Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Integrability versus chaos in the steady state of many-body open quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Integrable steady states of open quantum systems are not built from few-body local operators, yet the operator-size distribution of their Pauli-string expansion still separates them from chaotic steady states.

desk verdict A careful numerical study that cleanly separates Liouvillian from steady-state integrability and shows integrable steady states are not operator-local; the main weakness is a conjectured dephasing scale for the B models, but the A models carry the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16041 v2 pith:K4LEWQ4C submitted 2024-12-20 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.mes-hallnlin.CDquant-ph

Josef Richter , Lucas Sá , Masudul Haque This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.mes-hallnlin.CDquant-ph PACS 05.30.-d05.45.Mt03.65.Yz
keywords Lindbladmasterequationsteady-stateintegrabilityoperatorsizedistributionPaulistringslevelstatisticsNESSETHboundary-drivenspinchainsdephasing
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 studies open quantum systems governed by a Lindblad master equation and distinguishes two notions of integrability: the full Liouvillian dynamics may be integrable, or only the long-time steady state may be integrable while the dynamics is chaotic. Using boundary-driven spin chains, it shows that steady-state integrability is consistently signalled by Poisson level statistics of the steady-state 'Hamiltonian' $H_{\mathrm{ss}} = -\ln \rho_{\mathrm{ss}}$ and by failure of an extension of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, regardless of whether the Liouvillian itself is chaotic. Counter to natural expectation, an integrable steady state is not a simple operator: expanded in Pauli strings, it contains contributions from strings of all lengths, including long-range and many-body terms. However, the relative weight of strings of different sizes, the operator-size distribution, decays roughly exponentially for integrable steady states and much more weakly for chaotic ones, so the distribution's shape works as a practical discriminator. The result gives concrete diagnostic tools for classifying the nonequilibrium steady states of open many-body systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'steady-state Hamiltonian' $H_{\mathrm{ss}}$, defined through $\rho_{\mathrm{ss}} = e^{-H_{\mathrm{ss}}}$; being Hermitian, its eigenvalues have conventional (real) level statistics comparable to Poisson or GUE predictions, and its eigenbasis is used to test the NESS extension of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis. The structural analysis rests on expanding $H_{\mathrm{ss}}$ in the basis of Pauli strings, products of single-site Pauli matrices, where each string has a length equal to the number of sites it acts on nontrivially. From that expansion the paper defines the operator-size distribution $P(S)$, the normalized total weight of strings of each length $S$, which is the quantity that separates integrable from chaotic steady states. Complementary machinery includes complex spacing ratios for the Liouvillian spectrum, which detect repulsion among complex eigenvalues, and the conjecture that the natural dephasing scale is $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}} \sim 1/N$ rather than $O(1)$, motivated by a heuristic operator-growth and Liouvillian-gap argument.

What would settle it

Compute the Liouvillian gap or the decay rate of the slowest operator for the bulk-dephased chains as a function of $N$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}}$: if the crossover to the trivial infinite-temperature steady state occurs at $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}} \sim 1/N$, the chaotic classification of B1--B3 is supported; if it occurs at $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}} \sim O(1)$, the Poisson statistics seen at $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}}=1$ would persist at all system sizes and the central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the steady state of an open many-body system can be integrable independently of whether the Liouvillian that generates the dynamics is integrable, and that the two kinds of integrability leave different spectral fingerprints. For the boundary-driven spin chains studied, full Liouvillian and steady-state integrability (models A and B) show Poisson level statistics both in the complex Liouvillian spectrum and in the real spectrum of the steady-state Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{ss}} = -\ln \rho_{\mathrm{ss}}$. When only the steady state is integrable (model A, whose Liouvillian is nonintegrable), the steady-state levels remain Poissonian while the Liouvillian levels repel as in the Ginibre unitary ensemble; when both are nonintegrable (models A$'$, B1--B3 at the dephasing scale $\sim 1/N$), both spectra follow random-matrix statistics. Correspondingly, the NESS extension of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, tested through the finite-size scaling $\sigma \sim D^{-1/2}$ of expectation-value fluctuations, holds for nonintegrable steady states and fails for integrable ones. The paper further shows that the structure of the steady state defies the simple picture: the Pauli-string expansion of $H_{\mathrm{ss}}$ contains strings of every length in both classes, and even the few-body coefficients are long-ranged. The quantity that nevertheless separates the two classes is the operator-size distribution $P(S)$, which decays approximately exponentially for integrable steady states and noticeably more slowly (flatter) for chaotic ones.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of the dephased models B1--B3 as having chaotic steady states rests on the conjecture that the natural dephasing strength scales as $1/N$; if that scale were instead of order one, the same numerical data would classify those steady states as integrable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Poisson statistics of $H_{\mathrm{ss}} = -\ln \rho_{\mathrm{ss}}$ and violation of NESS ETH together identify an integrable steady state even when the Liouvillian is chaotic, so the two notions of integrability can be told apart spectroscopically.
  • Integrable steady states of the kind studied here receive weight from Pauli strings of all lengths, including long-range and many-body terms, so 'integrability' of a nonequilibrium steady state does not imply a local few-body structure.
  • Comparisons of steady-state chaos in bulk-dephased systems must be made at dephasing strengths $\gamma_{\mathrm{deph}} \sim 1/N$; at $O(1)$ dephasing the steady state becomes the trivial infinite-temperature state and mimics integrable statistics.
  • The operator-size distribution $P(S)$ provides a structural discriminator between chaotic and integrable steady states that survives even though both contain strings of all sizes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is whether the exponential-versus-flat dichotomy in $P(S)$ generalizes to other integrable steady states, such as the boundary-driven Hubbard chain or models with more than one conserved charge; if it does, the shape of $P(S)$ could serve as a practical probe of steady-state integrability in numerical and experimental settings.
  • The conjectured $1/N$ dephasing scale has a direct thermodynamic-limit consequence the paper does not develop: if bulk dissipation couples to every site, boundary driving alone cannot sustain a nontrivial steady state at fixed coupling as $N \to \infty$, so nontrivial NESS in that limit requires scaling the bulk coupling down with system size.
  • Because $H_{\mathrm{ss}}$ is not local even when integrable, a more promising characterization than operator locality may be the presence of quasilocal conserved quantities or a generalized-Gibbs-ensemble structure; the paper notes no such characterization is known, leaving that as an open avenue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 boundary-driven spin chains with bulk dephasing and asks whether the notion of integrability of the nonequilibrium steady state is independent of integrability of the Liouvillian. Using exact benchmarks (model A, whose steady state is known exactly, and model B, which is Bethe-ansatz integrable) and perturbations thereof (A', B1, B2, B3), the authors compute complex spacing ratios of the Liouvillian, level-spacing ratios and NESS-ETH scaling of the steady-state Hamiltonian H_ss = -ln ρ_ss, and the Pauli-string size distribution P(S) of H_ss. They report that steady-state integrability is signaled by Poisson statistics of H_ss and failure of NESS ETH, even when the Liouvillian is chaotic, and that although integrable steady states are not simple in the Pauli basis, the shape of P(S) can distinguish chaotic from integrable steady states. The dephasing strength is argued to have a natural scale γ_deph ~ 1/N, and the choice γ_deph = 1/N is used for the nonintegrable B-type cases.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution: it separates 'Liouvillian integrability' from 'steady-state integrability' and provides concrete diagnostics for the latter. The use of known exact steady states as benchmarks is a strength, as is the combination of spectral statistics, ETH scaling, and operator-size analysis. The numerical evidence is extensive and clearly presented, and the finding that integrable steady states contain long Pauli strings of all lengths is a genuinely nontrivial observation. The main weakness is that the classification of the B-type models as having chaotic steady states depends on a conjectured dephasing scale that is not derived and is only tested at one value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIIB, Fig. 3] The classification of models B1-B3 as having nonintegrable steady states rests on the conjecture in Sec. IIIB that the nontrivial boundary-driven NESS requires γ_deph = γ~_deph/N, with the prefactor implicitly set to unity to match the earlier γ_deph = 0.1 results. The heuristic gap argument (g ~ γ N) does not directly locate the NESS crossover, and no systematic scan over γ_deph at fixed N is presented. At γ_deph = 1, the same models show Poisson H_ss statistics and no NESS ETH (Fig. 3c,e), which the paper attributes to a trivial infinite-temperature steady state; that attribution is part of the same conjectural scaling. If the relevant scale were instead O(1), the B1-B3 steady states would be classified as integrable (or at least non-ETH) at all sizes studied, and the separation in Figs. 3(b,d) and 4 would be a parameter artifact. The authors should either derive the 1/N scale more directly or provide a finite-size crossover study (e.g., varying N γ_deph through values 0.1, 1, 10 for the level statistics and NESS ETH) to demonstrate that γ_deph = 1/N is indeed the correct operational scale.
  2. [Sec. IIIA, Figs. 1(c), 2(b), 3(d-f)] The NESS-ETH scaling claims are made without any estimate of statistical uncertainty. The standard deviation σ of the observable matrix elements is plotted at single values of N, with no error bars and no statement of how many eigenstates fall in the spectral window used for the fit. Consequently, the fitted exponents α in Fig. 2(b) have unknown confidence intervals, and the statements that A' is 'consistent with' the D^{-1/2} prediction and that the deviation is a 'small systematic' finite-size effect are not quantitatively supported. Please report the standard error of σ (e.g., from eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations) or at least the sample sizes, and show the linear fits with confidence intervals.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The abstract claims that the operator-size distribution can be used to distinguish chaotic and integrable steady states, but the evidence in Fig. 4 is visual only. No quantitative separation criterion is defined: there is no metric such as the decay rate of P(S) at large S, the weight ratio P(S)/P(1), or a threshold based on the average operator size. Given that the B-model comparison is entangled with the dephasing-scale issue, a quantitative discriminator applied to the A/A' pair and to the B-family would make the claimed distinction testable and would remove the ambiguity about what 'effectively use' means.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract says the steady state is expanded in Pauli strings, but the analysis is actually of H_ss = -ln ρ_ss. The authors mention that H_ss and ρ_ss share the same level statistics, but they do not address whether their Pauli-size distributions are qualitatively similar; please clarify the relationship or add a sentence justifying why P(S) of H_ss is the relevant object.
  2. [Table II and Fig. 1(a)] For model A the CSR values (⟨r⟩ = 0.701, -⟨cos θ⟩ = 0.100) are closer to Poisson than to GinUE. The text attributes this to a finite-size effect; a short N-dependence of the CSR values (or a reference to Ref. [14] for larger N) would make this more convincing.
  3. [Sec. IIIB] The sentence 'For the system sizes available (N ≈ 10), this results in γ_deph ≈ 1/10' is imprecise because Fig. 3(f) uses γ_deph = 1/N, which ranges from 1/6 to 1/12 over the plotted N values; please state the actual range.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The symbol D is used both for the dissipator superoperator (Eqs. 4-5) and for the Hilbert-space dimension (Eq. 15); although standard in context, a notational distinction would help readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: integrability labels come from external exact solutions; the dephasing-scale choice is an explicit conjecture, not a fitted input used as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's integrability labels are not derived from its own diagnostics. Model A's steady state is classified integrable via the exact steady-state constructions of Refs. [50,51,60], and model B via the Bethe-ansatz solution of Ref. [43]; these are external, parameter-free results, so the subsequent Poisson/GUE and NESS-ETH checks are corroboration rather than definitions. The NESS ETH criterion is imported from Ref. [29], not from the authors' prior work, and the complex-spacing-ratio diagnostic is standard. The only load-bearing choice is the dephasing scale gamma_deph ~ 1/N in Sec. III B; the paper explicitly labels this a conjecture, gives an operator-growth heuristic, and notes that gamma_deph = 1 probes a trivial infinite-temperature state. The prefactor gamma_tilde = 1 is indeed chosen so that at N ~ 10 it reproduces the earlier gamma_deph = 0.1 runs, so the B1-B3 'chaotic steady state' conclusion is conditional on that scale. But this is a parameter-regime assumption, not a circular reduction: the paper does not fit the operator-size distribution to the labels, and at fixed gamma_deph = 0.1 the Hss GUE statistics and NESS ETH scaling are direct numerical observations independent of the conjecture. Section V honestly states that a general characterization of Hss simplicity is lacking; that is an acknowledged open problem, not a hidden circular step. Overall, self-citations (e.g., Refs. [69], [81], [87]) are background ETH references and are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on standard open-quantum-system formalism, the external exact-solvability of models A and B, and a conjectured dephasing scale. The only parameter chosen to make the diagnostics behave as expected is the prefactor of the 1/N dephasing scaling.

free parameters (1)
  • dephasing prefactor for 1/N scaling = 1 (gamma_deph = 1/N)
    The paper conjectures the natural dephasing scale is gamma_deph ~ 1/N; the prefactor is fixed to 1 so that for N ~ 10, gamma_deph ~ 0.1 matches the earlier data where nonintegrability signatures appear (Sec. III B, Fig. 3(f)).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with Markovian, completely positive, trace-preserving dynamics
    The entire framework builds on the Lindblad equation (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption Unique steady state for Liouvillians with only weak symmetries
    Used in Sec. II C to justify the steady state lying in the symmetric sector; follows from Ref. [77].
  • domain assumption An integrable steady state should have Poisson level statistics
    The paper uses this expectation (Ref. [68]) as a diagnostic criterion for steady-state integrability (Sec. II D).
  • domain assumption The NESS ETH ansatz (Eq. 14) and the scaling sigma ~ D^{-1/2} are valid for chaotic steady states
    Taken from Moudgalya et al. [29] and Beugeling et al. [69]; the paper tests this scaling rather than derives it.
  • domain assumption Liouvillian gap scales as g ~ gamma N for local dissipators
    Used to conjecture the gamma_deph ~ 1/N scale in Sec. III B; supported by Refs. [76, 103, 104] and a heuristic operator-growth argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrability versus chaos in the steady state of many-body open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4LEWQ4C

@misc{pith2026241216041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrability versus chaos in the steady state of many-body open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4LEWQ4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16041}
}
read the original abstract

The Lindblad description of an open quantum system gives rise to two types of integrability, since the nonequilibrium steady state can be integrable independently of the Liouvillian. Taking boundary-driven and dephasing spin chains as a representative example, we discriminate Liouvillian and steady-state chaos by combining level spacing statistics and an extension of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis to open quantum systems. Moreover, we analyze the structure of the steady states by expanding it in the basis of Pauli strings and comparing the weight of strings of different lengths. We show that the natural expectation that integrable steady states are "simple" (i.e., built from few-body local operators) does not hold: the steady states of both chaotic and integrable models have relevant contributions coming from Pauli strings of all possible lengths, including long-range and many-body interactions. Nevertheless, we show that one can effectively use the operator-size distribution to distinguish chaotic and integrable steady states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (c), indicating the failure of the NESS ETH ansatz. However, in model A ′ , the breaking of the steady-state integrability leads to GUE level statistics and we find the scaling behavior at large N to be consistent with the ex￾pectation of NESS ETH, namely σS z 2 ∼ 2 −N/2 , as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Integrability breaking when tuning the strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Level statistics of L and Hss and NESS ETH in models B, B1, B2, and B3. (a) Complex spacing ratios of the Liouvillian L for the steady-state sector, with system size N = 9 and dephasing strength γdeph = 1. (b) and (c) Level spacing ratios of the steady-state Hamiltonian Hss for the zero magnetization sector, with system size N = 12, for two values of dephasing strength, γ deph = 0.1 ∼ 1/N (b) and γ deph = 1 ≫ 1/N (c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Size distribution P(S) of Hss, given by Eq. (21), for different system sizes N and models of type A (top) and B (bottom). Top: Blue curves correspond to model A and red curves to model A ′ . Bottom: Green curves correspond to a dephasing strength γ deph = 1/N and orang…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Absolute value of the coefficients of length-two Pauli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coefficients of length-one Pauli strings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For this model, one can construct the steady state ρss ex- actly [50, 51]

    Model A The first model we study is given by a nearest-neighbor XXX Hamiltonian (J = ∆ = 1, J ′ = ∆ ′ = 0), which is coupled to a source on one boundary and a sink on the other, and which has no dephasing (γdeph = 0 ). For this model, one can construct the steady state ρss ex- actly [50, 51]. However, the full spectrum of the Liouvil- lian is nonintegrabl...

  2. [2]

    inte- grable

    Model B As a second model, we consider a boundary-driven XX spin chain with additional dephasing. Here, the driv- ing is an arbitrary coupling to sources and sinks at both boundaries together with dephasing. This model can be mapped to the Fermi-Hubbard chain with an imaginary interaction and imaginary boundary magnetic field and is thus Bethe-ansatz inte...

  3. [3]

    M. V. Berry and M. Tabor, Level clustering in the reg- ular spectrum, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A , 375 (1977)

    1977

  4. [4]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Characteri- zation of Chaotic Quantum Spectra and Universality of Level Fluctuation Laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1 (1984)

    1984

  5. [5]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  6. [6]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    Srednicki, Thermal fluctuations in quantized chaotic systems, J

    M. Srednicki, Thermal fluctuations in quantized chaotic systems, J. Phys. A29, L75 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, J

    M. Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, J. Phys A32, 1163 (1999)

    1999

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum sys- tems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Ven- galattore, Colloquium: Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Akemann, M

    G. Akemann, M. Kieburg, A. Mielke, and T. Prosen, Universal Signature from Integrability to Chaos in Dis- sipative Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 254101 (2019). 10

    2019

  5. [13]

    Denisov, T

    S. Denisov, T. Laptyeva, W. Tarnowski, D. Chruściński, and K. Życzkowski, Universal Spectra of Random Lind- blad Operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140403 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    T. Can, V. Oganesyan, D. Orgad, and S. Gopalakr- ishnan, Spectral Gaps and Midgap States in Random Quantum Master Equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 234103 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hamazaki, K

    R. Hamazaki, K. Kawabata, N. Kura, and M. Ueda, Universality classes of non-Hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023286 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Complex Spacing Ra- tios: A Signature of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys. Rev. X10, 021019 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, T. Can, and T. Prosen, Spectral tran- sitions and universal steady states in random Kraus maps and circuits, Phys. Rev. B102, 134310 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Spectral and steady- state properties of random Liouvillians, J. Phys. A53, 305303 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Costa, P

    J. Costa, P. Ribeiro, A. D. Luca, T. Prosen, and L. Sá, Spectral and steady-state properties of fermionic random quadratic Liouvillians, SciPost Phys.15, 145 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    J. Li, T. Prosen, and A. Chan, Spectral Statistics of Non-Hermitian Matrices and Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 170602 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Álvaro Rubio-García, R. A. Molina, and J. Dukelsky, FromintegrabilitytochaosinquantumLiouvillians,Sci- Post Phys. Core5, 026 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Prasad, H

    M. Prasad, H. K. Yadalam, C. Aron, and M. Kulka- rni, Dissipative quantum dynamics, phase transitions, and non-Hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. A105, L050201 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Symmetry Classifi- cation of Many-Body Lindbladians: Tenfold Way and Beyond, Phys. Rev. X13, 031019 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kawabata, A

    K. Kawabata, A. Kulkarni, J. Li, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Symmetry of Open Quantum Systems: Classi- fication of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, PRX Quantum 4, 030328 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    A. M. García-García, L. Sá, and J. J. M. Ver- baarschot, Symmetry Classification and Universality in Non-Hermitian Many-Body Quantum Chaos by the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021040 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kawabata, Z

    K. Kawabata, Z. Xiao, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Singular-Value Statistics of Non-Hermitian Random Matrices and Open Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum 4, 040312 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, T. Prosen, and A. del Campo, Quantum Chaos and Coherence: Random Parametric Quantum Channels, Quantum 8, 1446 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    A. R. Kolovsky, Bistability and chaos-assisted tunnel- ing in dissipative quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E106, 014209 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    A. M. García-García, L. Sá, J. J. M. Verbaarschot, and C. Yin, Emergent topology in many-body dissipative quantum matter, Phys. Rev. B111, 035157 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    A. M. García-García, L. Sá, J. J. M. Verbaarschot, and C. Yin, Toward a classification of PT-symmetric quan- tum systems: From dissipative dynamics to topology and wormholes, Phys. Rev. D109, 105017 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Moudgalya, T

    S. Moudgalya, T. Devakul, D. P. Arovas, and S. L. Sondhi, Extension of the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis to nonequilibrium steady states, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045112 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Hamazaki, M

    R. Hamazaki, M. Nakagawa, T. Haga, and M. Ueda, Lindbladian many-body localization, arXiv:2206.02984 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cipolloni and J

    G. Cipolloni and J. Kudler-Flam, Non-Hermitian Hamiltonians violate the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Phys. Rev. B109, L020201 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    S. S. Roy, S. Bandyopadhyay, R. C. de Almeida, and P. Hauke, Unveiling Eigenstate Thermalization for Non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 180405 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys.48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems, J. Math. Phys.17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  29. [37]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Prosen, Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open Fermi sys- tems, New J

    T. Prosen, Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open Fermi sys- tems, New J. Phys.10, 043026 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Prosen, Spectral theorem for the Lindblad equation for quadratic open fermionic systems, J

    T. Prosen, Spectral theorem for the Lindblad equation for quadratic open fermionic systems, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2010 (07), P07020

    2010

  32. [40]

    Phys.12, 025016 (2010)

    T.ProsenandB.Žunkovič,ExactsolutionofMarkovian master equations for quadratic Fermi systems: thermal baths, open XY spin chains and non-equilibrium phase transition, New J. Phys.12, 025016 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Žunkovič and T

    B. Žunkovič and T. Prosen, Explicit solution of the Lindblad equation for nearly isotropic boundary driven XY spin 1/2 chain, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2010 (08), P08016

    2010

  34. [42]

    Prosen and T

    T. Prosen and T. H. Seligman, Quantization over boson operator spaces, J. Phys. A43, 392004 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Žnidarič, A matrix product solution for a nonequi- librium steady state of an XX chain, J

    M. Žnidarič, A matrix product solution for a nonequi- librium steady state of an XX chain, J. Phys. A43, 415004 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Žnidarič, Solvable quantum nonequilibrium model exhibiting a phase transition and a matrix product rep- resentation, Phys

    M. Žnidarič, Solvable quantum nonequilibrium model exhibiting a phase transition and a matrix product rep- resentation, Phys. Rev. E83, 011108 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    M. V. Medvedyeva, F. H. L. Essler, and T. Prosen, Ex- act Bethe Ansatz Spectrum of a Tight-Binding Chain with Dephasing Noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 137202 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    D. A. Rowlands and A. Lamacraft, Noisy Spins and the Richardson-Gaudin Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 090401 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Shibata and H

    N. Shibata and H. Katsura, Dissipative spin chain as a non-Hermitian Kitaev ladder, Phys. Rev. B99, 174303 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Shibata and H

    N. Shibata and H. Katsura, Dissipative quantum Ising chain as a non-Hermitian Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. B99, 224432 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    A. A. Ziolkowska and F. H. Essler, Yang-Baxter inte- grable Lindblad equations, SciPost Phys.8, 044 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    de Leeuw, C

    M. de Leeuw, C. Paletta, and B. Pozsgay, Constructing Integrable Lindblad Superoperators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 240403 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Prosen, Open XXZ Spin Chain: Nonequilibrium Steady State and a Strict Bound on Ballistic Transport, Phys

    T. Prosen, Open XXZ Spin Chain: Nonequilibrium Steady State and a Strict Bound on Ballistic Transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 217206 (2011). 11

    2011

  44. [52]

    Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of a Strongly Driven Open XXZ Chain, Phys

    T. Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of a Strongly Driven Open XXZ Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 137201 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Prosen, Comments on a boundary-driven open XXZ chain: asymmetric driving and uniqueness of steady states, Phys

    T. Prosen, Comments on a boundary-driven open XXZ chain: asymmetric driving and uniqueness of steady states, Phys. Scr.86, 058511 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Karevski, V

    D. Karevski, V. Popkov, and G. M. Schütz, Exact Ma- trix Product Solution for the Boundary-Driven Lind- blad XXZ Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 047201 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Popkov, D

    V. Popkov, D. Karevski, and G. M. Schütz, Driven isotropic Heisenberg spin chain with arbitrary boundary twisting angle: Exact results, Phys. Rev. E88, 062118 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of an Open Hubbard Chain, Phys

    T. Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of an Open Hubbard Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 030603 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Ilievski and T

    E. Ilievski and T. Prosen, Exact steady state manifold of a boundary driven spin-1 Lai–Sutherland chain, Nucl. Phys. B882, 485 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Ilievski and B

    E. Ilievski and B. Žunkovič, Quantum group approach to steady states of boundary-driven open quantum sys- tems, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2014 (1), P01001

    2014

  51. [59]

    Buča and T

    B. Buča and T. Prosen, Exactly Solvable Counting Statistics in Open Weakly Coupled Interacting Spin Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 067201 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Lenarčič and T

    Z. Lenarčič and T. Prosen, Exact asymptotics of the current in boundary-driven dissipative quantum chains in large external fields, Phys. Rev. E91, 030103 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Popkov and T

    V. Popkov and T. Prosen, Infinitely Dimensional Lax Structure for the One-Dimensional Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 127201 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Prosen, Matrix product solutions of boundary driven quantum chains, J

    T. Prosen, Matrix product solutions of boundary driven quantum chains, J. Phys. A48, 373001 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Buča and T

    B. Buča and T. Prosen, Connected correlations, fluctu- ations and current of magnetization in the steady state of boundary driven XXZ spin chains, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2016 (2), 023102

    2016

  56. [64]

    Ilievski, Dissipation-driven integrable fermionic sys- tems: from graded Yangians to exact nonequilibrium steady states, SciPost Phys.3, 031 (2017)

    E. Ilievski, Dissipation-driven integrable fermionic sys- tems: from graded Yangians to exact nonequilibrium steady states, SciPost Phys.3, 031 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Matsui and T

    C. Matsui and T. Prosen, Construction of the steady state density matrix and quasilocal charges for the spin- 1/2 XXZ chain with boundary magnetic fields, J. Phys. A 50, 385201 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Buča and T

    B. Buča and T. Prosen, Strongly correlated non- equilibrium steady states with currents – quantum and classical picture, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics227, 421 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Popkov, T

    V. Popkov, T. Prosen, and L. Zadnik, Exact Nonequilib- rium Steady State of OpenXXZ/XY ZSpin-1/2 Chain with Dirichlet Boundary Conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160403 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Popkov, T

    V. Popkov, T. Prosen, and L. Zadnik, Inhomoge- neous matrix product ansatz and exact steady states of boundary-driven spin chains at large dissipation, Phys. Rev. E101, 042122 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    de Leeuw, C

    M. de Leeuw, C. Paletta, B. Pozsgay, and E. Vernier, Hidden quasi-local charges and Gibbs ensemble in a Lindblad system, arXiv:2305.01922 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Prosen and M

    T. Prosen and M. Žnidarič, Eigenvalue Statistics as an IndicatorofIntegrabilityofNonequilibriumDensityOp- erators, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 124101 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Beugeling, R

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Finite-size scaling of eigenstate thermalization, Phys. Rev. E89, 042112 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and A. Streicher, Operator growth in the SYK model, J. High Energy Phys.2018, 122 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    X.-L.Qi, E.J.Davis, A.Periwal,andM.Schleier-Smith, Measuring operator size growth in quantum quench ex- periments, arXiv:1906.00524 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Qi and A

    X.-L. Qi and A. Streicher, Quantum epidemiology: op- eratorgrowth, thermaleffects, andSYK,J.HighEnergy Phys. 2019, 12 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Schuster and N

    T. Schuster and N. Y. Yao, Operator Growth in Open QuantumSystems,Phys.Rev.Lett. 131,160402(2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Schuster, B

    T. Schuster, B. Kobrin, P. Gao, I. Cong, E. T. Khabi- boulline, N. M. Linke, M. D. Lukin, C. Monroe, B. Yoshida, and N. Y. Yao, Many-Body Quantum Tele- portation via Operator Spreading in the Traversable Wormhole Protocol, Phys. Rev. X12, 031013 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    High Energy Phys

    B.Bhattacharjee, X.Cao, P.Nandy,andT.Pathak,Op- erator growth in open quantum systems: lessons from the dissipative SYK, J. High Energy Phys. 2023, 54 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Mori, Liouvillian-gap analysis of open quantum many-body systems in the weak dissipation limit, Phys

    T. Mori, Liouvillian-gap analysis of open quantum many-body systems in the weak dissipation limit, Phys. Rev. B109, 064311 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Buča and T

    B. Buča and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New J. Phys.14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of inter- acting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  73. [81]

    Y. Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Distribution of the Ratio of Consecutive Level Spacings in Random Matrix Ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 084101 (2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    Neuenhahn and F

    C. Neuenhahn and F. Marquardt, Thermalization of interacting fermions and delocalization in Fock space, Phys. Rev. E85, 060101 (2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    Beugeling, R

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Off-diagonal matrix elements of local operators in many-body quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. E91, 012144 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    Ziraldo and G

    S. Ziraldo and G. E. Santoro, Relaxation and thermal- ization after a quantum quench: Why localization is important, Phys. Rev. B87, 064201 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    T. N. Ikeda, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Finite-size scaling analysis of the eigenstate thermalization hypoth- esis in a one-dimensional interacting Bose gas, Phys. Rev. E87, 012125 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    Alba, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and in- tegrability in quantum spin chains, Phys

    V. Alba, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and in- tegrability in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B91, 155123 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    Nandy, A

    S. Nandy, A. Sen, A. Das, and A. Dhar, Eigenstate Gibbs ensemble in integrable quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B94, 245131 (2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    J. M. Magán, Random Free Fermions: An Analytical Example of Eigenstate Thermalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 030401 (2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    Haque and P

    M. Haque and P. A. McClarty, Eigenstate thermaliza- tion scaling in Majorana clusters: From chaotic to in- tegrable Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. B100, 115122 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Mierzejewski and L

    M. Mierzejewski and L. Vidmar, Quantitative Impact of Integrals of Motion on the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 040603 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Steinigeweg, J

    R. Steinigeweg, J. Herbrych, and P. Prelovšek, Eigen- 12 state thermalization within isolated spin-chain systems, Phys. Rev. E87, 012118 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    Steinigeweg, A

    R. Steinigeweg, A. Khodja, H. Niemeyer, C. Gogolin, and J. Gemmer, Pushing the Limits of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis towards Mesoscopic Quan- tum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 130403 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    Chandran, M

    A. Chandran, M. D. Schulz, and F. J. Burnell, The eigenstate thermalization hypothesis in constrained Hilbert spaces: A case study in non-Abelian anyon chains, Phys. Rev. B94, 235122 (2016)

    2016

  86. [94]

    Hunter-Jones, J

    N. Hunter-Jones, J. Liu, and Y. Zhou, On thermaliza- tion in the SYK and supersymmetric SYK models, J. High Energy Phys.2018, 142 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Hamazaki and M

    R. Hamazaki and M. Ueda, Atypicality of Most Few- Body Observables, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 080603 (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    Khemani, C

    V. Khemani, C. R. Laumann, and A. Chandran, Sig- natures of integrability in the dynamics of Rydberg- blockaded chains, Phys. Rev. B99, 161101 (2019)

    2019

  89. [97]

    Jansen, J

    D. Jansen, J. Stolpp, L. Vidmar, and F. Heidrich- Meisner, Eigenstate thermalization and quantum chaos in the Holstein polaron model, Phys. Rev. B99, 155130 (2019)

    2019

  90. [98]

    I. M. Khaymovich, M. Haque, and P. A. McClarty, Eigenstate Thermalization, Random Matrix Theory, and Behemoths, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070601 (2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    Brenes, T

    M. Brenes, T. LeBlond, J. Goold, and M. Rigol, Eigen- state Thermalization in a Locally Perturbed Integrable System, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 070605 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    Łydżba, R

    P. Łydżba, R. Świętek, M. Mierzejewski, M. Rigol, and L. Vidmar, Normal weak eigenstate thermalization, Phys. Rev. B110, 104202 (2024)

    2024

  93. [101]

    Žnidaric, T

    M. Žnidaric, T. Prosen, G. Benenti, G. Casati, and D. Rossini, Thermalization and ergodicity in one- dimensional many-body open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E81, 051135 (2010)

    2010

  94. [102]

    Mahajan, C

    R. Mahajan, C. D. Freeman, S. Mumford, N. Tub- man, and B. Swingle, Entanglement structure of non- equilibrium steady states, arXiv:1608.05074 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  95. [103]

    W. T. Malouf, J. Goold, G. Adesso, and G. T. Landi, Analysis of the conditional mutual information in ballis- tic and diffusive non-equilibrium steady-states, J. Phys. A 53, 305302 (2020)

    2020

  96. [104]

    Almeida, P

    G. Almeida, P. Ribeiro, M. Haque, and L. Sá, Uni- versality, Robustness, and Limits of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in Open Quantum Systems, arXiv:2504.10261 (2025)

    2025

  97. [105]

    Žnidarič, Relaxation times of dissipative many-body quantum systems, Phys

    M. Žnidarič, Relaxation times of dissipative many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E92, 042143 (2015)

    2015

  98. [106]

    Shirai and T

    T. Shirai and T. Mori, Accelerated Decay due to Op- erator Spreading in Bulk-Dissipated Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 040201 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.