Quantum
Interaction + Entanglement = Efficient Proofs of Halting
A couple weeks ago my coauthors Zhengfeng Ji (UTS Sydney), Heny Yuen (University of Toronto) and Anand Natarajan and John Wright (both at Caltech’s IQIM, with John soon moving to UT Austin) & I posted a manuscript on the arXiv preprint server entitled
MIP*=RE
The magic of the singleletter formula quickly made its effect, and our posting received some attention on the blogosphere (see links below). Within computer science, complexity theory is at an advantage in its ability to capture powerful statements in few letters: who has not head of P, NP, and, for readers of this blog, BQP and QMA? (In contrast, I am under no illusion that my vague attempt at a more descriptive title has, by the time you reach this line, all but vanished from the reader’s memory.)
Even accounting for this popularity however, it is a safe bet that fewer of our readers have heard of MIP* or RE. Yet we are promised that the abovestated equality has great consequences for physics (“Tsirelson’s problem” in the study of nonlocality) and mathematics (“Connes’ embedding problem” in the theory of von Neumann algebras). How so — how can complexitytheoretic alphabet soup have any consequence for, on the one hand, physical reality, and on the other, abstract mathematics?
The goal of this post and the next one is to help the interested reader grasp the significance of interactive proofs (that lie between the symbols MIP*) and undecidability (that lies behind RE) for quantum mechanics.
The bulk of the present post is an almost identical copy of a post I wrote for my personal blog. To avoid accusations of selfplagiarism, I will substantiate it with a little picture and a story, see below. The post gives a very personal take on the research that led to the aforementioned result. In the next post, my coauthor Henry Yuen has offered to give a more scientific introduction to the result and its significance.
Before proceeding, it is important to make it clear that the research described in this post and the next has not been refereed or thoroughly vetted by the community. This process will take place over the coming months, and we should wait until it is completed before placing too much weight on the results. As an author, I am proud of my work; yet I am aware that there is due process to be made before the claims can be officialised. As such, these posts only represent my opinion (and Henry’s) and not necessarily that of the wider scientific community.
For more popular introductions to our result, see the blog posts of Scott Aaronson, Dick Lipton, and Gil Kalai and reporting by Davide Castelvecchi for Nature and Emily Conover for Science.
Now for the personal post…and the promised picture. Isn’t it beautiful? The design is courtesy of Tony Metger and Alexandru Gheorghiu, the first a visiting student and the second a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech’s IQIM. While Tony and Andru came up with the idea, the execution is courtesy of the bakery store employee, who graciously implemented the custom design (apparently writing equations on top of cakes is not common enough to be part of the standard offerings, so they had to go for the custom option). Although it is unclear if the executioner grasped the full depth of the signs they were copying, note how perfect the execution: not a single letter is out of place! Thanks to Tony, Andru, and the anonymous chef for the tasty souvenir.
Now for the story. In an earlier post on my personal research blog, I had reported on the beautiful recent result by Natarajan and Wright showing the astounding power of multiprover interactive proofs with quantum provers sharing entanglement: in letters, . In the remainder of this post I will describe our followup work with Ji, Natarajan, Wright, and Yuen. In this post I will tell the story from a personal point of view, with all the caveats that this implies: the “hard science” will be limited (but there could be a hint as to how “science”, to use a big word, “progresses”, to use an illdefined one; see also the upcoming post by Henry Yuen for more), the story is far too long, and it might be mostly of interest to me only. It’s a onesided story, but that has to be. (In particular below I may at times attribute credit in the form “X had this idea”. This is my recollection only, and it is likely to be inaccurate. Certainly I am ignoring a lot of important threads.) I wrote this because I enjoyed recollecting some of the best moments in the story just as much as some the hardest; it is fun to look back and find meanings in ideas that initially appeared disconnected. Think of it as an example of how different lines of work can come together in unexpected ways; a case for openended research. It’s also an antidote against despair that I am preparing for myself: whenever I feel I’ve been stuck on a project for far too long, I’ll come back to this post and ask myself if it’s been 14 years yet — if not, then press on.
It likely comes as a surprise to me only that I am no longer fresh out of the cradle. My academic life started in earnest some 14 years ago, when in the Spring of 2006 I completed my Masters thesis in Computer Science under the supervision of Julia Kempe, at Orsay in France. I had met Julia the previous term: her class on quantum computing was, by far, the besttaught and most exciting course in the Masters program I was attending, and she had gotten me instantly hooked. Julia agreed to supervise my thesis, and suggested that I look into some interesting recent result by Stephanie Wehner that linked the study of entanglement and nonlocality in quantum mechanics to complexitytheoretic questions about interactive proof systems (specifically, this was Stephanie’s paper showing that ).
At the time the topic was very new. It had been initiated the previous year with a beautiful paper by Cleve et al. (that I have recommended to many a student since!) It was a perfect fit for me: the mathematical aspects of complexity theory and quantum computing connected to my undergraduate background, while the relative concreteness of quantum mechanics (it is a physical theory after all) spoke to my desire for realworld connection (not “impact” or even “application” — just “connection”). Once I got myself up to speed in the area (which consisted of three papers: the two I already mentioned, together with a paper by Kobayashi and Matsumoto where they studied interactive proofs with quantum messages), Julia suggested looking into the “entangledprover” class introduced in the aforementioned paper by Cleve et al. Nothing was known about this class! Nothing besides the trivial inclusion of singleprover interactive proofs, IP, and the containment in…ALL, the trivial class that contains all languages.
Yet the characterization MIP=NEXP of its classical counterpart by Babai et al. in the 1990s had led to one of the most productive lines of work in complexity of the past few decades, through the PCP theorem and its use from hardness of approximation to efficient cryptographic schemes. Surely, studying had to be a productive direction? In spite of its wellestablished connection to classical complexity theory, via the formalism of interactive proofs, this was a real gamble. The study of entanglement from the complexitytheoretic perspective was entirely new, and bound to be fraught with difficulty; very few results were available and the existing lines of works, from the foundations of nonlocality to more recent endeavors in deviceindependent cryptography, provided little other starting point than strong evidence that even the simplest examples came with many unanswered questions. But my mentor was fearless, and far from a novice in terms of defraying new areas, having done pioneering work in areas ranging from quantum random walks to Hamiltonian complexity through adiabatic computation. Surely this would lead to something?
It certainly did. More sleepless nights than papers, clearly, but then the opposite would only indicate dullness. Julia’s question led to far more unexpected consequences than I, or I believe she, could have imagined at the time. I am writing this post to celebrate, in a personal way, the latest step in 15 years of research by dozens of researchers: today my coauthors and I uploaded to the quantph arXiv what we consider a complete characterization of the power of entangledprover interactive proof systems by proving the equality , the class of all recursively enumerable languages (a complete problem for RE is the halting problem). Without going too much into the result itself (if you’re interested, look for an upcoming post here that goes into the proof a bit more), and since this is a more personal post, I will continue on with some personal thoughts about the path that got us there.
When Julia & I started working on the question, our main source of inspiration were the results by Cleve et al. showing that the nonlocal correlations of entanglement had interesting consequences when seen through the lens of interactive proof systems in complexity theory. Since the EPR paper, a lot of work in understanding entanglement had already been accomplished in the Physics community, most notably by Mermin, Peres, Bell, and more recently the works in deviceindependent quantum cryptography by Acin, Pironio, Scarani and many others, stimulated by Ekert’s proposal for quantum key distribution and Mayers and Yao’s idea for “deviceindependent cryptography”. By then we certainly knew that “spooky actionatadistance” did not entail any fasterthanlight communication, and indeed was not really “actionatadistance” in the first place but merely “correlationatadistance”. What Cleve et al. recognized is that these “spooky correlationsatadistance” were sufficiently special so as to not only give numerically different values in “Bell inequalities”, the tool invented by Bell to evidence nonlocality in quantum mechanics, but also have some potentially profound consequences in complexity theory.
In particular, examples such as the “Magic Square game” demonstrated that enough correlation could be gained from entanglement so as to defeat basic proof systems whose soundness relied only on the absence of communication between the provers, an assumption that until then had been wrongly equated with the assumption that any computation performed by the provers could be modeled entirely locally. I think that the fallacy of this implicit assumption came as a surprise to complexity theorists, who may still not have entirely internalized it. Yet the perfect quantum strategy for the Magic Square game provides a very concrete “counterexample” to the soundness of the “clausevsvariable” game for 3SAT. Indeed this game, a reformulation by Aravind and CleveMermin of a Bell Inequality discovered by Mermin and Peres in 1990, can be easily reframed as a 3SAT system of equations that is not satisfiable, and yet is such that the associated twoplayer clausevsvariable game has a perfect quantum strategy. It is this observation, made in the paper by Cleve et al., that gave the first strong hint that the use of entanglement in interactive proof systems could make many classical results in the area go awry.
By importing the study of nonlocality into complexity theory Cleve et al. immediately brought it into the realm of asymptotic analysis. Complexity theorists don’t study fixed objects, they study families of objects that tend to have a uniform underlying structure and whose interesting properties manifest themselves “in the limit”. As a result of this new perspective focus shifted from the study of single games or correlations to infinite families thereof. Some of the early successes of this translation include the “unbounded violations” that arose from translating asymptotic separations in communication complexity to the language of Bell inequalities and correlations (e.g. this paper). These early successes attracted the attention of some physicists working in foundations as well as some mathematical physicists, leading to a productive exploration that combined tools from quantum information, functional analysis and complexity theory.
The initial observations made by Cleve et al. had pointed to as a possibly interesting complexity class to study. Rather amazingly, nothing was known about it! They had shown that under strong restrictions on the verifier’s predicate (it should be an XOR of two answer bits), a collapse took place: by the work of Hastad, XORMIP equals NEXP, but is included in EXP. This seemed very fortuitous (the inclusion is proved via a connection with semidefinite programming that seems tied to the structure of XORMIP protocols): could entanglement induce a collapse of the entire, unrestricted class? We thought (at this point mostly Julia thought, because I had no clue) that this ought not to be the case, and so we set ourselves to show that the equality , that would directly parallel Babai et al.’s characterization MIP=NEXP, holds. We tried to show this by introducing techniques to “immunize” games against entanglement: modify an interactive proof system so that its structure makes it “resistant” to the kind of “nonlocal powers” that can be used to defeat the clausevsvariable game (witness the Magic Square). This was partially successful, and led to one of the papers I am most proud of — I am proud of it because I think it introduced elementary techniques (such as the use of the CauchySchwarz inequality — inside joke — more seriously, basic things such as “proverswitching”, “commutation tests”, etc.) that are now routine manipulations in the area. The paper was a hard sell! It’s good to remember the first rejections we received. They were not unjustified: the main point of criticism was that we were only able to establish a hardness result for exponentially small completenesssoundness gap. A result for such a small gap in the classical setting follows directly from a very elementary analysis based on the CookLevin theorem. So then why did we have to write so many pages (and so many applications of CauchySchwarz!) to arrive at basically the same result (with a )?
Eventually we got lucky and the paper was accepted to a conference. But the real problem, of establishing any nontrivial lower bound on the class with constant (or, in the absence of any parallel repetition theorem, inversepolynomial) completenesssoundness gap, remained. By that time I had transitioned from a Masters student in France to a graduate student in Berkeley, and the problem (pre)occupied me during some of the most difficult years of my Ph.D. I fully remember spending my first year entirely thinking about this (oh and sure, that systems class I had to pass to satisfy the Berkeley requirements), and then my second year — yet, getting nowhere. (I checked the arXiv to make sure I’m not making this up: two full years, no posts.) I am forever grateful to my fellow student Anindya De for having taken me out of the cycle of torture by knocking on my door with one of the most interesting questions I have studied, that led me into quantum cryptography and quickly resulted in an enjoyable paper. It was good to feel productive again! (Though the paper had fun reactions as well: after putting it on the arXiv we quickly heard from experts in the area that we had solved an irrelevant problem, and that we better learn about information theory — which we did, eventually leading to another paper, etc.) The project had distracted me and I set interactive proofs aside; clearly, I was stuck.
About a year later I visited IQC in Waterloo. I don’t remember in what context the visit took place. What I do remember is a meeting in the office of Tsuyoshi Ito, at the time a postdoctoral scholar at IQC. Tsuyoshi asked me to explain our result with Julia. He then asked a very pointed question: the bedrock for the classical analysis of interactive proof systems is the “linearity test” of BlumLubyRubinfeld (BLR). Is there any sense in which we could devise a quantum version of that test?
What a question! This was great. At first it seemed fruitless: in what sense could one argue that quantum provers apply a “linear function”? Sure, quantum mechanics is linear, but that is besides the point. The linearity is a property of the prover’s answers as a function of their question. So what to make of the quantum state, the inherent randomness, etc.?
It took us a few months to figure it out. Once we got there however, the answer was relatively simple — the prover should be making a questionindependent measurement that returns a linear function that it applies to its question in order to obtain the answer returned to the verifier — and it opened the path to our subsequent paper showing that the inclusion of NEXP in indeed holds. Tsuyoshi’s question about linearity testing had allowed us to make the connection with PCP techniques; from there to MIP=NEXP there was only one step to make, which is to analyze multilinearity testing. That step was suggested by my Ph.D. advisor, Umesh Vazirani, who was well aware of the many pathways towards the classical PCP theorem, since the theorem had been obtained in great part by his former student Sanjeev Arora. It took a lot of technical work, yet conceptually a single question from my coauthor had sufficed to take me out of a 3year slumber.
This was in 2012, and I thought we were done. For some reason the converse inclusion, of in NEXP, seemed to resist our efforts, but surely it couldn’t resist much longer. Navascues et al. had introduced a hierarchy of semidefinite programs that seemed to give the right answer (technically they could only show convergence to a relaxation, the commuting value, but that seemed like a technicality; in particular, the values coincide when restricted to finitedimensional strategies, which is all we computer scientists cared about). There were no convergence bounds on the hierarchy, yet at the same time commutative SDP hierarchies were being used to obtain very strong results in combinatorial optimization, and it seemed like it would only be a matter of time before someone came up with an analysis of the quantum case. (I had been trying to solve a related “dimension reduction problem” with Oded Regev for years, and we were making no progress; yet it seemed someone ought to!)
In Spring 2014 during an open questions session at a workshop at the Simons Institute in Berkeley Dorit Aharonov suggested that I ask the question of the possible inclusion of QMAEXP, the exponentialsizedproofs analogue of QMA, in . A stronger result than the inclusion of NEXP (under assumptions), wouldn’t it be a more natural “fully quantum” analogue of MIP=NEXP? Dorit’s suggestion was motivated by research on the “quantum PCP theorem”, that aims to establish similar hardness results in the realm of the local Hamiltonian problem; see e.g. this post for the connection. I had no idea how to approach the question — I also didn’t really believe the answer could be positive — but what can you do, if Dorit asks you something… So I reluctantly went to the board and asked the question. Joe Fitzsimons was in the audience, and he immediately picked it up! Joe had the fantastic ideas of using quantum errorcorrection, or more specifically secretsharing, to distribute a quantum proof among the provers. His enthusiasm overcame my skepticism, and we eventually showed the desired inclusion. Maybe was bigger than after all.
Our result, however, had a similar deficiency as the one with Julia, in that the completenesssoundness gap was exponentially small. Obtaining a result with a constant gap took 3 years of couple more years of work and the fantastic energy and insights of a Ph.D. student at MIT, Anand Natarajan. Anand is the first person I know of to have had the courage to dive into the most technical aspects of the analysis of the aforementioned results, while also bringing in the insights of a “true quantum information theorist” that were supported by Anand’s background in Physics and upbringing in the group of Aram Harrow at MIT. (In contrast I think of myself more as a “raw” mathematician; I don’t really understand quantum states other than as positivesemidefinite matrices…not that I understand math either of course; I suppose I’m some kind of a halfbaked mishmash.) Anand had many ideas but one of the most beautiful ones led to what he poetically called the “Pauli braiding test”, a “truly quantum” analogue of the BLR linearity test that amounts to doing two linearity tests in conjugate bases and piecing the results together into a robust test for {n}qubit entanglement (I wrote about our work on this here).
At approximately the same time, Zhengfeng Ji had another wonderful idea that was in some sense orthogonal to our work. (My interpretation of) Zhengfeng’s idea is that one can see an interactive proof system as a computation (verifierproververifier) and use Kitaev’s circuittoHamiltonian construction to transform the entire computation into a “quantum CSP” (in the same sense that the local Hamiltonian problem is a quantum analogue of classical constraint satisfaction problems (CSP)) that could then itself be verified by a quantum multiprover interactive proof system…with exponential gains in efficiency! Zhengfeng’s result implied an exponential improvement in complexity compared to the result by Julia and myself, showing inclusion of NEEXP, instead of NEXP, in . However, Zhengfeng’s technique suffered from the same exponentially small completenesssoundness gap as we had, so that the best lower bound on per se remained NEXP.
Both works led to followups. With Natarajan we promoted the Pauli braiding test into a “quantum lowdegree test” that allowed us to show the inclusion of QMAEXP into , with constant gap, thereby finally answering the question posed by Aharonov 4 years after it was asked. (I should also say that by then all results on started relying on a sequence of parallel repetition results shown by Bavarian, Yuen, and others; I am skipping this part.) In parallel, with Ji, Fitzsimons, and Yuen we showed that Ji’s compression technique could be “iterated” an arbitrary number of times. In fact, by going back to “first principles” and representing verifiers uniformly as Turing machines we realized that the compression technique could be used iteratively to (up to small caveats) give a new proof of the fact (first shown by Slofstra using an embedding theorem for finitely presented group) that the zerogap version of contains the halting problem. In particular, the entangled value is uncomputable! This was not the first time that uncomputability crops in to a natural problem in quantum computing (e.g. the spectral gap paper), yet it still surprises when it shows up. Uncomputable! How can anything be uncomputable!
As we were wrapping up our paper Henry Yuen realized that our “iterated compression of interactive proof systems” was likely optimal, in the following sense. Even a mild improvement of the technique, in the form of a slower closing of the completenesssoundness gap through compression, would yield a much stronger result: undecidability of the constantgap class . It was already known by work of Navascues et al., Fritz, and others, that such a result would have, if not surprising, certainly consequences that seemed like they would be taking us out of our depth. In particular, undecidability of any language in would imply a negative resolution to a series of equivalent conjectures in functional analysis, from Tsirelson’s problem to Connes’ Embedding Conjecture through Kirchberg’s QWEP conjecture. While we liked our result, I don’t think that we believed it could resolve any conjecture(s) in functional analysis.
So we moved on. At least I moved on, I did some cryptography for a change. But Anand Natarajan and his coauthor John Wright did not stop there. They had the last major insight in this story, which underlies their recent STOC best paper described in the previous post. Briefly, they were able to combine the two lines of work, by Natarajan & myself on lowdegree testing and by Ji et al. on compression, to obtain a compression that is specially tailored to the existing protocol for NEXP and compresses that protocol without reducing its completenesssoundness gap. This then let them show Ji’s result that contains NEEXP, but this time with constant gap! The result received welldeserved attention. In particular, it is the first in this line of works to not suffer from any caveats (such as a closing gap, or randomized reductions, or some kind of “unfair” tweak on the model that one could attribute the gain in power to), and it implies an unconditional separation between MIP and .
As they were putting the last touches on their result, suddenly something happened, which is that a path towards a much bigger result opened up. What Natarajan & Wright had achieved is a onestep gapless compression. In our iterated compression paper we had observed that iterated gapless compression would lead to , implying negative answers to the aforementioned conjectures. So then?
I suppose it took some more work, but in some way all the ideas had been laid out in the previous 15 years of work in the complexity of quantum interactive proof systems; we just had to put it together. And so a decade after the characterization QIP = PSPACE of singleprover quantum interactive proof systems, we have arrived at a characterization of quantum multiprover interactive proof systems, . With one author in common between the two papers: congratulations Zhengfeng!
Even though we just posted a paper, in a sense there is much more left to do. I am hopeful that our complexitytheoretic result will attract enough interest from the mathematicians’ community, and especially operator algebraists, for whom CEP is a central problem, that some of them will be willing to devote time to understanding the result. I also recognize that much effort is needed on our own side to make it accessible in the first place! I don’t doubt that eventually complexity theory will not be needed to obtain the purely mathematical consequences; yet I am hopeful that some of the ideas may eventually find their way into the construction of interesting mathematical objects (such as, who knows, a nonhyperlinear group).
That was a good Masters project…thanks Julia!
Quantum
Achieving superlubricity with graphene
Sometimes, experimental results spark enormous curiosity inspiring a myriad of questions and ideas for further experimentation. In 2004, Geim and Novoselov, from The University of Manchester, isolated a single layer of graphene from bulk graphite with the “Scotch Tape Method” for which they were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics. This one experimental result has branched out countless times serving as a source of inspiration in as many different fields. We are now in the midst of an array of branchingout in graphene research, and one of those branches gaining attention is ultra low friction observed between graphene and other surface materials.
Much has been learned about graphene in the past 15 years through an immense amount of research, most of which, in nonmechanical realms (e.g., electron transport measurements, thermal conductivity, pseudo magnetic fields in strain engineering). However, superlubricity, a mechanical phenomenon, has become the focus among many research groups. Mechanical measurements have famously shown graphene’s tensile strength to be hundreds of times that of the strongest steel, indisputably placing it atop the list of construction materials best for a superhero suit. Superlubricity is a tribological property of graphene and is, arguably, as equally impressive as graphene’s tensile strength.
Tribology is the study of interacting surfaces during relative motion including sources of friction and methods for its reduction. It’s not a recent discovery that coating a surface with graphite (many layers of graphene) can lower friction between two sliding surfaces. Current research studies the precise mechanisms and surfaces for which to minimize friction with single or several layers of graphene.
Research published in Nature Materials in 2018 measures friction between surfaces under constant load and velocity. The experiment includes two groups; one consisting of two graphene surfaces (homogeneous junction), and another consisting of graphene and hexagonal boron nitride (heterogeneous junction). The research group measures friction using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM). The hexagonal boron nitride (or graphene for a homogeneous junction) is fixed to the stage of the AFM while the graphene slides atop. Loads are held constant at 20 𝜇N and sliding velocity constant at 200 nm/s. Ultra low friction is observed for homogeneous junctions when the underlying crystalline lattice structures of the surfaces are at a relative angle of 30 degrees. However, this ultra low friction state is very unstable and upon sliding, the surfaces rotate towards a lockedin lattice alignment. Friction varies with respect to the relative angle between the two surface’s crystalline lattice structures. Minimum (ultra low) friction occurs at a relative angle of 30 degrees reaching a maximum when lockedin lattice alignment is realized upon sliding. While in a state of lattice alignment, shearing is rendered impossible with the experimental setup due to the relatively large amount of friction.
Friction varies with respect to the relative angle of the crystalline lattice structures and is, therefore, anisotropic. For example, the fact it takes less force to split wood when an axe blade is applied parallel to its grains than when applied perpendicularly illustrates the anisotropic nature of wood, as the force to split wood is dependent upon the direction along which the force is applied. Frictional anisotropy is greater in homogeneous junctions because the tendency to orient into a stuck, maximum friction alignment, is greater than with heterojunctions. In fact, heterogeneous junctions experience frictional anisotropy three orders of magnitude less than homogeneous junctions. Heterogenous junctions display much less frictional anisotropy due to a lattice misalignment when the angle between the lattice vectors is at a minimum. In other words, the graphene and hBN crystalline lattice structures are never parallel because the materials differ, therefore, never experience the impact of lattice alignment as do homogenous junctions. Hence, heterogeneous junctions do not become stuck in a high friction state that characterizes homogeneous ones, and experience ultra low friction during sliding at all relative crystalline lattice structure angles.
Presumably, to increase applicability, upscaling to much larger loads will be necessary. A large scale cost effective method to dramatically reduce friction would undoubtedly have an enormous impact on a great number of industries. Cost efficiency is a key component to the realization of graphene’s potential impact, not only as it applies to superlubricity, but in all areas of application. As access to large amounts of affordable graphene increases, so will experiments in fabricating devices exploiting the extraordinary characteristics which have placed graphene and graphene based materials on the front lines of material research the past couple decades.
Source: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2020/03/24/achievingsuperlubricitywithgraphene/
Quantum
Erratum: Analytic model of the energy spectrum of a graphene quantum dot in a perpendicular magnetic field [Phys. Rev. B 78, 195427 (2008)]
COVID19 has impacted many institutions and organizations around the world, disrupting the progress of research. Through this difficult time APS and the Physical Review editorial office are fully equipped and actively working to support researchers by continuing to carry out all editorial and peerreview functions and publish research in the journals as well as minimizing disruption to journal access.
We appreciate your continued effort and commitment to helping advance science, and allowing us to publish the best physics journals in the world. And we hope you, and your loved ones, are staying safe and healthy.
Quantum
Erratum: More realistic Hamiltonians for the fractional quantum Hall regime in GaAs and graphene [Phys. Rev. B 87, 245129 (2013)]
COVID19 has impacted many institutions and organizations around the world, disrupting the progress of research. Through this difficult time APS and the Physical Review editorial office are fully equipped and actively working to support researchers by continuing to carry out all editorial and peerreview functions and publish research in the journals as well as minimizing disruption to journal access.
We appreciate your continued effort and commitment to helping advance science, and allowing us to publish the best physics journals in the world. And we hope you, and your loved ones, are staying safe and healthy.

Gaming1 week ago
Minecraft Dungeons has charm and potential, but needs lot more time in the furnace

Blockchain1 week ago
Travala.com’s AVA Token Added to Crypto Payment Service CoinGate

Blockchain6 days ago
Mastercard Joins Accenture’s ID2020 Blockchain Alliance

Cannabis7 days ago
Vaxine Pty Ltd Announces COVID19 Vaccine Collaboration with Leading South Korean BioPharma Company, Medytox Inc

Blockchain1 week ago
Bitcoin Could Be More Resilient to Global Electric Failure Than Banks

Gaming1 week ago
TouchArcade Game of the Week: ‘High Rise – A Puzzle Cityscape’

Fintech1 week ago
Weekly Wrap: Plaid’s new platform and RBC’s ‘deep personalization’ efforts

Gaming6 days ago
‘Dragalia Lost’ 1.2.0 Is Now Live on iOS and Android Adding Shared Skills, The Royal Regimen, Onslaught Events, and More