Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Higher-Order Krylov State Complexity in Random Matrix Quenches

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The peak parameter $P_m$ increases with moment order $m$, making $C_2$ and $C_3$ sharper probes of level repulsion than standard spread complexity.

desk verdict A useful refinement of spread-complexity diagnostics, with a real but fixable overstatement in the abstract about monotonic P_m. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16472 v2 pith:AZ5QWE54 submitted 2024-12-21 hep-th quant-ph

Hugo A. Camargo , Yichao Fu , Viktor Jahnke , Keun-Young Kim , Kuntal Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thquant-ph PACS 05.45.Mt
keywords KrylovcomplexityspreadgeneralizedquantumquenchrandommatrixtheorythermofielddoublestatelevelrepulsionLanczoscoefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies how quickly a time-evolved state spreads through its Krylov subspace—the part of Hilbert space it actually visits—by tracking not only the mean position $C_1$ on the Krylov chain but the higher moments $C_m = \langle n^m \rangle$. It examines sudden quenches between random matrices drawn from the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) or the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE), where the post-quench Hamiltonian is obtained by flipping the sign of the off-diagonal blocks, with initial states given by the post-quench thermofield double state or pre-quench ground and TFD states. The central claim is that the peak parameter $P_m = (C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}}) - \bar{C}_m)/C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}})$ increases with $m$, so higher-order generalized spread complexities are more sensitive to the pre-equilibration peak that signals level repulsion. In the continuum limit the paper computes $P_1 = 0.33$, $P_2 = 0.47$, $P_3 = 0.55$, $P_4 = 0.60$ for GUE TFD states, and finite-size numerics for both ensembles show the same monotonic trend, with $C_2$ and $C_3$ the most efficient diagnostic orders.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the Krylov-chain representation of time evolution: starting from an initial state $|\psi_0\rangle$, the Hamiltonian generates an orthonormal Krylov basis $|K_n\rangle$, and the time-evolved state has amplitudes $\phi_n(t) = \langle K_n | \psi(t) \rangle$. The generalized spread complexity $C_m(t) = \sum_n n^m |\phi_n(t)|^2$ is the $m$-th moment of the particle's position on the chain, with $C_1$ the ordinary spread complexity. The quantitative probe is the peak parameter $P_m = (C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}}) - \bar{C}_m)/C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}})$, which measures the height of the pre-equilibration peak relative to the late-time average. The analytic calculation uses the continuum limit, in which the discrete chain index becomes a continuous coordinate and the ensemble-averaged Lanczos coefficients take the semicircle profile $\langle a_n \rangle = 0$, $\langle b_n \rangle = \sqrt{1 - n/N}$, with GUE spectral correlations given by the sine kernel; these ingredients turn the Krylov dynamics into solvable first-order equations whose solutions fix the peak location and height.

What would settle it

Perform an exact finite-$N$ GUE quench with $N \geq 1000$ and many more than ten realizations, and compute $P_m$ for $m = 1$ through $6$: if $P_m$ stops increasing at any order, or $P_m/P_{m-1} \leq 1$, the central claim is falsified. Alternatively, measure $C_1$ through $C_4$ in a tunable chaotic quantum simulator such as a kicked top or trapped-ion quench; if higher-order peak parameters do not exceed $P_1$ for states with large inverse participation ratio, the hierarchy claimed here fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the peak parameter $P_m = (C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}}) - \bar{C}_m)/C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}})$ grows with the order $m$ for quenches between chaotic random-matrix Hamiltonians, so that higher-order generalized spread complexities probe the chaotic peak more sharply than the usual spread complexity. After a sudden quench that flips the sign of the off-diagonal blocks of a GOE or GUE matrix, all initial states studied—the post-quench TFD state, the pre-quench TFD state, and the pre-quench ground state—show the rise-peak-plateau pattern, but the peak is more prominent for GUE and for higher $m$. Analytically, in the continuum limit with the ensemble-averaged Lanczos profile $\langle a_n \rangle = 0$, $\langle b_n \rangle = \sqrt{1 - n/N}$ and the sine-kernel two-point function, the paper obtains $P_1 = 0.33$, $P_2 = 0.47$, $P_3 = 0.55$, $P_4 = 0.60$ for the post-quench TFD state; the finite-$N$ numerics reproduce the monotonic increase of $P_m$ with $m$ for both ensembles, with the continuum values systematically overestimating the GUE numbers. The paper concludes that $C_2$ and $C_3$ are the most efficient orders for detecting the peak, since the ratio $P_m/P_{m-1}$ shrinks and the saturation values drop as $m$ grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after the quench the hopping coefficients of the Krylov chain are well described by their ensemble-averaged semicircle profile $\langle a_n \rangle = 0$, $\langle b_n \rangle = \sqrt{1 - n/N}$, so that the continuum-limit peak parameters $P_1 = 0.33$, $P_2 = 0.47$, $P_3 = 0.55$, $P_4 = 0.60$ apply to the initial states studied; if that profile is inaccurate for the pre-quench ground or TFD states, the claim rests on only ten numerical realizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For GUE-based quenches the peak parameter grows from $P_1 \approx 0.18$ to $P_4 \approx 0.35$, so computing $C_2$ or $C_3$ instead of $C_1$ alone makes the chaotic peak substantially easier to detect.
  • Because $t_{\mathrm{peak}} \sim N$ and $C_m(t_{\mathrm{peak}}) \sim N^m$ for both ensembles, the normalized peak parameter $P_m$ is essentially independent of system size, so the diagnostic remains meaningful for large systems.
  • The continuum-limit values overestimate the finite-size GUE numerics for every $m$, so the analytic peak parameter acts as a systematic upper bound that finite-size effects shift downward.
  • The pre-quench ground state and pre-quench TFD state produce nearly identical complexity curves, indicating that the peak's presence depends mainly on the mutual randomness of the two energy bases—quantified by the inverse participation ratio—rather than on the detailed form of the initial state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the same $P_m$ hierarchy in SYK or chaotic spin chains after a symmetry-breaking quench; if it persists, higher moments of the Krylov-position distribution become a generic order parameter for chaotic-integrable transitions.
  • The Appendix distribution of $r_n = b_{n+1}/b_n$ for Gaussian $\beta$-ensembles suggests that tuning $\beta$ (for instance through disordered spin chains) should interpolate the peak parameter between its GOE and GUE values, yielding a continuous chaos diagnostic.
  • The systematic gap between continuum and numerical values of $P_m$ points to a calculable $1/N$ correction; extracting it would let experiments use the peak height as a quantitative distance-from-random-matrix measure.
  • Because $C_m$ weights large chain positions increasingly heavily, higher moments should also sharpen other late-time chaos signatures such as the spectral form factor ramp, although the paper does not address this.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies generalized spread complexities C_m(t) = sum_n n^m |<Ψ(t)|K_n>|^2 after sudden quenches between random matrix Hamiltonians drawn from GOE/GUE ensembles. For a one-parameter family H_r(h), the pre-quench Hamiltonian has h=-1 and the post-quench Hamiltonian has h=+1. The authors examine three initial states: the post-quench TFD state, the pre-quench TFD state, and the pre-quench ground state. They introduce the peak parameter P_m = (C_m(t_peak) - \bar{C}_m)/C_m(t_peak), which measures the height of the chaotic peak relative to the saturation value, and claim that higher-order generalized spread complexities are more sensitive to the peak (P_m increases with m). The paper derives continuum-limit values for P_m (Table 1) for the GUE TFD state and presents numerical results for finite N=1000 matrices with 10 realizations (Tables 2-7, Figs. 4-6), together with an N-dependence study for the TFD state (Fig. 5) and several appendices, including an exactly solvable harmonic-oscillator quench.

Significance. If the claimed monotonic increase of P_m with m were robust, generalized spread complexities C_2 and C_3 would offer sharper diagnostics of chaotic behavior in quench dynamics than the standard C_1, which would be a useful addition to the Krylov-complexity toolbox. The paper contains several valuable elements: a concrete quench protocol with validated IPR analysis (Fig. 2), an analytic continuum-limit calculation for the TFD state, an N-scaling study for the TFD state, and an exactly solvable oscillator example (Appendix A). The machine-checkable numerical data and the careful documentation of the Lanczos-coefficient distributions (Appendix B) are strengths. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract and Section 4 is stronger than the paper's own tables support, and the analytic derivation in Section 2.1 applies to a different initial state than the quench states that are the paper's new focus.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4] The claim that the peak parameter increases with m is stated without qualification in the abstract ('higher-order complexities show increased sensitivity to the peak') and in Section 4 ('the peak parameter increases with increasing m'). This is directly contradicted by Table 4 for the GOE quench from the pre-quench ground state |00>: P_3 = 0.14 and P_4 = 0.11, so P_4 < P_3. The manuscript only contains the needed qualification in Section 3.1 ('at least up to m = 3') and in footnote 14, which is not reflected in the abstract or in the unqualified Section 4 sentence. The authors should restrict the claim to m ≤ 3, or state explicitly which initial states and ensembles violate the trend, and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.1 and Section 4] The analytic values P_m = 0.33, 0.47, 0.55, 0.60 in Table 1 are derived in the continuum limit for the infinite-temperature TFD state of the post-quench Hamiltonian, using the Lanczos-coefficient profile in eq. (2.9) and the GUE sine kernel. The pre-quench ground state and the pre-quench TFD state used in the quench protocols (Section 3) do not satisfy this setup, and the paper does not provide a derivation of the monotonic trend for these states. Presenting Table 1 as general corroboration of the quench numerics therefore goes beyond what the calculation supports. The text should explicitly state that the continuum-limit result applies to the TFD state and that its extension to the quench initial states is an assumption, not a derivation.
  3. [Tables 2-7; Section 3.1] The numerical support for the trend in P_m rests on averages over 10 realizations (stated in Section 3.1) reported to two significant digits in Tables 2-7, with no standard errors. The footnote accompanying Table 3 in Section 3.1 says the standard deviation of P_m was estimated and is small enough that P_m is incompatible with zero, but the values are not reported. In Table 4 the reversal P_4 < P_3 is a difference between 0.11 and 0.14, and without error bars or a larger number of realizations the reader cannot judge whether this difference (or the monotonic increases in the other tables) is statistically significant. The authors should report standard errors (or error bars) for P_m in the tables, or increase the number of realizations, so that the claim can be assessed quantitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 5] The text in Section 3.1 says the N-dependence study is 'averaged over 10 realizations' for GOE, while the caption of Fig. 5 says 'Each data point is the average of 20 realizations of GOE/GUE.' This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4 (summary)] The definition of the peak parameter in Section 4 contains a typo: 'Pm = Cm(tpeak)− ¯Cm)/Cm(tpeak)' is missing the opening parenthesis and should read 'P_m = (C_m(t_peak) − \bar{C}_m)/C_m(t_peak).'
  3. [Section 2, eqs. (2.6)-(2.8)] The symbol P is used both for the probability distribution P(j,t) in eq. (2.6) and for the peak parameter P_m defined in eq. (2.8); the notation should be disambiguated (for example, using lowercase p for the distribution) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 2, after eq. (2.8)] The statement 'as m increases, the peak occurs progressively later' is made for general chaotic systems, but the quench tables (Tables 2-7) do not report peak times, so this part of the claim is not numerically documented for the quench protocols; the authors should either add the peak times or phrase the statement more cautiously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak parameter is evaluated from independent time series, and the only self-citation is supportive, not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, no step reduces to its own input. The central quantity P_m is defined in eq. (2.8) directly from C_m(t_peak) and the late-time average ar{C}_m; it is not fitted to the data and is not defined in terms of the claim. The continuum-limit values in Table 1 are obtained by differentiating the fixed analytic expressions (2.10) and (2.11), quoted from [16] and [44]. Reference [44] shares authors with the present paper (Fu, Kim, Pal), so there is a minor self-citation, but the cited expressions are parameter-free and are derived from stated inputs (the Lanczos profile (2.9) and the GUE sine kernel), and the quench numerics are independent simulations. The self-citation is therefore supportive rather than load-bearing. The paper's own Table 4 shows P_4 < P_3 for the GOE ground-state quench, so the unqualified monotonicity statement in the abstract is overstated; that is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circularity. No circular step meeting the evidence bar is present.

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

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its analytic results inherit the Lanczos profile and sine-kernel approximations from prior random matrix theory, which are stated and cited.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Ensemble-averaged Lanczos coefficients are approximated by <a_n>=0 and <b_n>=sqrt(1-n/N) for initial states such as the TFD state (eq. 2.9).
    Used in Sec 2.1 to compute the continuum-limit expressions for C_m(t) and hence the analytic P_m values in Table 1.
  • domain assumption The quench Hamiltonians H_r(+-1) belong to the GOE (beta=1) or GUE (beta=2) with the same distribution.
    Stated in Sec 3; verified by checking mean and variance of matrix elements, and needed for the quench to model chaotic dynamics.
  • domain assumption The continuum limit maps the discrete Krylov index to a continuous coordinate and the Lanczos coefficients and wavefunctions are smooth functions (Sec 2.1).
    Underlies the derivation of the analytic C_m(t) expressions from refs. [16,44] used to obtain Table 1.
  • standard math The distribution of Lanczos coefficients b_n for the Gaussian beta-ensemble follows eq (B.1) from ref. [56].
    Used in Appendix B to derive the ratio distribution p(r_n) in eq (B.3).
  • standard math The GUE two-point energy correlation is given by the sine kernel.
    Used in the derivations of eqs. (2.10)-(2.11) in refs. [16,44], on which the analytic P_m values rest.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-Order Krylov State Complexity in Random Matrix Quenches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZ5QWE54

@misc{pith2026241216472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-Order Krylov State Complexity in Random Matrix Quenches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZ5QWE54}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16472}
}
abstract

In quantum many-body systems, time-evolved states typically remain confined to a smaller region of the Hilbert space known as the $\textit{Krylov subspace}$. The time evolution can be mapped onto a one-dimensional problem of a particle moving on a chain, where the average position $\langle n \rangle$ defines Krylov state complexity or spread complexity. Generalized spread complexities, associated with higher-order moments $\langle n^p \rangle$ for $p>1$, provide finer insights into the dynamics. We investigate the time evolution of generalized spread complexities following a quantum quench in random matrix theory. The quench is implemented by transitioning from an initial random Hamiltonian to a post-quench Hamiltonian obtained by dividing it into four blocks and flipping the sign of the off-diagonal blocks. This setup captures universal features of chaotic quantum quenches. When the initial state is the thermofield double state of the post-quench Hamiltonian, a peak in spread complexity preceding equilibration signals level repulsion, a hallmark of quantum chaos. We examine the robustness of this peak for other initial states, such as the ground state or the thermofield double state of the pre-quench Hamiltonian. To quantify this behavior, we introduce a measure based on the peak height relative to the late-time saturation value. In the continuous limit, higher-order complexities show increased sensitivity to the peak, supported by numerical simulations for finite-size random matrices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Brickwall One-Loop Determinant: Spectral Statistics & Krylov Complexity

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the brickwall model of a BTZ black hole, hand-tuned Gaussian randomness at a stretched horizon reproduces random-matrix-theory spectral statistics and Krylov complexity peaks for scalar and fermionic probes.

  2. Quasinormal modes and complexity in saddle-dominated SU(N) spin systems

    hep-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A family of SU(2) and SU(3) Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick-type Hamiltonians reproduces de Sitter quasinormal-mode densities of states, and late-time probes reveal integrability beneath saddle-dominated scrambling.

  3. Statistics and Complexity of Wavefunction Spreading in Quantum Dynamical Systems

    quant-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The moments of the spreading-operator measurement distribution are generalized spread complexities, which for GUE Hamiltonians peak more sharply at higher order and obey a norm bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [44]

    Fu, K.-Y

    Y . Fu, K.-Y . Kim, K. Pal and K. Pal,Statistics and Complexity of Wavefunction Spreading in Quantum Dynamical Systems, 2411.09390

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi and E. Altman, A Universal Operator Growth Hypothesis, Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) 041017, [1812.08657]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [2]

    Balasubramanian, P

    V . Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu,Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states, Physical Review D 106 (2022) 046007

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Nandy, A

    P. Nandy, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Mart´ınez-Azcona, A. Dymarsky and A. del Campo, Quantum Dynamics in Krylov Space: Methods and Applications, 2405.09628

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity, JHEP 08 (2023) 213, [2305.04355]. 23Preliminary analysis supports this expectation, although precise fitting of the Dyson index β remains challenging and is currently under investigation. – 28 – 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1 0.4 0.5 0.6 h 〈r〉 0....

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y . Kafri, A. Polkovnikov and M. Rigol,From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. 65 (2016) 239–362, [1509.06411]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Jahnke, Recent developments in the holographic description of quantum chaos, Adv

    V . Jahnke, Recent developments in the holographic description of quantum chaos, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019 (2019) 9632708, [1811.06949]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush and et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature 574 (2019) 505–510

    work page 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022 (2022) 1–29

    2022

  2. [9]

    Bhattacharjee, X

    B. Bhattacharjee, X. Cao, P. Nandy and T. Pathak, Krylov complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling, JHEP 05 (2022) 174, [2203.03534]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Huh, H.-S

    K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong and J. F. Pedraza, Spread complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling, JHEP 05 (2024) 137, [2312.12593]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Dymarsky and M

    A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin, Krylov complexity in conformal field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) L081702, [2104.09514]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Avdoshkin, A

    A. Avdoshkin, A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin, Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond, JHEP 06 (2024) 066, [2212.14429]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    H. A. Camargo, V . Jahnke, K.-Y . Kim and M. Nishida,Krylov complexity in free and interacting scalar field theories with bounded power spectrum, JHEP 05 (2023) 226, [2212.14702]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kundu, V

    A. Kundu, V . Malvimat and R. Sinha, State dependence of Krylov complexity in 2d CFTs, JHEP 09 (2023) 011, [2303.03426]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Balasubramanian, J

    V . Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan and Q. Wu,Tridiagonalizing random matrices, Physical Review D 107 (2023) 126001. – 29 –

    2023

  9. [16]

    Erdmenger, S.-K

    J. Erdmenger, S.-K. Jian and Z.-Y . Xian, Universal chaotic dynamics from krylov space, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (2023) 1–62

    2023

  10. [17]

    H. A. Camargo, K.-B. Huh, V . Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y . Kim and M. Nishida,Spread and spectral complexity in quantum spin chains: from integrability to chaos, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11254 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Alishahiha, S

    M. Alishahiha, S. Banerjee and M. J. Vasli, Krylov Complexity as a Probe for Chaos, 2408.10194

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gautam, K

    M. Gautam, K. Pal, K. Pal, A. Gill, N. Jaiswal and T. Sarkar, Spread complexity evolution in quenched interacting quantum systems, Physical Review B 109 (2024) 014312

    2024

  13. [20]

    Baggioli, K.-B

    M. Baggioli, K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y . Kim and J. F. Pedraza,Krylov complexity as an order parameter for quantum chaotic-integrable transitions, 2407.17054

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Hashimoto, K

    K. Hashimoto, K. Murata, N. Tanahashi and R. Watanabe, Krylov complexity and chaos in quantum mechanics, JHEP 11 (2023) 040, [2305.16669]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Balasubramanian, R

    V . Balasubramanian, R. N. Das, J. Erdmenger and Z.-Y . Xian,Chaos and integrability in triangular billiards, 2407.11114

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Huh, H.-S

    K.-B. Huh, H.-S. Jeong, L. A. Pando Zayas and J. F. Pedraza, Krylov Complexity in Mixed Phase Space, 2412.04963

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Afrasiar, J

    M. Afrasiar, J. K. Basak, B. Dey, K. Pal and K. Pal, Time evolution of spread complexity in quenched lipkin–meshkov–glick model, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2023 (2023) 103101

    2023

  18. [25]

    K. Pal, K. Pal, A. Gill and T. Sarkar, Time evolution of spread complexity and statistics of work done in quantum quenches, Physical Review B 108 (2023) 104311

    2023

  19. [26]

    Gill and T

    A. Gill and T. Sarkar, Speed Limits and Scrambling in Krylov Space, 2408.06855

    arXiv

  20. [27]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. N. Das, B. Dey and J. Erdmenger, Spread complexity for measurement-induced non-unitary dynamics and Zeno effect, JHEP 03 (2024) 179, [2312.11635]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. N. Das, B. Dey and J. Erdmenger, Spread complexity and localization in PT-symmetric systems, Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 064320, [2406.03524]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Du and M.-x

    B.-n. Du and M.-x. Huang, Krylov complexity in Calabi–Yau quantum mechanics, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38 (2023) 2350126, [2212.02926]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Iizuka and M

    N. Iizuka and M. Nishida, Krylov complexity in the IP matrix model. Part II, JHEP 11 (2023) 096, [2308.07567]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    P. H. S. Bento, A. del Campo and L. C. C ´eleri, Krylov complexity and dynamical phase transition in the quenched Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, Phys. Rev. B 109 (2024) 224304, [2312.05321]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    T. Q. Loc, Lanczos spectrum for random operator growth, 2402.07980

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Malvimat, S

    V . Malvimat, S. Porey and B. Roy,Krylov Complexity in 2d CFTs with SL(2, R) deformed Hamiltonians, 2402.15835

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    A. Bhattacharyya, S. S. Haque, G. Jafari, J. Murugan and D. Rapotu, Krylov complexity and spectral form factor for noisy random matrix models, JHEP 10 (2023) 157, [2307.15495]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Gautam, N

    M. Gautam, N. Jaiswal and A. Gill, Spread complexity in free fermion models, Eur. Phys. J. B 97 (2024) 3, [2305.12115]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    He and H.-Q

    P.-Z. He and H.-Q. Zhang, Probing Krylov Complexity in Scalar Field Theory with General Temperatures, 2407.02756. – 30 –

    arXiv

  30. [37]

    Li and L.-H

    T. Li and L.-H. Liu, Krylov complexity of thermal state in early universe, 2408.03293

  31. [38]

    Ganguli and A

    M. Ganguli and A. Jana, State Dependent Spread Complexity Dynamics in Many-Body Localization Transition, 2409.02186

    arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    B. Bhattacharjee and P. Nandy, Krylov fractality and complexity in generic random matrix ensembles, 2407.07399

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    Jeong, A

    H.-S. Jeong, A. Kundu and J. F. Pedraza, Brickwall One-Loop Determinant: Spectral Statistics & Krylov Complexity, 2412.12301

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    Caputa, H.-S

    P. Caputa, H.-S. Jeong, S. Liu, J. F. Pedraza and L.-C. Qu, Krylov complexity of density matrix operators, JHEP 05 (2024) 337, [2402.09522]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    H. A. Camargo, V . Jahnke, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y . Kim and M. Nishida,Spectral and Krylov complexity in billiard systems, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 046017, [2306.11632]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Fan, Generalised krylov complexity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16118 (2023)

    Z.-Y . Fan, Generalised krylov complexity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16118 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. P. Brandino, A. De Luca, R. M. Konik and G. Mussardo, Quench dynamics in randomly generated extended quantum models, Phys. Rev. B 85 (Jun, 2012) 214435

    2012

  38. [46]

    M ¨uck and Y

    W. M ¨uck and Y . Yang,Krylov complexity and orthogonal polynomials, Nuclear Physics B 984 (2022) 115948

    2022

  39. [47]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva and M. Vengalattore, Nonequilibrium dynamics of closed interacting quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 863, [1007.5331]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Buijsman, Long-range spectral statistics of the Rosenzweig-Porter model, Phys

    W. Buijsman, Long-range spectral statistics of the Rosenzweig-Porter model, Phys. Rev. B 109 (2024) 024205, [2309.14043]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Rabinovici, A

    E. Rabinovici, A. S ´anchez-Garrido, R. Shir and J. Sonner, Krylov localization and suppression of complexity, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022 (2022) 1–42

    2022

  42. [50]

    G. F. Scialchi, A. J. Roncaglia and D. A. Wisniacki, Integrability-to-chaos transition through the Krylov approach for state evolution, Phys. Rev. E 109 (2024) 054209, [2309.13427]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Caputa, B

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

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Fan, Momentum-Krylov complexity correspondence, 2411.04492

    Z.-Y . Fan, Momentum-Krylov complexity correspondence, 2411.04492

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    He, Revisit the relationship between spread complexity rate and radial momentum, 2411.19172

    P.-Z. He, Revisit the relationship between spread complexity rate and radial momentum, 2411.19172

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sotiriadis, A

    S. Sotiriadis, A. Gambassi and A. Silva, Statistics of the work done by splitting a one-dimensional quasicondensate, Phys. Rev. E 87 (May, 2013) 052129

    2013

  47. [55]

    Palma and J

    A. Palma and J. Morales, Franck–condon factors and ladder operators. i. harmonic oscillator, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 24 (1983) 393–400

    1983

  48. [56]

    Dumitriu and A

    I. Dumitriu and A. Edelman, Matrix models for beta ensembles, arXiv preprint math-ph/0206043 (2002)

    2002 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2010

  50. [58]

    Buijsman, V

    W. Buijsman, V . Cheianov and V . Gritsev,Random matrix ensemble for the level statistics of many-body localization, Physical review letters 122 (2019) 180601. – 31 –

    2019

  51. [59]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Level statistics across the many-body localization transition, Physical Review B 99 (2019) 104205

    2019

  52. [60]

    Sierant and J

    P. Sierant and J. Zakrzewski, Model of level statistics for disordered interacting quantum many-body systems, Physical Review B 101 (2020) 104201

    2020

  53. [61]

    ´A. L. Corps and A. Relano, Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings for different symmetries and degrees of chaos, Physical Review E 101 (2020) 022222

    2020

  54. [62]

    H. F. Trotter, Eigenvalue distributions of large hermitian matrices; wigner’s semi-circle law and a theorem of kac, murdock, and szeg¨ o, Advances in Mathematics 54 (1984) 67–82

    1984

  55. [63]

    A. K. Das and A. Ghosh, Nonergodic extended states in theβ ensemble, Phys. Rev. E 105 (2022) 054121, [2112.11910]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Krefl, Non-Perturbative Quantum Geometry, JHEP 02 (2014) 084, [1311.0584]

    D. Krefl, Non-Perturbative Quantum Geometry, JHEP 02 (2014) 084, [1311.0584]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Oganesyan and D

    V . Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B 75 (Apr, 2007) 155111

    2007

  58. [66]

    Y . Y . Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud and G. Roux,Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles, Physical Review Letters 110 (Feb., 2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    S. M. Nishigaki, Distributions of Consecutive Level Spacings of Gaussian Unitary Ensemble and Their Ratio: ab initio Derivation, PTEP 2024 (2024) 081A01, [2407.15704]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Giraud, N

    O. Giraud, N. Mac ´e, E. Vernier and F. Alet,Probing Symmetries of Quantum Many-Body Systems through Gap Ratio Statistics, Phys. Rev. X 12 (2022) 011006, [2008.11173]. – 32 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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