Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Scrambling and Lyapunov Exponent in Unitary Networks with Tunable Interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a general criterion for a well-defined Lyapunov regime in local lattice systems: the butterfly velocity must far exceed the Lyapunov exponent times the lattice spacing, and it verifies the criterion in random…

desk verdict A genuinely useful tunable random circuit that demonstrates a long exponential OTOC window when v_B >> λ_L a; the central claim holds up, but the quantitative λ_L = r deserves a direct check. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.10104 v1 pith:6NCEOESB submitted 2020-09-21 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thquant-ph

Anna Keselman , Laimei Nie , Erez Berg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mechhep-thquant-ph
keywords out-of-time-orderedcorrelatorLyapunovexponentscramblingtimerandomunitarycircuitsbutterflyvelocityoperatorgrowthCliffordquantumchaos
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks when a spatially extended quantum system with local interactions can show a genuine exponential-growth window of the out-of-time-ordered correlator, governed by a Lyapunov exponent — the signature of quantum chaos. It argues that such a window exists only if the butterfly velocity $v_B$ is much larger than the Lyapunov exponent times the lattice spacing, $v_B \gg \lambda_L a$; then the scrambling time is $t^* \sim (1/\lambda_L) \log(c_{\rm sat} v_B/\lambda_L)$. To prove the point, the authors introduce a random unitary circuit with tunable interaction density $r$, where weak interactions satisfy the criterion, and show numerically and analytically that the integrated OTOC grows as $e^{rt}$ before crossing over to linear growth at rate $v_B$. If correct, weakly coupled lattice systems are the natural place to observe Lyapunov exponents, and the integrated OTOC is the right diagnostic for extracting them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the integrated OTOC $f(t) = \sum_j C_{i,j}(t)$, which counts the number of non-identity Pauli operators in the Heisenberg-evolved operator and therefore measures the operator's size. The carrying identity is the rate equation $df/dt = r f (1 - f/(v_B t))$, derived under a mean-field assumption that the probabilities of different sites hosting a $\sigma^z$ operator are independent. This equation produces the early exponential growth with Lyapunov exponent $\lambda_L = r$, the late-time linear growth with slope $v_B$, and the crossover time $t^*$ obtained from $e^{\lambda_L t^*} \sim c_{\rm sat} v_B t^*$, which is the general criterion claimed for all local lattice systems.

What would settle it

Run the same random circuit with interaction density $r$ no longer small and measure $f(t)$: if the early-time exponent departs from $\lambda_L = r$, or if $t^* \lambda_L$ plotted against $\log_{10}(v_B/\lambda_L)$ deviates from the predicted straight line, the mean-field rate equation and the scrambling-time criterion would be falsified. Alternatively, find a local lattice system with $v_B/(\lambda_L a)$ large yet no exponential OTOC window, which would break the criterion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a system with spatial structure and local interactions, a parametrically long regime of exponential OTOC growth requires a large ratio $v_B/(\lambda_L a)$, because the growing operator light cone supplies new degrees of freedom that sustain the exponential growth, while the scrambling time is fixed by matching $e^{\lambda_L t^*}$ to $c_{\rm sat} v_B t^*$. In the random circuit model with SWAP and CNOT gates, the integrated OTOC $f(t)$ satisfies $df/dt = r f (1 - f/(v_B t))$, giving $\lambda_L = r$ at early times and $f(t) \simeq v_B t$ at late times, with the OTOC density saturating at $1/2$. The paper verifies this in Clifford circuits (including a generalized version with operator entanglement) and in non-Clifford circuits with T gates, and shows that the crossover time scales as predicted by Eq. (3).

Load-bearing premise

The rate equation treats the positions of $\sigma^z$ operators as statistically independent at each time step, so CNOT scattering events are uncorrelated; the paper notes this assumption is controlled only in the dilute limit $r \to 0$ (and $1-p \ll 1/r$ for the diffusive circuit).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weakly coupled local lattice systems, not strongly coupled ones, are the generic setting where a quantum Lyapunov exponent can actually be observed in a local system.
  • In the random circuit, the integrated OTOC grows exponentially with rate $r$ and then linearly with slope $v_B$, with the crossover time $t^*$ set by $e^{\lambda_L t^*} \sim c_{\rm sat} v_B t^*$.
  • The same exponential window appears in generalized Clifford circuits and in non-Clifford circuits with T gates, so the result is not an artifact of the simplified circuit's lack of operator entanglement.
  • In $d$ spatial dimensions, the late-time iOTOC grows as $t^d$, which stretches the exponential window by a factor of $d$ relative to one dimension.
  • The integrated OTOC, rather than the local OTOC at a single site, is the diagnostic that cleanly exposes the scrambling time in spatially extended systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the criterion is generic, weakly coupled deterministic spin chains or electron systems should display the same exponential window, with $\lambda_L$ set by the interaction strength and $t^*$ by $\log(v_B/\lambda_L)$; this is a concrete prediction the paper does not run.
  • The rate equation is logistic growth with a time-dependent carrying capacity $v_B t$; one could export the same functional form to operator-size distributions in other weakly coupled models and test whether the $1/2$ saturation density is universal.
  • Because the special Clifford circuit shows a Lyapunov exponent with zero operator entanglement, exponential OTOC growth is not a proxy for operator entanglement growth; other scrambling measures may rank models differently.
  • The higher-dimensional generalization is only sketched; a sharp test would be to measure the $d$-factor enhancement of the exponential window in a 2D circuit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies scrambling in a one-dimensional random unitary circuit with tunable interactions, implemented by SWAP gates (applied with probability p per bond) and CNOT gates (applied on a fraction r of bonds). The authors propose a general criterion for the existence of a parametrically long exponential-growth regime of the out-of-time-ordered correlator (OTOC) in spatially extended local systems: the butterfly velocity v_B must be much larger than the Lyapunov exponent λ_L times a microscopic length scale. In the Clifford circuit, the integrated OTOC f(t) is shown obey a rate equation df/dt = r f (1 - f/(v_B t)) (Eq. (5)), whose solution (Eq. (6)) gives early-time exponential growth with λ_L = r and late-time linear growth with slope v_B. Numerical simulations for p=1 (ballistic) and p=0.9 (diffusive) are presented, including the scaling of the crossover time t* with v_B/λ_L, in agreement with Eq. (3). The authors also discuss generalized Clifford circuits and non-Clifford circuits with T gates, finding similar behavior.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a simple and intuitive criterion for when a Lyapunov exponent can be observed in a local lattice system, and provides a solvable toy model that realizes the criterion in the weak-interaction limit. The rate-equation derivation is explicit and the closed-form solution (6) is a useful analytic handle. The use of Clifford circuits allows classically simulable large-scale numerics, and the inclusion of both ballistic and diffusive regimes strengthens the demonstration. The claimed phenomenon—an extended exponential OTOC regime despite no operator entanglement growth—is conceptually interesting and may guide studies of scrambling in more physical models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Master equation for integrated OTOC, Eq. (5) and Fig. 3(a,c)] The central quantitative prediction λ_L = r is not directly verified. The text states that the early-time slope is found to be 'indeed' determined by r, but the insets of Figs. 3(a,c) show only log f(t) without a fitted straight line or a comparison of the extracted slope to r. Please provide a quantitative plot of the fitted early-time growth rate versus r for both p=1 and p=0.9, with error bars, and, if possible, overlay the analytic solution (6) on the simulated f(t) over the full time range. Without this, the claim λ_L = r—which is the model's primary analytic prediction—is not established by the presented data.
  2. [Master equation for integrated OTOC and SM S2.3.1] The rate equation (5) rests on a molecular-chaos assumption that the probabilities of σz operators at different sites are independent, so the gain and loss terms are q(1−q) and q^2. The Supplementary Material estimates the probability of correlated collisions in the dilute limit, but no numerical cross-check of the independence assumption is given. If correlated pair creation were significant, the effective growth rate would be c r with c ≠ 1, changing the full solution (6). Please validate the assumption directly, for instance by comparing the numerical f(t) with the analytic solution (6) for multiple r values in both the ballistic and diffusive regimes, or by measuring the joint occupancy statistics that enter the gain/loss terms.
  3. [Numerical results and Figs. 3(a-d), Eq. (3)] The scaling test in Figs. 3(b,d) is largely self-consistency: t* is defined as the time at which f(t)/(2 v_B t) reaches half its saturation value, which by construction gives f(t*) ≈ c_sat v_B t*, while λ_L is extracted as the early-time slope of the same f(t). If the exponential fit is extended to t*, then Eq. (3) follows regardless of whether the underlying model is correct. To make the test nontrivial, determine λ_L and v_B from independent measurements (e.g., from the local OTOC at a fixed position and from the front velocity of the spatial profile), and then verify that the crossover time extracted from the data satisfies Eq. (3) with those independently determined parameters. Alternatively, explicitly state that this plot is a consistency check and provide a separate, independent test of the criterion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction and Eq. (3)] The lattice spacing a is introduced in Eq. (3) but set to unity in the numerical work; please state this explicitly in the model definition to avoid confusion.
  2. [Master equation, Eq. (6)] The constant g0 in the solution (6) is left unspecified. Giving its value in terms of the initial f(0) (or the initial condition used in the numerics) would make the solution self-contained.
  3. [Supplementary Material S2.3.3] There is a typo: 'differential equaion' should be 'differential equation'. Also, in S2.2, 'to generate a a well-defined butterfly velocity' contains a duplicated 'a'.
  4. [Generalized Clifford circuit, Fig. 4] The non-Clifford results with T gates are limited to r = 0.01 and pT = 0.01; the text says the behavior is 'essentially unmodified' but does not show the scaling of t* or λ_L for this case. A brief statement of the extracted λ_L and v_B for this generalized circuit, or a reference to a figure in the SM, would strengthen the robustness claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The reported verification of Eq. (3) is largely self-consistency: t*, λ_L and v_B are all extracted from the same f(t) data, so the plotted t*λ_L versus log(v_B/λ_L) collapse is built into the definitions rather than independently testing the microscopic prediction λ_L = r.

  1. self definitional [Main text, section 'Numerical results for integrated OTOCs and crossover time', Eq. (3), and Fig. 3 caption.]
    "We define the crossover time t∗ as the time at which the averaged OTOC density reaches half of its saturation value. In Figs. 3(b,d) we show that the crossover time extracted as above, indeed obeys the scaling expected from Eq. (3) ... Scaling of t∗ with λL (extracted as the slope of the integrated OTOC at early times) and vB (extracted from the spatial profile of the operator density at late times)."

    The definition of t* fixes f(t*)/(2v_B t*) = 1/4, i.e. f(t*) = v_B t*/2, with the saturation density 1/2 taken from the same data. If the early-time form f ~ e^{λ_L t} is used at t*, one obtains e^{λ_L t*} ~ v_B t*, which is Eq. (3) with c_sat = 1/2 and a = 1. Because λ_L is fitted as the early-time slope of the same integrated OTOC and v_B from the late-time operator profile, the collapse in Figs. 3(b,d) is a consistency relation between the fitted asymptotic pieces, not an independent test of the rate-equation prediction λ_L = r. No quantitative λ_L-versus-r comparison is shown; any f(t) with an exponential segment followed by a linear segment would satisfy this scaling by construction.

full rationale

The central analytic result—λ_L = r from the rate equation (5) under the molecular-chaos assumption—is a genuine microscopic derivation, not a restatement of an output. The molecular-chaos closure is a substantive assumption whose failure would change the effective growth rate, but that is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation: the only overlapping reference ([12], co-authored by L. Nie) is a background citation for operator entanglement and is not used to justify the model or Eqs. (3)/(5). The one notable circular element is the numerical verification of Eq. (3): t*, λ_L, and v_B are all read off the same f(t) curve (t* by half-saturation definition, λ_L as early slope, v_B from the late spatial front), so the scaling plot largely certifies internal consistency of the two fitted asymptotes and does not independently confirm the microscopic content λ_L = r. The existence of a prolonged exponential regime is still an observed, non-circular numerical fact, and the rate equation provides an independent derivation of the functional form, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analytic results rest on the molecular chaos assumption for operator positions and on the heuristic single-crossover-time ansatz behind Eq. (3). No new physical entities are introduced. The extracted λ_L and v_B are fitted quantities used in the scaling verification.

free parameters (2)
  • λ_L (Lyapunov exponent) = Extracted as slope of f(t) at early times; rate equation predicts λ_L = r
    Used in the scaling plot of t* versus v_B/λ_L (Fig. 3b,d). The paper does not separately demonstrate λ_L = r against r in the main text, so the scaling verification depends on the measured value.
  • v_B (butterfly velocity) = Extracted from late-time spatial profile of the operator density; diffusive case predicted to scale as sqrt(r/(1-p))
    Used to normalize the OTOC density and in the t* scaling. It is measured from the same simulation rather than predicted from microscopic parameters in the main scaling analysis (SM Fig. S3 checks the v_B^2 versus λ_L scaling).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Molecular chaos: probabilities that different sites host a σz operator are independent, so CNOT events are uncorrelated
    Stated in the main text before Eq. (5) and elaborated in SM S2.3.1 with validity estimates (probability of correlated collisions vanishes as r → 0 for ballistic, and for 1-p << 1/r in diffusive circuits). This assumption is required for the rate equation and the hydrodynamic equations.
  • domain assumption The OTOC is evaluated at infinite temperature over an ensemble of random states
    A random circuit has no temperature, so the expectation value is taken over random states, standard for unitary circuit OTOC studies. This sets the ensemble for the scrambling diagnostics.
  • domain assumption A single crossover time t* separates exponential growth from linear growth of the integrated OTOC
    Used to derive Eq. (3) by equating e^{λ_L t*} and c_sat v_B t*. This is a heuristic ansatz that the two asymptotic regimes meet at one time; the numerical definition of t* as half-saturation is consistent with it.
  • standard math Clifford circuit simulation is classically efficient and exact (Gottesman)
    Used to simulate large system sizes and long times exactly; this is a standard result cited as Ref. [46].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scrambling and Lyapunov Exponent in Unitary Networks with Tunable Interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6NCEOESB

@misc{pith2026200910104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scrambling and Lyapunov Exponent in Unitary Networks with Tunable Interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6NCEOESB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.10104}
}
read the original abstract

Scrambling of information in a quantum many-body system, quantified by the out-of-time-ordered correlator (OTOC), is a key manifestation of quantum chaos. A regime of exponential growth in the OTOC, characterized by a Lyapunov exponent, has so far mostly been observed in systems with a high-dimensional local Hilbert space and in weakly-coupled systems. Here, we propose a general criterion for the existence of a well-defined regime of exponential growth of the OTOC in spatially extended systems with local interactions. In such systems, we show that a parametrically long period of exponential growth requires the butterfly velocity to be much larger than the Lyapunov exponent times a microscopic length scale, such as the lattice spacing. As an explicit example, we study a random unitary circuit with tunable interactions. In this model, we show that in the weakly interacting limit the above criterion is satisfied, and there is a prolonged window of exponential growth. Our results are based on numerical simulations of both Clifford and universal random circuits supported by an analytical treatment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.10104 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic representation of the Clifford unitary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical results for the OTOC in the Clifford circuit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Integrated OTOC obtained for the generalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. M. Deutsch. Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system. Phys. Rev. A , 43:2046–2049, Feb 1991

    1991

  2. [2]

    Chaos and quantum thermalization.Phys

    Mark Srednicki. Chaos and quantum thermalization.Phys. Rev. E, 50(2):888–901, Aug 1994

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Basko, I.L

    D.M. Basko, I.L. Aleiner, and B.L. Altshuler. Metalin- sulator transition in a weakly interacting many-electron system with localized single-particle states. Annals of Physics, 321(5):1126 – 1205, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Arijeet Pal and David A. Huse. Many-body localization phase transition. Phys. Rev. B , 82:174411, Nov 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    D. A. Roberts and D. Stanford. Diagnosing Chaos Us- ing Four-Point Functions in Two-Dimensional Conformal Field Theory. Physical Review Letters, 115(13):131603, September 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford. Black holes and the butterfly effect. Journal of High Energy Physics , 3:67, March 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford. A bound on chaos. Journal of High Energy Physics , 8:106, August 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka. Black holes and random matrices. Journal of High Energy Physics , 5:118, May 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida. Chaos in quantum channels. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2:4, February 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Operator scrambling and quantum chaos, 2018

    Xiao Chen and Tianci Zhou. Operator scrambling and quantum chaos, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Quantum circuits with classically simulable operator scrambling, 2020

    Mike Blake and Noah Linden. Quantum circuits with classically simulable operator scrambling, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Signature of quantum chaos in operator entangle- ment in 2d CFTs

    Laimei Nie, Masahiro Nozaki, Shinsei Ryu, and Mao Tian Tan. Signature of quantum chaos in operator entangle- ment in 2d CFTs. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1812.00013, Nov 2018

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Huse, and Adam Nahum

    Cheryne Jonay, David A. Huse, and Adam Nahum. Coarse-grained dynamics of operator and state entan- glement, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics

    Adam Nahum, Jonathan Ruhman, Sagar Vijay, and Jeong- wan Haah. Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics. Phys. Rev. X , 7:031016, Jul 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Parker, Xiangyu Cao, Alexander Avdoshkin, Thomas Scaffidi, and Ehud Altman

    Daniel E. Parker, Xiangyu Cao, Alexander Avdoshkin, Thomas Scaffidi, and Ehud Altman. A universal operator growth hypothesis. Phys. Rev. X , 9:041017, Oct 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Many- body quantum chaos: Analytic connection to random matrix theory

    Pavel Kos, Marko Ljubotina, and Toma ˇ z Prosen. Many- body quantum chaos: Analytic connection to random matrix theory. Phys. Rev. X , 8:021062, Jun 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Amos Chan, Andrea De Luca, and J. T. Chalker. Spectral 6 statistics in spatially extended chaotic quantum many- body systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121:060601, Aug 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Black holes and random matrices

    Jordan S Cotler, Guy Gur-Ari, Masanori Hanada, Joseph Polchinski, Phil Saad, Stephen H Shenker, Douglas Stan- ford, Alexandre Streicher, and Masaki Tezuka. Black holes and random matrices. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2017(5):118, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Xiao Chen and Andreas W. W. Ludwig. Universal spec- tral correlations in the chaotic wave function and the development of quantum chaos. Phys. Rev. B , 98:064309, Aug 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, Tibor Rakovszky, Frank Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi. Operator hydrodynamics, otocs, and entanglement growth in systems without conservation laws. Phys. Rev. X , 8:021013, Apr 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Vedika Khemani, Ashvin Vishwanath, and David A. Huse. Operator spreading and the emergence of dissipative hy- drodynamics under unitary evolution with conservation laws. Phys. Rev. X , 8:031057, Sep 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Opera- tor spreading in random unitary circuits

    Adam Nahum, Sagar Vijay, and Jeongwan Haah. Opera- tor spreading in random unitary circuits. Physical Review X, 8(2):021014, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Tibor Rakovszky, Frank Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyser- lingk. Diffusive hydrodynamics of out-of-time-ordered cor- relators with charge conservation. Phys. Rev. X, 8:031058, Sep 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov. Quasiclassical Method in the Theory of Superconductivity. Soviet Jour- nal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics , 28:1200, June 1969

    1969

  17. [25]

    Aleiner, Lara Faoro, and Lev B

    Igor L. Aleiner, Lara Faoro, and Lev B. Ioffe. Microscopic model of quantum butterfly effect: Out-of-time-order correlators and traveling combustion waves. Annals of Physics, 375:378 – 406, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Measuring the scrambling of quan- tum information

    Brian Swingle, Gregory Bentsen, Monika Schleier-Smith, and Patrick Hayden. Measuring the scrambling of quan- tum information. Phys. Rev. A , 94:040302, Oct 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Rozenbaum, Sriram Ganeshan, and Victor Galit- ski

    Efim B. Rozenbaum, Sriram Ganeshan, and Victor Galit- ski. Lyapunov exponent and out-of-time-ordered correla- tor’s growth rate in a chaotic system. Phys. Rev. Lett., 118:086801, Feb 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    On the relation between the magnitude and exponent of otocs

    Yingfei Gu and Alexei Kitaev. On the relation between the magnitude and exponent of otocs. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(2):75, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Remarks on the sachdev-ye-kitaev model

    Juan Maldacena and Douglas Stanford. Remarks on the sachdev-ye-kitaev model. Phys. Rev. D , 94:106002, Nov 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Onset of many- body chaos in the o(n) model

    Debanjan Chowdhury and Brian Swingle. Onset of many- body chaos in the o(n) model. Phys. Rev. D , 96:065005, Sep 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Scrambling in the quantum lifshitz model

    Eugeniu Plamadeala and Eduardo Fradkin. Scrambling in the quantum lifshitz model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment , 2018(6):063102, jun 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Out-of-time-ordered density correlators in luttinger liquids

    Bal´ azs D´ ora and Roderich Moessner. Out-of-time-ordered density correlators in luttinger liquids. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:026802, Jul 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Locality, quantum fluctuations, and scrambling

    Shenglong Xu and Brian Swingle. Locality, quantum fluctuations, and scrambling. Phys. Rev. X, 9:031048, Sep 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Weak quantum chaos

    Ivan Kukuljan, Sa ˇ so Grozdanov, and Toma ˇ z Prosen. Weak quantum chaos. Phys. Rev. B , 96:060301, Aug 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Luitz and Yevgeny Bar Lev

    David J. Luitz and Yevgeny Bar Lev. Information propaga- tion in isolated quantum systems.Phys. Rev. B, 96:020406, Jul 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Many-body chaos at weak coupling

    Douglas Stanford. Many-body chaos at weak coupling. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2016(10):9, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Patel, Debanjan Chowdhury, Subir Sachdev, and Brian Swingle

    Aavishkar A. Patel, Debanjan Chowdhury, Subir Sachdev, and Brian Swingle. Quantum butterfly effect in weakly interacting diffusive metals. Phys. Rev. X , 7:031047, Sep 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Nonlinear sigma model approach to many-body quantum chaos: Regu- larized and unregularized out-of-time-ordered correlators

    Yunxiang Liao and Victor Galitski. Nonlinear sigma model approach to many-body quantum chaos: Regu- larized and unregularized out-of-time-ordered correlators. Phys. Rev. B , 98:205124, Nov 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Kinetic theory for classical and quantum many-body chaos

    Sa ˇ so Grozdanov, Koenraad Schalm, and Vincenzo Scopel- liti. Kinetic theory for classical and quantum many-body chaos. Phys. Rev. E , 99:012206, Jan 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Roberts and Brian Swingle

    Daniel A. Roberts and Brian Swingle. Lieb-robinson bound and the butterfly effect in quantum field theories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:091602, Aug 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems

    Patrick Hayden and John Preskill. Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2007(09):120–120, sep 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Decoupling with ran- dom quantum circuits

    Winton Brown and Omar Fawzi. Decoupling with ran- dom quantum circuits. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 340(3):867–900, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    A closely related quantity has been considered in the past in Ref. [ 34]. There, the focus was on the late-time behavior of the OTOC

  36. [44]

    Operator growth in the syk model

    Daniel A Roberts, Douglas Stanford, and Alexandre Stre- icher. Operator growth in the syk model. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(6):122, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Non-perturbative dynamics of the op- erator size distribution in the sachdev–ye–kitaev model

    Andrew Lucas. Non-perturbative dynamics of the op- erator size distribution in the sachdev–ye–kitaev model. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 61(8):081901, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers

    Daniel Gottesman. The heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers. arXiv preprint quant-ph/9807006 , 1998

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    See Supplementary Material

  40. [48]

    Schollw¨ ock

    U. Schollw¨ ock. The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Annals of Physics , 326:96–192, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    ITensor Library, http://itensor.org/

  42. [50]

    The wave of advance of advanta- geous genes

    Ronald Aylmer Fisher. The wave of advance of advanta- geous genes. Annals of eugenics , 7(4):355–369, 1937

    1937

  43. [51]

    In- vestigation of the equation of diffusion combined with increasing of the substance and its application to a bi- ology problem

    AN Kolmogorov, IG Petrovsky, and NS Piskunov. In- vestigation of the equation of diffusion combined with increasing of the substance and its application to a bi- ology problem. Bull. Moscow State Univ. Ser. A: Math. Mech, 1(6):1–25, 1937. 7 Supplementary Material S1. GENERALIZE...

    1937

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.