Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Hilbert space geometry and quantum chaos

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The averaged quantum metric of a random-matrix family develops a universal conical singularity at the integrable point, with aperture π/2, tracing the loss of level repulsion.

desk verdict The N=2 analytic metric as printed is wrong at large r, but the conical-defect claim is numerically supported and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11968 v1 pith:OEBMDQYE submitted 2024-11-18 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-thquant-ph

Rustem Sharipov , Anastasiia Tiutiakina , Alexander Gorsky , Vladimir Gritsev , Anatoli Polkovnikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thquant-ph MSC 81Q5015B52 PACS 05.45.Mt03.65.-w05.30.-d
keywords quantumgeometrictensormetricchaosintegrabilityrandommatrixtheoryconicalsingularitylevelrepulsionnon-ergodicextendedphase
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 asks whether the geometry of Hilbert space, as encoded in the quantum geometric tensor, can tell an ergodic (chaotic) Hamiltonian apart from an integrable one. For a two-parameter family of random matrices, the authors compute the averaged quantum metric and find that the ergodic regime has smooth spherical geometry, while the integrable limit develops a conical defect with aperture $\pi/2$. The $1/r$ divergence of the metric that produces the cone is traced to the loss of level repulsion, that is, to the Poisson spectral statistics of the integrable limit. The paper also identifies three scaling regimes in the metric, localized, intermediate non-ergodic, and ergodic, separated by the scale $r^* = 1/\sqrt{N}$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the averaged quantum geometric tensor $G_{\alpha\beta} = (1/N)\sum_n \sum_{m\neq n}\langle n|\partial_\alpha H|m\rangle\langle m|\partial_\beta H|n\rangle/(E_n-E_m)^2$, evaluated at infinite temperature. Because the antisymmetric part of this averaged tensor vanishes for Hermitian Hamiltonians, the real part defines a Riemannian metric on the two-dimensional parameter space $(r,\phi)$. The argument proceeds by embedding this metric into Euclidean space through $R^2(r)=G_{\phi\phi}$ and $(dZ/dr)^2+(dR/dr)^2=G_{rr}$; solving these equations maps the metric to a surface whose shape is the main diagnostic. For the fully random family the surface is a hemisphere; for the diagonal-plus-random family the small-$r$ asymptotics give $R \approx Z \approx \sqrt{\pi/(4\sqrt{2})}\,\sqrt{r}$, which is a cone with aperture $\pi/2$. The mechanism behind the $1/r$ divergence is the disappearance of level repulsion: with Poisson statistics the energy denominators in the geometric tensor can become arbitrarily small, and a cutoff $\mu$ of order the level spacing $1/N$ controls the divergence.

What would settle it

Compute the averaged quantum metric for a genuinely integrable local spin chain, perturbed by a small non-integrable term along two coupling directions, and check whether the metric diverges as $1/r$ and the embedded surface approaches a cone of aperture $\pi/2$; if either fails, the conical defect is not a universal signature of integrability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for Hamiltonians $H = \Lambda_0 + xH_x + yH_y$, with $\Lambda_0$ a diagonal matrix of independent Gaussian entries and $H_x, H_y$ drawn from the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble, the averaged quantum metric is singular at the integrable point $r=0$: near the origin $ds^2 \sim \sqrt{N}\,(dr^2/r + 2r\,d\phi^2)$, whose isometric embedding is a cone with aperture $\pi/2$. For $N=2$ the metric is computed exactly and shows the same conical small-$r$ behaviour, and for large $N$ numerics confirm it. For large $r$ the metric crosses over to the pure random-matrix result $ds^2 \sim (dr^2 + r^2 d\phi^2)/2$, the lower hemisphere. The paper interprets the cone as a geometric signature of integrability, the crossover scale $r^* = 1/\sqrt{N}$ as the localization transition, and the intermediate window as the non-ergodic extended phase. It also notes that the cone angle matches the conical singularity found earlier at a quantum critical point, suggesting that integrable and critical points share a singular-geometry signature.

Load-bearing premise

The broad interpretation leans on treating a diagonal matrix with independent Gaussian entries, justified only by its Poisson level statistics, as a faithful stand-in for a generic integrable model; if real integrable Hamiltonians with local interactions do not share this singular geometry, the cone is a property of that ensemble rather than of integrability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The averaged quantum metric, not just the fidelity susceptibility at a single point, carries a sharp geometric signature of the ergodic-to-integrable crossover: a universal cone of aperture $\pi/2$ at the integrable point.
  • The same calculation yields three distinct scaling regimes for the metric components, separated by the crossover $r^* = 1/\sqrt{N}$, matching the localized, non-ergodic extended, and ergodic phases.
  • The conical singularity traces directly to the loss of level repulsion, so observing the cone in the metric can be read as geometric evidence of Poisson-like spectral statistics in the unperturbed system.
  • The cone angle matches the conical singularity found previously for a quantum critical point, suggesting a common geometric signature of critical slowing down and integrability.
  • With a finite energy cutoff regularizing the metric, the integrable $1/r$ regime appears when the probe time $t\sim 1/\mu$ exceeds $N$, consistent with the known scaling of the localization transition time with system size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conical defect is generic for integrable points rather than an artefact of the diagonal random matrix, the quantum metric becomes a diagnostic of integrability that requires no level-spacing statistics: a two-parameter scan near a suspected integrable point would reveal the cone directly.
  • The paper expects stronger divergence for integrability-preserving perturbations that commute with $\Lambda_0$, but does not compute that case; an analytic or numerical check of the commuting case would show whether the cone is set by spectral statistics alone or also by the structure of the perturbation matrix elements.
  • Because the metric is linked to a late-time autocorrelation function, the $1/r$ divergence at small perturbation implies a slow $1/t$ tail in the corresponding correlation function; measuring that tail would be a direct experimental test of the conical geometry.
  • The fact that the same aperture $\pi/2$ appeared earlier at a quantum critical point raises the question, not addressed here, of whether the cone angle is universal across integrable and critical points or whether different universality classes produce different angles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 the averaged quantum geometric tensor Gαβ (Eq. 5) for two-parameter random-matrix Hamiltonians of the form H = H0 + xHx + yHy. For a GUE base H0 with GUE perturbations, the authors derive closed-form metric components (Eq. 9), embed the resulting two-dimensional manifold in three-dimensional Euclidean space, and identify it as a lower hemisphere. For a diagonal Gaussian base H0, which they associate with an integrable/Rosenzweig-Porter-like system, they derive an exact N=2 metric (Eqs. 16a and 16b), propose a conical singularity with aperture π/2 at the integrable point, and use large-N numerics to identify three scaling regimes—localized, intermediate non-ergodic extended, and ergodic—separated by r* = 1/√N. The paper connects the 1/r divergence of the metric to the loss of level repulsion and discusses connections to spectral complexity and regularization time scales.

Significance. If the N=2 analytical calculation is corrected, the paper provides a clean, parameter-free example in which the averaged quantum metric distinguishes an ergodic phase (smooth spherical geometry) from an integrable limit (conical singularity) in a random-matrix family. The derivations are self-contained Gaussian integrals with no fitted constants, and the large-N scaling predictions are explicit and falsifiable. The main limitation is interpretive: the identification of a diagonal Gaussian ensemble with 'integrability' is an assumption based on Poisson level statistics, so the universality of the conical defect beyond this specific matrix ensemble is not established. Nevertheless, the concrete random-matrix result is a useful contribution if the analytic inconsistency described below is resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C8); main text Eq. (16b)] The printed exact N=2 radial metric is not self-consistent. For r→∞, arccot(r√2) ~ 1/(r√2), so the bracket in Eq. (C8) behaves as 1/(2r²) − 1/(2+r²) ~ −1/(2r²), giving Grr → −1/(8r²) < 0. This violates positivity, contradicts the stated asymptotic Grr → 1/(4r^4) in Eq. (C11), and is incompatible with the claimed crossover to the chaotic metric Eq. (9), which for N=2 gives Grr ~ 1/(2r^4). Because this exact solution anchors the N=2 conical angle and the large-N interpretation, the derivation must be corrected or replaced. This may be a typographical error or a missing term, but as written the analytic pillar of the central claim is unverified.
  2. [Geometry of Integrability Breaking, first paragraph; Conclusions] The paper treats a diagonal matrix with independent Gaussian entries as a representation of an integrable model solely because it has Poisson level statistics. This is a modeling assumption, not a consequence of integrability. Real integrable systems with local interactions or continuous symmetries may not share this singular geometry, and the final paragraph's broader claim about integrable points should either be restricted to the Rosenzweig-Porter-type ensemble or supported by a concrete check, e.g., computing the averaged QGT near an integrability-preserving perturbation of a local integrable spin chain. Without such a check, the conical defect is a feature of this ensemble rather than a proven universal signature of integrability.
  3. [Geometry of Integrability Breaking, paragraph after Fig. 4] The intermediate regime is asserted to be 'still spherical or very close to spherical,' but the evidence presented—saturation of Grr and Gϕϕ/r² at constants scaling as N—does not by itself determine the curvature or guarantee an isometric embedding as a round sphere. This statement is part of the claimed three-regime geometry. The authors should either compute the Gaussian curvature in this regime or explicitly label the spherical interpretation as a conjecture based on the constant components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Geometry of Integrability Breaking] The sentence 'Such a diagonal matrix exhibits Poisson level statistics and can therefore be regarded as a representation of an integrable model..' contains a duplicated period; this is a trivial typo.
  2. [Appendix E] The text says 'at β ≥ 1 the 1/r behaviour is observable,' but the parameter introduced in that paragraph is γ; β is undefined. This should be corrected to γ.
  3. [Appendix C and main text] The appendix is titled 'Embedding in 3d pseudo-Euclidean space' while the main text uses 'Euclidean space' and the equations (Eqs. 11–13) use the Euclidean signature dZ² + dR² + R²dϕ². The signature used for the N=2 embedding should be stated consistently.
  4. [Appendix B, subsection 2] The sentence 'Thus, we found the explicit expression for metric up to constant to be found numerically' is misleading, because Eq. (B17) subsequently fixes the constant analytically. This wording should be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the metric computations are explicit ensemble averages, and the cited prior framework is motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained. The chaotic-case metric is computed in Appendix B by explicit Gaussian integration over GUE matrices (Eqs. B6-B17), and the N=2 integrable-breaking metric in Appendix C is obtained by elementary Gaussian integrals (Eqs. C1-C8). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted; the large-N curves in Fig. 3 are direct numerical evaluations of Eq. (4) for the stated ensembles. The interpretation that QGT scaling distinguishes ergodic/integrable phases references earlier work by the same group (Refs. [8,14,23]), but that is a choice of probe, not a premise needed to compute the metric; the conical defect and 1/r divergence follow from the explicit formulas and level-spacing considerations, not from the cited papers. The comparison to the Rosenzweig-Porter scaling regimes (Ref. [35]) is external. Thus, no output reduces to an input by construction, and no specific circular step can be exhibited. Any self-citation appears only in the framing and does not carry the derivation.

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

No free parameters were introduced; the only scales come from the ensemble definitions. The main axioms are the identification of GUE and diagonal Gaussian ensembles with chaotic and integrable phases, and the use of the averaged QGT as the diagnostic. These are domain assumptions taken from the prior literature, not derived in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GUE ensembles with distribution e^{-N/2 Tr H^2} model quantum chaotic Hamiltonians
    Used in Eqs (6)-(9); underlies the identification of the smooth-hemisphere phase with ergodic behavior.
  • domain assumption Diagonal random matrix with independent Gaussian entries has Poisson statistics and represents an integrable model
    Section 'Geometry of Integrability Breaking', first paragraph; without this identification the conical defect only describes a diagonal-plus-random ensemble, not integrable systems generally.
  • standard math Virial relation (B17) for GUE level spacings
    Appendix B, Eq (B17), drawn from Mehta [42]; needed to evaluate the averaged inverse gap squared.
  • domain assumption The averaged QGT (Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the adiabatic gauge potential) is the relevant chaos diagnostic
    Eq (5) and Refs [8,23]; the paper's interpretation of the geometry as ergodic/integrable depends on this measure.
  • domain assumption Existence of a smooth isometric embedding of the averaged metric into 3D Euclidean or pseudo-Euclidean space
    Main text around Eq (11) and Appendix C; the geometric conclusions (hemisphere, cone) are read off from such embeddings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hilbert space geometry and quantum chaos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OEBMDQYE

@misc{pith2026241111968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hilbert space geometry and quantum chaos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OEBMDQYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11968}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum geometric tensor (QGT) characterizes the Hilbert space geometry of the eigenstates of a parameter-dependent Hamiltonian. In recent years, the QGT and related quantities have found extensive theoretical and experimental utility, in particular for quantifying quantum phase transitions both at and out of equilibrium. Here we consider the symmetric part (quantum Riemannian metric) of the QGT for various multi-parametric random matrix Hamiltonians and discuss the possible indication of ergodic or integrable behaviour. We found for a two-dimensional parameter space that, while the ergodic phase corresponds to the smooth manifold, the integrable limit marks itself as a singular geometry with a conical defect. Our study thus provides more support for the idea that the landscape of the parameter space yields information on the ergodic-nonergodic transition in complex quantum systems, including the intermediate phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Isometric manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Components of QGT as a function of scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards Reliable Local Security Agents: Verifiable Post-Training for Linux Privilege Escalation

    cs.CR 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    In the Russian Doll model, the Bethe quantum number Q counts cyclic RG periods and serves as an order parameter for the fractal eigenstate phase via D ≈ ln(1−Q_min)/ln N.

  2. Geometry of quantum states and chaos-integrability transition

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ensemble-averaged quantum metric tensors of random matrix models show finite geodesic distance to the chaotic phase and a 1/r divergence of fidelity susceptibility near integrability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J. P. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    Zanardi and N

    P. Zanardi and N. Paunkovi´ c, Ground state overlap and quantum phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 031123 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    Zanardi, P

    P. Zanardi, P. Giorda, and M. Cozzini, Information- theoretic differential geometry of quantum phase tran- sitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 100603 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Classifying and measuring the geometry of the quantum ground state manifold

    M. Kolodrubetz, V. Gritsev, and A. Polkovnikov, Clas- sifying and measuring geometry of a quantum ground state manifold, Phys. Rev. B 88, 064304 (2013), arXiv:1305.0568 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Liska and V

    D. Liska and V. Gritsev, Hidden symmetries, the bianchi classification and geodesics of the quantum ge- ometric ground-state manifolds, SciPost Physics 10, 10.21468/scipostphys.10.1.020 (2021)

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.10.1.020 2021

  6. [6]

    Peotta, K.-E

    S. Peotta, K.-E. Huhtinen, and P. T¨ orm¨ a, Quantum geometry in superfluidity and superconductivity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08248 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Alexandrov and A

    A. Alexandrov and A. Gorsky, Information geometry and synchronization phase transition in the kuramoto model, Physical Review E 107, 10.1103/physreve.107.044211 (2023). 6

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.107.044211 2023

  8. [8]

    Pandey, P

    M. Pandey, P. W. Claeys, D. K. Campbell, A. Polkovnikov, and D. Sels, Adiabatic eigenstate deformations as a sensitive probe for quantum chaos, Physical Review X 10, 10.1103/physrevx.10.041017 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.041017 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    F. M. Surace and O. Motrunich, Weak integrability breaking perturbations of integrable models, Physical Review Research 5, 10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043019 (2023)

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Vanovac, F

    S. Vanovac, F. M. Surace, and O. Motrunich, Finite-size generators for weak integrability breaking perturbations in the heisenberg chain (2024), arXiv:2406.08730 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Orlov, A

    P. Orlov, A. Tiutiakina, R. Sharipov, E. Petrova, V. Grit- sev, and D. V. Kurlov, Adiabatic eigenstate deforma- tions and weak integrability breaking of heisenberg chain, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184312 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Pozsgay, R

    B. Pozsgay, R. Sharipov, A. Tiutiakina, and I. Vona, Adiabatic gauge potential and integrability breaking with free fermions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12979 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12979 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Sels and A

    D. Sels and A. Polkovnikov, Dynamical obstruction to localization in a disordered spin chain, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2009.04501 (2020), arXiv:2009.04501 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kim and A

    H. Kim and A. Polkovnikov, Integrability as an attractor of adiabatic flows, Phys. Rev. B 109, 195162 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    V. E. Kravtsov, I. M. Khaymovich, E. Cuevas, and M. Amini, A random matrix model with localization and ergodic transitions, New Journal of Physics 17, 122002 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Venturelli, L

    D. Venturelli, L. F. Cugliandolo, G. Schehr, and M. Tarzia, Replica approach to the general- ized rosenzweig-porter model, SciPost Physics 14, 10.21468/scipostphys.14.5.110 (2023)

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    B. Bhattacharjee and P. Nandy, Krylov fractality and complexity in generic random matrix ensembles (2024), arXiv:2407.07399 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bogomolny and M

    E. Bogomolny and M. Sieber, Eigenfunction distribu- tion for the Rosenzweig-Porter model, Phys. Rev. E 98, 032139 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Tang and I

    W. Tang and I. M. Khaymovich, Non-ergodic delocal- ized phase with Poisson level statistics, Quantum 6, 733 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    multifractal

    I. M. Khaymovich and V. E. Kravtsov, Dynamical phases in a “multifractal” Rosenzweig-Porter model, SciPost Phys. 11, 45 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    von Soosten and S

    P. von Soosten and S. Warzel, Non-ergodic delocalization in the Rosenzweig–Porter model, Letters in Mathemati- cal Physics , 1 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Altshuler and V

    B. Altshuler and V. Kravtsov, Random cantor sets and mini-bands in local spectrum of quantum systems, An- nals of Physics 456, 169300 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Sugiura, P

    S. Sugiura, P. W. Claeys, A. Dymarsky, and A. Polkovnikov, Adiabatic landscape and optimal paths in ergodic systems, Physical Review Research 3, 10.1103/physrevresearch.3.013102 (2021)

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (1969)

    1969

  17. [25]

    D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi, and E. Altman, A universal operator growth hypothesis, Physical Review X 9, 10.1103/physrevx.9.041017 (2019)

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Anderson transitions, Reviews of Modern Physics 80, 1355–1417 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Serbyn, Z

    M. Serbyn, Z. Papi´ c, and D. A. Abanin, Criterion for many-body localization-delocalization phase transition, Physical Review X 5, 10.1103/physrevx.5.041047 (2015)

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    C. Lim, K. Matirko, A. Polkovnikov, and M. O. Flynn, Defining classical and quantum chaos through adia- batic transformations (2024), arXiv:2401.01927 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2024

  21. [29]

    B. V. Fine, T. A. Elsayed, C. M. Kropf, and A. S. de Wijn, Absence of exponential sensitivity to small per- turbations in nonintegrable systems of spins 1/2, Physical Review E 89, 10.1103/physreve.89.012923 (2014)

    2014 doi

  22. [31]

    Pappalardi, A

    S. Pappalardi, A. Polkovnikov, and A. Silva, Quantum echo dynamics in the sherrington-kirkpatrick model, Sci- Post Physics 9, 10.21468/scipostphys.9.2.021 (2020)

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    Berry and P

    M. Berry and P. Shukla, Quantum metric statistics for random-matrix families, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical 53, 275202 (2020)

    2020

  24. [33]

    Derrida, Random-energy model: Limit of a family of disordered models, Phys

    B. Derrida, Random-energy model: Limit of a family of disordered models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 79 (1980)

    1980

  25. [34]

    Motamarri, A

    V. Motamarri, A. S. Gorsky, and I. Khaymovich, Localization and fractality in disordered russian doll model, SciPost Physics 13, 10.21468/scipost- phys.13.5.117 (2022)

    2022 doi

  26. [36]

    L. V. Iliesiu, M. Mezei, and G. S´ arosi, The volume of the black hole interior at late times (2021), arXiv:2107.06286 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Bhattacharjee, A lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential (2023), arXiv:2302.07228 [quant-ph]

    B. Bhattacharjee, A lanczos approach to the adiabatic gauge potential (2023), arXiv:2302.07228 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to adiabatic- ity in krylov space, Physical Review X 14, 10.1103/phys- revx.14.011032 (2024)

    2024 doi

  29. [39]

    Dumitriu and A

    I. Dumitriu and A. Edelman, Matrix models for beta en- sembles, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 5830–5847 (2002)

    2002

  30. [40]

    Balasubramanian, J

    V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan, and Q. Wu, Tridi- agonalizing random matrices, Phys. Rev. D 107, 126001 (2023)

    2023

  31. [41]

    P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, and D. Stanford, Jt gravity as a matrix integral (2019), arXiv:1903.11115 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Hilbert space geometry and quantum chaos

    M. L. Mehta, Random matrices (Elsevier, 2004). 7 Supplemental Material for “Hilbert space geometry and quantum chaos” Appendix A: Quantum Geometric tensor in terms of matrix elements of the Hamiltonian Here we want to show the formulae Eq.(4). To do so, we start with the origi...

    2004

  33. [43]

    Grϕ component Let’s start with the mixed component. In terms of new variables, r, ϕthe ¯grϕ component can be written in the following way: Grϕ = Z −1 r N X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hx|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hy|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm ρ(H0, ˜Hx, ˜Hy)DH0DHxDHy (B3) Notice that ρ(H0, Hx, Hy) = ρ(H0, ˜Hx, ˜Hy) , s...

  34. [44]

    Grr component For the ¯grr component we have: Grr = Z −1 1 N X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hx|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hx|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm ρ(H0, ˜Hx, ˜Hy)DH0DHxDHy (B6) The integration over ˜Hy returns unity. Then, the rest of the integral reads as: Grr = Z −1 1 N X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hx|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hx|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2n...

  35. [45]

    (B18) Using the same average over ˜Hy as in Eq

    Gϕϕ component The calculation of the angle-angle component can be performed in the similar manner, following steps of the previous Appendix B 2 The ¯gϕϕ reads: Gϕϕ = Z −1 1 N r2 X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hy|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hy|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm ρ(H0, ˜Hx, ˜Hy)DH0D ˜HxD ˜Hy. (B18) Using the same av...

  36. [46]

    In N = 2 case, the matrix H0 corresponds to the integrable point, that can be parametrised by two independent Gaussian distributed parameters

    Gϕϕ component To calculate, Gϕϕ we will use the expression derived in the previous appendix: Gϕϕ = Z −1 1 N r2 X m̸=n Z 1 (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm e− N 2 T r(H 2 0 +2 ˜H 2 x)DH0D ˜Hx , (C1) where now DH0 = Q i dhi. In N = 2 case, the matrix H0 corresponds to the integrable point, that ...

  37. [47]

    We start with the expression: Grr = Z −1 X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hx|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hx|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm e− 1 2 T r(H 2 0 +2 ˜H 2 x)DH0DHx

    Grr component The consideration of rr component can be done in the similar manner. We start with the expression: Grr = Z −1 X m̸=n Z ⟨n| ˜Hx|m⟩⟨m| ˜Hx|n⟩ (H0 + r ˜Hx)2nm e− 1 2 T r(H 2 0 +2 ˜H 2 x)DH0DHx . (C6) Using parametrisation we discussed for the ϕϕ component of the met...

  38. [48]

    (C10) Although we can not calculate the integral exactly, we investigate the asymptotic limits

    Embedding in 3d pseudo-Euclidean space Following the procedure we discussed in the main text we can find the radius component of the embedding: R2(r) = r 1 2 √ 2 arctan √ 2 r ! , (C9) and the form of the surface Z(r) can be found from Eq.(12), which reduces to a differential e...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.