Spectral Chaos Does Not Determine Quantum Mpemba Crossings

Ri-Hua Zheng; Yang Xiao; Yan Xia; Ye-Hong Chen; Yu Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 51 references

Spectral Chaos Does Not Determine Quantum Mpemba Crossings

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Chaos Doesn't Decide When Quantum Memory Flips

desk verdict Clean finite-size separation of spectral chaos from Mpemba crossings; scope is honestly limited read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07081 v1 pith:GUT7D4C2 submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Ri-Hua Zheng , Yang Xiao , Yu Wang , Ye-Hong Chen , Yan Xia This is my paper

classification quant-ph PACS 05.45.Mt03.67.Mn75.10.Pq

keywords crossingslocalmpembaspectralalonechaoscharge-sectorcoherence

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 asks a sharp question about the quantum Mpemba effect — the phenomenon where a state that starts further from symmetry can restore that symmetry faster than one that starts closer. The natural guess is that quantum chaos (in the technical sense of energy levels repelling each other like a random matrix, known as GOE statistics) is what drives this ordering reversal. The authors test this directly in a clean spin chain that conserves total magnetization, by comparing two things for the same Hamiltonian: whether the spectrum looks chaotic (GOE-like level statistics) and whether the entanglement asymmetry curves actually cross. They find no correlation. A Hamiltonian can have GOE-like chaos and still show no Mpemba crossing; it can show crossings while being far from the GOE reference. The paper then drills one level deeper: even the total amount of charge-sector coherence (the off-diagonal quantum correlations between different magnetization sectors of a subsystem) can invert its ordering without producing an entanglement-asymmetry crossing. The reason is that the entanglement asymmetry weights those coherence blocks by the eigenvalue spectrum of the symmetrized density matrix, so an unweighted sum inverting does not guarantee the entropy-weighted ordering inverts. The crossing is controlled by how local coherence is distributed across charge blocks and weighted, not by global spectral chaos.

What carries the argument

The central objects are: (1) the entanglement asymmetry ΔS_A, defined as the von Neumann entropy difference between the symmetrized reduced density matrix (where off-diagonal charge blocks are removed) and the full reduced density matrix — it quantifies how much U(1) symmetry breaking remains locally; (2) the adjacent-gap ratio ⟨r⟩, a standard measure of whether energy levels repel (GOE, chaotic, ⟨r⟩≈0.531) or cluster (Poisson, integrable, ⟨r⟩≈0.386); (3) the Frobenius charge-sector coherence C_A, an unweighted norm of the off-block-diagonal part of the reduced density matrix; and (4) the key identity ΔS_A = D(ρ_A ∥ ρ_A^sym), expressing entanglement asymmetry as a quantum relative entropy,

What would settle it

If at larger system sizes the detuned-staggered field develops entanglement-asymmetry crossings (or the staggered field loses them), the claimed separation between spectral chaos and Mpemba crossings would narrow or collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a single clean U(1)-conserving XXZ spin chain family, changing only the spatial profile of a longitudinal magnetic field separates three distinct levels of information that had been assumed to be linked: (1) global spectral chaos measured by adjacent-gap ratio statistics, (2) the total local charge-sector coherence measured by a Frobenius norm, and (3) the entropy-weighted ordering measured by entanglement asymmetry. The key finding is that GOE-like level statistics are neither necessary nor sufficient for Mpemba crossings, and even inversion of the total charge-sector coherence is not sufficient — the crossing depends on block-resolved coherence weighted by the eigenvalue structure,

Load-bearing premise

The entire separation is established at finite system sizes (12 to 20 spins), and the detuned-staggered wave vectors are adjusted per system size rather than following a fixed scaling trajectory, so whether the texture-selective classification persists in the thermodynamic limit remains open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If spectral chaos does not control Mpemba crossings, then the search for Mpemba effects in experiments should focus on engineering field textures and initial-state coherence channels rather than on achieving chaotic spectra.
The separation between total coherence inversion and entropy-weighted inversion suggests a design principle: to induce or suppress Mpemba crossings, one should target specific charge-block coherence channels and their eigenvalue-dependent weights, not the overall coherence magnitude.
The block-resolved analysis showing edge-sector versus central-sector competition could generalize to other symmetry-restoration settings beyond U(1), wherever the reduced density matrix has a block structure that is differentially weighted by entropy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main thing to know: this paper shows that GOE-like level statistics neither guarantee nor prevent entanglement-asymmetry crossings in a clean U(1)-conserving XXZ chain. The key evidence is two N=20 points with GOE-like spectra but opposite crossing behavior—generic field crosses, detuned-staggered doesn't—and a staggered field that crosses despite being away from GOE. That's a clean negative result within one Hamiltonian family, which is genuinely useful for the subfield. A lot of prior work studied Mpemba crossings in integrable vs. chaotic systems separately; this directly compares the two diagnostics for the same Hamiltonians, and the separation is real where it matters most (N=20, GOE-like regime, opposite responses). The Frobenius coherence analysis is a nice addition: it shows total charge-sector coherence can invert without producing an entanglement-asymmetry crossing, which sharpens the message that entropy weighting matters, not just raw off-block-diagonal weight. The block-resolved decomposition at N=20 identifying edge vs. central sector competition is a reasonable mechanistic story for the finite-size data. The methodology is solid: symmetry-resolved level statistics, operationally defined crossing criterion with stated tolerances, position averaging, and the uniform N=20 point correctly resolves reflection and spin-flip parities before computing gap ratios. No fitted parameters are introduced to manufacture the separation. The soft spot is the finite-size scope, and the authors mostly own it. The detuned-staggered wave vectors are size-dependent (q/π ranges from 1.050 to 1.028 across N=12–20), so there's no single Hamiltonian being scaled. The key negative control—GOE-like spectrum, no crossings—exists at exactly one wave vector at N=20. If you fixed q/π=1.028 and pushed to larger N, the spectrum could drift and the crossing behavior could change. The paper doesn't test this. The stress-test note flags this correctly, but it's a scope limitation, not an internal inconsistency, and the Frobenius analysis partially compensates by providing a mechanistic layer independent of the spectral diagnostic. The reader's HIGH confidence is slightly generous but not unreasonable given that the central claim is a finite-size diagnosis explicitly framed as such. This is for people working on quantum thermalization, Mpemba effects, and symmetry restoration in spin chains. It deserves a serious referee who can assess whether the finite-size mechanism is convincing and whether the scope claims are appropriately bounded.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates whether spectral chaos (as diagnosed by GOE-like level statistics) determines the occurrence of quantum Mpemba effect (QME) crossings in the entanglement asymmetry. Using a clean U(1)-conserving XXZ spin chain perturbed by longitudinal field textures, the authors compare adjacent-gap ratios with sustained-crossing fractions of the entanglement asymmetry for the same Hamiltonians. The central finding is a negative result: GOE-like spectra can occur with or without crossings, and crossings can appear away from the GOE reference. The authors further introduce a Frobenius charge-sector coherence diagnostic, showing that even inversion of total local charge-sector coherence does not guarantee an entanglement-asymmetry crossing, thereby isolating the crossing mechanism to entropy-weighted, block-resolved charge-sector structure.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-posed and timely question: whether chaotic thermalization is the organizing mechanism behind symmetry-restoration quantum Mpemba crossings. The negative result—that spectral chaos is neither necessary nor sufficient for crossings—is a useful and clarifying contribution. The diagnostic hierarchy (global level statistics, total Frobenius coherence, entropy-weighted asymmetry) is a clean conceptual framework. The numerical methodology is clearly specified: exact diagonalization, symmetry-resolved adjacent-gap ratios, sustained-crossing criteria with stated tolerances, and position-averaged entanglement asymmetry. The uniform N=20 point correctly resolves reflection and spin-flip parities before computing level statistics. The block-resolved decomposition (Fig. S2) provides a concrete mechanistic picture for the finite-size separation.

major comments (2)

The central separation at N=20 rests on two GOE-like data points with opposite crossing responses: the generic field (q/π=0.5, ⟨r⟩≈0.556, f_cross=1) and the detuned-staggered field (q/π=1.028, ⟨r⟩≈0.532, f_cross=0). The detuned-staggered wave vectors are size-dependent (q/π=1.050, 1.038, 1.040, 1.034, 1.028 for N=12–20; Table S3), so there is no single Hamiltonian being scaled. The paper acknowledges this as a finite-size diagnosis, which is appropriate. However, the claim's force depends on the detuned-staggered point remaining GOE-like while having no crossings, and this is established for a size-dependent parameter point at each N. The authors should briefly discuss whether fixing q/π=1.028 and increasing N (or scanning q at fixed N=20) would preserve the separation, or at minimum state more explicitly that the near-staggered control is defined by its proximity to the staggered point,
The staggered field (q=π) at N=20 is reported with ⟨r⟩=0.4244 (Table S2), which is intermediate between Poisson (0.386) and GOE (0.531). The text states this value is the midpoint of two clean neighboring spectral windows (0.4439 and 0.4048) because the nominal central shift was numerically ill-conditioned. While the authors are transparent about this, the staggered point is one of only four N=20 data points and is the sole example of crossings away from GOE. A brief comment on the spectral classification of the staggered field (e.g., whether it is better described as partially chaotic or near-integrable) would strengthen the interpretation.

minor comments (3)

In Fig. 2, the inset annotations (e.g., '5 70.77' and '0.91' in the generic panel) are not self-explanatory. A brief caption note clarifying what these numbers represent would help the reader.
The phase offset ϕ=0.37 is stated as fixed for all calculations. While the authors explain it is not fitted, a sentence noting that the results are insensitive to small changes in ϕ (or acknowledging that this has not been checked) would be useful.
In the Supplemental Material, Sec. S4, the quadratic expansion (Eq. S12) is stated to have median state-level relative errors of 10.2% and 8.0% with worst errors of about 27%. The authors correctly note it is used only for channel identification, not quantitative prediction. This caveat is clearly stated but could be slightly more prominent in the main text where Eq. (9) is discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity present

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a negative result: GOE-like level statistics do not determine Mpemba crossings. This is established by direct numerical computation of two independent diagnostics (adjacent-gap ratio ⟨r⟩ and entanglement-asymmetry crossing fraction f_cross) for the same Hamiltonians at fixed parameters. No parameter is fitted to one diagnostic and then used to 'predict' the other. The field textures, initial angles (θ/π = 0.28–0.48), subsystem sizes, and phase (ϕ = 0.37) are fixed across all comparisons. The Frobenius coherence C_A (Eq. S10) and the entanglement asymmetry ΔS_A (Eq. S3) are defined independently — C_A is an unweighted Frobenius norm of off-block-diagonal elements, while ΔS_A is a relative entropy (Eq. S11). The paper shows they can disagree (Fig. 4: detuned-staggered has R*_C > 0 but R*_S = 0), which is a genuine separation, not a definitional identity. The quadratic expansion (Eq. S12) is used only as a mechanistic diagnostic, not as the basis for the main claim. The self-citations (Refs. [9, 10] for entanglement asymmetry definitions, Ref. [22] for GOE reference values) cite foundational definitions and externally verified results, not the authors' own unverified premises. The detuned-staggered wave vectors being size-dependent is a scope limitation (acknowledged by the authors), not a circularity. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The Frobenius charge-sector coherence C_A is a new diagnostic quantity but is derived from standard linear-algebra norms applied to the reduced density matrix, not a postulated entity. All free parameters are fixed protocol choices, not fitted to reproduce the central claim.

free parameters (4)

ϕ (phase offset) = 0.37
Fixed once for all calculations to choose a nonspecial origin of the cosine field relative to open-chain boundaries. Not fitted to crossing outcomes, but it is a hand-chosen parameter.
θ ladder = 0.28, 0.32, 0.36, 0.40, 0.44, 0.48 (×π)
Fixed equally spaced initial-state angles chosen to sample symmetry breaking without field-dependent tuning. Not fitted, but selected to avoid endpoints.
ϵ (field strength) = 1
Set to the exchange scale J=1 for all main-text comparisons. Not fitted, but a representative choice.
detuned q values = 1.050, 1.038, 1.040, 1.034, 1.028 (×π) for N=12–20
Size-dependent near-staggered wave vectors chosen as representative controls. Not fitted to crossing outcomes, but selected ad hoc per size.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis connects nonintegrable eigenstates to thermal local physics.
Invoked in the introduction (Refs. 23–26) as background motivation for why chaotic thermalization is a candidate mechanism for Mpemba crossings. Not used as a load-bearing step in the numerical argument.
standard math Adjacent-gap ratio ⟨r⟩ ≈ 0.531 indicates GOE-like (chaotic) spectral statistics, and ⟨r⟩ ≈ 0.386 indicates Poisson (integrable) statistics.
Standard random-matrix theory result (Ref. 22, Atas et al.). Used as the spectral-chaos benchmark throughout.
domain assumption Entanglement asymmetry ∆S_A measures remaining local U(1)-breaking charge-sector coherence in the reduced density matrix.
Definition from Ares, Murciano, Calabrese (Refs. 9, 10). Used as the primary Mpemba-crossing diagnostic. Standard within the subfield.
ad hoc to paper The finite-size results at N=12–20 are representative of the physics at larger system sizes.
The paper explicitly states this is a finite-size mechanism diagnosis, not evidence for a thermodynamic scaling law. The texture-selective classification could change at larger N.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Chaos Does Not Determine Quantum Mpemba Crossings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GUT7D4C2

@misc{pith2026260707081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Chaos Does Not Determine Quantum Mpemba Crossings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GUT7D4C2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07081}
}

read the original abstract

In a symmetry-restoration quantum Mpemba effect, an initial state with stronger local symmetry breaking can lose that memory faster than a state that starts closer to the symmetric manifold. We test whether this local ordering reversal is organized by chaotic thermalization in a clean U(1)-conserving spin chain, comparing spectral level statistics with crossings of the entanglement asymmetry for the same Hamiltonians. We find that Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE)-like level statistics alone do not determine whether Mpemba crossings occur. Across field textures, GOE-like spectra can occur with or without entanglement-asymmetry crossings, and crossings can also appear away from the GOE reference. A near-staggered detuned control further shows that even an inversion of the total charge-sector coherence need not produce an entanglement-asymmetry crossing. Thus the crossing response is controlled not by spectral chaos alone, but by how local charge-sector coherence enters the reduced density matrix.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07081 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Selective relation between spectral chaos and raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Local charge-coherence inversion versus entropic or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

[1]

E. B. Mpemba and D. G. Osborne, Cool?, Phys. Educ. 4, 172 (1969)

work page 1969
[2]

Jeng, The Mpemba effect: When can hot water freeze faster than cold?, Am

M. Jeng, The Mpemba effect: When can hot water freeze faster than cold?, Am. J. Phys.74, 514 (2006)

work page 2006
[3]

Lasanta, F

A. Lasanta, F. V. Reyes, A. Prados, and A. Santos, When the hotter cools more quickly: Mpemba effect in granular fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 148001 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Lu and O

Z. Lu and O. Raz, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of the Markovian Mpemba effect and its inverse, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 5083 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Klich, O

I. Klich, O. Raz, O. Hirschberg, and M. Vucelja, Mpemba index and anomalous relaxation, Phys. Rev. X9, 021060 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Baity-Jesi, E

M. Baity-Jesi, E. Calore, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, J. M. Gil-Narvion, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, D. Iniguez, A. Las- anta, A. Maiorano, E. Marinari,et al., The Mpemba ef- fect in spin glasses is a persistent memory effect, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA116, 15350 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

Gal and O

A. Gal and O. Raz, Precooling strategy allows exponen- tially faster heating, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 060602 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

Kumar and J

A. Kumar and J. Bechhoefer, Exponentially faster cool- ing in a colloidal system, Nature584, 64 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 51 references

[9]

F. Ares, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement asymmetry as a probe of symmetry breaking, Nat. Com- mun.14, 2036 (2023)
[11]

Murciano, F

S. Murciano, F. Ares, I. Klich, and P. Calabrese, Entan- glement asymmetry and quantum Mpemba effect in the XY spin chain, J. Stat. Mech.2024, 013103 (2024)

2024
[12]

Rylands, K

C. Rylands, K. Klobas, F. Ares, P. Calabrese, S. Mur- ciano, and B. Bertini, Microscopic origin of the quantum Mpemba effect in integrable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 010401 (2024)

2024
[13]

F. Ares, P. Calabrese, and S. Murciano, The quantum Mpemba effects, Nat. Rev. Phys.7, 451 (2025)

2025
[14]

Carollo, A

F. Carollo, A. Lasanta, and I. Lesanovsky, Exponentially accelerated approach to stationarity in Markovian open quantum systems through the Mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 060401 (2021)

2021
[15]

Nava and R

A. Nava and R. Egger, Mpemba effects in open nonequi- librium quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136302 (2024)

2024
[16]

Moroder, O

M. Moroder, O. Culhane, K. Zawadzki, and J. Goold, Thermodynamics of the quantum Mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 140404 (2024)

2024
[17]

D. J. Strachan, A. Purkayastha, and S. R. Clark, Non- Markovian quantum Mpemba effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 220403 (2025)

2025
[18]

S. A. Shapira, Y. Shapira, J. Markov, G. Teza, N. Ak- erman, O. Raz, and R. Ozeri, Inverse Mpemba effect demonstrated on a single trapped ion qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010403 (2024)

2024
[19]

Zhang, G

J. Zhang, G. Xia, C.-W. Wu, T. Chen, Q. Zhang, Y. Xie, W.-B. Su, W. Wu, C.-W. Qiu, P.-X. Chen,et al., Obser- vation of quantum strong Mpemba effect, Nat. Commun. 16, 301 (2025)

2025
[20]

M. V. Berry and M. Tabor, Level clustering in the regular spectrum, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A356, 375 (1977)

1977
[21]

Bohigas, M

O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Character- ization of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1 (1984)

1984
[23]

J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A43, 2046 (1991)
[24]

Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

1994
[25]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

2008
[26]

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, 239 (2016)

2016
[27]

Rylands, E

C. Rylands, E. Vernier, and P. Calabrese, Dynamical symmetry restoration in the Heisenberg spin chain, J. Stat. Mech.2024, 123102 (2024)

2024
[28]

Yamashika, F

S. Yamashika, F. Ares, and P. Calabrese, Entangle- ment asymmetry and quantum Mpemba effect in two- dimensional free-fermion systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 085126 (2024). 6

2024
[29]

Chalas, F

K. Chalas, F. Ares, C. Rylands, and P. Calabrese, Mul- tiple crossings during dynamical symmetry restoration and implications for the quantum Mpemba effect, J. Stat. Mech.2024, 103101 (2024)

2024
[30]

F. Ares, V. Vitale, and S. Murciano, Quantum Mpemba effect in free-fermionic mixed states, Phys. Rev. B111, 104312 (2025)

2025
[31]

Di Giulio, X

G. Di Giulio, X. Turkeshi, and S. Murciano, Measurement-induced symmetry restoration and quantum Mpemba effect, Entropy27, 407 (2025)

2025
[32]

Bhore, L

T. Bhore, L. Su, I. Martin, A. A. Clerk, and Z. Papi´ c, Quantum Mpemba effect without global symmetries, Phys. Rev. B112, L121109 (2025)

2025
[33]

Yu, T.-R

Y.-H. Yu, T.-R. Jin, L. Zhang, K. Xu, and H. Fan, Tun- ing the quantum Mpemba effect in an isolated system by initial-state engineering, Phys. Rev. B112, 094315 (2025)

2025
[34]

F. Ares, C. Rylands, and P. Calabrese, A simpler probe of the quantum Mpemba effect in closed systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 445302 (2025)

2025
[35]

Yamashika and F

S. Yamashika and F. Ares, Quantum Mpemba effect in long-range spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 090402 (2026)

2026
[36]

L. K. Joshi, J. Franke, A. Rath, F. Ares, S. Murciano, F. Kranzl, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, B. Vermersch, P. Cal- abrese, C. F. Roos, and M. K. Joshi, Observing the quan- tum Mpemba effect in quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 010402 (2024)

2024
[37]

H. Yu, S. Liu, and S.-X. Zhang, Quantum Mpemba effects from symmetry perspectives, AAPPS Bull.35, 17 (2025)

2025
[38]

Kinoshita, T

T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, A quantum Newton’s cradle, Nature440, 900 (2006)

2006
[39]

A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Quantum ther- malization through entanglement in an isolated many- body system, Science353, 794 (2016)

2016
[40]

Calabrese and J

P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems, J. Stat. Mech.2005, P04010 (2005)

2005
[41]

A. J. McRoberts, Integrability-breaking-induced Mpemba effect in spin chains, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.59, 24LT01 (2026)

2026
[42]

Yamashika and R

S. Yamashika and R. Hamazaki, Quantum many- body Mpemba effect through resonances (2026), arXiv:2603.11788

2026
[43]

T. M. M¨ uller, S. Pappalardi, and R. Fazio, Quantum Mpemba effect in chaotic systems with conservation laws (2026), arXiv:2604.11876

2026 arXiv
[44]

Oganesyan and D

V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of interacting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

2007
[45]

Pal and D

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

2010
[46]

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

2015
[47]

Nandkishore and D

R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

2015
[48]

D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

2019
[49]

Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle

H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle. i. eigenwerte und eigenfunktionen der linearen atomkette, Z. Phys.71, 205 (1931)

1931
[50]

Spectral Chaos Does Not Determine Quantum Mpemba Crossings

See Supplemental Material for model and observable def- initions (Sec. S1), the raw-crossing protocol (Sec. S2), level-statistics calculations (Sec. S3), and the charge- sector coherence diagnostic (Sec. S4), which includes Refs. [9, 10, 22]. Supplemental Material for “Spectra...
[51]

F. Ares, S. Murciano, and P. Calabrese, Entanglement asymmetry as a probe of symmetry breaking, Nat. Commun.14, 2036 (2023)
[52]

F. Ares, S. Murciano, E. Vernier, and P. Calabrese, Lack of symmetry restoration after a quantum quench: An entanglement asymmetry study, SciPost Phys.15, 089 (2023)

2023
[53]

Y. Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 084101 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

E. B. Mpemba and D. G. Osborne, Cool?, Phys. Educ. 4, 172 (1969)

work page 1969

[2] [2]

Jeng, The Mpemba effect: When can hot water freeze faster than cold?, Am

M. Jeng, The Mpemba effect: When can hot water freeze faster than cold?, Am. J. Phys.74, 514 (2006)

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Lasanta, F

A. Lasanta, F. V. Reyes, A. Prados, and A. Santos, When the hotter cools more quickly: Mpemba effect in granular fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 148001 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Lu and O

Z. Lu and O. Raz, Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of the Markovian Mpemba effect and its inverse, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA114, 5083 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Klich, O

I. Klich, O. Raz, O. Hirschberg, and M. Vucelja, Mpemba index and anomalous relaxation, Phys. Rev. X9, 021060 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Baity-Jesi, E

M. Baity-Jesi, E. Calore, A. Cruz, L. A. Fernandez, J. M. Gil-Narvion, A. Gordillo-Guerrero, D. Iniguez, A. Las- anta, A. Maiorano, E. Marinari,et al., The Mpemba ef- fect in spin glasses is a persistent memory effect, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA116, 15350 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Gal and O

A. Gal and O. Raz, Precooling strategy allows exponen- tially faster heating, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 060602 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Kumar and J

A. Kumar and J. Bechhoefer, Exponentially faster cool- ing in a colloidal system, Nature584, 64 (2020)

work page 2020