Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

State Diagnostics of Complexity in Open Quantum Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that complexity in open quantum systems can be measured geometrically, by tracking how a subsystem's quantum state spreads over the Bloch sphere, with two Wasserstein-distance diagnostics that grow with interaction…

desk verdict Useful new geometric diagnostics for open-system complexity, honestly presented, but the parity claim rests on a basis-dependent representation and needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09705 v1 pith:YLERD27X submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD

Komal Sah , Fabio Anza , Alexandra M. Jurgens , James P. Crutchfield This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD MSC 81Q5049Q22 PACS 03.65.Yz05.45.Mt
keywords dynamicalcomplexitygeometricquantumstatesWassersteindistancecomplexprojectiveHilbertspacekickedtopopensystemsstate-spacecoverageparitysymmetry
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 that dynamical complexity in finite-size open quantum systems can be read directly from how a subsystem's state spreads over the geometry of pure states. The authors represent the reduced state of a qubit not as a density matrix but as a probability measure on the Bloch sphere ($\mathbb{CP}^1$), obtained by conditioning the global wavefunction on the environment's computational basis. They introduce two Wasserstein-based diagnostics, a distinguishability measure $\Gamma$ that plays the role of a Lyapunov exponent for ensembles and a state-space coverage index $S_1$ that measures how much of the sphere the dynamics explore over long times. Applied to the quantum kicked top, both diagnostics grow with interaction strength, and their dependence on environment size is organized by parity: integer-spin (even-qubit) systems typically show greater sensitivity and coverage than half-integer-spin (odd-qubit) systems. If these claims hold, complexity in the deep quantum regime becomes a geometric, state-resolved phenomenon visible at experimentally relevant finite sizes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the geometric quantum state (GQS): an environment-conditioned probability measure $Q_S(Z,t)=\sum_j \lambda^E_j(t)\,\delta_{Z^S_j(t)}$ on the subsystem's projective Hilbert space $\mathbb{CP}^{d_S-1}$, built by decomposing the global wavefunction in the environment's computational basis (the conditional pure states need not be orthogonal, unlike a Schmidt decomposition). On top of it sit two diagnostics: $\Gamma$, the ensemble Lyapunov-type measure defined by the time-averaged logarithmic growth of the Wasserstein distance $W_1$ (with Fubini–Study ground metric) between nearby GQSs, and $S_1 = 1 - W_1(\nu_S,\sigma)/W_1(\delta_{Z_0},\sigma)$, where $\nu_S$ is the time-aggregated GQS and $\sigma$ the uniform measure on $\mathbb{CP}^1$. The Wasserstein distance with the Fubini–Study metric is what restores a geometric notion of trajectory separation that the unitary global evolution and the density-matrix description both lose.

What would settle it

Recompute $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ for the same kicked-top initial states and coupling strengths $\kappa=0.5$ and $\kappa=2.5$, but condition the global wavefunction on a different environment basis, for instance a basis obtained by applying a generic product or Haar-random unitary to the environment qubits before the decomposition, or the Schmidt basis of the global state. If the even-$L$ versus odd-$L$ ordering of the two diagnostics reverses, disappears, or becomes non-monotonic under this change, then the parity-symmetry claim is an artifact of the computational-basis conditioning rather than a property of the open-system dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the transition from periodic, coherent subsystem motion to interaction-driven complexity can be tracked as a reorganization of probability mass on $\mathbb{CP}^{d-1}$, and that two optimal-transport quantities capture this reorganization: $\Gamma$, the average logarithmic growth of the Wasserstein distance between a reference geometric quantum state and its perturbed copies (an open-system analogue of the maximal Lyapunov exponent), and $S_1$, the Wasserstein proximity of the time-aggregated measure to the uniform distribution on $\mathbb{CP}^{d-1}$. In the three-qubit kicked top, $\Gamma$ rises with the interaction strength $\kappa$, and its spatial pattern over initial spin-coherent states mirrors the classical kicked top's Lyapunov map. Increasing the environment size $L-1$ at fixed single-qubit subsystem, the two diagnostics show a finite-size parity effect: even-$L$ (integer-spin) systems generally achieve larger $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ than odd-$L$ (half-integer-spin) systems, with the separation growing more pronounced at strong coupling and vanishing in the classical limit $j\to\infty$. In recurrent regimes, recurrence alone does not imply simplicity: at $\kappa=\pi j$ the dynamics recur but $\Gamma>0$, whereas at $\kappa=2\pi j$ distinguishability is preserved and both diagnostics stay small.

Load-bearing premise

All reported values of the two diagnostics are computed after conditioning the global wavefunction on one fixed choice, the environment's computational basis, and the paper does not test whether the parity ordering of $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ survives conditioning in any other basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single-qubit subsystem of the kicked top, complexity becomes a quantitative, two-dimensional diagnosis, sensitivity ($\Gamma$) and spread ($S_1$), that grows with interaction strength $\kappa$ and sharply distinguishes the noninteracting periodic regime ($\Gamma=0$) from interacting regimes ($\Gamma>0$).
  • Environment size controls complexity in a parity-structured way: for the systems studied, integer-spin (even-$L$) kicked tops generally show larger $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ than half-integer-spin (odd-$L$) tops, an effect attributed to the Floquet operator's parity symmetry and expected to vanish in the classical limit.
  • Recurrent quantum dynamics can still be dynamically complex: at $\kappa=\pi j$ the subsystem recurs but $\Gamma>0$, while at $\kappa=2\pi j$ both diagnostics vanish, so recurrence alone does not certify simplicity.
  • The framework extends to larger subsystems ($L_S>1$) and provides a state-based geometric complement to operator diagnostics such as out-of-time-ordered correlators and Loschmidt echoes, useful when observables remain stable while the underlying state structure changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the GQS is built by conditioning in a fixed environment basis, the two diagnostics are basis-dependent by construction; the central claim would be strengthened if the parity ordering of $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ were shown to persist under generic rotations of the environment basis, not just the computational one.
  • Editorial inference: the resemblance of the quantum $\Gamma$ and $S_1$ phase-space maps to the classical kicked-top Lyapunov map suggests a testable correspondence, comparing these quantum diagnostics against the classical Lyapunov exponent and information dimension on the same $(\theta,\phi)$ grids across $L$, which could sharpen the analogy into a quantitative semiclassical relation.
  • Editorial inference: one could probe the framework's stability by applying it to a dissipative or noisy driven qubit beyond the kicked top, where the GQS measure would be replaced by an ensemble generated by quantum trajectories, testing whether environment-conditioned spreading survives when the environment is not a closed computational basis.
  • Editorial inference: the claim that integer-spin systems show greater sensitivity could be checked on existing kicked-top experimental platforms by measuring the two diagnostics on identical initial states, which would settle whether the parity effect is observable or a numerical artifact.
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 develops a geometric, state-based framework for diagnosing dynamical complexity in open quantum systems. A mixed reduced state of a subsystem is represented not only as a density matrix but as an environment-conditioned ensemble of pure states on complex projective space, called a geometric quantum state (GQS). Two diagnostics are introduced: a distinguishability measure Γ, defined as the time-averaged logarithmic growth of the Wasserstein distance (with Fubini–Study cost) between nearby GQSs, and a State-Space Coverage Index S1, comparing the time-aggregated GQS to the uniform measure on CP^{d-1}. Both are applied to the quantum kicked top with a single-qubit subsystem and L−1 environment qubits for L=3,...,8. The paper reports that both diagnostics generally grow with interaction strength κ, that their dependence on environment size is structured by parity symmetry (integer total spin / even L often showing larger sensitivity and coverage than half-integer / odd L), and that recurrent regimes can either preserve distinguishability (κ=2πj) or show distinguishability growth despite recurrence (κ=πj). The presentation includes phase-space maps of both diagnostics over initial spin-coherent states and qualitative comparisons with classical Lyapunov maps.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework adds a genuinely geometric, state-resolved diagnostic axis complementary to OTOCs, Loschmidt echo, and Krylov complexity, with the appealing feature of working directly on CP^{d-1} with a classical optimal-transport metric. The manuscript is unusually transparent: numerical parameters are tabulated (Table I), code is provided, claims are hedged with 'generally' and 'often', the basis dependence of the GQS is explicitly acknowledged, and Appendix F's analysis of recurrent regimes shows that Γ is not a trivial monotone proxy of interaction strength. The cleanest nontrivial finding is the parity structuring of Γ and S1 across L=3,...,8, together with the systematic initial-condition scans of Appendix G. The main risk is that the headline parity effect is established only in a single environment basis and without control for the growing number of GQS support points, so its status as a property of the kicked-top dynamics rather than of the chosen GQS conditioning is not yet settled.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV.B; Eqs. (15)-(19)] The headline parity claim — that integer-spin systems 'often exhibit greater sensitivity and state-space coverage' than half-integer-spin systems — is computed entirely from GQSs defined by conditioning the global wavefunction on the computational environment basis (Eqs. (15)-(19)). The paper states in Sec. IV.B that all reported values are 'therefore basis dependent', yet no test is made of whether the parity ordering of Γ and S1 survives a change of environment basis. Because Γ and S1 act on the measure QS rather than on the reduced density matrix ρS, a unitary rotation of the environment basis changes both diagnostics while leaving the reduced state and all subsystem observables invariant. I recommend a concrete robustness test: repeat the L=3,...,8 computations with the Hadamard basis, with random single-qubit local unitaries applied to the environment, and with the Schmidt basis, and report whether the even-odd ordering of Γ and S1 persists. If the ordering flips, the abstract's parity statement should be rephrased as a property of the computational-basis conditioning rather than of the kicked-top dynamics.
  2. [Sec. IV.B; Eqs. (34)-(35); Fig. 10; Table I] The coverage index S1 = 1 − W1(νS, σ)/W1(δ_{Z0}, σ) is computed from a time-aggregated measure νS that is a sum of at most d_E × T_S point masses (Eqs. (19) and (34)). Since σ is the continuous uniform measure on CP^1, the equality S1 = 1 is unattainable in this construction, and the value of S1 reflects not only how broadly the dynamics spread probability but also how many support points the GQS possesses. Because d_E = 2^{L−1} doubles between each consecutive pair of system sizes, the parity comparison in Fig. 10 (e.g., S1 = 0.95 for L=4 versus 0.56 for L=3, and 0.91 for L=8 versus 0.56 for L=7) is confounded with the exponential growth of the number of conditioning branches; the same caveat applies to Γ, whose transport plans involve d_E atoms per state. The non-monotonic gaps (ΔS1 ≈ 0.39, 0.05, 0.35 for the 4/3, 6/5, and 8/7 pairs) show that resolution alone does not determine the pattern, but without controls the parity claim is not quantitatively separated from this mechanical effect. I recommend a matched-support control: compute S1 and Γ for L=4, 6, 8 while conditioning on a randomly chosen subset of d_E' = 2^{L−2} environment basis states, matching the support size of the neighboring odd-L systems, and verify that the parity ordering persists.
  3. [Sec. V.B.3; Figs. 8 and 10] For L=3 the all-to-all J_z^2 interaction coincides with a three-site nearest-neighbor ring, whereas for every L>3 the same collective term couples non-nearest-neighbor qubits. The most dramatic parity contrast in the data is the L=3 versus L=4 pair (S1 = 0.56 versus 0.95 at κ=2.5), which simultaneously changes both parity and interaction-graph connectivity; the text itself attributes a 'pronounced increase in complexity' to the connectivity change. The parity claim therefore rests most heavily on the 5/6 and 7/8 pairs, and for the 5/6 pair the S1 gap is only 0.05. Please present the parity analysis with the 3/4 pair explicitly flagged as mixing two effects, and report the clean pairs (5/6 and 7/8) separately, so that the abstract's parity statement is not implicitly supported by the connectivity jump.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I; Figs. 5 and 11] The distinguishability measure is averaged over M=200 perturbations, but no error bars, standard errors, or convergence tests are reported. Given that the L=5 versus L=6 S1 gap is only 0.05, I recommend reporting the spread over perturbations (and over initial conditions) to allow the strength of the parity ordering to be assessed.
  2. [Sec. IV.A; Table I] The text states that T is chosen according to the numerically estimated recurrence timescale, but Table I lists a single value (T=200) for all runs. Please clarify how T was set for each regime and report the sensitivity of Γ and S1 to T, T_S, and the perturbation scale ε=0.2.
  3. [Sec. IV.A; Appendix F] The sentence 'A positive Γ signals sensitivity and complex dynamics' overstates the interpretation: Appendix F shows positive Γ for recurrent κ=πj dynamics that the paper itself classifies as a low-sensitivity regime. I suggest rewording to 'indicates growth of ensemble distinguishability' and reserving the complexity interpretation for the joint (Γ, S1) classification.
  4. [Fig. 5(c)-(f); Sec. V.A.1] The claimed parallelism between the quantum Γ phase-space maps and the classical λ_max maps is supported only visually. I suggest adding a quantitative comparison, such as a spatial correlation coefficient between the two maps over the 100×100 grid, to substantiate the relationship.
  5. [Sec. III; Sec. IV.B; Eq. (32)] There are several notational slips: 'Throughout this following we focus on the case p=1' is missing a noun; Sec. IV.B and Fig. 3 use 'Sp' while the numerics report 'S1'; and in Eq. (32) the order of the time average and the perturbation average should be made explicit for clarity.
  6. [Sec. II.D] The non-uniqueness of convex decompositions of a density matrix (Eq. (14)) is stated without reference; citing the standard ensemble-purification results (e.g., Schrödinger or Hughston–Jozsa–Wootters) would help readers place the GQS construction relative to known results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Gamma and S1 are operational definitions evaluated numerically; reported parity and recurrence behavior are not entailed by the definitions.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation of complexity from the GQS representation; it defines two quantitative diagnostics (Gamma, Eq. 32; S1, Eq. 35) and then evaluates them numerically for kicked-top trajectories. Although Gamma is an average logarithmic growth rate and S1 is a normalized distance-to-uniformity, these are operational definitions, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The non-monotonic dependence on environment size, the parity ordering, and the recurrence behavior (Figs. 11 and 14-16) are not entailed by the definitions and therefore carry independent empirical content. The GQS representation (Eqs. 15-19) is explicitly constructed in the paper, including its computational-basis conditioning, and the admitted basis dependence (Sec. IV.B and Conclusion) is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. Self-citations ([11] and [24-27]) introduce background and the framework, but they are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior result is invoked to force the reported values, and the framework is re-derived in the text. External benchmarks, including classical Lyapunov maps and recurrence periods from references [37], [39], and [40], provide independent support. No step of the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the GQS representation from prior work by the same authors, on the identification of complexity with Wasserstein growth and coverage, and on several hand-set numerical hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The basis dependence of the GQS is the most load-bearing modeling axiom.

free parameters (3)
  • Perturbation scale epsilon = 0.2 rad
    Set by hand in Table I. The initial Wasserstein separation W1(0) scales with epsilon, so the log ratio entering Gamma depends on this unphysical scale.
  • Distinguishability averaging time T = 200 kicks
    Chosen based on numerically estimated recurrence timescale (Section IV.A). The value of Gamma is sensitive to this window.
  • Coverage averaging time T_S = 5000 kicks
    Chosen as 'sufficiently large' (Section IV.B, Table I). No convergence criterion is given, so S1 values may be time-window dependent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The environment-conditioned geometric quantum state, defined in the computational basis of the environment, is a meaningful state representation for complexity diagnostics.
    Section II.E constructs QS(Z,t) via Eqs. 15-19 using the computational basis; Section IV.B acknowledges that all values are basis dependent.
  • domain assumption Complexity in open quantum systems is captured by growth of Wasserstein distance between nearby GQSs and by long-time coverage of CP^{dS-1}.
    Section IV defines Gamma and S1 directly as complexity diagnostics; no derivation from first principles or benchmark against OTOC, Krylov, or Loschmidt measures establishes this identification.
  • domain assumption The uniform measure sigma on CP^{dS-1} is the correct reference for maximal state-space coverage, with Z0-independent normalization.
    Section IV.B, Eq. 35 uses sigma and a point mass delta_Z0; the choice is geometrically natural, but the mapping from coverage to complexity is assumed.
  • domain assumption Finite-time averages approximate long-time behavior, and recurrences are handled by choosing the averaging time T.
    Section IV.A and Appendix F rely on recurrence timescale estimates rather than a rigorous ergodic limit.
  • standard math Wasserstein distance with Fubini-Study ground metric is a valid metric on the space of probability measures over CP^{dS-1}.
    Section III invokes standard optimal transport theory (Villani, reference 28); this is unproved background but standard.
  • standard math For pure states, the Wasserstein distance reduces to the Fubini-Study distance.
    Eq. 30 in Section III states this consistency property; it follows from the definition for Dirac measures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State Diagnostics of Complexity in Open Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLERD27X

@misc{pith2026260809705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State Diagnostics of Complexity in Open Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLERD27X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09705}
}
read the original abstract

We study the emergence of complexity in finite-size quantum systems as their dynamics transition from closed and coherent evolution to interacting and effectively open behavior. Using a state-based geometric framework, we represent mixed quantum states as probability measures on complex projective Hilbert space. This representation allows us to track how interactions reshape the underlying pure-state geometry. We introduce two complementary diagnostics: a distinguishability measure, based on the Wasserstein distance between probability-measure representations of mixed states, that quantifies sensitivity to initial states, and a state-space coverage index that measures long-time exploration of the subsystem state space. These diagnostics provide a geometric perspective on the emergence and evolution of quantum dynamical complexity. When applied to the quantum kicked top, both diagnostics generally increase with interaction strength. Their dependence on environment size is structured by parity symmetry, with integer-spin systems often exhibiting greater sensitivity and state-space coverage than half-integer-spin systems. These results highlight finite-size quantum effects and provide a geometric approach to quantifying dynamical complexity deep in the quantum regime

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. From periodic motion to interaction-induced complexity. (a) Classical single-spin precession [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Relation between pure states, GQS, and density matrices. Right: For a single-qubit subsystem, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic classification of subsystem dynamics in the nonnegative-Γ regime using the pair (Γ, Sp). Increasing Γ indicates greater sensitivity to initial states, while increasing Sp indicates broader long-time exploration of state space. The four quadrants distinguish localized low-sensitivity, extended low-sensitivity, localized high-sensitivity, and extended high-sensitivity dynamics. By construction, Sp = 1 if and… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of two neighboring geometric quantum states in the three-qubit quantum kicked top. Columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distinguishability growth and phase-space structure in the three-qubit kicked top. (a) Time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interaction-induced spreading in the three-qubit kicked top. (a-i) Time-averaged measures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of two neighboring GQSs in the weakly interacting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time-aggregated GQSs ν S and coverage index S1 in the weakly interacting quantum kicked top, κ = 0.5. Top row (a–c) shows odd-L systems, and bottom row (d–f) shows even-L systems, with L increasing across each row. The color scale gives the time-aggregated probability …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of two neighboring GQSs in the strongly interacting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-aggregated GQSs ν S and coverage index S1 in the strongly interacting quantum kicked top, κ = 2.5. Top row (a–c) shows odd-L systems, and bottom row (d–f) shows even-L systems, with L increasing across each row. The color scale gives the time-aggregated probabili…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Sensitivity and spreading in the L-qubit kicked top for the spin-coherent initial state (θ, ϕ) = (π/2 + 0.5, π/2). (a,b) Separation dynamics of nearby subsystem states for different L at κ = 0.5 and 2.5, showing weaker and stronger distinguishability growth, respectiv…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Geometric quantum states (GQS) describe subsystem states as probability measures on CP dS−1 . The reduced density matrix ρS is obtained via the pushforward map Φ, and can be used to construct a Husimi representation through projection onto coherent states. Unlike the …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Geometric computation of the Wasserstein distance between two geometric quantum states (GQSs). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Subsystem dynamics of two nearby GQSs and their Wasserstein separation in the recurrent regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Subsystem dynamics of two nearby GQSs and their separation. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Separation dynamics and state-space exploration in recurrent kicked-top regimes for increasing system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Phase-space structure of Γ for the L-qubit kicked top. Columns show κ = 0, 0.5, 2.5, and rows show L = 3, . . . , 8. For κ = 0, Γ = 0 uniformly. Increasing κ produces increasingly extended and intricate regions of distinguishability growth, with even-L systems general…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Phase-space structure of the coverage index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The dis- tinguishability measure is then Γ = 1 T T−1X t=0 ln W1,m(t) W1,m(0) m ,(32) where⟨·⟩ m denotes an average over theMperturbations

    For each perturbation, we define the time-dependent separation between the evolved perturbed and reference 7 GQSs as W1,m(t) =W 1 QS′ m (Z, t), QS(Z, t) .(31) Here,Q S(Z, t)is the evolved reference state andQS′ m (Z, t) denotes the evolution of them-th perturbation. The dis- tinguishability measure is then Γ = 1 T T−1X t=0 ln W1,m(t) W1,m(0) m ,(32) where...

    work page

  2. [2]

    4, we compute the distinguishability mea- sureΓ(Sec

    Local Instability: Distinguishability Measure To quantify the sensitivity suggested by the deforma- tion in Fig. 4, we compute the distinguishability mea- sureΓ(Sec. IV), which captures the average separation of nearby geometric quantum states under time evolution. We first consider the spin-coherent initial state(θ, ϕ) = (π/2+0.5, π/2)and track the evolu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    To characterize this complemen- tary aspect, we use the State-Space Coverage IndexS1 13 (Sec

    Sensitivity and Spread: A Two-Dimensional Picture While the distinguishability measureΓquantifies lo- cal instability of subsystem dynamics, it does not cap- ture how extensively the dynamics explore the under- lying state space. To characterize this complemen- tary aspect, we use the State-Space Coverage IndexS1 13 (Sec. IV), which measures the long-time...

    work page

  4. [4]

    7 for κ= 0.5

    Weak-Interaction Regime We first examine the effect of increasing environment size in the weak-interaction regime, shown in Fig. 7 for κ= 0.5. In this regime, the dynamics retain significant structure, allowing us to isolate how environment size modifies subsystem behavior before the onset of strong mixing. Figure 7 shows the evolution of two nearby subsy...

    work page

  5. [5]

    9 forκ= 2.5

    Strong-Interaction Regime We now consider the strong-interaction regime, shown in Fig. 9 forκ= 2.5. In contrast to the weak interaction case, the dynamics exhibit substantial mixing, and the 14 0 πθ L = 3 tn = 0 tn = 1 tn = 2 tn = 3 tn = 4 tn = 200 0 πθ L = 4 0 πθ L = 5 0 πθ L = 6 0 πθ L = 7 −π πφ 0 πθ L = 8 −π πφ −π πφ −π πφ −π πφ −π πφ 0 1 QS-Reference ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    agroécologie et numérique

    Joint Dependence on Interaction Strength and Environment Size We now examine the joint dependence of sensitivity and spread on interaction strengthκand environment sizeL. Figures 11(a,b) show the evolution of separation betweennearbysubsystemstatesasLincreases. Forweak interactions, growth is modest, while for strong interac- tions it becomes rapid and st...

    work page

  7. [7]

    E. N. Lorenz. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. InUniver- sality in Chaos, 2nd edition, pages 367–378. Routledge, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Eckmann and D

    J.-P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle. Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors.Reviews of Modern Physics, 57(3):617–656, 1985

    work page 1985

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Crutchfield, J. D. Farmer, and B. A. Huberman. Fluctuations and simple chaotic dynamics.Physics Re- ports, 92(2):45–82, 1982

    1982

  2. [10]

    Y. Oono. Aheuristic approachto theKolmogoroventropy as a disorder parameter.Progress of Theoretical Physics, 60(6):1944–1946, 1978

    1944

  3. [11]

    B. V. Chirikov and V. V. Vecheslavov. KAM integrability. InAnalysis, et cetera, pages 219–236. Elsevier, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    Delshams and P

    A. Delshams and P. Gutiérrez. Effective stability and KAM theory.Journal of Differential Equations, 128(2):415–490, 1996

    1996

  5. [13]

    Aprac- tical method for calculating largest Lyapunov exponents from small data sets.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 65(1–2):117–134, 1993

    M.T.Rosenstein, J.J.Collins, andC.J.DeLuca. Aprac- tical method for calculating largest Lyapunov exponents from small data sets.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 65(1–2):117–134, 1993

    1993

  6. [14]

    CharacterizingchaosthroughLyapunovmet- rics.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernet- ics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 36(2):141–151, 2006

    W.Kinsner. CharacterizingchaosthroughLyapunovmet- rics.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernet- ics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 36(2):141–151, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    A. Wolf, J. B. Swift, H. L. Swinney, and J. A. Vas- tano. Determining lyapunov exponents from a time series. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 16:285–317, 1985

    1985

  8. [16]

    J. D. Farmer. Information dimension and the probabilis- tic structure of chaos.Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A, 37(11):1304–1326, 1982

    1982

  9. [17]

    A. M. Jurgens and J. P. Crutchfield. Divergent predictive states: Thestatisticalcomplexitydimensionofstationary, ergodic hidden Markov processes.Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 31(8):083114, 2021. 20

    2021

  10. [18]

    Lasota and M

    A. Lasota and M. C. Mackey.Chaos, Fractals, and Noise: Stochastic Aspects of Dynamics, volume 97 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    F. Haake. Quantum signatures of chaos. InQuantum Co- herence in Mesoscopic Systems, pages 583–595. Springer, 1991

    1991

  12. [20]

    Życzkowski, H

    K. Życzkowski, H. Wiedemann, and W. Słomczyński. How to generalize the Lapunov exponent for quantum me- chanics.Vistas in Astronomy, 37:153–156, 1993

    1993

  13. [21]

    Wang and M

    Q. Wang and M. Robnik. Characterizing the mixed eigen- states in kicked top model through the out-of-time-order correlator.Physical Review E, 112(5):054202, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    P. G. Sreeram, V. Madhok, and A. Lakshminarayan. Out- of-time-ordered correlators and the Loschmidt echo in the quantum kicked top: how low can we go?Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 54(27):274004, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    L. M. Sieberer, T. Olsacher, A. Elben, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, F. Haake, and P. Zoller. Digital quantum simulation, Trotter errors, and quantum chaos of the kicked top.npj Quantum Information, 5(1):78, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Yan and W

    B. Yan and W. Chemissany. Quantum chaos on complex- ity geometry.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03501, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Goussev, R

    A. Goussev, R. A. Jalabert, H. M. Pastawski, and D. A. Wisniacki. Loschmidt echo.Scholarpedia, 7(8):11687, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    F. M. Cucchietti, D. A. R. Dalvit, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek. Decoherence and the Loschmidt echo.Physical Review Letters, 91(21):210403, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Macrì, A

    T. Macrì, A. Smerzi, and L. Pezzè. Loschmidt echo for quantum metrology.Physical Review A, 94(1):010102, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Son- ner. Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos.Jour- nal of High Energy Physics, 2022(7):151, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, M. Fang, Y. Chen, M. Kolodru- betz, Z. Chen, A. Megrant, R. Barends, B. Campbell, B. Chiaro, et al. Ergodic dynamics and thermaliza- tion in an isolated quantum system.Nature Physics, 12(11):1037–1041, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Anza and J

    F. Anza and J. P. Crutchfield. Beyond density ma- trices: Geometric quantum states.Physical Review A, 103(6):062218, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Anza and J

    F. Anza and J. P. Crutchfield. Geometric quantum ther- modynamics.Physical Review E, 106(5):054102, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Anza and J

    F. Anza and J. P. Crutchfield. Quantum informa- tion dimension and geometric entropy.PRX Quantum, 3(2):020355, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    C. Hahn, N. Ranabhat, and F. Anza. Probability-phase mutual information.Physical Review A, 113(6):062413, 2026

    2026

  26. [34]

    Villani.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338

    C. Villani.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Friedland, M

    S. Friedland, M. Eckstein, S. Cole, and K. Życzkowski. Quantum Monge-Kantorovich problem and transport dis- tance between density matrices.Physical Review Letters, 129(11):110402, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Camacho and B

    G. Camacho and B. Fauseweh. Critical scaling of the quantum Wasserstein distance.Physical Review Research, 7(4):043223, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    The quantum Wasserstein distance of order 1.IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory, 67(10):6627–6643, 2021

    G.DePalma, M.Marvian, D.Trevisan, andS.Lloyd. The quantum Wasserstein distance of order 1.IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory, 67(10):6627–6643, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Z. Wang, Y. Wang, and B. Wu. Quantum chaos and phys- ical distance between quantum states.Physical Review E, 103(4):042209, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Lombardi and A

    M. Lombardi and A. Matzkin. Entanglement and chaos in the kicked top.Physical Review E, 83(1):016207, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Chaudhury, A

    S. Chaudhury, A. Smith, B. E. Anderson, S. Ghose, and P. S. Jessen. Quantum signatures of chaos in a kicked top. Nature, 461(7265):768–771, 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    V. R. Krithika, V. S. Anjusha, U. T. Bhosale, and T. S. Mahesh. NMR studies of quantum chaos in a two-qubit kicked top.Physical Review E, 99(3):032219, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Anand, S

    A. Anand, S. Srivastava, S. Gangopadhyay, and S. Ghose. Simulating quantum chaos on a quantum computer.Sci- entific Reports, 14(1):26890, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Dogra, V

    S. Dogra, V. Madhok, and A. Lakshminarayan. Quantum signatures of chaos, thermalization, and tunneling in the exactly solvable few-body kicked top.Physical Review E, 99(6):062217, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Ullah, H

    A. Ullah, H. Mermer, M. Özkurt, I. Lesanovsky, and Ö. E. Müstecaplioğlu. Harnessing Floquet dynamics for selec- tive metrology in few-qubit systems.Physical Review B, 113(7):075123, 2026

    2026

  37. [45]

    P. G. Sreeram and M. S. Santhanam. Periodicity of dynamical signatures of chaos in quantum kicked top. Physics Letters A, 550:130596, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Anand, J

    A. Anand, J. Davis, and S. Ghose. Quantum recurrences in the kicked top.Physical Review Research, 6(2):023120, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Haake, M

    F. Haake, M. Kuś, and R. Scharf. Classical and quantum chaos for a kicked top.Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 65(3):381–395, 1987

    1987

  40. [48]

    M. Heyl, P. Hauke, and P. Zoller. Quantum localization bounds Trotter errors in digital quantum simulation.Sci- ence Advances, 5(4):eaau8342, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori. Quantum simu- lation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(1):153–185, 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    Hauke, F

    P. Hauke, F. M. Cucchietti, L. Tagliacozzo, I. Deutsch, and M. Lewenstein. Can one trust quantum simulators? Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(8):082401, 2012

    2012

  43. [51]

    Braumüller, A

    J. Braumüller, A. H. Karamlou, Y. Yanay, B. Kannan, D. Kim, M. Kjaergaard, A. Melville, B. M. Niedzielski, Y. Sung, A. Vepsäläinen, et al. Probing quantum infor- mation propagation with out-of-time-ordered correlators. Nature Physics, 18(2):172–178, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Swingle, G

    B. Swingle, G. Bentsen, M. Schleier-Smith, and P. Hay- den. Measuring the scrambling of quantum information. Physical Review A, 94(4):040302, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Mirkin and D

    N. Mirkin and D. Wisniacki. Quantum chaos, equilibra- tion, and control in extremely short spin chains.Physical Review E, 103(2):L020201, 2021. 21

    2021

  46. [54]

    DiCarlo, J

    L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, L. Frun- zio, S. M. Girvin, et al. Demonstration of two-qubit algo- rithms with a superconducting quantum processor.Na- ture, 460(7252):240–244, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    D. L. Shepelyansky. Quantum chaos and quantum com- puters.Physica Scripta, T90(1):112–120, 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    S. Tang, S. Luo, and M. G. A. Paris. Phase-space com- plexity of discrete-variable quantum states and opera- tions.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applica- tions, 697:131701, 2026

    2026

  49. [57]

    Flamary, N

    R. Flamary, N. Courty, A. Gramfort, M. Z. Alaya, A. Boisbunon, S. Chambon, L. Chapel, A. Corenflos, K. Fatras, N. Fournier, et al. POT: Python Opti- mal Transport.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(78):1–8, 2021. APPENDICES The appendices provide additional conceptual, c...

    2021

  50. [58]

    As shown in Fig

    Interaction strengthκ=πj We examine the evolution of two nearby GQSs initial- ized from spin-coherent states(θ, ϕ) = (π/2 + 0.5, π/2) (circles) and(π/2 + 0.8, π/2)(triangles). As shown in Fig. 14, the subsystem exhibits recurrence after 12 kicks forL= 3(half-integer spin) and ...

  51. [59]

    As shown in Fig

    Interaction strengthκ= 2πj We now consider the same initial states for interaction strengthκ= 2πj. As shown in Fig. 15, recurrence occurs after 4 kicks forL= 3and 2 kicks forL= 4, again consistent with theoretical predictions [40]. In contrast to the previous case, the separat...

Pith tools

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