pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.01545 · v3 · pith:HU22QKI7new · submitted 2024-08-02 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.dis-nn

Operator space fragmentation in perturbed Floquet-Clifford circuits

Marcell D. Kov\'acs , Christopher J. Turner , Lluis Masanes , Arijeet Pal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords operator fragmentationFloquet circuitsClifford circuitsoperator localizationlocal integrals of motionspectral form factorentanglement bottleneckquantum chaos
0
0 comments X

The pith

Perturbed Floquet-Clifford circuits localize operators through fragmentation of operator space into disjoint sectors created by wall configurations.

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

The paper examines random Floquet-Clifford circuits with a brickwork pattern after adding disordered non-Clifford gates with probability p on each qubit. It finds that for any p less than 1 the circuit develops wall configurations that split operator space into independent fragments and produce exact local integrals of motion. These walls prevent full operator spreading and create an entanglement bottleneck across typical fragment boundaries. A sympathetic reader would care because the result supplies an explicit, tunable mechanism that keeps operator dynamics localized and non-ergodic even when the circuit is driven away from the Clifford limit by generic perturbations.

Core claim

In the interacting model the appearance of wall configurations fragments operator space into disjoint sectors for 0 ≤ p < 1. The walls give rise to emergent local integrals of motion that are constructed exactly and produce strong localization of operators. The average length of operator spreading is tunable by p. Although the circuit is not separable across any bipartition, the fragmentation creates an entanglement bottleneck. Analytic arguments establish stability against generic single-qubit unitary perturbations, and the spectral form factor shows a fragmentation timescale before circular-unitary-ensemble behavior at p = 1.

What carries the argument

Wall configurations that fragment operator space into disjoint sectors and generate exact local integrals of motion.

Load-bearing premise

The walls and resulting local integrals of motion remain stable and exactly constructible under generic single-qubit unitary perturbations sampled uniformly.

What would settle it

A numerical simulation of operator evolution for p = 0.5 in which operators spread across the full system size without bound would falsify the localization claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.01545 by Arijeet Pal, Christopher J. Turner, Lluis Masanes, Marcell D. Kov\'acs.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A segment of the brickwork Floquet circuit con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reduced, ‘staircase’, representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Structure of 2-walls. Using the Haar-invariance of sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A symmetric region of the circuit, with exactly one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Smeared spectral form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Model extension to two-dimensions, showing a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Inequivalent single-qubit Clifford assignment for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Pauli assignment to 2-walls exhibiting interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. General form of FSWAP-like 2-walls. We have re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Floquet quantum circuits are able to realise a wide range of non-equilibrium quantum states, exhibiting quantum chaos, topological order and localisation. In this work, we investigate the stability of operator localisation and emergence of chaos in random Floquet-Clifford circuits subjected to unitary perturbations which drive them away from the Clifford limit. We construct a nearest-neighbour Clifford circuit with a brickwork pattern and study the effect of including disordered non-Clifford gates. The perturbations are uniformly sampled from single-qubit unitaries with probability $p$ on each qubit. We show that the interacting model exhibits strong localisation of operators for $0 \le p < 1$ that is characterised by the fragmentation of operator space into disjoint sectors due to the appearance of wall configurations. Such walls give rise to emergent local integrals of motion for the circuit that we construct exactly. We analytically establish the stability of localisation against generic perturbations and calculate the average length of operator spreading tunable by $p$. Although our circuit is not separable across any bi-partition, we further show that the operator localisation leads to an entanglement bottleneck, where initially unentangled states remain weakly entangled across typical fragment boundaries. Finally, we study the spectral form factor (SFF) to characterise the chaotic properties of the operator fragments and spectral fluctuations as a probe of non-ergodicity. In the $p = 1$ model, the emergence of a fragmentation time scale is found before random matrix theory sets in after which the SFF can be approximated by that of the circular unitary ensemble. Our work provides an explicit description of quantum phases in operator dynamics and circuit ergodicity which can be realised on current NISQ devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper studies operator dynamics in a nearest-neighbor brickwork Floquet-Clifford circuit with random single-qubit non-Clifford perturbations applied at each site with probability p. For 0 ≤ p < 1 it claims that random placement of Clifford gates produces 'wall configurations' that fragment the operator space into disjoint sectors; these walls are asserted to yield exactly constructible emergent local integrals of motion (LIOMs) that remain conserved under the full circuit evolution, including the generic perturbations. The work further claims an analytically tunable average operator-spreading length, an entanglement bottleneck across fragment boundaries, and distinct SFF regimes (including a fragmentation timescale at p=1 before RMT behavior).

Significance. If the exact LIOM construction and its invariance under generic perturbations hold, the manuscript supplies an explicit, analytically tractable mechanism for operator-space fragmentation and localization in a family of circuits that can be realized on NISQ hardware. The parameter p controlling the density of walls and the resulting tunable spreading length constitute a concrete handle on the crossover between Clifford and chaotic regimes.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / stability and LIOM construction sections] Abstract (stability paragraph) and the section on exact LIOM construction: the central claim that wall configurations produce LIOMs that are 'constructed exactly' and remain conserved under conjugation by arbitrary single-qubit unitaries (uniformly sampled from the Haar measure) is load-bearing. Generic unitaries do not in general preserve the support or commutation relations of an operator localized on one side of a putative wall; without an explicit invariance condition (e.g., the LIOM being supported exclusively on Clifford sites or commuting independently of the unitary parameters), the fragmentation into disjoint sectors is not guaranteed to survive for p < 1. The manuscript must supply the explicit operator form of the LIOMs and demonstrate their commutation or invariance under the perturbation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the average length of operator spreading is 'calculated analytically' and 'tunable by p'; the corresponding derivation (presumably in the main text) should be cross-referenced to the wall-density formula so that the p-dependence is transparent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for identifying the central claim regarding LIOM stability as load-bearing. We respond to the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / stability and LIOM construction sections] Abstract (stability paragraph) and the section on exact LIOM construction: the central claim that wall configurations produce LIOMs that are 'constructed exactly' and remain conserved under conjugation by arbitrary single-qubit unitaries (uniformly sampled from the Haar measure) is load-bearing. Generic unitaries do not in general preserve the support or commutation relations of an operator localized on one side of a putative wall; without an explicit invariance condition (e.g., the LIOM being supported exclusively on Clifford sites or commuting independently of the unitary parameters), the fragmentation into disjoint sectors is not guaranteed to survive for p < 1. The manuscript must supply the explicit operator form of the LIOMs and demonstrate their commutation or invariance under the perturbation.

    Authors: The manuscript already supplies the explicit operator form of the LIOMs in the exact LIOM construction section: they are defined as Pauli-string operators whose support is strictly confined to one side of each wall (i.e., products of Pauli operators on the qubits belonging to a given fragment). Because the walls are realized by Clifford gates, these operators are eigenoperators of the Clifford evolution by construction and therefore commute with every gate forming the wall. For the Haar-random single-qubit perturbations applied only at non-Clifford sites (with probability p < 1), the fragmentation guarantees that each LIOM has no support on the perturbed sites; consequently its commutation relation with any local unitary on those sites holds identically and independently of the unitary parameters. This invariance is shown analytically in the stability paragraph by verifying that conjugation by the perturbation leaves both the support and the eigenvalue of the LIOM unchanged. We therefore maintain that the fragmentation survives for p < 1 and that the required explicit form and invariance condition are already present. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: exact analytical construction of LIOMs from walls is independent of inputs and numerical checks

full rationale

The paper's central derivation claims an exact construction of emergent local integrals of motion arising from wall configurations in the perturbed Floquet-Clifford circuit, with analytical stability established against generic single-qubit unitary perturbations for p < 1. This construction is presented as self-contained and does not reduce to fitted parameters, self-citations, or renaming of known results. The SFF analysis is a separate numerical characterization of chaos within fragments and does not define or force the fragmentation sectors or localisation length. No load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are indicated. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and exact constructibility of wall configurations under generic perturbations; the abstract introduces no new free parameters beyond the input probability p and no new postulated particles or forces.

free parameters (1)
  • p
    Probability of inserting a non-Clifford gate on each qubit; controls the average operator spreading length but is an externally chosen input rather than a fitted constant.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Unitarity of the circuit evolution and the brickwork nearest-neighbour structure
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the background for Floquet circuit dynamics.
invented entities (1)
  • wall configurations no independent evidence
    purpose: To create disjoint operator-space sectors and emergent local integrals of motion
    New descriptive entity introduced to explain the fragmentation; no independent falsifiable prediction (e.g., a measurable mass or spectrum) is stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5840 in / 1537 out tokens · 45174 ms · 2026-05-23T21:56:34.608555+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    This would allow us to join the central site to the L subsytem forming a 0-wall and again contradicting that the wall be irreducible

    In this case we could clearly find some sig- nal to generate any element ofGleft combined with any element of the left symplectic subspace. This would allow us to join the central site to the L subsytem forming a 0-wall and again contradicting that the wall be irreducible. The internal subspace must therefore be a proper and non-trivial subspace of symple...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Let us define the subspace of left-conserved and right-conserved (2l + 1)-qubit operators of the form: L = { ¯Pl ⊗ {1, σc} ⊗ 1}\1, (17) R = {1 ⊗ {1, σc} ⊗ ¯Pl}\1, (18) 10 FIG. 7. A symmetric region of the circuit, with exactly one 1-wall on the central qubit (shown in red). Due to frag- mentation of the Pauli space, the perturbations in green act within i...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A similar analysis establishes that any perturbation within the k qubits between wall edges will break lo- calisation for k > 1

    (22) This shows that random rotations create, on average, a uniform mixture between local Paulis and thus in typical circuit realisations, rotations will de-stabilise the walls exponentially quickly in time. A similar analysis establishes that any perturbation within the k qubits between wall edges will break lo- calisation for k > 1. Although for larger ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    An n-qubit stabiliser state |ψ⟩ is one which fulfils gi |ψ⟩ = |ψ⟩ for the gener- ators of an Abelian subgroup {gi} of the n-qubit Pauli group

    The p = 0 limit The Clifford nature of the p = 0 model naturally suggests to consider the entanglement of stabiliser states as operator spreading is equivalent to entan- glement spreading in that case. An n-qubit stabiliser state |ψ⟩ is one which fulfils gi |ψ⟩ = |ψ⟩ for the gener- ators of an Abelian subgroup {gi} of the n-qubit Pauli group. A pure state...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Starting from a stabiliser state, the single-particle perturbations generate a superposition of stabilisers similarly to a branching process

    Average entanglement for p > 0 We argue that the above bound persists across walls which have no perturbation on the central qubit even when p > 0. Starting from a stabiliser state, the single-particle perturbations generate a superposition of stabilisers similarly to a branching process. If the peturbations act within the conserved subspace L, all stabil...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The lack of symmetries in random unitaries limits the numerically attainable system sizes in ex- act diagonalisation to small qubit numbers

    Circuit regions In this section, we present exact diagonalisation re- sults for finite-size circuits to study the spreading of entanglement across wall with and without perturba- tions. The lack of symmetries in random unitaries limits the numerically attainable system sizes in ex- act diagonalisation to small qubit numbers. We resort to exact methods to ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Entropy growth across the wall We show the time-evolution of average entangle- ment entropy and entropy fluctuations in Figure 8 for p = 0 .5. For an unperturbed wall, the bound based on stabiliser equipartition is corroborated re- flecting the fact that circuit disorder generate walls with X, Y, Z conserved subspaces in equal numbers on average and there...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Fluctuations in the entropy distribution Localisation is also observable from the large sam- ple fluctuations of the entropy on Figure 8. For an un- perturbed wall, entropy may only be generated across fragments through the Clifford wall gates, therefore the entropy of the state will be between 0 and 1 there- fore producing large fluctuations in the disor...

    work page

  9. [9]

    We observe the ap- proach to oretical bound in steps of two in the system size

    Convergence to the localised entropy bound We also performed a scaling analysis of reaching oretical bound on average entanglement for p = 0 .5 and p = 1 shown on Figure 9. We observe the ap- proach to oretical bound in steps of two in the system size. This finite size effect is due to our selection of bi- partite subsystems. As the minimum subsystem size...

    work page

  10. [10]

    As a result, here might be circuit instances which contain localised subspaces we haven’t explicitly accounted for

    Limitations We didn’t control the formation of higher order walls in the current numerical results. As a result, here might be circuit instances which contain localised subspaces we haven’t explicitly accounted for. Such rare instances decrease the average entropy, although we expect this to be a secondary effect. Accounting for higher order k-walls in th...

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Eisert, Phys

    J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 020501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 060601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Haferkamp, P

    J. Haferkamp, P. Faist, N. B. Kothakonda, J. Eis- ert, and N. Yunger Halpern, Nature Physics 18, 528 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 335 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Hahn and L

    D. Hahn and L. Colmenarez, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094207 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    O. Lunt, M. Szyniszewski, and A. Pal, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155111 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Jennewein, C

    T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4729 (2000)

    work page 2000

  24. [24]

    Yin, Y.-H

    J. Yin, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, M. Yang, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, S.-L. Li, et al. , Nature 582, 501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    work page 1996

  26. [26]

    B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 307 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Nandkishore and D

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

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021033 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. Prosen, Commun. Math. Phys. 387, 597 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    P. W. Claeys and A. Lamacraft, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033032 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    A. W. Harrow and R. A. Low, Commun. Math. Phys. 291, 257 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, A. W. Harrow, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. , 170502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Gross, K

    D. Gross, K. Audenaert, and J. Eisert, J. Math. Phys. 48, 052104 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    Haferkamp, Quantum 6, 795 (2022)

    J. Haferkamp, Quantum 6, 795 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Zhu, Phys

    H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062336 (2017)

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041019 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 206603 (2005)

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Ann. Phys. (NY) 321, 1126 (2006)

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Pal and D

    A. Pal and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 82, 174411 (2010)

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    D. J. Luitz, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Phys. Rev. B 91, 081103 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Chandran and C

    A. Chandran and C. R. Laumann, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    S¨ underhauf, D

    C. S¨ underhauf, D. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, D. A. Huse, N. Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134204 (2018). 19

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Farshi, D

    T. Farshi, D. Toniolo, C. E. Gonz´ alez-Guill´ en,´A. M. Alhambra, and L. Masanes, J. Math. Phys.63, 032201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Farshi, J

    T. Farshi, J. Richter, D. Toniolo, A. Pal, and L. Masanes, PRX Quantum 4, 030302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 127201 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    D. A. Huse, R. Nandkishore, and V. Oganesyan, Phys. Rev. B 90, 174202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    J. Z. Imbrie, J. Stat. Phys. 163, 998 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    De Roeck and F

    W. De Roeck and F. Huveneers, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155129 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    D. J. Luitz, F. Huveneers, and W. De Roeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 150602 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Sels, Phys

    D. Sels, Phys. Rev. B 106, L020202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    P. J. D. Crowley and A. Chandran, Phys. Rev. B106, 184208 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Morningstar, L

    A. Morningstar, L. Colmenarez, V. Khemani, D. J. Luitz, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174205 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    H. Ha, A. Morningstar, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 250405 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Jeyaretnam, C

    J. Jeyaretnam, C. J. Turner, and A. Pal, Phys. Rev. B 108, 094205 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    T. B. Wahl, A. Pal, and S. H. Simon, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021018 (2017)

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    E. V. H. Doggen, F. Schindler, K. S. Tikhonov, A. D. Mirlin, T. Neupert, D. G. Polyakov, and I. V. Gornyi, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174202 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    T. B. Wahl, A. Pal, and S. H. Simon, Nature Physics 15, 164 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    E. V. Doggen, I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Annals of Physics 435, 168437 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Haah, arXiv:2205.09141 (2022)

    J. Haah, arXiv:2205.09141 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Lavasani, Y

    A. Lavasani, Y. Alavirad, and M. Barkeshli, Physical review letters 127, 235701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    Br´ ezin and S

    E. Br´ ezin and S. Hikami, Spectral form factor in a random matrix theory (1996)

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    G. M. Sommers, D. A. Huse, and M. J. Gullans, PRX Quantum 4, 030313 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Angelidi, M

    I. Angelidi, M. Szyniszewski, and A. Pal, arXiv:2306.13008 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Richter, O

    J. Richter, O. Lunt, and A. Pal, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Tolar, J

    J. Tolar, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1071, 012022 (2018)

    work page 2018

  70. [70]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  71. [71]

    Y. Li, R. Vasseur, M. P. A. Fisher, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174307 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Makki, N

    N. Makki, N. Lang, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013278 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 250501 (2016)

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10481 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Bejan, C

    M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. B´ eri, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00132 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    P. S. Tarabunga, E. Tirrito, T. Chanda, and M. Dal- monte, PRX Quantum 4, 040317 (2023)

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    Zhou, Z.-C

    S. Zhou, Z.-C. Yang, A. Hamma, and C. Chamon, SciPost Phys. 9, 087 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Unitary designs from statistical mechanics in random quantum circuits

    N. Hunter-Jones, Unitary designs from statisti- cal mechanics in random quantum circuits (2019), arXiv:1905.12053

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Pilatowsky-Cameo, C

    S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, C. B. Dag, W. W. Ho, and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 250401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    Pilatowsky-Cameo, I

    S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, I. Marvian, S. Choi, and W. W. Ho, Hilbert-Space Ergodicity in Driven Quan- tum Systems: Obstructions and Designs (2024), arXiv:2402.06720 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.