, 224206 man, C. Jones, et al., arXiv:2104.01180. (2016). [54] M. Ippoliti, K. Kechedzhi, R. Moessner, S. L. Sondhi, [45] H. C. Po, L. Fidkowski, A. Vishwanath, and A. C. Pot- and V. Khemani, arXiv:2007.11602. ter, Phys. Rev. B 96, 245116 (2017); A. C. Potter and [55] P. Frey and S. Rachel, arXiv:2105.06632. T. Morimoto, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155126 (2017); A. C. [56] H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. Lett. Potter, A. Vishwanath, and L. Fidkowski, Phys. Rev. B 97, 180501 (2006); Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 160502 (2007). 97, 245106 (2018). [57] J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042330 (2011); S. Vijay, [46] K. Giergiel, A. Dauphin, M. Lewenstein, J. Zakrzewski, J. Haah, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 94, 235157 (2016); and K. Sacha, New Journal of Physics 21, 052003 (2019); R. M. Nandkishore and M. Hermele, Annu. Rev. Cond. A. Chew, D. F. Mross, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. Lett. Mat. Phys. 10, 295 (2019). 124, 096802 (2020); R. W. Bomantara, S. Mu, and J. Gong, arXiv:2012.03443.