Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Work statistics of sudden Quantum quenches: A random matrix theory perspective on Gaussianity and its deviations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The work distribution of a sudden quench in a translation-invariant quadratic fermionic chain is the law of a linear statistic of Haar-distributed unitary traces, becoming Gaussian in the large-system limit with a variance fixed by the post

desk verdict The RMT trace-CLT part is solid, but the paper misidentifies the physical Loschmidt amplitude as a Toeplitz determinant; the central theorem fails for generic PBC translation-invariant quenches. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09640 v1 pith:WQDOXJL7 submitted 2025-09-11 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP

Miguel Tierz This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elmath-phmath.MP MSC 60B2082B1060F05
keywords suddenquantumquenchworkdistributionLoschmidtamplitudeToeplitzdeterminantrandommatrixtheoryHaarunitarytracescentrallimittheoremFisher-Hartwigsingularities
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 establishes that for sudden quenches in translation-invariant quadratic fermionic chains with periodic boundary conditions, the full work distribution is governed by the statistics of traces of Haar-distributed random unitary matrices: the work characteristic function is exactly the characteristic function of a linear statistic S_N(U)=Σ_{r≤m}(a_r Re Tr U^r + b_r Im Tr U^r), shifted by the initial energy. Because traces of different powers become independent complex Gaussians with variance r in the large-N limit, the work distribution acquires a Gaussian core with variance (1/2)Σ r(a_r^2+b_r^2), set entirely by the Fourier coefficients of the post-quench dispersion. The paper also identifies the mechanisms that produce non-Gaussian tails: many active harmonics, slow Fourier decay, Fisher–Hartwig singularities in the Toeplitz symbol, and Fisher zeros near the real time axis from critical quenches. The result makes precise the general expectation that sudden-quench work statistics are generically Gaussian, while showing exactly where and why deviations appear.

What carries the argument

The key identity is the Heine–Szegő (Toeplitz/unitary matrix-model) identity, which equates the Toeplitz determinant D_N(e^{iuε(θ)}) with the expectation over Haar-distributed U of exp(iuΣ_r(a_r Re Tr U^r + b_r Im Tr U^r)). This turns the Loschmidt amplitude into the moment-generating function of a linear statistic of the eigenangles of a random unitary, and the work law into a pushforward of the Haar measure. The second pillar is the classical multivariate central limit theorem for traces of powers of Haar-distributed unitaries: the normalized traces Tr U^r/√r are asymptotically independent standard complex Gaussians for fixed r as N→∞, with quantitative extensions allowing the number of ha

What would settle it

Compute, for a finite-length XY chain (or any quadratic chain) with a BCS ground-state initial state, the exact Loschmidt amplitude from the product formula over Bogoliubov angles, and compare its logarithm to the logarithm of the Toeplitz determinant D_N(e^{-itε_f}) at fixed N and moderate t. If the two disagree beyond O(t^2) terms, the exact Toeplitz representation assumed for paired initial states is false. Alternatively, measure (or compute) the excess kurtosis of the work distribution for a fixed, small set of harmonics and verify it tends to 0 as N→∞; if it does not vanish, the Gaussian-

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a sudden quench from an eigenstate of the initial Hamiltonian, when the Loschmidt amplitude admits a Toeplitz determinant representation with symbol e^{iuε(θ)}, the work random variable is distributionally equal to S_N(U)−E_0, where U is Haar-distributed on U(N) and ε(θ) is the post-quench single-particle dispersion. By the multivariate central limit theorem for traces of Haar unitaries, as N→∞ the work distribution converges to a Gaussian with variance (1/2)Σ_{r≥1} r(a_r^2+b_r^2) whenever the Szegő regularity condition Σ r(a_r^2+b_r^2)<∞ holds; deviations are controlled by the number of harmonics, the decay of the Fourier coefficients, and possible Fisher–Hart

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Loschmidt amplitude G(t)=⟨ψ0|e^{-iH_f t}|ψ0⟩ is exactly equal to a Toeplitz (or block-Toeplitz) determinant whose symbol is e^{-itε(θ)} (extended by Bogoliubov factors when pairing is present); if this representation fails for a given initial state or boundary condition, the entire reduction of work to a linear statistic of Haar-unitary traces collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any finite-range, translation-invariant quadratic chain under periodic boundary conditions, the work distribution from a sudden quench is asymptotically Gaussian with variance given by the weighted Fourier sum; this gives a closed-form prediction for two-projective-measurement work experiments.
  • The Gaussian core is robust: it holds for exponentially decaying Fourier coefficients (gapped models) and even for mild power-law decay satisfying the Szegő condition; deviations are quantitatively controlled by the growth of the number of harmonics.
  • Non-Gaussian tails appear in identifiable, model-specific regimes: quenches with slowly decaying (long-range) couplings, at critical points where Fisher–Hartwig singularities or Fisher zeros develop, and at finite N where higher cumulants are visible; each mechanism leaves a distinct signature in histograms and Q–Q plots.
  • Because the Gaussian variance is additive over neighbor ranges and pairing terms, tuning the coefficients {a_r,b_r} (by changing interaction range or anisotropy) can engineer or suppress the Gaussian core and tails.
  • The random-matrix normalization (variance of Tr U^r of order r, not N) means the work variance is O(1) rather than O(N): the thermodynamic limit enters through the unitary group dimension, not through summing N i.i.d. variables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Toeplitz representation extends to open boundary conditions or to non-translation-invariant initial states, the same trace-statistics mechanism should produce a similar Gaussian core with boundary-induced Fisher–Hartwig corrections; the paper notes the open-boundary case as future work, and the machinery suggests explicit Painlevé-type tail asymptotics.
  • The identification P(W)=law of S_N(U)−E_0 suggests that the large-deviation properties of W could be probed through known phase transitions in unitary matrix models (e.g., Gross–Witten–Wadia-type transitions), giving universal tail reorganization without changing the bulk Gaussian behavior.
  • Since each harmonic contributes two independent Gaussian quadratures (Re and Im), the leading-order variance depends only on the magnitudes |a_r| and |b_r|, not their phases; phases would only enter at subleading, non-Gaussian order, a testable prediction for anisotropic chains.
  • The small-u expansion used in the XY-chain reduction implies that for long times (large u) the Gaussian core may break down even within the formally Gaussian regime; studying the large-u asymptotics of the characteristic function through Toeplitz/Painlevé asymptotics could probe the full tail structure experimentally.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that for sudden quenches in translation-invariant quadratic fermionic chains with periodic boundary conditions, the work characteristic function is the characteristic function of a linear statistic of traces of Haar-distributed unitary matrices. The argument proceeds through a Toeplitz determinant representation of the Loschmidt amplitude, an exact Heine–Szegő/Toeplitz identity, and multivariate central limit theorems for traces of Haar unitaries. The paper further claims a Gaussian core for the work distribution with variance Var(W) = (1/2) Σ_r r(a_r² + b_r²), identifies non-Gaussian deviations (many harmonics, slow Fourier decay, Fisher–Hartwig singularities), and illustrates the mechanism with the XY chain and with numerical diagnostics based on Haar-distributed unitary traces.

Significance. If the central mapping were correct, the paper would provide an elegant and potentially powerful bridge between sudden-quench work statistics and random matrix theory, with sharp variance formulas and a clear criterion for Gaussianity. The paper correctly reviews the relevant CLTs for traces of Haar unitaries, and Lemma 1 is a correct mathematical identity. However, the load-bearing physical premise—that translation-invariant Slater/BCS eigenstates under PBC produce a Toeplitz determinant with symbol e^{-itε(θ)}—is false. The exact Loschmidt amplitude in such settings is a deterministic product over momentum modes, not a Toeplitz determinant of the Heine–Szegő type. This is not a missing proof but an incorrect claim, with an explicit finite-N counterexample. The XY-chain section itself uses a product formula that is not a Toeplitz determinant, and the numerical diagnostics simulate random matrix traces rather than physical quenches. The advertised physical conclusion is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Theorem 1] The asserted Toeplitz representation is false for the stated physical initial states. For a number-conserving translation-invariant quench, H_i and H_f are both diagonal in momentum, so an eigenstate of H_i has occupation numbers n_k ∈ {0,1} and the exact amplitude is G(t) = ∏_{k: n_k=1} e^{-it ε_f(k)}, a deterministic product. This is a determinant of a circulant matrix, not the Toeplitz determinant D_N(e^{-itε}) used in the Heine–Szegő identity. Concrete counterexample: N=2, ε(θ)=cosθ, full filling: G(t)=e^{-it(cos0+cosπ)}=1, whereas D_2(e^{-it cosθ}) = J_0(t)² + J_1(t)², which is not identically 1. Hence Eq. (24) and Theorem 1(i) do not hold for translation-invariant Slater/BCS eigenstates, and the equality P(W) = Law(S_N(U) − E_0) is not established. The Toeplitz-minor representation mentioned for domain-wall states is a different and narrower setting.
  2. [Sec. V.C.1, Eqs. (57)–(63)] The XY-chain exact amplitude is the product over k>0 in Eq. (57), not a Toeplitz determinant. The passage claiming 'G(t)=√det T_N(Φ)=D_N(f_t)^{1/2}' is unjustified: for a block Toeplitz operator, det T_N(Φ) is not generally equal to ∏_{k>0} det Φ(k), and the physical G(t) is the latter product. Consequently the linear-statistics form in Eq. (65) does not follow; log G(−u) is a Riemann sum over k, and the O(u²) error in Eq. (63) is uncontrolled and can affect the variance and higher cumulants. Formula (66) is therefore not a derived consequence for the physical XY quench.
  3. [Sec. VI] The numerical diagnostics simulate Haar-distributed unitary traces, or Gaussian surrogates for them, not the work distribution of any of the advertised quenches. They verify the known RMT CLT for traces, not the mapping from Hamiltonians to traces. Without a numerical implementation of, e.g., the XY product formula (57), the plots do not support the paper's physical Gaussian-core claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 1] The statement contains a duplicated sentence: 'Let |ψ0⟩ be an eigenstate of Hi with Hi|ψ0⟩ = E0|ψ0⟩. |ψ0⟩ is an eigenstate of Hi with Hi|ψ0⟩ = E0|ψ0⟩.'
  2. [Sec. III title] The title 'FOURIER TRANSFORM OF LOCSHMIDT AMPLITUDE' misspells 'Loschmidt'.
  3. [Sec. II] The notation alternates between L and N for the system size; this should be fixed, since the Toeplitz dimension N is also the unitary-group dimension.
  4. [Eqs. (57) and (60)] The text should explicitly clarify that D_N(f_t) in the Toeplitz convention is not the momentum-space product; otherwise Eq. (57) and the claimed equality G(t)=D_N(f_t)^{1/2} are contradictory.
  5. [Sec. V.A] The phrase 'representation-invariant' is undefined and should be removed or explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Gaussian-core result is a conditional application of external CLTs to a cited Toeplitz representation; no parameter is fitted and no conclusion is defined into existence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is conditional: Theorem 1 assumes GN(t)=D_N(e^{-itε}) and then, via the Heine–Szegő identity, identifies χ_W(u) with the moment-generating function of a linear statistic of Haar unitary traces. This is a mathematical equivalence, not a circular reduction—the physical input is the Toeplitz representation, and the Gaussian prediction follows from external multivariate CLTs (Johansson; Johansson–Lambert). The coefficients a_r,b_r are Fourier coefficients of the post-quench dispersion, not fitted parameters. The reliance on the author's earlier work [3,4] for the Toeplitz representation is a self-citation, but the cited representation is a stated premise with independent mathematical content (Toeplitz determinant theory), and the paper does not define the work distribution in terms of itself. However, the paper's own Sec. V.f shows that in the number-conserving XX limit the exact Loschmidt amplitude is a deterministic product over occupied modes, G(t)=∏_{k>0} e^{-iε_f(k)t}, not a Haar-average Toeplitz determinant; this contradicts the broad claim in Sec. II that translation-invariant Slater/BCS states yield GN(t)=D_N(e^{-itε}). That is a substantive correctness/scope risk (the theorem's premise may fail for generic PBC translation-invariant initial states), but it is not a circularity: the derivation does not assume its conclusion, it assumes a specific mathematical representation whose validity is not independently established here. No fitted inputs are renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported to force a choice, and no known result is merely relabeled.

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

The central claim rests on the standard Heine-Szegő identity, the assumed Toeplitz representation of the Loschmidt amplitude (taken from prior work), the known multivariate CLT for traces, and an ad-hoc small-u approximation for the XY chain. No free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Heine-Szegő identity: D_N(e^V) = E_{U(N)} exp(Σ_j V(θ_j)) for Toeplitz determinants
    Invoked in Lemma 1, Eq. (23), connecting Toeplitz determinants to unitary matrix integrals.
  • domain assumption Loschmidt amplitude for translation-invariant quadratic chains under PBC is a (block-)Toeplitz determinant with symbol built from e^{-itε(θ)}
    Assumed in Section II and Theorem 1, citing [3,4]. This is the antecedent that places the problem into the Toeplitz/unitary matrix form. The general validity is unclear because initial-state occupation and Bogoliubov factors are not included in the simple symbol.
  • standard math Multivariate CLT for traces of Haar unitaries: (Tr U^r / √r)_r converges jointly to i.i.d. complex Gaussians for m(N)=o(N^{2/3})
    Used in Corollary 2 and Section IV to derive the Gaussian limit from Johansson-Lambert [19].
  • domain assumption Szegő regularity: Σ r(a_r^2+b_r^2) < ∞
    Assumed in Corollary 2 to guarantee the Gaussian core and vanishing tail variance; also stated as a condition in Section V.B.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-u expansion: log f_u(e^{ik}) ≈ -iu ε̃(k) + O(u^2) with ε̃ = ε_f cos(2Δθ_k)
    Used in Section V.D to reduce the XY chain Loschmidt amplitude to a linear statistic; the O(u^2) term is dropped without uniform control in u, making this an approximation specific to the paper's argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Work statistics of sudden Quantum quenches: A random matrix theory perspective on Gaussianity and its deviations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQDOXJL7

@misc{pith2026250909640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Work statistics of sudden Quantum quenches: A random matrix theory perspective on Gaussianity and its deviations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQDOXJL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09640}
}
abstract

We show that, for sudden quenches, the work distribution reduces to the statistics of traces of powers of Haar unitaries, which are random unitary matrices drawn uniformly from the unitary group. For translation-invariant quadratic fermionic chains with interactions extending to $m$ neighbors and periodic boundary conditions, the Loschmidt amplitude admits a unitary matrix-model / Toeplitz representation, which yields a work variable of the form $W=\sum_{r\le m} a_r\,\mathrm{Re}\,\mathrm{Tr}\,U^r$ (and in models with pairing terms -- superconducting pairing -- additional $b_r\,\mathrm{Im}\,\mathrm{Tr}\,U^r$ terms appear). By invoking multivariate central limit theorems for vectors of traces of unitaries, we obtain a Gaussian distribution for $P(W)$ with variance $\mathrm{Var}(W)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_r r\,(a_r^2+b_r^2)$ and asymptotic independence across different powers. We also characterise the conditions under which non-Gaussian tails arise, for example from many interaction terms or their slow decay, as well as the appearance of Fisher--Hartwig singularities. We illustrate these mechanisms in the XY chain. Various numerical diagnostics support the analytical results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Side-by-side diagnostics for two families at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagnostics for power-law (left; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Surrogate vs exact Haar at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagnostics across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scatter diagnostics with theory 95% contours (ellipse/circle). Top: raw coordinates show the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Noise structuring in fixed-depth Trotter simulation: stationary channels and observable-level depolarization

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fixed-depth Trotter protocol makes hardware noise almost endpoint-independent, producing a stationary binomial/Poisson noise channel and an observable-level affine contrast correction for error mitigation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The XY chain: square-root dispersion and tails a. Model and diagonalization.After the Jordan– Wigner map, the translation-invariant XY chain in a transverse field is a quadratic (BdG) fermion system [ 24– 26] with H(k) =d(k)·σ,(52) d(k) = γsink,0, h−cosk ,(53) ε(k) = 2|d(k)|= 2 p (h−cosk) 2 + (γsink) 2.(54) TheBogoliubov angleis tan 2θk = γsink h−cosk ,(5...

  2. [2]

    Haar vs surrogate

    Quick summary of Gaussianity and tail behavior • Gapped BdG (analytic ε):sharp Gaussian core; pair- ing just introduces br in the variance 1 2 P r(a2 r + b2 r). • Critical (no FH):core Gaussian; tails show visible but shrinking non-Gaussian corrections. • FH/jumps/zeros or borderline decay:persistent non- Gaussian structures (edges/oscillations); the corr...

  3. [3]

    Histogram/Q–Q pairs.High- n panels (histogram with Gaussian overlay; Q–Q with y = x line) display the Gaussian core and isolate any tail curvature

  4. [4]

    Scatter plots.Clouds of ( ℜTrU r,ℜTrU s) in- clude thetheory 95% ellipse; standardized versions divide each axis by p m/2 so the contour is a circle, making different (r, s) pairs comparable

  5. [5]

    Variance vs N .With fixed harmonics, the CLT variance Var(W ) = 1 2 P r r(a2 r + b2 r) is N- independent; the plot plateaus at this constant (dashed line) with SE bars ˆσ2p 2/(n−1)

  6. [6]

    Compact diagnostics that tie figures to theory.For a given choice of weights, define Sm = X r≤m r(a 2 r +b 2 r), T m = X r≤m r3/2 (|ar|3 +|b r|3)

    Excess kurtosis vs N .The trend toward 0 (with error bars p 24/n) matches the CLT/Wick picture; residual scatter reflects the estimator’s finite-n noise and small negative bias≈6/(n+ 1). Compact diagnostics that tie figures to theory.For a given choice of weights, define Sm = X r≤m r(a 2 r +b 2 r), T m = X r≤m r3/2 (|ar|3 +|b r|3). Then Var(W ) = 1 2 Sm (...

  7. [7]

    Talkner, E

    P. Talkner, E. Lutz, and P. H¨ anggi, Physical Review E 75, 050102(R) (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Deffner and S

    S. Deffner and S. Campbell,Quantum Thermodynam- ics: An introduction to the thermodynamics of quantum information(Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2019)

    2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Gorin, T

    T. Gorin, T. Prosen, T. H. Seligman, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Physics Reports435, 33 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, L

    D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, L. Santilli, and M. Tierz, Physical Re- view Research6, 033007 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, L

    D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, L. Santilli, and M. Tierz, Quantum8, 1271 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    P. J. Forrester,Log-gases and random matrices (LMS-34) (Princeton university press, 2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and M

    D. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and M. Tierz, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A172, 105201 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mazzola, G

    L. Mazzola, G. De Chiara, and M. Paternostro, Physical Review Letters110, 230602 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Campisi, P

    M. Campisi, P. H¨ anggi, and P. Talkner, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics83, 771 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Esposito, U

    M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1665 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Silva, Physical Review Letters101, 120603 (2008)

    A. Silva, Physical Review Letters101, 120603 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Physical Review Letters110, 135704 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Heyl, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 054001 (2018)

    M. Heyl, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 054001 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Dorner, S

    R. Dorner, S. R. Clark, L. Heaney, R. Fazio, J. Goold, and V. Vedral, Physical Review Letters110, 230601 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    R. E. Hartwig and M. E. Fisher, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis32, 190 (1969)

    1969

  14. [22]

    T. B. Batalh˜ ao, A. M. Souza, L. Mazzola, R. Auccaise, I. S. Oliveira, J. Goold, G. De Chiara, M. Paternostro, and R. M. Serra, Physical Review Letters113, 140601 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Diaconis and M

    P. Diaconis and M. Shahshahani, Journal of Applied Probability31A, 49 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Diaconis and S

    P. Diaconis and S. N. Evans, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society353, 2615 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Johansson, Annals of Mathematics145, 519 (1997)

    K. Johansson, Annals of Mathematics145, 519 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Johansson and G

    K. Johansson and G. Lambert, The Annals of Probability 49, 2961 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Duits and K

    M. Duits and K. Johansson, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society362, 1169 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    L. M. Robledo, Physical Review C79, 021302 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Zawadzki, A

    K. Zawadzki, A. Kiely, G. T. Landi, and S. Campbell, Physical Review A107, 012209 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Deift, A

    P. Deift, A. Its, and I. Krasovsky, Annals of mathematics , 1243 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Annals of Physics16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  24. [32]

    Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    P. Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

    Barouch and B

    E. Barouch and B. M. McCoy, Physical Review A3, 786 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    Onishi and S

    N. Onishi and S. Yoshida, Nuclear Physics80, 367 (1966)

    1966

  27. [35]

    for context. We identify how deviations (non-Gaussian tails) arise when the conditions of the CLT are weakened (multiple slow-decaying modes, symbol singularities, etc.), and we confirm these predictions with both analytic results (Toeplitz determinant asymptotics) and numeric...

  28. [36]

    Klich, Quantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics , 397 (2003)

    I. Klich, Quantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics , 397 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    E. L. Basor and T. Ehrhardt, Communications in Mathe- matical Physics234, 491 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Jin and V

    B.-Q. Jin and V. E. Korepin, Journal of Statistical Physics 116, 79 (2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Perez-Garcia and M

    D. Perez-Garcia and M. Tierz, Physical Review X4, 021050 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Santilli and M

    L. Santilli and M. Tierz, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2020, 063102 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Freedman and P

    D. Freedman and P. Diaconis, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrschein- lichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete57, 453 (1981)

    1981

  34. [42]

    Diaconis, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Soci- ety40, 155 (2003)

    P. Diaconis, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Soci- ety40, 155 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    Le Doussal, S

    P. Le Doussal, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Physical review letters121, 030603 (2018). 12 (a) 3-mode: Histogram (b) 3-mode: Q–Q (c) 3-mode: Detrended Q–Q (d) 5-mode even: Histogram (e) 5-mode even: Q–Q (f) 5-mode even: Detrended Q–Q FIG. 1. Side-by-side diagnostics for two f...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.