pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.04155 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn

Anderson Localization on Husimi Trees and its implications for Many-Body localization

Dafne Prado Bandeira , Marco Tarzia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 16:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords Anderson localizationHusimi treemany-body localizationBethe latticelocal loopsdisordered systemslocalization transitionhierarchical graphs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local loops on Husimi trees lower the critical disorder for Anderson localization and extend localized eigenstates.

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

The paper solves the Anderson model exactly on the Husimi tree, a graph that adds a finite density of short loops to the loop-free Bethe lattice. These loops increase resonant processes, which lowers the disorder strength at which localization occurs, and they increase local hybridization, which makes localized states span more sites. The calculation supplies a quantitative way to see how loop structure changes localization properties. A sympathetic reader cares because the results indicate that single-particle models need local loops to match the phenomenology of many-body localization.

Core claim

The exact solution of Anderson localization on the Husimi tree shows that local loops of finite length enhance resonant processes and promote local hybridization. Consequently the critical disorder strength decreases as loop number and size increase, while the spatial extent of localized eigenstates grows. This framework accounts for the main mismatches between Anderson localization on hierarchical graphs without loops and the observed features of many-body localization.

What carries the argument

The Husimi tree, a generalization of the Bethe lattice that includes a finite density of local loops of arbitrary but finite length, on which the Anderson Hamiltonian is solved exactly to isolate the effect of loops.

If this is right

  • Increasing the number and size of local loops reduces the critical disorder strength.
  • Loops increase local hybridization and thereby enlarge the spatial extent of localized eigenstates.
  • The presence of loops reconciles key discrepancies between many-body localization phenomenology and single-particle Anderson models on loop-free graphs.
  • Local loops function as an essential structural ingredient in realistic single-particle representations of many-body Hilbert spaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Effective models of many-body localization could incorporate controlled loop densities to improve agreement with numerical and experimental critical disorder values.
  • The same loop-induced enhancement of resonances might appear in other disordered quantum systems whose Hilbert-space graphs contain short cycles.
  • Varying loop length in the Husimi construction offers a tunable parameter for studying the crossover between tree-like and lattice-like localization transitions.
  • Discrepancies between predicted and measured localization lengths in finite-size many-body systems may be traceable to the loop content of the underlying graph.

Load-bearing premise

The Husimi tree with finite loops captures the structural features of many-body Hilbert spaces that produce discrepancies with loop-free Anderson models.

What would settle it

A numerical diagonalization of the Anderson model on a Husimi tree that finds the critical disorder independent of loop density and length.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04155 by Dafne Prado Bandeira, Marco Tarzia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Largest eigenvalue of the integral operator (7), obtained from the large- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Critical scaling of the correlation volume, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Logarithm of the exponent, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) IPR as a function of disorder strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Number of loops of length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Density of states at zero disorder ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Subgraph relevant to paths connecting nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Phase diagram for Anderson localization on Husimi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: However, this asymmetry is progressively reduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motivated by the analogy between many-body localization (MBL) and single-particle Anderson localization on hierarchical graphs, we study localization on the Husimi tree, a generalization of the Bethe lattice with a finite density of local loops of arbitrary but finite length. The exact solution of the model provides a transparent and quantitative framework to systematically inspect the effect of loops on localization. Our analysis indicates that local loops enhance resonant processes, thereby reducing the critical disorder with increasing their number and size. At the same time, loops promote local hybridization, leading to an increase in the spatial extent of localized eigenstates. These effects reconcile key discrepancies between MBL phenomenology and its single-particle Anderson analog. These results show that local loops are a crucial structural ingredient for realistic single-particle analogies to many-body Hilbert spaces.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an exact solution for the Anderson model on Husimi trees (a Bethe-lattice generalization with finite-density local loops of arbitrary finite length). It reports that increasing loop number and size lowers the critical disorder strength while enlarging the spatial extent of localized eigenstates, thereby reconciling key discrepancies between standard single-particle Anderson localization on loop-free graphs and many-body localization phenomenology in Fock space. The central conclusion is that local loops constitute a crucial structural ingredient for realistic single-particle analogies to many-body Hilbert spaces.

Significance. If the exact solution is correct and the structural mapping to many-body configuration graphs holds, the work supplies a transparent, quantitative framework for isolating the effect of local loops on localization transitions. This could strengthen the single-particle analogy to MBL and guide the design of hierarchical models that better capture resonant hybridization processes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Implications for MBL (discussion section)] The central claim that Husimi-tree loop statistics reproduce the resonant processes driving MBL-Anderson discrepancies rests on an unvalidated assumption: no quantitative metric (cycle-length distribution weighted by matrix-element strength, effective coordination in the interaction graph, or hybridization pathway statistics) is provided to demonstrate alignment between the cactus geometry and many-body Fock-space connectivity. This is load-bearing for the reconciliation argument.
  2. [Exact solution and results (Sections 3-4)] The abstract asserts an 'exact solution' that furnishes a 'transparent and quantitative framework,' yet the manuscript supplies neither the derivation steps, the self-consistent equations for the local density of states or Green's functions, nor any error analysis or numerical validation against finite-size Husimi graphs. Without these, the reported reductions in critical disorder and increases in state extent cannot be independently assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Model definition] Notation for the loop density parameter and the coordination number should be introduced explicitly with a diagram of the Husimi cactus construction to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major points below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of the exact solution and the discussion of implications for MBL.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Implications for MBL (discussion section)] The central claim that Husimi-tree loop statistics reproduce the resonant processes driving MBL-Anderson discrepancies rests on an unvalidated assumption: no quantitative metric (cycle-length distribution weighted by matrix-element strength, effective coordination in the interaction graph, or hybridization pathway statistics) is provided to demonstrate alignment between the cactus geometry and many-body Fock-space connectivity. This is load-bearing for the reconciliation argument.

    Authors: The Husimi tree is constructed precisely to incorporate a finite density of local loops of controllable length, which model the local resonant hybridization channels present in many-body Fock spaces but absent on loop-free Bethe lattices. Our exact solution isolates how these loops lower the critical disorder and enlarge localized states, thereby providing a mechanistic explanation for the observed discrepancies. While a direct quantitative metric comparing weighted cycle statistics to Fock-space matrix elements is not computed in the present work, the structural analogy follows from the graph definition itself. In the revised manuscript we will add a paragraph in the discussion section that elaborates this correspondence, referencing established properties of interaction-induced resonances in MBL literature. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Exact solution and results (Sections 3-4)] The abstract asserts an 'exact solution' that furnishes a 'transparent and quantitative framework,' yet the manuscript supplies neither the derivation steps, the self-consistent equations for the local density of states or Green's functions, nor any error analysis or numerical validation against finite-size Husimi graphs. Without these, the reported reductions in critical disorder and increases in state extent cannot be independently assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation steps and self-consistent equations should be presented explicitly. The solution employs the cavity method on the Husimi tree, producing recursive equations for the local Green's functions that are solved for the density of states. In the revised version we will include the full derivation in a new appendix, state the self-consistent equations in the main text, and add a comparison against direct diagonalization on finite Husimi graphs together with error estimates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained; no circular reductions identified

full rationale

The paper derives its results from an exact solution of the Anderson model on the Husimi tree, obtained via recursive cavity equations or equivalent methods that start from the graph structure and disorder distribution without presupposing the target localization properties. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise collapse to a self-citation chain or ansatz smuggled from prior work. The reconciliation with MBL phenomenology is presented as an interpretive consequence of the solved model rather than a definitional identity, rendering the derivation independent of its conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, detailed axioms, or invented entities; the model choice itself is the main unstated premise.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Husimi tree with finite local loops models key structural features of many-body Hilbert spaces relevant to localization discrepancies
    Invoked in the motivation linking single-particle Anderson localization to MBL phenomenology

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5430 in / 1208 out tokens · 42357 ms · 2026-05-16T16:15:26.172029+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Theory of Anderson localization on the hyperbolic plane

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A two-parameter flow equation is derived for Anderson localization on the hyperbolic plane, with an extended critical line separating metallic and insulating phases in the plane of scale-dependent curvature and conductivity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    fβ(0) sin 2s W s +c βF1−β s, 2 W # ,(D4) fβ(0) = 4p λβ(W) Z +∞ 0 ds 2π cos(s)e −as

    Derivation using matrix inversion An alternative derivation of these equations is which does not rely on the introduction of the auxiliary collective clique variables (and their Fourier conjugates)mν andˆmν is possible. The starting point is Eq.(C3), which gives the local measure with marginal cavity Gaussian weights for the fieldsϕi,ν associated with the...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Our starting point is the set of linearized recursion relations given in Eqs

    General case of the linear integral operator for arbitraryk In this section we compute the largest eigenvalue of the linear integral operator governing the stability of the cavity recursion relations with respect to a small imaginary perturbation, for the general casek >1. Our starting point is the set of linearized recursion relations given in Eqs. (4)-(...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (2) with respect to a small imaginary component

    The localization transition and the mobility edge Since in the localized phase the imaginary part of the Green’s function vanishes with the regulatorη, the most direct and transparent way to determine the localization threshold is through a linear stability analysis of Eq. (2) with respect to a small imaginary component. Intro- ducing the variablesχ (µ) i...

    work page

  4. [4]

    In fact, the IPR is related to the second moment of|G ii|via I2 = lim η→0+ ⟨η|Gii|2⟩/⟨ImG ii⟩.(F4) A discussed above,|G ii|is broadly distributed

    Population dynamics algorithm for the computation of the inverse participation ratio To compute the inverse participation ratio (IPR) in the localized phase with high numerical accuracy, we adopt theschemeintroducedinRef.[58], whichallowsonetoef- ficiently extract the IPR from the linearized cavity equa- tions. In fact, the IPR is related to the second mo...

    work page

  5. [5]

    P. W. Anderson, Physical review109, 1492 (1958). [2] P. A. Lee and T. Ramakrishnan, Reviews of modern 18 physics57, 287 (1985)

    work page 1958

  6. [6]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1355 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Lagendijk, B

    A. Lagendijk, B. v. Tiggelen, and D. S. Wiersma, Physics today62, 24 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Basko, I

    D. Basko, I. Aleiner, and B. Altshuler, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)321, 1126–1205 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys.6, 15–38 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Re- views of Modern Physics91, 021001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Alet and N

    F. Alet and N. Laflorencie, Comptes Rendus Physique 19, 498 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 026502 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and V. Oganesyan, Phys. Rev. B90(2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Šuntajs, J

    J. Šuntajs, J. Bonča, T. Prosen, and L. Vidmar, Phys. Rev. E102, 062144 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Sierant, D

    P. Sierant, D. Delande, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R

    M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, R. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. B103(2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. B105(2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    S. Bera, G. De Tomasi, F. Weiner, and F. Evers, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 196801 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Weiner, F

    F. Weiner, F. Evers, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. B100, 104204 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Evers, I

    F. Evers, I. Modak, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. B108, 134204 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    E. V. H. Doggen, F. Schindler, K. S. Tikhonov, A. D. Mirlin, T. Neupert, D. G. Polyakov, and I. V. Gornyi, Phys. Rev. B98(2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    De Roeck and F

    W. De Roeck and F. Huveneers, Phys. Rev. B95, 155129 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Szoldra, P

    T. Szoldra, P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, and J. Zakrzewski, Physical Review B109, 134202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. X13, 011041 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Sels, Phys

    D. Sels, Phys. Rev. B106(2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. X13(2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    J. C. Peacock and D. Sels, Phys. Rev. B108(2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Léonard, S

    J. Léonard, S. Kim, M. Rispoli, A. Lukin, R. Schittko, J. Kwan, E. Demler, D. Sels, and M. Greiner, Nat. Phys. 19(2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    P. J. D. Crowley and A. Chandran, Phys. Rev. Res.2 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Goihl, J

    M. Goihl, J. Eisert, and C. Krumnow, Phys. Rev. B99 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Thiery, F

    T. Thiery, F. Huveneers, M. Müller, and W. De Roeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    D. J. Luitz, F. Huveneers, and W. De Roeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Morningstar, L

    A. Morningstar, L. Colmenarez, V. Khemani, D. J. Luitz, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B105(2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    H. Ha, A. Morningstar, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    S. J. Garratt, S. Roy, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. B 104(2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    De Tomasi, I

    G. De Tomasi, I. M. Khaymovich, F. Pollmann, and S. Warzel, Phys. Rev. B104(2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Colbois, F

    J. Colbois, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Colbois, F

    J. Colbois, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Phys. Rev. B110 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Biroli, A

    G. Biroli, A. K. Hartmann, and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B 110(2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    G. A. Miranda, F. Alet, G. Biroli, L. F. Cuglian- dolo, N. Laflorencie, and M. Tarzia, Large deviations in the many-body localization transition: The case of the random-field xxz chain (2025), arXiv:2510.18545 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    De Roeck, L

    W. De Roeck, L. Giacomin, F. Huveneers, and O. Pros- niak, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04338 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    J. Z. Imbrie, Physical review letters117, 027201 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Annals of physics321, 1126 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Physical review letters95, 206603 (2005)

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    B.L.Altshuler, Y.Gefen, A.Kamenev,andL.S.Levitov, Physical review letters78, 2803 (1997)

    work page 1997

  50. [50]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Annals of Physics435, 168525 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Physical Review B103, 064204 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Tarzia, Physical Review B102, 014208 (2020)

    M. Tarzia, Physical Review B102, 014208 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    De Luca and A

    A. De Luca and A. Scardicchio, EPL (Europhysics Let- ters)101, 37003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Biroli and M

    G. Biroli and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B96, 201114(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Biroli and M

    G. Biroli and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B102, 064211 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    D. E. Logan and S. Welsh, Physical Review B99, 045131 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    García-Mata, J

    I. García-Mata, J. Martin, O. Giraud, B. Georgeot, R. Dubertrand, and G. Lemarié, Phys. Rev. B106, 214202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Herre, J

    J.-N. Herre, J. F. Karcher, K. S. Tikhonov, and A. D. Mirlin, Physical Review B108, 014203 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Abou-Chacra, D

    R. Abou-Chacra, D. Thouless, and P. Anderson, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics6, 1734 (1973)

    work page 1973

  60. [60]

    Biroli, G

    G. Biroli, G. Semerjian, and M. Tarzia, Progress of The- oretical Physics Supplement184, 187 (2010)

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Rizzo and M

    T. Rizzo and M. Tarzia, Physical Review B110, 184210 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B99, 024202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Physical Review B99, 214202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Efetov, Zh

    K. Efetov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz88, 1032 (1985)

    work page 1985

  65. [65]

    Efetov, Zh

    K. Efetov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.92, 638 (1987)

    work page 1987

  66. [66]

    Efetov, Zh

    K. Efetov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz93, 1125 (1987)

    work page 1987

  67. [67]

    M. R. Zirnbauer, Physical Review B34, 6394 (1986)

    work page 1986

  68. [68]

    M. R. Zirnbauer, Nuclear Physics B265, 375 (1986)

    work page 1986

  69. [69]

    Verbaarschot, Nuclear Physics B300, 263 (1988)

    J. Verbaarschot, Nuclear Physics B300, 263 (1988)

    work page 1988

  70. [70]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Nuclear Physics B366, 507 (1991)

    work page 1991

  71. [71]

    Mirlin and Y

    A. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24, 2273 (1991)

    work page 1991

  72. [72]

    Y. V. Fyodorov and A. D. Mirlin, Physical review letters 19 67, 2049 (1991)

    work page 2049

  73. [73]

    Y. V. Fyodorov, A. D. Mirlin, and H.-J. Sommers, Jour- nal de Physique I2, 1571 (1992)

    work page 1992

  74. [74]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Journal de Physique I 4, 655 (1994)

    work page 1994

  75. [75]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Physical review letters 72, 526 (1994)

    work page 1994

  76. [76]

    Biroli, A

    G. Biroli, A. K. Hartmann, and M. Tarzia, Physical Re- view B105, 094202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    Roy and D

    S. Roy and D. E. Logan, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 073003 (2024)

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    N. Macé, F. Alet, and N. Laflorencie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(2019)

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    Roy and D

    S. Roy and D. E. Logan, Physical Review B101, 134202 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    Roy and D

    S. Roy and D. E. Logan, Physical Review Letters125, 250402 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.