Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Correlator geometry separates chaotic from integrable dynamics

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-10 01:36 UTC pith:WW4AW5PG

load-bearing objection A clean geometric framework for organizing higher-order correlator families, with physical claims that need larger-scale validation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08761 v1 pith:WW4AW5PG submitted 2026-07-09 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Irreducible Geometry of Higher-Order Correlator Families

Kaito Kobayashi This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.str-el
keywords correlatorcorrelatorsconditioningfamilygeometryframeworkhigher-orderirreducible
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes that a family of higher-order quantum correlators should be analyzed as a geometric object rather than as a list of individual numbers. Each correlator is written as an inner product between two operator words, so the full family becomes a Gram matrix whose eigenstructure describes how many independent directions the correlators span in operator space. A conditioning subspace is then chosen: the part of the geometry it explains is the reducible component, and the orthogonal remainder is the irreducible component. The paper defines irreducible volume profiles that measure how many independent directions the unexplained residual spans. Under canonical conditioning, where the subspace is chosen optimally, free-fermion dynamics produce a low-dimensional irreducible geometry, interacting integrable dynamics produce a broader one that still falls short of maximal, and chaotic dynamics approach a uniform spread across all available directions. The paper then extends the idea to spatially targeted conditioning, which reveals that many-body localization confines correlator geometry to the region where operators originate; to measurement-targeted conditioning, which shows that measurement-inaccessible correlator components form an organized geometry rather than a random deficit; and to cross conditioning, which detects a breakdown of an effective Hamiltonian description of Floquet dynamics that is invisible both in raw correlator values and in self-referenced geometric profiles.

Core claim

The central object is the residual Gram matrix obtained by projecting a family of operator words away from a conditioning subspace. Its eigenvalues determine a sequence of irreducible volumes, and the normalized profile of these volumes distinguishes dynamical regimes. Free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic spin-chain dynamics produce qualitatively different profiles under canonical conditioning, and this distinction is invisible when one examines individual correlator values or their raw statistics. The same machinery, applied with physically motivated conditioning subspaces, extracts spatial confinement under localization, measurement-inaccessible structure, and spectral selecti

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the decomposition of an operator Gram matrix into a reducible part (inner products of projected components onto a conditioning subspace W) and an irreducible part (inner products of residuals orthogonal to W). The irreducible volumes are elementary symmetric polynomials of the residual eigenvalues. Canonical conditioning sets W to the leading-r eigenvectors of the Gram matrix itself, making the residual spectrum the tail eigenvalues. The irreducible volume profile then depends only on this tail spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that different dynamical regimes produce distinct correlator geometries rests on numerical evidence from spin chains of 9 sites with 5-operator word families of 120 permutations. Whether the qualitative distinctions persist at larger system sizes or for larger operator word families is not established.

What would settle it

If, at larger system sizes or for larger operator word families, the irreducible volume profiles of free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic dynamics converged to the same shape, the central claim that correlator geometry distinguishes dynamical regimes would lose its empirical support.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript introduces a geometric framework for analyzing families of higher-order quantum many-body correlators. The central construction represents correlators as inner products between operator words, forming a Gram matrix G(Ω). A conditioning subspace W is introduced to decompose this geometry into a reducible part (explained by W) and an irreducible residual part. The irreducible structure is quantified by irreducible volume profiles I_q(Ω,W) (Eq. 19), which are sums of principal minors of the residual Gram matrix and admit a spectral interpretation (Eq. 20). The framework is demonstrated through canonical conditioning (Sec. III), targeted conditioning (Sec. IV), and comparison schemes including Krylov and cross conditioning (Sec. V). The main physical claim is that free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic spin-chain dynamics generate qualitatively distinct irreducible correlator geometries, as diagnosed by the mean irreducible level q̄_r(t) under canonical conditioning.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: as quantum simulators access increasingly complex higher-order correlators, a framework for organizing and interpreting families of correlators is needed. The mathematical core is sound and well-constructed. The Gram matrix decomposition (Eq. 14), the spectral formula for irreducible volumes (Eq. 20), and the canonical conditioning optimality proof (Sec. III A, leading to Eq. 31) are correctly derived. The Pauli-string (Sec. III B) and Haar-random (Sec. III C) benchmarks provide clean analytic limits. The cross-conditioning construction (Sec. V B) is a particularly elegant contribution, demonstrating that relational geometry between correlator families can detect breakdown of effective descriptions (Fig. 7) even when raw correlator values and self-conditioned profiles are nearly indistinguishable. The framework is falsifiable and produces concrete, testable diagnostics. Reproducible code is stated to be available on Zenodo.

major comments (2)
  1. The central physical claim — that free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic dynamics generate qualitatively distinct irreducible correlator geometries (Sec. III D, Fig. 2) — is supported by numerical evidence at system size L=9, with robustness checks up to L=10 (Appendix B, Fig. 8). However, no finite-size scaling of the key diagnostic q̄_r(t) is performed. At L=9, the Hilbert space dimension is d=512, while the Gram matrix is only 120×120 (N=5!=120), probing a very low-dimensional slice of operator space. The distinction between interacting integrable and chaotic models (Fig. 2c, green vs. red curves) is modest at L=9 and could narrow or invert at larger L, since both models generate high-dimensional operator growth. Without at least a preliminary finite-size scaling analysis showing that the ordering q̄_r(chaotic) > q̄_r(integrable) > q̄_r(free-fermion) persists or stabilizes,
  2. The entire framework is demonstrated using operator word families constructed from permutations of M=5 base operators (N=5!=120). It is unclear whether the qualitative conclusions depend on this specific choice of M. For instance, does the distinction between integrable and chaotic geometries become more or less pronounced for M=3 or M=7? Appendix B checks robustness over random operator word families but fixes M=5 throughout. A brief discussion of the M-dependence, or at least an acknowledgment of this limitation and why M=5 is expected to be representative, would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. In Eq. (8), the constraint |h_6 - f_4 g_4| ≤ sqrt((1-|f_4|^2)(1-|g_4|^2)) is derived from the positivity of the 3×3 Gram matrix. This is a nice illustration, but the connection to the general framework of conditioning subspaces could be made more explicit — it is only later (Appendix A) that this type of constraint is connected to the residual Gram matrix formalism.
  2. The notation for the Liouvillian in Eq. (69), L_σ = Σ c_{σ(s)} L^{[s]}, is somewhat dense. A brief clarifying sentence on the physical meaning of this ordering-dependent Liouvillian would help readers unfamiliar with multi-operator Krylov constructions.
  3. Figure 2(b) shows π_q(r,t) as a function of q and t, but the color scale and ridge structure make it difficult to compare the three panels quantitatively. A shared color scale across the three panels would facilitate comparison.
  4. In Sec. IV C, the state-dependent inner product (Eq. 60) is introduced, and the author notes that thermal OTOCs of the form Tr(ρ^{1/4}W(t)ρ^{1/4}Vρ^{1/4}W(t)ρ^{1/4}V) are generally distinct from Tr(ρW(t)VW(t)V). The suggestion to absorb the density matrix into the operator words is interesting but underdeveloped; a brief comment on whether the resulting geometry is expected to differ qualitatively would be useful.
  5. The reference list is appropriate but could include additional context on recent work comparing correlator structures across dynamical regimes, particularly in the context of operator growth and Krylov complexity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the framework is self-contained, with mathematical constructions derived from first principles and physical claims supported by independent numerical evidence.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is internally consistent and does not exhibit circular reasoning. The core mathematical constructions — the operator Gram matrix (Eq. 3), the conditioning decomposition (Eqs. 13–16), the irreducible volumes I_q as elementary symmetric polynomials of the residual Gram matrix eigenvalues (Eq. 20), and the canonical conditioning optimality via leading eigenvectors (Eq. 31) — are all derived from standard linear algebra without fitting parameters to the target physical results. The canonical conditioning subspace W*_r is defined as the optimal r-dimensional subspace minimizing I_1, and the proof that this is spanned by the leading principal modes (Eqs. 24–31) is a straightforward variational argument, not a tautology. The physical claims — that free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic dynamics generate distinct correlator geometries (Sec. III D) — are supported by numerical computation of these quantities on independent Hamiltonians, not by construction. The analytical benchmarks (Pauli-string families in Sec. III B, Haar-randomized families in Sec. III C) serve as reference limits and are derived independently. The cross-conditioning comparison between Floquet and effective-Hamiltonian dynamics (Sec. V B) uses the canonical sector of one family to condition another, which is a genuinely directed comparison, not a self-referential operation. The only minor self-referential aspect is that canonical conditioning is defined intrinsically from the Gram matrix being analyzed, but this is an optimization procedure with a clear variational principle, not circular reasoning — the residual spectrum is genuinely different from the input spectrum and carries independent geometric information. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The framework introduces no postulated physical entities. All invented entities are mathematical constructions derived from the Gram matrix formalism, each with falsifiable predictions tested numerically. The main ad hoc assumption is the representativeness of the specific operator word family, which is partially addressed by Appendix B robustness checks but not fully verified at scale.

free parameters (4)
  • System size L=9 = 9
    All main numerical results use L=9. This is a computational choice, not a fitted parameter, but it constrains the scope of claims.
  • Operator word family size M=5 = 5
    All main results use 5 base operators (N=5!=120). The choice is stated as representative but not justified against alternatives.
  • Time fractions {0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0} = {0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0}
    Chosen to avoid unintended interference effects (stated in Sec. III D). Not fitted to data but selected by hand.
  • Conditioning rank r = various (1, 40, 80)
    Used as a diagnostic parameter, not fitted. Different values shown for comparison.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Hilbert-Schmidt inner product ⟨X,Y⟩_HS = (1/d)Tr(X†Y) is the natural inner product for operator space geometry.
    Standard in quantum information; used throughout as the default inner product (Eq. 1). State-dependent variant introduced in Eq. 60.
  • ad hoc to paper The operator word family Ω constructed from permutations of Heisenberg-evolved Pauli operators is representative of the correlator structure of a dynamical regime.
    This is the load-bearing assumption. Appendix B provides robustness checks over random operator families at L≤10, but representativeness at larger scales is unverified.
  • standard math The elementary symmetric polynomials of the residual Gram matrix eigenvalues provide a meaningful dimension-resolved profile of irreducible geometry.
    Standard linear algebra identity (Eq. 20). The physical interpretation as irreducible volume is the paper's contribution.
  • domain assumption The XYZ Hamiltonian parameter sets in Eq. (46) correctly represent free-fermion, interacting integrable, and chaotic regimes.
    Standard in the literature; free-fermion by Jordan-Wigner, integrable by Bethe ansatz (Refs. 46-47), chaotic by nonintegrability (Ref. 48).
invented entities (3)
  • Irreducible volume profile π_q(Ω,W) independent evidence
    purpose: Dimension-resolved diagnostic quantifying how broadly irreducible correlator geometry spreads over independent directions.
    Defined via Eq. (21) from the residual Gram matrix. Falsifiable: different dynamical regimes produce different profiles, as demonstrated numerically.
  • Canonical conditioning sector W⋆_r independent evidence
    purpose: Optimal r-dimensional subspace minimizing total residual weight I_1.
    Derived from leading eigenvectors of the Gram matrix (Eq. 31). Optimality proven in Sec. III A. Not a postulated entity but a derived construction.
  • Cross-conditioned irreducible volume I^B|A_q(r) independent evidence
    purpose: Directed diagnostic quantifying geometric mismatch between two correlator families.
    Defined via Eq. (76). Falsifiable: detects Floquet vs. effective-Hamiltonian mismatch invisible to raw correlator comparison (Sec. V B).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 31433 in / 3171 out tokens · 277976 ms · 2026-07-10T01:36:04.618478+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Programmable quantum simulators are beginning to access correlators of increasing complexity, ranging from four-point out-of-time-ordered correlators to even higher-order many-body correlators. The theoretical framework for interpreting such data, however, remains comparatively underdeveloped. Although a variety of higher-order correlators can be constructed straightforwardly, their physical meaning is often difficult to infer. A further complication is that different correlators are generally not independent: some may be mutually redundant, while others may encode genuinely distinct information. These features make it necessary to analyze correlators not as isolated quantities, but as a structured family. In this work, we develop a geometric framework for the collective analysis of higher-order correlator families. By representing correlators as inner products between operator words, we recast each family as a geometry in operator space. The key idea is to introduce conditioning subspaces that separate this geometry into reducible information, already explained by a chosen resolved sector, and irreducible information, encoded in the residual correlator geometry. Focusing on the latter component, we define irreducible volume profiles that quantify how broadly the unexplained part of a correlator family spreads over independent geometric directions. This perspective leads to several complementary forms of conditioning. Canonical conditioning optimally explains a correlator family. Targeted conditioning fixes the resolved sector to isolate a chosen physical feature. Krylov and cross conditioning extend the framework from a single correlator family to comparisons among correlator geometries. Our framework reveals irreducible structures hidden at the level of individual correlator values and establishes correlator geometry as a higher-level description of quantum many-body dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08761 by Kaito Kobayashi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) Schematic illustration of a family of correlators. A variety [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (a) Schematic procedure for constructing the irreducible volume profile under canonical conditioning. (b) Time dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Disorder strength dependence of the mean absolute value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Time evolution of the first irreducible volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Time evolution of the mean irreducible level ¯q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (c) shows the Krylov-resolved overlap CK(t∗, t∗ + ∆t;r, ℓ) for the chaotic XYZ model as a function of the Krylov depth ℓ with r = 40 and t∗ = 50. At ℓ = 0, the Krylov sector is just the reference canonical sector itself, and the overlap is correspondingly small. As ℓ increases, the Krylov sector incorporates additional Hamiltonian-generated directions, and CK begins to grow. The onset of this growth occurs… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Schematic of the cross conditioning procedure. (b) Scatter plot comparing the absolute values of the o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Mean irreducible level ¯q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The resulting values of ¯qr are summarized by their sample mean and standard deviation over this ensemble. In Fig. 8, we show the system size dependence of ¯q r for conditioning ranksr=1,40,and 80. Notably, across the sampled operator word families and system sizes, the quali- tative behavior observed in Fig. 2 remains unchanged. The chaotic dynamics prod...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Van Hove, Correlations in Space and Time and Born Approx- imation Scattering in Systems of Interacting Particles, Phys

    L. Van Hove, Correlations in Space and Time and Born Approx- imation Scattering in Systems of Interacting Particles, Phys. Rev.95, 249 (1954)

    work page 1954

  4. [4]

    Kubo, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irreversible Pro- cesses

    R. Kubo, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Irreversible Pro- cesses. I. General Theory and Simple Applications to Magnetic and Conduction Problems, J. Phys. Soc. Japan12, 570 (1957)

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    E. H. Lieb and D. W. Robinson, The finite group velocity of quantum spin systems, Communications in Mathematical Physics28, 251 (1972)

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys

    P. Zanardi, Entanglement of quantum evolutions, Phys. Rev. A 63, 040304(R) (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    T. c. v. Prosen and I. Pi ˇzorn, Operator space entanglement en- tropy in a transverse ising chain, Phys. Rev. A76, 032316 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Pi ˇzorn and T

    I. Pi ˇzorn and T. c. v. Prosen, Operator space entanglement en- tropy inXYspin chains, Phys. Rev. B79, 184416 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Zhou and D

    T. Zhou and D. J. Luitz, Operator entanglement entropy of the time evolution operator in chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. B95, 094206 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Operator Hydrodynamics, OTOCs, and Entanglement Growth in Systems without Conservation Laws, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator Spreading in Ran- dom Unitary Circuits, Phys. Rev. X8, 021014 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Lin and O

    C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Out-of-time-ordered correlators in a quantum Ising chain, Phys. Rev. B97, 144304 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Kobayashi and Y

    K. Kobayashi and Y . Motome, Quantum reservoir probing: An inverse paradigm of quantum reservoir computing for exploring quantum many-body physics, SciPost Phys.18, 198 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    A. I. Larkin and Y . N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity, Sov. Phys. JETP28, 1200 (1969)

    work page 1969

  15. [15]

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, Black holes and the butterfly effect, J. High Energ. Phys.2014, 67

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and L. Susskind, Localized shocks, J. High Energ. Phys.2015, 51

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Maldacena, S

    J. Maldacena, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, A bound on chaos, J. High Energ. Phys.2016, 106

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Hosur, X.-L

    P. Hosur, X.-L. Qi, D. A. Roberts, and B. Yoshida, Chaos in quantum channels, J. High Energ. Phys.2016(2), 4

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Hashimoto, K

    K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, and R. Yoshii, Out-of-time-order correlators in quantum mechanics, J. High Energ. Phys.2017, 138

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    J. S. Cotler, D. Ding, and G. R. Penington, Out-of-time-order operators and the butterfly effect, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam)396, 318 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time-order cor- relators, Nat

    B. Swingle, Unscrambling the physics of out-of-time-order cor- relators, Nat. Phys.14, 988 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Khemani, A

    V . Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Operator Spread- ing and the Emergence of Dissipative Hydrodynamics under Unitary Evolution with Conservation Laws, Phys. Rev. X8, 031057 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Rakovszky, F

    T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyserlingk, Diffu- sive Hydrodynamics of Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators with Charge Conservation, Phys. Rev. X8, 031058 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Locality, Quantum Fluctuations, and Scrambling, Phys. Rev. X9, 031048 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Shirane, Neutron scattering studies of structural phase tran- sitions at brookhaven, Rev

    G. Shirane, Neutron scattering studies of structural phase tran- sitions at brookhaven, Rev. Mod. Phys.46, 437 (1974)

    work page 1974

  26. [26]

    Dai, Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in iron- based superconductors, Rev

    P. Dai, Antiferromagnetic order and spin dynamics in iron- based superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 855 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    M ¨uhlbauer, D

    S. M ¨uhlbauer, D. Honecker, E. A. P´erigo, F. Bergner, S. Disch, A. Heinemann, S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, C. Leighton, M. R. Es- kildsen, and A. Michels, Magnetic small-angle neutron scatter- ing, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Swingle, G

    B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hayden, Measuring the scrambling of quantum information, Phys. Rev. A94, 040302(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    N. Y . Yao, F. Grusdt, B. Swingle, M. D. Lukin, D. M. Stamper- Kurn, J. E. Moore, and E. A. Demler, Interferometric approach to probing fast scrambling, arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01801 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    J. Li, R. Fan, H. Wang, B. Ye, B. Zeng, H. Zhai, X. Peng, and J. Du, Measuring Out-of-Time-Order Correlators on a Nu- clear Magnetic Resonance Quantum Simulator, Phys. Rev. X7, 031011 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    G ¨arttner, J

    M. G ¨arttner, J. G. Bohnet, A. Safavi-Naini, M. L. Wall, J. J. Bollinger, and A. M. Rey, Measuring out-of-time-order corre- lations and multiple quantum spectra in a trapped-ion quantum magnet, Nat. Phys.13, 781 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    K. X. Wei, C. Ramanathan, and P. Cappellaro, Exploring Lo- calization in Nuclear Spin Chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 070501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Landsman, C

    K. Landsman, C. Figgatt, T. Schuster, N. M. Linke, B. Yoshida, N. Y . Yao, and C. Monroe, Verified quantum information scrambling, Nature567, 61 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Vermersch, A

    B. Vermersch, A. Elben, L. M. Sieberer, N. Y . Yao, and P. Zoller, Probing Scrambling Using Statistical Correlations between Randomized Measurements, Phys. Rev. X9, 021061 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    M. K. Joshi, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, T. Brydges, C. Maier, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Quantum Information Scram- bling in a Trapped-Ion Quantum Simulator with Tunable Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 240505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    X. Mi, P. Roushan, C. Quintana, S. Mandr `a, J. Marshall, C. Neill, et al., Information scrambling in quantum circuits, Sci- ence374, 1479 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Pegahan, I

    S. Pegahan, I. Arakelyan, and J. E. Thomas, Energy-Resolved Information Scrambling in Energy-Space Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 070601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    A. M. Green, A. Elben, C. H. Alderete, L. K. Joshi, N. H. Nguyen, T. V . Zache, Y . Zhu, B. Sundar, and N. M. Linke, Ex- perimental Measurement of Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators at Finite Temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 140601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Braum ¨uller, A

    J. Braum ¨uller, A. H. Karamlou, Y . Yanay, B. Kannan, D. Kim, 19 M. Kjaergaard, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, Y . Sung, A. Veps¨al¨ainen, R. Winik, J. L. Yoder, T. P. Orlando, S. Gus- tavsson, C. Tahan, and W. D. Oliver, Probing quantum infor- mation propagation with out-of-time-ordered correlators, Nat. Phys.18, 172 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Zhang, R

    C. Zhang, R. Corti ˜nas, A. Karamlou, N. Noll, J. Provazza, J. Bausch, S. Shirobokov, A. White, M. Claassen, S. Kang, et al., Quantum computation of molecular geometry via many- body nuclear spin echoes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19550 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Observation of con- structive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity, Nature 646, 825 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, Chaos and complexity by design, J. High Energ. Phys.2017, 121

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    F. M. Haehl, R. Loganayagam, P. Narayan, and M. Rangamani, Classification of out-of-time-order correlators, SciPost Phys.6, 001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Fujii, Out-of-Time-Order Correlator Spectroscopy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22654 (2025)

    K. Fujii, Out-of-Time-Order Correlator Spectroscopy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.22654 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Free Probability in a Minimal Quantum Circuit Model

    F. Fritzsch and P. W. Claeys, Free probability in a mini- mal quantum circuit model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.11197 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-Body Localization and Thermalization in Quantum Statistical Mechanics, Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    R. J. Baxter, Eight-Vertex Model in Lattice Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 832 (1971)

    work page 1971

  48. [48]

    Baxter, Eight-vertex model in lattice statistics and one- dimensional anisotropic heisenberg chain

    R. Baxter, Eight-vertex model in lattice statistics and one- dimensional anisotropic heisenberg chain. I. Some fundamental eigenvectors, Ann. Phys.76, 1 (1973)

    work page 1973

  49. [49]

    Shiraishi, Proof of the absence of local conserved quantities in the XYZ chain with a magnetic field, Europhy

    N. Shiraishi, Proof of the absence of local conserved quantities in the XYZ chain with a magnetic field, Europhy. Lett.128, 17002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    X. Chen, T. Zhou, D. A. Huse, and E. Fradkin, Out-of-time- order correlations in many-body localized and thermal phases, Ann. Phys. (Berlin)529, 1600332 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    ˇZnidariˇc, T

    M. ˇZnidariˇc, T. c. v. Prosen, and P. Prelovˇsek, Many-body local- ization in the HeisenbergXXZmagnet in a random field, Phys. Rev. B77, 064426 (2008)

    work page 2008

  52. [52]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Many-body localization phase transi- tion, Phys. Rev. B82, 174411 (2010)

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    J. H. Bardarson, F. Pollmann, and J. E. Moore, Unbounded Growth of Entanglement in Models of Many-Body Localiza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 017202 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and V . Oganesyan, Phenomenol- ogy of fully many-body-localized systems, Phys. Rev. B90, 174202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Many-body localization edge in the random-field Heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. B91, 081103(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Collo- quium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entangle- ment, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi, and E. Alt- man, A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Craps, O

    B. Craps, O. Evnin, and G. Pascuzzi, Multiseed Krylov Com- plexity, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 050402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. Oteo, and J. Ros, The magnus expansion and some of its applications, Phys. Rep.470, 151 (2009)

    work page 2009

  60. [60]

    T. Mori, T. Kuwahara, and K. Saito, Rigorous bound on energy absorption and generic relaxation in periodically driven quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 120401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Kobayashi, Code for publication in Zenodo, 10.5281/zen- odo.21216656 (2026)

    K. Kobayashi, Code for publication in Zenodo, 10.5281/zen- odo.21216656 (2026)

    work page doi:10.5281/zen- 2026