Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Complexity of PXP scars revisited

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The arch-shaped profile of Lanczos coefficients in the PXP model comes from a linear sl(3,C) part of the Hamiltonian, and the arch width above a threshold in (3L/4, 5L/6) marks an initial state as a quantum many-body scar.

desk verdict The sl(3,C) decomposition and analytic Lanczos coefficients are a solid advance, but the arch-width scar criterion is post hoc and the linear-to-full transfer is only checked for tiny systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21156 v1 pith:2GIIVK4D submitted 2025-06-26 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Pawel Caputa , Xuhao Jiang , Sinong Liu This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords quantummany-bodyscarsPXPmodelspreadcomplexityKrylovbasisLanczoscoefficientssl(3C)representationtheoryspectrum-generatingalgebraRydbergblockade
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 tries to establish a sharp diagnostic for quantum many-body scars in the PXP model, the Rydberg-blockade spin chain in which some initial states show periodic revivals while others thermalize. Revisiting the Krylov machinery behind spread complexity, the authors find that the Lanczos coefficients $b_n$ form an arch whose width is set by a linear part of the Hamiltonian, expressible with the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}_3(\mathbb{C})$ once two qubits are packed into one qutrit. They derive the arch width analytically for the product states $|Z_k\rangle$ and claim a threshold: states whose arch width exceeds some value in $(3L/4, 5L/6)$ are scars, while narrower arches signal thermalization. A residual interaction term explains the 'buttress' of erratic oscillations that follows the arch, and its extent is bounded by Lucas numbers. If this is right, a purely Krylov-space measurement — how many coefficients sit on the arch — predicts the presence of quantum revivals without computing fidelities or spectra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition $H_{\mathrm{PXP}} = H_{\mathrm{PXP,lin}} + H_{\mathrm{PXP,res}}$, obtained by mapping each pair of qubits to one qutrit ($L = 2\ell$) and rewriting the PXP terms with the Gell-Mann/Cartan–Weyl generators of $\mathfrak{sl}_3(\mathbb{C})$. $H_{\mathrm{PXP,lin}}$ is a sum of single-site operators $E_{\pm\alpha} + E_{\pm\beta}$ that close on an $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ subalgebra; for initial states $|Z_k\rangle$ this makes the Krylov ladder exactly solvable, yielding the closed-form Lanczos coefficients of formula (5.50) and the arch width $n_{\max} = (k+2)L/(2k)$ listed in Table 1. The arch width is the quantity that carries the scar diagnostic. The residual term $H_{\mathrm{PXP,res}}$, which does not commute with the $\mathfrak{sl}_3(\mathbb{C})$ Casimir operators and therefore mixes irreducible representations, accounts for the collapse of the arch and the growth of the buttress; the number of states reachable by the full Hamiltonian along the way is counted by Lucas numbers. The supporting numerics are full-orthogonalization Lanczos spectra, the comb-like FFT of the $|Z_2\rangle$ fidelity, and the near-equally-spaced spectra of arch-truncated Hamiltonians.

What would settle it

Run the full-orthogonalization Lanczos algorithm on the full PXP Hamiltonian at a larger lattice, say $L=20$, and count the coefficients before the erratic tail for $|Z_3\rangle$ and $|Z_4\rangle$: if the arch width of $|Z_3\rangle$ falls below $5L/6$, or that of $|Z_4\rangle$ rises above $3L/4$, the threshold criterion fails. A sharper probe is to scale the residual part of the Hamiltonian by a continuous factor $\lambda$: if the linear part truly governs the arch, $n_{\max}$ must be $\lambda$-independent, so any $\lambda$-dependence of the arch width would show the equality is accidental rather than structural.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the PXP Hamiltonian, in a two-qubits-per-qutrit encoding, splits into a linear term $H_{\mathrm{PXP,lin}}$ built from the Cartan–Weyl generators of $\mathfrak{sl}_3(\mathbb{C})$ and a residual interaction term $H_{\mathrm{PXP,res}}$. The linear term preserves the irreducible representations of $\mathfrak{sl}_3(\mathbb{C})$, and on the initial states $|Z_k\rangle$ it generates a Krylov subspace whose Lanczos coefficients form an arch; for the scarred states these coefficients are computed exactly, for example $b_m = \sqrt{m(2n-m+1)/2}$ for the $|2\rangle$-tower, an arch of width $2n$. The linear term admits a spectrum-generating operator $Q^\dagger$ with $[H_{\mathrm{PXP,lin}}, Q^\dagger] = \sqrt{2}\,Q^\dagger$, so it carries an equally spaced scar tower, and the truncated Hamiltonian that keeps only the arch coefficients reproduces nearly equally spaced spectra for $|Z_2\rangle$ and $|Z_3\rangle$ but not for $|Z_4\rangle$. The residual term cancels states containing the pattern $|1\rangle \otimes |2\rangle$ (the '$|12\rangle$ issue'), collapses the arch, activates other irreducible representations, and engenders the buttress, whose extent the authors bound by Lucas numbers. The paper concludes that an arch width larger than some number in the interval $(3L/4, 5L/6)$ can be used as a signal that the corresponding initial state is a scar.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the width of the arch — the number of hump-shaped Lanczos coefficients before the erratic tail — is the same whether it is computed from the simplified linear part or from the full PXP Hamiltonian, so that $n_{\max}$ can serve as a scar detector; this equality is demonstrated explicitly only for $L=6$ and $L=8$, and for larger lattices it is inferred from plots rather than proved or bounded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scarring of an initial state becomes checkable from Lanczos data alone: run full-orthogonalization Lanczos, count the coefficients before the erratic tail sets in, and compare the arch width with $(3L/4, 5L/6)$; no fidelity curve or eigenstate decomposition is needed.
  • The analytic formula $n_{\max} = (k+2)L/(2k)$ arranges the $|Z_k\rangle$ states into a hierarchy — $|Z_2\rangle$ at width $L$ and $|Z_3\rangle$ at $5L/6$ above the threshold, $|Z_4\rangle$ at $3L/4$ and higher-$k$ states below it — which is exactly the pattern of which states exhibit quantum revivals.
  • For scarred initial states, spread complexity and Krylov entropy oscillate periodically in time, whereas for thermalizing states the oscillations are suppressed; both quantities thereby join fidelity as probes of quantum scarring.
  • For large lattices the full PXP Krylov subspace has dimension close to a Lucas number, giving an exponential-in-$L$ estimate of how far the constrained dynamics extend beyond the scar subspace.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since no integer $k$ puts $(k+2)/2k$ strictly inside $(3/4, 5/6)$, the $|Z_k\rangle$ family itself cannot locate the threshold within that interval; initial states interpolating between $|Z_3\rangle$ and $|Z_4\rangle$ (for instance, dilute defects in the periodic pattern) would be the sharp test, and the criterion predicts their revival-to-thermal transition to occur exactly where $n_{\max}$ cross
  • The mechanism suggests arch-plus-buttress should be generic for kinetically constrained models whose qutrit encoding contains a forbidden pattern such as $|1\rangle\otimes|2\rangle$: the residual term that cancels the pattern will generically collapse the arch and activate neighbouring irreducible representations. This extrapolation goes beyond what the paper establishes for the PXP model.
  • A quantitative link left implicit: the arch-truncated Hamiltonian for $|Z_2\rangle$ at $L=12$ has level spacing near 1.31, slightly below the spectrum-generating-algebra prediction $\sqrt{2}\approx 1.414$; the small gap between them measures how much the residual term distorts the perfect scar tower even within the arch.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the Lanczos coefficients and spread complexity for quenches of product states |Z_k> under the PXP Hamiltonian. By mapping two qubits to one qutrit, the authors decompose H_PXP into a non-interacting 'linear' part H_PXP,lin and a residual interacting part H_PXP,res, both expressed in the Cartan-Weyl basis of sl3(C). For H_PXP,lin they derive closed-form Lanczos coefficients and an arch width n_max = L(k+2)/(2k), summarized in Table 1, and they propose that an arch width exceeding some value in (3L/4, 5L/6) signals scarring. The residual part is argued to explain the collapse of the arch and the subsequent 'buttress' via the |12> issue, with an upper bound on the Krylov dimension given by Lucas numbers. The paper also presents numerical evidence from fidelity, FFT, truncated-Hamiltonian spectra, and spread complexity oscillations for scarred versus thermalizing states, and it provides explicit Krylov bases for small system sizes in the appendices.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers an analytical, parameter-free explanation of the arch/buttress morphology of Lanczos coefficients in the PXP model, grounded in sl3(C) representation theory, and a Krylov-space criterion for detecting quantum many-body scars. The algebraic decomposition H_PXP = H_lin + H_res is exact, the analytic b_m for H_lin follows from su(2) representation theory, and the small-system Krylov bases in Appendix F are worked out in explicit detail. The Lucas-number counting of the constrained Krylov space is a useful structural result, and the numerical comparisons, including the FFT comb for |Z2> and the truncated-spectrum analysis, provide supporting evidence. The main weakness is that the connection between the analytic arch width of H_lin and the arch width of the full Hamiltonian is established only for L=6,8 for |Z2>, and the proposed threshold is calibrated on the same |Z_k> family it is used to classify.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 5.2.1–5.2.2, 7, Table 1, Appendix F] The central diagnostic claim is that the arch width n_max computed analytically for H_PXP,lin in (5.53) equals the arch width of the full PXP Lanczos coefficients, so that n_max can be used as a scarring signal. This equality is explicitly verified only for L=6 and L=8 for |Z2> in Appendix F; for |Z3>, |Z4> and larger sizes it is inferred from Figures 3b–3d. The paper itself states in Section 5.3 that H_PXP,res modifies the Lanczos coefficients from the very beginning, and in the explicit L=8 example the full chain has nonzero b_9 through b_12, so the full-Hamiltonian 'arch width' is not the first vanishing Lanczos coefficient. A precise operational definition of the arch width for the full model is needed, together with a general argument or error estimate that the residual term does not shift the arch boundary. Without this, the threshold criterion in Section 7 lacks its stated footing.
  2. [Section 5.2.1, Table 1, Section 7] The threshold interval (3L/4, 5L/6) appears to be selected after the fact. Table 1 labels |Z2> and |Z3> as scars and |Z4> as not a scar, and the interval is exactly the gap between n_max(k=4)=3L/4 and n_max(k=3)=5L/6. Thus the criterion reproduces the classification of the states from which it was inferred rather than providing an independent prediction. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should either derive the threshold from the SGA/energy-gap analysis (for instance from the truncated-spectrum data in Figure 10) before comparing with scar status, or test the criterion on initial states outside the |Z_k> family, such as superpositions or states with the same arch width but different overlap with the scar subspace.
  3. [Section 5.2.2, final paragraph] The quantitative explanation of the buttress is explicitly incomplete: the paper admits that the ratio of coefficients of |2001> and |2020> in |K4> 'does not match our prediction' and leaves it as an open puzzle. Since the authors frame the residual-part analysis as qualitative, this does not undermine the arch-width formula, but it does mean that the statement that H_PXP,res 'accounts for the emergence of the buttress' is only partially supported. The limitation should be stated more prominently in the conclusions, and the mismatch should be acknowledged as a gap in the claimed decomposition of the Lanczos coefficients into arch and buttress contributions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract contains a duplicated phrase 'we observe that that there exists a threshold'; also 'quqit' should be 'qudit' throughout.
  2. [Section 5.2.2, L=8 example] In the sentence 'Using a similar arguments to the case of L=2ℓ=3', the reference to L=2ℓ=3 should read L=2ℓ=6.
  3. [Figure 9 caption] The caption reads '(9a) and (9a)' for the second panel; it should be '(9a) and (9b)'.
  4. [Table 1] The k=∞ row reports 'nmax = 1ℓ', which is notationally confusing; the authors should write n_max = ℓ.
  5. [Section 5.3] The standard deviations of energy gaps are reported as 0.05688, 0.09624, and 0.1582 without stating the number of gaps used or the error on the standard deviation; please clarify the sample size and the criterion for 'lowest five energy levels'.
  6. [Appendix A, Figure 16] The plots in Figure 16 compare FO, PRO, and standard Lanczos, but the panels lack axis labels for the PRO case (16b); adding labels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The arch-width scar criterion is calibrated post hoc on the known revival states, so the Section 7 'signal' reduces to the input classification; the sl3/Lucas derivations themselves are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2.1 (Table 1) and Section 7]
    "Based on this, we give our observation here – the pattern of the growth of the Lanczos coefficient with the arch width smaller than some number in the interval (3/2ℓ,5/3ℓ) is no longer able to support any quantum revivals."

    Table 1 already labels |Z2> and |Z3> as scars and |Z4> and higher as non-scars, a classification established independently in Section 4.1 from fidelity revivals. The analytic widths are n_max=2ℓ for |Z2>, 5/3ℓ for |Z3>, and 3/2ℓ for |Z4>. The proposed threshold interval (3/2ℓ,5/3ℓ) is exactly the open gap between the known scar |Z3> and the known non-scar |Z4>. Thus 'arch width greater than some number in that interval' is logically equivalent to selecting the previously known scar classes k=2,3 over the previously known non-scar classes k≥4. The threshold is a post-hoc separator fitted to the known revival data, not a parameter-free consequence of the sl3 analysis, and Section 7 then exports it as a scar signal.

full rationale

The central independent content — the sl3(C) decomposition into H_lin and H_res, the algebraic Lanczos coefficients (5.50)–(5.53), the n_max formula k+2/k ℓ, the Lucas-number bound, and the numerical FFT/spectral comparisons — is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. However, the paper's headline diagnostic claim, that an arch wider than some number in (3/4L,5/6L) signals scarring, is not derived from the algebra. It is an observed threshold placed between the n_max values of states whose scar/non-scar status was already known from fidelity revivals, so the 'signal' reproduces the calibration data in new coordinates. The admitted coefficient mismatch at the end of Section 5.2.2 and the qualitative nature of the residual analysis are correctness limitations rather than circularity, and the self-citations to [6] and [42] are standard published methods rather than unverified load-bearing references.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the paper's main predictive claim, the arch-width threshold, rests on a post-hoc fitted threshold and an unproven identification between the linear part's arch width and the full Hamiltonian's arch width; the algebraic core itself uses only standard math.

free parameters (1)
  • Scarring threshold arch width = between 3L/4 and 5L/6
    Chosen post hoc to separate the known scar states |Z2>,|Z3> from the non-scar states |Z4> and above; not derived or tested on other scar families.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math sl(3,C) representation theory and Young-tableaux decomposition of D(1,0)^{⊗ℓ}
    Used throughout section 5.2 and appendices B-E to classify irreducible sectors of the qutrit Hilbert space.
  • domain assumption The working hypothesis that H_PXP,lin generates the scar subspace while H_PXP,res generates the thermalizing subspace
    Stated in section 5.2 as 'This will be our working hypothesis in the following'; underpins the attributions of the arch and buttress.
  • ad hoc to paper The arch width of the full PXP Hamiltonian matches the n_max computed from H_PXP,lin
    Assumed to connect the analytic H_lin result (5.53) to the numerically observed arch; verified only for L=6,8 and inferred from figures for larger L.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual Hamiltonian's effect is fully captured by removing |1>|2> product states (the '|12> issue')
    The paper itself notes at the end of section 5.2.2 that H_PXP,res reassigns coefficients in ways not predicted by this picture (coefficient-ratio puzzle).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complexity of PXP scars revisited." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2GIIVK4D

@misc{pith2026250621156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complexity of PXP scars revisited},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2GIIVK4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21156}
}
abstract

We revisit a quantum quench scenario in which either a scarring or thermalizing initial state evolves under the PXP Hamiltonian. Within this framework, we study the time evolution of spread complexity and related quantities in the Krylov basis. We find that the Lanczos coefficients $b_n$, as functions of the iteration number $n$, exhibit a characteristic arched growth and decay, followed by erratic oscillations which we refer to as buttress. The arched profile predominantly arises from contributions within the quantum many-body scar subspace, while the buttress is linked to thermalization dynamics. To explain this behavior, we utilize the representation theory of $\mathfrak{s}l_3(\mathbb{C})$, allowing us to decompose the PXP Hamiltonian into a linear component and a residual part. The linear term governs the formation and width of the arch, and we observe that that there exists a threshold of arch width which determines whether a given initial state exhibits scarring. Meanwhile, the residual term accounts qualitatively for the emergence of the buttress. We estimate an upper bound for the extent of the buttress using Lucas numbers. Finally, we demonstrate that spread complexity oscillates periodically over time for scarred initial states, whereas such oscillations are suppressed in thermalizing cases.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Krylov-Space Memory Cores

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Anomalous initial states in otherwise thermalizing models leave compact, stationary low-depth Krylov-space cores—regions with persistent fluctuations, Gibbs mismatch, and current activity—while generic states do not.

  2. Krylov complexity, mode-resolved complexity and entanglement entropy across phase transitions in the non-Hermitian extended Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mode-resolved Krylov complexity and entanglement entropy signal exceptional-point and topological transitions and dynamical phases in the non-Hermitian extended SSH model.

  3. Emergence of Krylov complexity through quantum walks: An exploration of the quantum origins of complexity

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Reducing a graph walk to distance-layers reproduces Krylov/spread complexity, yielding analytic finite-q SYK Lanczos coefficients and hypercube complexity D sin²(t/D), with faster saturation than classical-walk circuits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Frisch,Turbulence: The Legacy of A

    U. Frisch,Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov, Cambridge University Press (1995)

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Wen,Topological orders in rigid states,International Journal of Modern Physics B4 (1990) 239

    X.-G. Wen,Topological orders in rigid states,International Journal of Modern Physics B4 (1990) 239

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Takayanagi,Emergent Holographic Spacetime from Quantum Information,2506.06595

    T. Takayanagi,Emergent Holographic Spacetime from Quantum Information,2506.06595

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Baiguera, V

    S. Baiguera, V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, S. Chapman, J. Haferkamp, M.P. Heller et al., Quantum complexity in gravity, quantum field theory, and quantum information science, 2503.10753

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Parker, X

    D.E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman,A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis,Phys. Rev. X9(2019) 041017 [1812.08657]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 046007 [2202.06957]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A.N. Krylov,On the numerical solution of the equation by which in technical questions frequencies of small oscillations of material systems are determined,Izvestija AN SSSR (News of Academy of Sciences of the USSR), Otdel. mat. i estest. nauk7(1931) 491

    work page 1931

  8. [8]

    Viswanath and G

    V.S. Viswanath and G. M¨ uller,The Recursion Method: Application to Many-Body Dynamics, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (1994)

    work page 1994

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Caputa and S

    P. Caputa and S. Liu,Quantum complexity and topological phases of matter,Phys. Rev. B 106(2022) 195125 [2205.05688]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Caputa, N

    P. Caputa, N. Gupta, S.S. Haque, S. Liu, J. Murugan and H.J.R. Van Zyl,Spread complexity and topological transitions in the Kitaev chain,JHEP01(2023) 120 [2208.06311]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos,JHEP07(2022) 151 [2207.07701]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Erdmenger, S.-K

    J. Erdmenger, S.-K. Jian and Z.-Y. Xian,Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space, JHEP08(2023) 176 [2303.12151]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Tridiagonalizing random matrices,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 126001 [2208.08452]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos, integrability, and late times in the Krylov basis,Phys. Rev. E111(2025) 014218 [2312.03848]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nandy, A.S

    P. Nandy, A.S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Mart ´ ınez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications,Phys. Rept.1125-1128 (2025) 1 [2405.09628]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch

    L. Susskind,Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,Fortsch. Phys.64(2016) 24 [1403.5695]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mag´ an,Black holes, complexity and quantum chaos,JHEP09(2018) 043 [1805.05839]

    J.M. Mag´ an,Black holes, complexity and quantum chaos,JHEP09(2018) 043 [1805.05839]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity,JHEP08(2023) 213 [2305.04355]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Balasubramanian, J.M

    V. Balasubramanian, J.M. Magan, P. Nandi and Q. Wu,Spread complexity and the saturation of wormhole size,2412.02038

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Heller, J

    M.P. Heller, J. Papalini and T. Schuhmann,Krylov spread complexity as holographic complexity beyond JT gravity,2412.17785. – 78 –

  13. [21]

    Caputa, B

    P. Caputa, B. Chen, R.W. McDonald, J. Sim´ on and B. Strittmatter,Spread Complexity Rate as Proper Momentum,2410.23334

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Caputa and G

    P. Caputa and G. Di Giulio,Local Quenches from a Krylov Perspective,2502.19485

  15. [23]

    Aguilar-Gutierrez, H.A

    S.E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, H.A. Camargo, V. Jahnke, K.-Y. Kim and M. Nishida,Krylov operator complexity in holographic CFTs: Smeared boundary reconstruction and the dual proper radial momentum,2506.03273

  16. [24]

    Deutsch,Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,Phys

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

    1991

  17. [25]

    Srednicki,Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,Phys

    M. Srednicki,Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,Phys. Rev. E50(1994) 888–901 [cond-mat/9403051]

    1994 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bernien et al.,Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,Nature 551(2017) 579 [1707.04344]

    H. Bernien et al.,Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator,Nature 551(2017) 579 [1707.04344]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Turner, A.A

    C.J. Turner, A.A. Michailidis, D.A. Abanin, M. Serbyn and Z. Papi´ c,Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars,Nature Physics14(2018) 745

    2018

  20. [28]

    Caux and J

    J.-S. Caux and J. Mossel,Remarks on the notion of quantum integrability,J. Stat. Mech. 1102(2011) P02023 [1012.3587]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abanin, E

    D.A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch and M. Serbyn,Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) 021001 [1804.11065]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wildeboer, C.M

    J. Wildeboer, C.M. Langlett, Z.-C. Yang, A.V. Gorshkov, T. Iadecola and S. Xu,Quantum many-body scars from Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states in bilayer systems,Phys. Rev. B106 (2022) 205142 [2209.05527]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lerose, T

    A. Lerose, T. Parolini, R. Fazio, D.A. Abanin and S. Pappalardi,Theory of Robust Quantum Many-Body Scars in Long-Range Interacting Systems,Phys. Rev. X15(2025) 011020 [2309.12504]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Wang and D

    H.-R. Wang and D. Yuan,Generalized Spin Helix States as Quantum Many-Body Scars in Partially Integrable Models,2403.14755

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Moudgalya and O.I

    S. Moudgalya and O.I. Motrunich,Hilbert Space Fragmentation and Commutant Algebras, Phys. Rev. X12(2022) 011050 [2108.10324]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Mori,Systematic construction of counterexamples to the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,Physical review letters119(2017) 030601

    2017

  27. [35]

    A. Bohm, Y. Ne’eman and A.O. Barut,Dynamical Groups And Spectrum Generating Algebras (In 2 Volumes), vol. 2, World Scientific (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    Moudgalya, A

    S. Moudgalya, A. Prem, R. Nandkishore, N. Regnault and B.A. Bernevig,Thermalization and Its Absence within Krylov Subspaces of a Constrained Hamiltonian, (2021), DOI [1910.14048]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lanczos,An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators,J

    C. Lanczos,An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators,J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. B45(1950) 255

    1950

  30. [38]

    Barb´ on, E

    J.L.F. Barb´ on, E. Rabinovici, R. Shir and R. Sinha,On The Evolution Of Operator Complexity Beyond Scrambling,JHEP10(2019) 264 [1907.05393]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lesanovsky and H

    I. Lesanovsky and H. Katsura,Interacting fibonacci anyons in a rydberg gas,Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics86(2012) 041601. – 79 –

    2012

  32. [40]

    Bhattacharjee, S

    B. Bhattacharjee, S. Sur and P. Nandy,Probing quantum scars and weak ergodicity breaking through quantum complexity,Phys. Rev. B106(2022) 205150 [2208.05503]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nandy, B

    S. Nandy, B. Mukherjee, A. Bhattacharyya and A. Banerjee,Quantum state complexity meets many-body scars,J. Phys. Condens. Matter36(2024) 155601 [2305.13322]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Caputa, J.M

    P. Caputa, J.M. Magan and D. Patramanis,Geometry of Krylov complexity,Phys. Rev. Res. 4(2022) 013041 [2109.03824]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Serbyn, D.A

    M. Serbyn, D.A. Abanin and Z. Papi´ c,Quantum many-body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity,Nature Phys.17(2021) 675 [2011.09486]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Moudgalya, B.A

    S. Moudgalya, B.A. Bernevig and N. Regnault,Quantum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: a review of exact results,Rept. Prog. Phys.85(2022) 086501 [2109.00548]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Roberts, D

    D.A. Roberts, D. Stanford and A. Streicher,Operator growth in the SYK model,JHEP06 (2018) 122 [1802.02633]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Qi and A

    X.-L. Qi and A. Streicher,Quantum Epidemiology: Operator Growth, Thermal Effects, and SYK,JHEP08(2019) 012 [1810.11958]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H.W. Lin, J. Maldacena and Y. Zhao,Symmetries Near the Horizon,JHEP08(2019) 049 [1904.12820]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Caputa, S.R

    P. Caputa, S.R. Das, M. Nozaki and A. Tomiya,Quantum Quench and Scaling of Entanglement Entropy,Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 53 [1702.04359]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Camargo, P

    H.A. Camargo, P. Caputa, D. Das, M.P. Heller and R. Jefferson,Complexity as a novel probe of quantum quenches: universal scalings and purifications,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 081601 [1807.07075]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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(2016) 239 [1509.06411]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Shiraishi and T

    N. Shiraishi and T. Mori,Comment on” systematic construction of counterexamples to the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis” reply, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap and F. Pollmann,Ergodicity breaking arising from hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving hamiltonians,Physical Review X10 (2020) 011047

    2020

  45. [53]

    Kim, T.N

    H. Kim, T.N. Ikeda and D.A. Huse,Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,Physical Review E90(2014) 052105

    2014

  46. [54]

    Garrison and T

    J.R. Garrison and T. Grover,Does a single eigenstate encode the full hamiltonian?,Physical Review X8(2018) 021026

    2018

  47. [55]

    Kawamoto,A strategy for proving the strong eigenstate thermalization hypothesis: chaotic systems and holography,JHEP01(2025) 095 [2411.09746]

    T. Kawamoto,A strategy for proving the strong eigenstate thermalization hypothesis: chaotic systems and holography,JHEP01(2025) 095 [2411.09746]

    2025

  48. [56]

    Nandkishore and D.A

    R. Nandkishore and D.A. Huse,Many body localization and thermalization in quantum statistical mechanics,Ann. Rev. Condensed Matter Phys.6(2015) 15 [1404.0686]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Eberly, N

    J.H. Eberly, N. Narozhny and J. Sanchez-Mondragon,Periodic spontaneous collapse and revival in a simple quantum model,Physical Review Letters44(1980) 1323

    1980

  50. [58]

    Yang,ηpairing and off-diagonal long-range order in a hubbard model,Physical review letters63(1989) 2144

    C.N. Yang,ηpairing and off-diagonal long-range order in a hubbard model,Physical review letters63(1989) 2144. – 80 –

    1989

  51. [59]

    Zhang,Pseudospin symmetry and new collective modes of the hubbard model,Physical Review Letters65(1990) 120

    S. Zhang,Pseudospin symmetry and new collective modes of the hubbard model,Physical Review Letters65(1990) 120

    1990

  52. [60]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola,Weak ergodicity breaking and quantum many-body scars in spin-1 xy magnets,Physical review letters123(2019) 147201

    2019

  53. [61]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault and B.A. Bernevig,Entanglement of exact excited states of Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki models: Exact results, many-body scars, and violation of the strong eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,Phys. Rev. B98(2018) 235156 [1806.09624]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Buijsman,Number of zero-energy eigenstates in the PXP model,Phys

    W. Buijsman,Number of zero-energy eigenstates in the PXP model,Phys. Rev. B106 (2022) 045104 [2203.09264]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Parlett,The symmetric eigenvalue problem, SIAM (1998)

    B.N. Parlett,The symmetric eigenvalue problem, SIAM (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S´ anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner,Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of Krylov space,JHEP06(2021) 062 [2009.01862]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Simon,The lanczos algorithm with partial reorthogonalization,Mathematics of computation42(1984) 115

    H.D. Simon,The lanczos algorithm with partial reorthogonalization,Mathematics of computation42(1984) 115

    1984

  58. [66]

    Choi, C.J

    S. Choi, C.J. Turner, H. Pichler, W.W. Ho, A.A. Michailidis, Z. Papi´ c et al.,EmergentSU(2) Dynamics and Perfect Quantum Many-Body Scars,Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 220603

    2019

  59. [67]

    Hoggatt,Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers, Houghton Mifflin mathematics enrichment series, Houghton Mifflin (1969)

    V. Hoggatt,Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers, Houghton Mifflin mathematics enrichment series, Houghton Mifflin (1969)

    1969

  60. [68]

    C. Van Loan,Computational Frameworks for the Fast Fourier Transform, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (1992), 10.1137/1.9781611970999, [https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611970999]

    1992 doi

  61. [69]

    Baggioli, K.-B

    M. Baggioli, K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim and J.F. Pedraza,Krylov complexity as an order parameter for quantum chaotic-integrable transitions,Phys. Rev. Res.7(2025) 023028 [2407.17054]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Bhattacharya, R.N

    A. Bhattacharya, R.N. Das, B. Dey and J. Erdmenger,Spread complexity for measurement-induced non-unitary dynamics and Zeno effect,JHEP03(2024) 179 [2312.11635]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Sanada, Y

    K. Sanada, Y. Miao and H. Katsura,Towers of Quantum Many-body Scars from Integrable Boundary States,2411.01270

  64. [72]

    Liska, V

    D. Liska, V. Gritsev, W. Vleeshouwers and J. Min´ aˇ r,Holographic quantum scars,SciPost Phys.15(2023) 106 [2212.05962]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Caputa and D

    P. Caputa and D. Ge,Entanglement and geometry from subalgebras of the Virasoro algebra, JHEP06(2023) 159 [2211.03630]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Milekhin and N

    A. Milekhin and N. Sukhov,All holographic systems have scar states,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 046023 [2307.11348]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris,Representations ofsl 3C, part i, inRepresentation Theory: A First Course, (New York, NY), pp. 161–174, Springer New York (2004), DOI

    2004

  68. [76]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris,Representations ofsl 3C, part ii: Mainly lots of examples, in Representation Theory: A First Course, (New York, NY), pp. 175–193, Springer New York (2004), DOI. – 81 –

    2004

  69. [77]

    Fulton and J

    W. Fulton and J. Harris,Representations ofS d: Young diagrams and frobenius’s character formula, inRepresentation Theory: A First Course, (New York, NY), pp. 44–62, Springer New York (2004), DOI

    2004

  70. [78]

    Sloane and S

    N. Sloane and S. Plouffe,The Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, Elsevier Science (1995). – 82 –

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.