Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Spectral statistics in constrained many-body quantum chaotic systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 For multipole-conserving quantum circuits, the onset of random-matrix chaos is delayed to a time that grows as L^{2(m+1)}.

desk verdict A solid exact mapping plus a plausible but heuristic field-theory prediction for multipole-conserving Thouless time; worth refereeing with a request to tighten the continuum limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.11863 v2 pith:BXPYUC3E submitted 2020-09-24 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Sanjay Moudgalya , Abhinav Prem , David A. Huse , Amos Chan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords spectralformfactorThoulesstimemultipoleconservationRokhsar-KivelsonHamiltonianrandomquantumcircuitsheightfieldssubdiffusionchaos
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

This paper establishes that in Floquet random quantum circuits with local symmetries or constraints, the spectral form factor, the standard diagnostic of quantum chaos, can be computed exactly in the large local Hilbert space limit by mapping it to a classical Markov process, and at late times to a frustration-free Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) Hamiltonian. The authors show that the inverse gap of this RK Hamiltonian lower-bounds the Thouless time, the time after which spectral statistics match random-matrix theory. For circuits conserving the m-th multipole moment, they derive a continuum field theory from generalized height fields and find that the gap scales as $L^{-2(m+1)}$, implying that the Thouless time $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$ grows subdiffusively as $L^{2(m+1)}$. This generalizes the known diffusive $L^2$ result for charge conservation to dipole and higher-moment conservation, giving a concrete testable prediction: the more moments a system conserves, the later random-matrix behavior appears.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a three-step chain. First, Haar averaging integrates out the color degrees of freedom and maps the spectral form factor of a constrained circuit to the trace of a classical bistochastic Markov circuit acting only on the spins; the result is $K_\infty(t;K)=|t|\,\mathrm{Tr}_K[\hat{M}^t]$. Second, at late times this Markov circuit is equivalent to a frustration-free RK Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{RK}}=\sum_j \Pi_{[j,j+\ell-1]}$, built from projectors connecting allowed spin configurations, whose ground state is the equal-weight superposition of all allowed states; the key identity is $\Delta_{\hat{M}}\approx \Gamma\Delta_{\mathrm{RK}}$, so the inverse RK gap bounds the Thouless time. Third, for multipole-conserving systems, generalized height fields $\phi^{(m)}(x)$ are defined recursively so that $\partial_x^{m+1}\phi^{(m)}=\rho$, turning global multipole conservation into local boundary constraints and permitting a continuum Gaussian field theory with Hamiltonian $H^{(m)}=\gamma\int_0^L dx\, Q_m^\dagger(x)Q_m(x)$ and dispersion $\omega=\gamma\kappa k^{2(m+1)}$. This dispersion relation directly yields the gap scaling $\Delta^{(m)}\sim L^{-2(m+1)}$ and hence the Thouless-time scaling.

What would settle it

Numerically diagonalize the emergent RK Hamiltonian for a quadrupole-conserving ($m=2$) circuit on the largest accessible even chains, isolate the dominant Krylov subspace, and fit the spectral gap to $L^{-\beta}$: observing a finite-size-scaling exponent $\beta$ clearly different from $6$ would falsify the prediction $t_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim L^{2(m+1)}$. An independent check is to compute the spectral form factor of a classical multipole-conserving cellular automaton with $m=2$ and locate the onset of the linear ramp, which should occur at a time growing as $L^6$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the limit of large local Hilbert space dimension $q$, the paper shows that the spectral form factor $K(t)$ of a broad class of constrained Floquet random quantum circuits is exactly captured, to leading order in $1/q$, by a classical bistochastic Markov circuit acting only on spin degrees of freedom. At late times, this Markov circuit is further equivalent to the partition function of a frustration-free Rokhsar-Kivelson Hamiltonian whose ground state is an equal-weight superposition of all allowed configurations. Because the second-largest eigenvalue of the Markov matrix, equivalently the gap of the RK Hamiltonian, controls the approach to the linear ramp, the inverse gap lower-bounds the Thouless time $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$. For systems conserving all multipole moments up to the $m$-th, the authors construct generalized height fields $\phi^{(m)}(x)$ satisfying $\partial_x^{m+1}\phi^{(m)}=\rho$, which convert global conservation laws into local boundary constraints, and derive a continuum field theory with dispersion relation $\omega \sim k^{2(m+1)}$. From this they conclude that the gap scales as $L^{-2(m+1)}$ and hence $t_{\mathrm{Th}} \gtrsim L^{2(m+1)}$, a result they verify numerically for charge ($m=0$, giving $L^2$) and dipole ($m=1$, giving $L^4$) conservation, and argue extends to higher dimensions whenever any component of the $m$-th moment is conserved.

Load-bearing premise

The coarse-grained Gaussian field theory is assumed to faithfully capture the low-energy spectrum, and in particular the single slowest mode, of the discrete RK Hamiltonian; if the true low-lying excitations of the discrete model are not described by this field theory with the chosen boundary conditions, the $L^{2(m+1)}$ gap scaling, and hence the predicted Thouless time, would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For charge-conserving circuits ($m=0$), the formalism recovers the known diffusive scaling $t_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim L^2$, and for dipole-conserving circuits it predicts $t_{\mathrm{Th}}\sim L^4$, showing that random-matrix behavior is parametrically delayed as higher moments are conserved.
  • The mapping from $K(t)$ to an emergent RK Hamiltonian holds for any on-site Abelian symmetry or local constraint, not only multipole conservation, so the spectral gap of the RK Hamiltonian provides a general route to computing the Thouless time in constrained circuits.
  • In $d$-dimensional systems conserving any component of the $m$-th multipole moment (and none higher), the Thouless time scales with the largest linear size $L$ as $L^{2(m+1)}$, independent of dimension.
  • Because the emergent Hamiltonian is stoquastic and sign-problem-free, the late-time spectral form factor can be studied with quantum Monte Carlo methods, extending numerical access to larger system sizes than exact diagonalization allows.
  • The classical Markov circuit (equivalently, a cellular automaton with the same constraints) inherits the same gap scaling, linking the spectral statistics of the quantum circuit to the relaxation rate of a classical stochastic process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The predicted scaling should be directly testable in classical simulations: for a multipole-conserving cellular automaton with $m=2$, the spectral gap of the stochastic matrix in the dominant Krylov sector should close as $L^{-6}$; this follows from the paper's Eq. (20) but is an explicit check the authors do not perform.
  • The continuum field theory assigns a dynamical exponent $z=2(m+1)$ to all low-energy dynamics, so observables beyond the spectral form factor, such as density autocorrelations, should show the same scaling; measuring these in a tilted optical lattice with dipole conservation would connect the spectral-statistics claim to transport experiments.
  • The polynomial shift symmetry of the continuum Hamiltonian suggests the gap scaling is independent of the quantum number sector, so the L^{2(m+1)} bound should hold across fillings; this is an implication the paper notes but does not develop into an experimental prediction.
  • For strongly fragmented systems, the dominant Krylov subspace is not the full symmetry sector, and the equal-weight ground state used in the derivation may fail; the boundary of validity of the L^{2(m+1)} scaling in such sectors remains open, since the paper restricts its analysis to weakly fragmented systems.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the spectral form factor K(t) of Floquet random quantum circuits with local constraints and Abelian symmetries, in the limit of large local Hilbert space dimension q. Extending earlier diagrammatic methods, the authors show that K(t) in a Krylov subspace equals |t| times the trace of the t-th power of a classical bistochastic Markov circuit \hat{M}, and that at late times this is approximated by the partition function of a frustration-free Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) Hamiltonian H_RK. The gap of H_RK therefore controls the Thouless time t_Th. For circuits conserving the m-th multipole moment, the paper introduces generalized height fields \varphi^{(m)}; coarse-graining the equal-weight ground state gives a Gaussian functional exp(-\kappa/2 \int (\partial^{m+1}\varphi)^2), and a corresponding continuum parent Hamiltonian H^{(m)} with dispersion \omega(k) \sim \kappa k^{2(m+1)}. This yields the main prediction t_Th \gtrsim L^{2(m+1)}. The formalism is extended to higher dimensions using symmetric tensor fields, giving the same scaling with the largest linear size. Numerical exact diagonalization for charge (m=0) and dipole (m=1) conserving circuits supports the Markov-RK correspondence and shows subdiffusive gap scaling.

Significance. The exact large-q mapping from the SFF to a classical Markov chain (Appendix A) is a careful and valuable technical result, and the relation between the gap of the Markov chain and the gap of the RK Hamiltonian is supported by explicit overlap and gap comparisons in Fig. 4(a). The generalized height-field representation and the discussion of polynomial shift symmetries are insightful, and the final prediction Eq. (58) is a sharp, falsifiable statement that extends the known diffusive result to a universal subdiffusive exponent 2(m+1). The main caveat is that the continuum field theory is proposed rather than derived in a controlled way from the microscopic Hamiltonian; the paper explicitly labels it a proposal at the start of Sec. V. If the low-energy sector of the discrete RK Hamiltonian is not captured by the Gaussian field theory with the chosen boundary conditions, the central scaling law would fail. Nevertheless, the derivation is internally consistent, and the numerical evidence for m=1, while not conclusive, is suggestive. The paper opens a useful bridge between spectral statistics, classical Markov processes, and equilibrium RK field theories.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (48), (53), and Appendix D] The central exponent 2(m+1) is obtained from a continuum Hamiltonian that is posited through the Gaussian coarse-graining of the ground state (App. B) and through regulator or Fokker-Planck constructions (Apps. D1-D2). Neither step is derived from the microscopic H_RK = \sum_j \Pi_j with a controlled gradient expansion; in particular, the Gaussian variance \sigma^2 = \Delta x/\kappa in Eq. (B2) and the locality of the coarse-grained dynamics are assumptions. Because the derivative order in Eq. (53) fixes the dispersion, the derivation is internally consistent, but the prediction Eq. (58) is only as reliable as this low-energy reduction. The authors should state this limitation in the main text and provide at least one direct check, for example comparing the lowest field-theory eigenfunctions (55) with the numerically obtained first excited states of H_RK for m=1, or computing the gap scaling for m=2.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (55)-(57)] The gap scaling L^{-2(m+1)} is asserted after assuming that the mode function f^{(m)}(kx) behaves as e^{ikx} deep in the bulk. The paper does not solve the quadratic spectral problem with the OBC boundary conditions (41) and (43). Since the continuum Hamiltonian (53) has the enlarged polynomial shift symmetry (54), the boundary conditions are essential for selecting the first excited state, and one cannot exclude boundary-localized modes with a parametrically smaller gap from the current argument. Please solve the eigenvalue equation for H^{(m)} with Eqs. (41) and (43) and show that the lowest eigenvalue indeed scales as L^{-2(m+1)}, or otherwise justify the k \sim 1/L quantization.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4(b)] The numerical evidence for the m=1 exponent is not as strong as the text suggests. The two dipole-conserving data sets are fit to L^{-4.83} (\ell=4, s=1) and L^{-4.01} (\ell=5, s=1), which deviate from each other and from the predicted L^{-4} by up to about 20% in the accessible system sizes. Because this figure is the only direct numerical test of the subdiffusive scaling, and no m\ge 2 data are presented, the claim that t_Th \sim L^{2(m+1)} is universal over m is not yet fully established. The authors should either extend the numerics (for example larger L for \ell=5, or a quadrupole-conserving model with a smaller local Hilbert space) or clearly state that m\ge 2 is a prediction without numerical confirmation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (63)] Equation (63) contains a typo: the third and fourth tensor products both read 'y odd, x'; the fourth layer should read 'y even, x'.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (55)] The notation f^{(m)}(kx) suggests a function of the product kx, while the subsequent text uses e^{ikx}; please define the argument and normalization of the mode function explicitly.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (74)-(75)] The text first considers a hypercubic lattice with equal linear size L in all directions, then at Eq. (75) defines L = \max_j L_j; please make the notation consistent between the general hypercubic case and the final gap formula.
  4. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (59)] The scaling function F is called 'hypergeometric' without specifying which hypergeometric function is meant; please give an explicit expression or a reference.
  5. [Sec. IV, around Eq. (28)] The sentence 'the low-energy excitations above the ferromagnetic state in the Heisenberg model of Eq. (27) are exactly known to be spin waves' is imprecise: the single-magnon states are exact, but the many-body low-energy spectrum is richer; please sharpen the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the t_Th ~ L^{2(m+1)} scaling follows from the differential order of a field theory whose Gaussian ground state is obtained by coarse-graining the equal-weight RK state, and no fitted parameter controls the exponent.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The exact large-q mapping from K(t) to the Markov circuit (Eq. 7) and then to the RK Hamiltonian partition function (Eq. 19) is an algebraic identity, not a fit. The relation t_Th ~ 1/Δ_RK (Eqs. 12 and 20) is verified numerically for both charge and dipole conserving circuits (Fig. 4a), and the constant Γ in Eq. (20) affects only the prefactor. The continuum step is the only place where an approximation enters: the equal-weight ground state is coarse-grained using the central limit theorem, giving the Gaussian weight exp(-(κ/2)∫(∂^{m+1}φ)^2) (Eqs. 46 and B5). This is not fitted to the gap; it is a long-wavelength representation of the known exact ground state, and the order of the derivative is forced by the kinematic relation ρ = ∂^{m+1}φ (Eq. 36). The parent Hamiltonian H^(m) (Eqs. 48 and 53) is then constructed by standard SMF/Fokker-Planck techniques (App. D), and its dispersion k^{2(m+1)} (Eq. 56) follows from the order of the differential operator. The parameters κ and γ multiply the dispersion but do not set the exponent, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The result is benchmarked externally: for m=0 it reproduces the exact Heisenberg spin-wave gap L^{-2} (Eq. 28), and for m=1 the numerically extracted exponents in Fig. 4b (L^{-4.83} and L^{-4.01}) bracket the predicted L^{-4}. The absence of numerical data for m≥2 is a limitation of the continuum-limit assumption, not a circularity; if the posited field theory fails to capture the discrete RK Hamiltonian, the prediction would fail, which is a falsifiability caveat rather than a circular step. Self-citations appear only in background discussions of fragmentation (Refs. 16 and 62) and cellular automata (Ref. 63); none is load-bearing for the t_Th scaling, and the continuum construction cites external literature (Henley, Castelnovo et al., Chen et al.).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim (t_Th~L^(2(m+1))) rests on the exact q→∞ mapping plus a sequence of effective descriptions: Markov circuit → RK Hamiltonian → continuum field theory. The only fitted/loose parameters (κ, γ) enter as coefficients, not exponents. The main risk is that the field theory does not faithfully represent the low-energy spectrum of the discrete RK Hamiltonian for all m.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa (κ) = chosen to match microscopic correlations, not numerically fitted
    Coarse-graining scale in Eq. (B2); sets the variance of Gaussian spins and the coefficient in the continuum Hamiltonian. It cancels from the scaling exponent.
  • gamma (γ) = overall rate in continuum Hamiltonian (Eq. 48), not fitted
    Sets the overall relaxation rate; does not affect the L-scaling of the gap.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Large-q limit (q→∞) is taken for the color degrees of freedom; leading-order diagrams dominate the SFF
    Standard in random circuit SFF analysis (Sec. II and App. A); finite-q corrections are acknowledged as open in Sec. VII.
  • domain assumption At late times the discrete Markov circuit M is equivalent to a continuous-time master equation with rates equal to transition probabilities
    Sec. III; valid when M is gapless; verified numerically by overlap of first excited states in Fig. 4(a).
  • ad hoc to paper Coarse-grained spins become independent Gaussian variables with variance ∆x/κ
    App. B uses the central limit theorem heuristically; κ must be chosen to match long-distance correlations. This is an assumption that could fail for strongly constrained sectors.
  • ad hoc to paper The low-energy physics of the discrete RK Hamiltonian is captured by the continuum SMF-decomposable Hamiltonian H^(m) in Eqs. (48),(53)
    The continuum Hamiltonian is constructed to have the coarse-grained ground state as its exact ground state, but there is no rigorous proof that its excitation spectrum matches the microscopic RK Hamiltonian's gap. This is the weakest load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions ∂^(2(m+1))_x φ=0 and mode function f(kx)~e^(ikx) for the lowest-lying excitations
    Sec. V C and App. D; the k~1/L quantization determines the gap scaling. Other boundary conditions could change the exponent if the mode is localized at the boundary.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalized height fields φ^(m)(x) (1D) and symmetric tensor fields E_{j0...jm} (higher D)
    purpose: Map global multipole constraints to local boundary conditions and enable continuum field theory for the RK Hamiltonian
    Mathematical constructs introduced in Sec. V A and Sec. VI; they have no direct experimental handle but lead to falsifiable scaling predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral statistics in constrained many-body quantum chaotic systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXPYUC3E

@misc{pith2026200911863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral statistics in constrained many-body quantum chaotic systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXPYUC3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.11863}
}
abstract

We study the spectral statistics of spatially-extended many-body quantum systems with on-site Abelian symmetries or local constraints, focusing primarily on those with conserved dipole and higher moments. In the limit of large local Hilbert space dimension, we find that the spectral form factor $K(t)$ of Floquet random circuits can be mapped exactly to a classical Markov circuit, and, at late times, is related to the partition function of a frustration-free Rokhsar-Kivelson (RK) type Hamiltonian. Through this mapping, we show that the inverse of the spectral gap of the RK-Hamiltonian lower bounds the Thouless time $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$ of the underlying circuit. For systems with conserved higher moments, we derive a field theory for the corresponding RK-Hamiltonian by proposing a generalized height field representation for the Hilbert space of the effective spin chain. Using the field theory formulation, we obtain the dispersion of the low-lying excitations of the RK-Hamiltonian in the continuum limit, which allows us to extract $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$. In particular, we analytically argue that in a system of length $L$ that conserves the $m^{th}$ multipole moment, $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$ scales subdiffusively as $L^{2(m+1)}$. We also show that our formalism directly generalizes to higher dimensional circuits, and that in systems that conserve any component of the $m^{th}$ multipole moment, $t_{\mathrm{Th}}$ has the same scaling with the linear size of the system. Our work therefore provides a general approach for studying spectral statistics in constrained many-body chaotic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.11863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Illustration of the SFF versus time on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Summary of results: a) We study a class of constrained Floquet random quantum circuits whose SFF in the large- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Example of a Floquet operator ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Scaling of the gaps ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) The generalized height variables of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Charge conserving case: independent components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) A schematic illustration of the diagrammatic representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 206603 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Annals of Physics 321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 82, 174411 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Mori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 030601 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Moudgalya, S

    S. Moudgalya, S. Rachel, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Reg- nault, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235155 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235156 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    W. W. Ho, S. Choi, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 040603 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Khemani, C

    V. Khemani, C. R. Laumann, and A. Chandran, Physical Review B 99, 161101 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011047 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Khemani, M

    V. Khemani, M. Hermele, and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174204 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Rakovszky, P

    T. Rakovszky, P. Sala, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B 101, 125126 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Moudgalya, A

    S. Moudgalya, A. Prem, R. Nandkishore, N. Reg- nault, and B. A. Bernevig, arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv:1910.14048 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Kudler-Flam, L

    J. Kudler-Flam, L. Nie, and S. Ryu, JHEP 2020, 175 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kitaev, in KITP strings seminar and Entanglement, Vol

    A. Kitaev, in KITP strings seminar and Entanglement, Vol. 12 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, JHEP 2016, 106 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, JHEP 2017, 118 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Cotler, N

    J. Cotler, N. Hunter-Jones, J. Liu, and B. Yoshida, JHEP 2017, 48 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hamma, S

    A. Hamma, S. Santra, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 040502 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hamma, S

    A. Hamma, S. Santra, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 86, 052324 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    P. Kos, M. Ljubotina, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021062 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Gharibyan, M

    H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, S. H. Shenker, and M. Tezuka, JHEP 2018, 124 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Moudgalya, T

    S. Moudgalya, T. Devakul, C. W. von Keyserlingk, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094312 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jonay, D

    C. Jonay, D. A. Huse, and A. Nahum, arXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1803.00089 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031057 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Rakovszky, F

    T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyserlingk, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031058 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1 (1984)

    1984

  31. [39]

    Montambaux, D

    G. Montambaux, D. Poilblanc, J. Bellissard, and C. Sire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 497 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    Poilblanc, T

    D. Poilblanc, T. Ziman, J. Bellissard, F. Mila, and 19 G. Montambaux, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 22, 537 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    Quantum signatures of chaos,

    F. Haake, “Quantum signatures of chaos,” in Quantum Coherence in Mesoscopic Systems, edited by B. Kramer (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1991) pp. 583–595

    1991

  34. [42]

    D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1167 (1977)

    1977

  35. [43]

    F. J. Dyson, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 1191 (1962)

    1962

  36. [44]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 264101 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Flack, B

    A. Flack, B. Bertini, and T. Prosen, (2020), arXiv:2009.03199 [nlin.CD]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041019 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 060601 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    A. J. Friedman, A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210603 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 220601 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    S. J. Garratt and J. T. Chalker, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2008.01697 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Chamon, Phys

    C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 040402 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    I. H. Kim and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 027202 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Siva and B

    K. Siva and B. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032324 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    A. Prem, J. Haah, and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155133 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Chandran, M

    A. Chandran, M. D. Schulz, and F. J. Burnell, Phys. Rev. B 94, 235122 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Feldmeier, F

    J. Feldmeier, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 040601 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Iaconis, S

    J. Iaconis, S. Vijay, and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 100, 214301 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Ritort and P

    F. Ritort and P. Sollich, Advances in Physics 52, 219 (2003)

    2003

  52. [60]

    S. Pai, M. Pretko, and R. M. Nandkishore, Physical Re- view X 9, 021003 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Pai and M

    S. Pai and M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 136401 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, arXiv e-prints (2019), arXiv:1906.05292 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Morningstar, V

    A. Morningstar, V. Khemani, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 101, 214205 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Feldmeier, P

    J. Feldmeier, P. Sala, G. de Tomasi, F. Pollmann, and M. Knap, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2004.00635 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Guardado-Sanchez, A

    E. Guardado-Sanchez, A. Morningstar, B. M. Spar, P. T. Brown, D. A. Huse, and W. S. Bakr, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011042 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    R. M. Nandkishore and M. Hermele, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 295 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Pretko, X

    M. Pretko, X. Chen, and Y. You, International Journal of Modern Physics A 35, 2030003 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Gromov, A

    A. Gromov, A. Lucas, and R. M. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033124 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Zhang, Phys

    P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033129 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2376 (1988)

    1988

  63. [71]

    C. L. Henley, Journal of Statistical Physics 89, 483 (1997)

    1997

  64. [72]

    Castelnovo, C

    C. Castelnovo, C. Chamon, C. Mudry, and P. Pujol, Annals of Physics 318, 316 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    R. D. Somma, C. D. Batista, and G. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 030603 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    C. L. Henley, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 16, S891 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    Knabe, Journal of Statistical Physics 52, 627 (1988)

    S. Knabe, Journal of Statistical Physics 52, 627 (1988)

    1988

  68. [76]

    Gosset and E

    D. Gosset and E. Mozgunov, Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 091901 (2016)

    2016

  69. [77]

    Lemm and E

    M. Lemm and E. Mozgunov, Journal of Mathematical Physics 60, 051901 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Bravyi, Quantum Info

    S. Bravyi, Quantum Info. Comput. 15, 1122–1140 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    F. R. Chung and F. C. Graham, Spectral graph theory, 92 (American Mathematical Soc., 1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    Roy and T

    D. Roy and T. Prosen, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2005.10489 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Fradkin, D

    E. Fradkin, D. A. Huse, R. Moessner, V. Oganesyan, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 69, 224415 (2004)

    2004

  74. [82]

    Ardonne, P

    E. Ardonne, P. Fendley, and E. Fradkin, Annals of Physics 310, 493 (2004)

    2004

  75. [83]

    Moessner and K

    R. Moessner and K. S. Raman, in Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism (Springer, 2011) pp. 437–479

    2011

  76. [84]

    Brownian functionals in physics and computer science,

    S. N. Majumdar, “Brownian functionals in physics and computer science,” inThe Legacy of Albert Einstein, pp. 93–129

  77. [85]

    X. Chen, E. Fradkin, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Phys. Rev. B 96, 180402 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    X. Chen, E. Fradkin, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 464002 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    Griffin, K

    T. Griffin, K. T. Grosvenor, P. Hoˇ rava, and Z. Yan, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics 340, 985 (2015)

    2015

  80. [88]

    Pretko, Phys

    M. Pretko, Phys. Rev. B 98, 115134 (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    Gromov, Phys

    A. Gromov, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031035 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Pretko, X

    M. Pretko, X. Chen, and Y. You, International Journal of Modern Physics A 35, 2030003 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X20300033

    2020 doi

  83. [91]

    Z.-C. Yang, F. Liu, A. V. Gorshkov, and T. Iadecola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 207602 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Lesanovsky, Physical Review Letters 106, 025301 (2011)

    I. Lesanovsky, Physical Review Letters 106, 025301 (2011)

    2011

  85. [93]

    I. V. Protopopov, R. K. Panda, T. Parolini, A. Scardic- chio, E. Demler, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011025 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Z.-C. Yang, S. Nicholls, and M. Cheng, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2007.02950 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2020 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Glorioso, L

    P. Glorioso, L. V. Delacr´ etaz, X. Chen, R. M. Nand kishore, and A. Lucas, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2007.13753 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    P. M. Chaikin, T. C. Lubensky, and T. A. Witten, Principles of condensed matter physics, Vol. 10 (Cam- bridge university press Cambridge, 1995)

    1995

  89. [97]

    Fokker-planck equation,

    H. Risken, “Fokker-planck equation,” in The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996) pp. 63–95. 20 Appendix A: Mapping K(t) to a classical Markov circuit In this Appendix, we generalize the calculation ...

    1996

  90. [98]

    (B6) has the form Eq

    Regulator approach Let us begin by observing that the continuum wave function Eq. (B6) has the form Eq. (C1) i.e., it belongs to the class of ground states of SMF decomposable Hamiltonians. We thus anticipate that the continuum limit of the RK-Hamiltonian is SMF decomposable a...

  91. [99]

    inverse-temperature

    Fokker-Planck approach An alternate, more standard approach for deriving the continuum Hamiltonian proceeds by invoking an analogy with Langevin dynamics [71]. We begin with the observation that that the ground state wave functional of the continuum RK Hamiltonian—when interpr...

Pith tools

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