Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The variance of graph-energy centrality on Fock-space graphs jumps at the onset of weak ETH violation, capturing known weak ergodicity-breaking transitions even for systems of hundreds of sites without diagonalizing the Hamiltonian.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 17:56 UTC pith:VV5IEPJS

load-bearing objection The quant-ph paper (not the dark-matter abstract) cleanly shows that var(GEC) jumps at known fading-ergodicity onsets with analytic control to the thermodynamic limit; TLG is useful but provisional. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.00093 v2 pith:VV5IEPJS submitted 2026-04-30 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-exhep-th

A New Robust Constraint on the Self-interaction Cross-section of Dark Matter with Double Radio Relic Clusters

M. James Jee , Dongak Park , Wonki Lee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-exhep-th
keywords graph-energy centralityweak ergodicity breakingeigenstate thermalization hypothesisFock-space graphRosenzweig-Porter modelQuantum Sun modeltriangular lattice gasfading ergodicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that weak violations of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis can be diagnosed from a purely graph-theoretic quantity built on the Hamiltonian written in Fock space. The quantity is graph-energy centrality (GEC): each basis state receives a score that measures how much removing that node changes the energy of the graph. For the Rosenzweig-Porter model and the Quantum Sun model the authors compute the mean and variance of the GEC distribution analytically, including in the thermodynamic limit, and show that the variance becomes a step function that jumps exactly where fading ergodicity is known to set in. The same diagnostic, evaluated semi-analytically for systems up to 450 sites, also tracks the crossover into glassy dynamics in a kinetically constrained triangular-lattice gas. Because the calculation never requires eigenstates, the method reaches sizes far beyond exact diagonalization and therefore offers a practical way to locate weak ergodicity-breaking points that ordinary spectral diagnostics miss on accessible system sizes.

Core claim

Leading moments of the graph-energy centrality distribution capture sudden weak ETH violations. In the thermodynamic limit the variance of GEC jumps discontinuously from zero to a finite value at the onset of fading ergodicity for both the Rosenzweig-Porter model (at γ = 1) and the Quantum Sun model (at α = 1). The same system-size scaling of the variance flags a weak-ETH-breaking crossover in the triangular lattice gas near V/t₀ ≈ 0.84, the regime previously associated with glassy density autocorrelations.

What carries the argument

Graph-energy centrality (GEC): for each Fock-space basis state |i angle the score is the relative drop in Tr(H^{2}) when |i angle is projected out of the Hilbert space. Its first two moments reduce to local moments of H and of its off-diagonal part; those moments can be evaluated analytically (or semi-analytically) for large systems and even in the thermodynamic limit, without any diagonalization.

Load-bearing premise

A change in how the variance of graph-energy centrality scales with system size is assumed to be a faithful signal of weak ETH violation rather than merely a reflection of the chosen basis or of ordinary Hamiltonian structure.

What would settle it

Compute var(GEC) for a sequence of larger triangular-lattice-gas systems (or for an independent kinetically constrained model) and check whether the extrapolated crossing remains near V/t₀ ≈ 0.84 while independent mid-spectrum indicators (gap-ratio distributions or entanglement fluctuations) simultaneously develop the sub-leading corrections expected of fading ergodicity; if the crossing drifts away or the spectral diagnostics stay featureless, the claimed diagnostic fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Weak ergodicity-breaking points that are invisible to averaged gap-ratio statistics can still be located by the finite-size crossing of var(GEC).
  • Because the moments are available analytically for the Rosenzweig-Porter and Quantum Sun models, the location of the fading-ergodicity boundary is known exactly in the thermodynamic limit.
  • The same non-eigenstate measure can be applied to two- and higher-dimensional glassy or constrained models whose Hilbert-space dimensions lie far beyond exact diagonalization or matrix-product methods.
  • The method supplies a concrete numerical protocol for testing whether other proposed glass transitions can be re-interpreted as weak ETH violations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If var(GEC) continues to work for true ergodicity-breaking transitions (many-body localization or Anderson transitions), it would give a single graph-theoretic diagnostic that covers both weak and strong violations.
  • The analytic accessibility of GEC moments suggests that similar centrality measures could be used as cheap pre-screens before expensive eigenstate calculations in quantum-simulator design.
  • The basis dependence of GEC implies that choosing the occupation-number basis is itself a physical assumption; models whose natural basis is highly entangled may require a different centrality definition.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies weak ergodicity-breaking transitions (wEBTs) in closed quantum many-body systems by representing Hamiltonians as weighted Fock-space graphs and analyzing the distribution of graph-energy centrality (GEC). For the Rosenzweig–Porter model (RPM) and the Quantum Sun model (QSM), the authors derive the mean and variance of GEC analytically (including ensemble-averaged normalizations), showing that in the thermodynamic limit var(GEC) becomes a step function that jumps at the independently known onsets of fading ergodicity (γ=1 for RPM; α=1 for QSM). Finite-size crossings of var(GEC) are recovered and subleading corrections are discussed. The same diagnostic is applied semianalytically to the triangular lattice gas (TLG) at half filling, where the system-size scaling of var(GEC) exhibits a crossing that extrapolates to V★/t0≈0.84, coinciding with the regime of glassy density autocorrelations reported previously. Supporting ETH matrix-element checks for the QSM and gap-ratio/entanglement diagnostics for the TLG are given in the End Matter.

Significance. If the GEC-moment diagnostic is reliable, the work supplies a non-eigenstate, non-diagonalization probe of sudden weak ETH violations that can be evaluated on systems of hundreds of sites and, for RPM/QSM, in the thermodynamic limit—well beyond exact diagonalization. The analytic recovery of the known RPM and QSM fading-ergodicity onsets is a strong validation. The TLG application is a concrete step toward placing kinetically constrained glassiness inside the wEBT framework. Machine-checkable analytic expressions for the moments (Appendix A and SM), explicit thermodynamic-limit step functions (Figs. 2c, 3c), and publicly released data strengthen reproducibility and make the result useful for higher-dimensional and glassy models where spectral diagnostics are hard.

major comments (2)
  1. End Matter C and Fig. 4c: For the TLG the average gap ratio approaches the GOE value with increasing L, while the entanglement entropy shows only a partial, energy-dependent deviation at large V. The paper itself flags fading ergodicity as ongoing work. The extrapolated crossing V★/t0≈0.84 is therefore only weakly corroborated by conventional ETH indicators. The claim that this crossing is a wEBT should be stated more cautiously (e.g., as a candidate crossover consistent with glassy dynamics) unless additional mid-spectrum matrix-element or dynamical evidence is added.
  2. § “Graph-energy centrality” and the TLG application: GEC is basis-dependent by construction. The chosen bases (eigenbasis of H0 for RPM; product Sz basis for QSM; local density basis for TLG) are natural, but the manuscript does not quantify how much the location or existence of the var(GEC) crossing would shift under a different, still local, basis for the TLG. A short numerical check or argument that the crossing is robust under mild basis changes would strengthen the claim that the diagnostic tracks thermalization rather than Hamiltonian structure alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. Eq. (1): The definition differs from Ref. [83] by a factor of D; this is stated but easy to miss. A one-sentence reminder when quoting numerical values of var(GEC) would help readers comparing to earlier work.
  2. Fig. 2c inset and Fig. 3c inset: The crossing-point zooms are useful; adding the analytic finite-D expression (or a reference to the SM equation) in the caption would make the figures self-contained.
  3. QSM parameters (ζ, h, W, g0): The main text states that ζ≪1 is assumed for the analytic moments. A brief note that the ED distributions in Figs. 3a,b use the physical ζ=0.2 and still match the qualitative change would clarify consistency.
  4. Typographical: “onging work” (Conclusion) → “ongoing work”; “fo the QSM” → “for the QSM”; “ergodicty” (End Matter C) → “ergodicity”.
  5. References: The connection to fading ergodicity is well cited; a short pointer to recent experimental Hilbert-space fragmentation work already listed in the introduction would better frame the TLG discussion for a broader audience.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GEC is an independent graph measure; var(GEC) jumps are derived from the Hamiltonian definition and validated against externally established wEBT locations.

full rationale

The paper defines graph-energy centrality (GEC) from the Fock-space graph of a Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) without reference to ETH, fading ergodicity, or any transition parameter. Moments of the GEC distribution for the Rosenzweig–Porter model and Quantum Sun model are obtained analytically from the matrix-element statistics of those Hamiltonians (End Matter A and Supplemental Material); in the thermodynamic limit var(GEC) becomes a step function whose discontinuity sits exactly at the independently known onsets of fading ergodicity (γ=1 for RPM, α=1 for QSM). Those onsets are taken from the external literature (Kravtsov et al., Vidmar et al., etc.), not from GEC itself. Application to the triangular lattice gas is a diagnostic use of the same measure; the extrapolated crossing V★/t0≈0.84 is presented as supporting evidence for a possible wEBT, with fading ergodicity left as ongoing work. The sole self-citation of the authors’ prior GEC paper [83] introduces the tool; it does not force the locations or the existence of the transitions. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known empirical pattern is merely re-labeled. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GEC definition, Fock-space graph construction in a chosen basis, standard ETH/fading-ergodicity phenomenology for RPM and QSM, and model Hamiltonians with their usual disorder/constraint assumptions. No new particle or force is postulated. Free numbers are model parameters and technical cutoffs, not fits that define the claimed transition values for RPM/QSM; the TLG V★ is an extrapolated observable, not an input.

free parameters (2)
  • QSM disorder/coupling cutoffs (ζ, h, W, g0)
    Fixed by hand to standard literature values (ζ=0.2 or ζ→0 in analytics; h=1, W=0.5, g0=1). They set the concrete QSM ensemble but are not fitted to force the α=1 jump.
  • TLG crossing-point extrapolation to L→∞
    V★(L) from comparing L and L+4 is extrapolated to V★/t0≈0.84; the infinite-size value is an inferred number from finite-size data, not an analytic fixed point.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Graph-energy centrality GEC(|i⟩)=Tr(H²)−Tr([H⊖|i⟩]²) normalized by Tr(H²)/D on a traceless Hamiltonian is a meaningful node importance for thermalization diagnostics.
    Definition taken from prior GEC work and Eq. (1); physical content is justified by correlation with slow density autocorrelations in East models, not derived from ETH.
  • domain assumption Fading ergodicity / weak ETH violation onsets in RPM at γ=1 and in QSM at α=1 are established external benchmarks.
    Used as ground truth to validate that var(GEC) jumps at the correct points (Introduction and model sections; citations to Kravtsov et al., Vidmar group fading-ergodicity papers).
  • ad hoc to paper For disordered ensembles, replacing single-sample normalization by ensemble-averaged mean and variance of the spectrum does not erase the transition signal in GEC moments.
    Stated in the GEC section and End Matter A as the practical averaging scheme needed for analytic RPM/QSM moments.
  • domain assumption Choice of computational basis (eigenbasis of H0 for RPM; product Sz basis for QSM; local density basis for TLG) is the physically appropriate Fock-space graph.
    Repeatedly emphasized that an appropriate basis is required to connect GEC to the physics problem; results are basis-dependent by construction.
  • standard math Standard linear algebra / GOE moment identities and central-limit arguments for χ²-like GEC distributions.
    Used in Appendix A and the RPM limiting-case discussion to obtain var(GEC).
invented entities (1)
  • weak ergodicity-breaking transition (wEBT) as operationalized by GEC-moment scaling no independent evidence
    purpose: Name and detect sudden weak ETH violations via jumps or crossings in var(GEC), including the TLG glassy crossover.
    Terminology is aligned with prior weak-ergodicity-breaking language but the GEC-based operational definition and TLG application are specific to this paper; independent evidence for TLG as a true wEBT is only partial (broad diagonal matrix elements, entanglement outliers).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 35684 in / 3414 out tokens · 47944 ms · 2026-07-12T17:56:33.799715+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Merging galaxy clusters are a promising laboratory for measuring the self-interaction cross-section (SICS) of dark matter. However, previous studies have focused on galaxy-mass offsets, which numerical simulations have shown to be intrinsically small because galaxies remain tightly coupled to the dominant dark matter potential even with significant self-interaction. Their interpretation is further complicated by unknowns of the merger phase, geometry, and initial conditions. In this paper, we overcome these obstacles by introducing the shock-to-shock distance, traced by double radio relics, as a merger chronometer that time-stamps the post-pericenter dynamical phase. Because the propagation speed of merger shocks is nearly independent of the SICS, while the halo-to-halo distance is depressed by SIDM-induced drag, the ratio of the two distances translates directly into a constraint on sigma/m. Applying this method to a gold sample of eleven cluster mergers hosting symmetric double radio relics, we determine an upper limit on the SICS of sigma/m < 0.22 (0.63) cm^2/g at the 68% (95%) confidence level. This is the first constraint from cluster collisions that fully marginalizes over mass uncertainty, viewing angle, collision speed, merger phase, impact parameter, and gas profile slope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00093 by Dongak Park, M. James Jee, Wonki Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time evolution of the shock-to-shock and halo-to-halo distances. We simulate a merger of two 5 × 1014 M⊙ halos and trace the halo-to-halo (dashed) and shock-to-shock (solid) distances as a function of the time since collision (TSC), with TSC= 0 at pericenter pas￾sage. The shock-to-shock distance is nearly identical in the collisionless (σ/m = 0 cm2 g −1 , red) and self-interacting (σ/m = 3 cm2 g −1 , black… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Projected shock-to-shock and halo-to-halo dis￾tances as a function of viewing angle. We illustrate a head-on collision case where M1 = M2 = 5 × 1014 M⊙, fv = 1.2, and σ/m = 0 cm2 g −1 . Both distances are normalized to unity at α = 0◦ . The blue (orange) data points represent normalized projected shock-to-shock (halo-to-halo) distances measured at different viewing angles. As expected, the halo-to-halo dis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SICS recovery test with a single mock radio relic cluster. Solid curves represent posteriors while the vertical dashed lines indicate the medians. When we em￾ploy tight priors centered on the true physical parameters of the merger, the resulting posterior distribution (blue) peaks sharply at the true σ/m = 1 value. Conversely, when the priors are relaxed to reflect a realistic observational scenario, the c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constraints on the SICS from real radio relic clus￾ters. The faint thin lines indicate the individual posteriors p(σ/m | µi) derived from each merger µi. The blue solid line is the combined posterior and the orange line its smoothed KDE. The red vertical dashed and dot-dashed lines mark the 68% and 95% upper limits, respectively. 3.1. Sample Selection With the increased sensitivity of new-generation ra￾dio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SICS recovery test with multiple mergers. The faint thin lines indicate the individual posteriors p(σ/m | µi) derived from each i th merger data µi. The blue solid line represents the (unsmoothed) combined posterior distribution p(σ/m | {µ}) ∝ QN i=1 p(σ/m | µi). The orange line repre￾sents the smoothed Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) of this combined posterior. The green vertical line is the true cross– sec… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio relic galaxy cluster analogs from the TNG-Cluster simulation used for validation. Analogous to our ob￾servational gold sample selection, we identify 15 analogs within the TNG-Cluster simulation that experience major binary mergers with small impact parameters and clear symmetric double radio relics. These systems are selected as massive halo pairs (Mhalo ≥ 1014 M⊙) undergoing active, first-passage co… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity of σ/m upper limits to prior assump￾tions. The amplitude of the variation is encompassed by the 68% confidence interval of the fiducial result, which is esti￾mated from bootstrapping on eleven mergers. See text for details on each prior assumption. 4.3. Future Outlook: Synergies with Rubin, Roman, Euclid, and SKA The methodology established in this study provides a scalable framework for the ne… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Asymmetric Two-Component Scalar FIMP Dark Matter

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A two-component asymmetric scalar FIMP dark matter model stabilized by Z2 x Z2' symmetry reproduces the observed relic density via freeze-in and mediator decay for benchmark parameters with the second component contri...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For the TLG model, GEC is calculated in the joint eigenbasis of local density operatorsˆn�

    is another candidate for a wEBT. For the TLG model, GEC is calculated in the joint eigenbasis of local density operatorsˆn�. Fig. 4(c) shows var(GEC)as a function of V for filling (N = L/2). We find a regime forV/t 0 � 1where var(GEC)decreases for increasingL, while it increases forV/t 0 � 1. This leads to a crossing pointV �(L), extracted by comparing sy...

  2. [2]

    J. M. Deutsch, Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system, Phys. Rev. A��, 2046 (1991)

    2046

  3. [3]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

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

    1994

  4. [4]

    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. ��, 239 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Rep. Prog. Phys.��, 082001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Patil and M

    R. Patil and M. Rigol, Eigenstate thermalization (2026), arXiv:2604.11872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Rigol, V

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

    2008

  8. [8]

    Rigol, Breakdown of thermalization in finite one- dimensional systems, Phys

    M. Rigol, Breakdown of thermalization in finite one- dimensional systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 100403 (2009)

    2009

  9. [9]

    Rigol, Quantum quenches and thermalization in one- dimensional fermionic systems, Phys

    M. Rigol, Quantum quenches and thermalization in one- dimensional fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. A��, 053607 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    L. F. Santos and M. Rigol, Localization and the effects of symmetries in the thermalization properties of one- dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E��, 031130 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    R.Steinigeweg, J.Herbrych,andP.Prelovšek,Eigenstate thermalization within isolated spin-chain systems, Phys. Rev. E��, 012118 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Khatami, G

    E. Khatami, G. Pupillo, M. Srednicki, and M. Rigol, Fluctuation-dissipation theorem in an isolated system of quantum dipolar bosons after a quench, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 050403 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    S. Sorg, L. Vidmar, L. Pollet, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Relaxation and thermalization in the one-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model: A case study for the interaction quantum quench from the atomic limit, Phys. Rev. A ��, 033606 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    Beugeling, R

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Finite-size scaling of eigenstate thermalization, Phys. Rev. E��, 042112 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    Steinigeweg, A

    R. Steinigeweg, A. Khodja, H. Niemeyer, C. Gogolin, and J. Gemmer, Pushing the limits of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis towards mesoscopic quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 130403 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Beugeling, R

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Off-diagonal matrix elements of local operators in many-body quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. E��, 012144 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    Mondaini, K

    R. Mondaini, K. R. Fratus, M. Srednicki, and M. Rigol, Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional trans- verse field Ising model, Phys. Rev. E��, 032104 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    Mondaini and M

    R. Mondaini and M. Rigol, Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional transverse field Ising model. II. Off-diagonal matrix elements of observables, Phys. Rev. E��, 012157 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Yoshizawa, E

    T. Yoshizawa, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, Numerical large deviation analysis of the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 200604 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Jansen, J

    D. Jansen, J. Stolpp, L. Vidmar, and F. Heidrich- Meisner, Eigenstate thermalization and quantum chaos in the Holstein polaron model, Phys. Rev. B��, 155130 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Foini and J

    L. Foini and J. Kurchan, Eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis and out of time order correlators, Phys. Rev. E ��, 042139 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Mierzejewski and L

    M. Mierzejewski and L. Vidmar, Quantitative impact of integrals of motion on the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 040603 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Richter, A

    J. Richter, A. Dymarsky, R. Steinigeweg, and J. Gemmer, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis beyond standard indicators: Emergence of random-matrix behavior at small frequencies, Phys. Rev. E���, 042127 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    L. F. Santos, F. Pérez-Bernal, and E. J. Torres-Herrera, Speck of chaos, Phys. Rev. Res.�, 043034 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Brenes, T

    M. Brenes, T. LeBlond, J. Goold, and M. Rigol, Eigen- state thermalization in a locally perturbed integrable system, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 070605 (2020)

    2020

  26. [26]

    Brenes, J

    M. Brenes, J. Goold, and M. Rigol, Low-frequency be- havior of off-diagonal matrix elements in the integrable XXZ chain and in a locally perturbed quantum-chaotic XXZ chain, Phys. Rev. B���, 075127 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Sugimoto, R

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, Test of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis based on local ran- 6 dom matrix theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 120602 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Schönle, D

    C. Schönle, D. Jansen, F. Heidrich-Meisner, and L. Vid- mar, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis through the lens of autocorrelation functions, Phys. Rev. B���, 235137 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Pappalardi, L

    S. Pappalardi, L. Foini, and J. Kurchan, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and free probability, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 170603 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Pappalardi, F

    S. Pappalardi, F. Fritzsch, and T. Prosen, Full eigenstate thermalization via free cumulants in quantum lattice systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 140404 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Vallini, L

    E. Vallini, L. Foini, and S. Pappalardi, Refinements of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis under lo- cal rotational invariance via free probability (2025), arXiv:2511.23217

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papić, Weak ergodicity breaking from quantum many-body scars, Nat. Phys.��, 745 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papić, Quantum many- body scars and weak breaking of ergodicity, Nature Physics��, 675 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Desaules, K

    J.-Y. Desaules, K. Bull, A. Daniel, and Z. Papić, Hyper- grid subgraphs and the origin of scarred quantum walks in many-body Hilbert space, Phys. Rev. B���, 245137 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Exhaustive character- ization of quantum many-body scars using commutant algebras, Phys. Rev. X��, 041069 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and Hilbert space fragmentation: A review of exact results, Rep. Prog. Phys.��, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moessner, Quantum many-body scars: A quasiparticle perspective, Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys.��, 443 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Evrard, A

    B. Evrard, A. Pizzi, S. I. Mistakidis, and C. B. Dag, Quantumscarsandregulareigenstatesinachaoticspinor condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 020401 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Rakovszky, P

    T. Rakovszky, P. Sala, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Poll- mann, Statistical localization: From strong fragmenta- tion to strong edge modes, Phys. Rev. B���, 125126 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Jonay, J

    C. Jonay, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, and V. Khemani, Slow thermalization and subdiffusion in� ���conserving flo- quet random circuits, Phys. Rev. B���, 024311 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Zhang, Y

    L. Zhang, Y. Ke, L. Lin, and C. Lee, Floquet engineering of Hilbert space fragmentation in stark lattices, Phys. Rev. B���, 184313 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    F. Yang, H. Yarloo, H.-C. Zhang, K. Mølmer, and A. E. B. Nielsen, Probing Hilbert space fragmentation with strongly interacting Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. B ���, 144313 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Aditya, Diagnostics of Hilbert space fragmentation, freezing transition, and its effects in the family of quan- tum East models involving varying range of constraints, Phys

    S. Aditya, Diagnostics of Hilbert space fragmentation, freezing transition, and its effects in the family of quan- tum East models involving varying range of constraints, Phys. Rev. B���, 195413 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Tan and Y.-P

    T.-L. Tan and Y.-P. Huang, Interference-caged quantum many-body scars: The Fock space topological localiza- tion and interference zeros (2025), arXiv:2504.07780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Ben-Ami, M

    T. Ben-Ami, M. Heyl, and R. Moessner, Many-body cages: Disorder-free glassiness from flat bands in Fock space, and many-body Rabi oscillations (2025), arXiv:2504.13086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Jonay and F

    C. Jonay and F. Pollmann, Localized fock space cages in kinetically constrained models, Phys. Rev. B���, 134313 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Ben-Ami, R

    T. Ben-Ami, R. Moessner, and M. Heyl, Floquet many- body cages (2026), arXiv:2604.13027 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Mohapatra, S

    S. Mohapatra, S. Moudgalya, and A. C. Balram, Addi- tional quantum many-body scars of the spin-1�� model with fock-space cages and commutant algebras, Phys. Rev. B���, 054310 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature ���, 579 (2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    Kohlert, S

    T. Kohlert, S. Scherg, P. Sala, F. Pollmann, B. Hebbe Madhusudhana, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Exploring the regime of fragmentation in strongly tilted Fermi-Hubbard chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 010201 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Adler, D

    D. Adler, D. Wei, M. Will, K. Srakaew, S. Agrawal, P. Weckesser, R. Moessner, F. Pollmann, I. Bloch, and J.Zeiher,ObservationofHilbertspacefragmentationand fractonic excitations in 2D, Nature���, 80–85 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Karch, S

    S. Karch, S. Bandyopadhyay, Z.-H. Sun, A. Impertro, S. Huh, I. P. Rodríguez, J. F. Wienand, W. Ketterle, M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Probing quantum many-body dynamics using subsystem Loschmidt echos (2025), arXiv:2501.16995

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Honda, Y

    K. Honda, Y. Takasu, S. Goto, H. Kazuta, M. Kunimi, I. Danshita, and Y. Takahashi, Observation of slow re- laxation due to Hilbert space fragmentation in strongly interacting Bose-Hubbard chains, Science Advances��, eadv3255 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Poll- mann, Ergodicity breaking arising from Hilbert space fragmentation in dipole-conserving Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. X��, 011047 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Khemani, M

    V. Khemani, M. Hermele, and R. Nandkishore, Local- ization from Hilbert space shattering: From theory to physical realizations, Phys. Rev. B���, 174204 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Moudgalya and O

    S. Moudgalya and O. I. Motrunich, Hilbert space frag- mentation and commutant algebras, Phys. Rev. X��, 011050 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Lisiecki, J

    M. Lisiecki, J. Bonča, M. Mierzejewski, J. Herbrych, and P. Łydżba, Tunable Hilbert space fragmentation and extended critical regime, Phys. Rev. B���, 195116 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

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

    2015

  59. [59]

    Sierant, D

    P. Sierant, D. Delande, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization due to random interactions, Phys. Rev. A ��, 021601 (2017)

    2017

  60. [60]

    Khemani, D

    V. Khemani, D. N. Sheng, and D. A. Huse, Two univer- sality classes for the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 075702 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    R. K. Panda, A. Scardicchio, M. Schulz, S. R. Taylor, and M. Žnidarič, Can we study the many-body localisation transition?, EPL���, 67003 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    D. E. Logan and S. Welsh, Many-body localization in Fock space: A local perspective, Phys. Rev. B��, 045131 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    L. A. Colmenarez, P. A. McClarty, M. Haque, and D. J. Luitz, Statistics of correlation functions in the random 7 Heisenberg chain, SciPost Physics�, 064 (2019)

    2019

  64. [64]

    Á. L. Corps, R. A. Molina, and A. Relaño, Signatures of a critical point in the many-body localization transition, SciPost Phys.��, 107 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    Abanin, J

    D. Abanin, J. Bardarson, G. De Tomasi, S. Gopalakr- ishnan, V. Khemani, S. Parameswaran, F. Pollmann, A. Potter, M. Serbyn, and R. Vasseur, Distinguishing localization from chaos: Challenges in finite-size systems, Ann. Phys.���, 168415 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    Prakash, J

    A. Prakash, J. H. Pixley, and M. Kulkarni, Universal spectral form factor for many-body localization, Phys. Rev. Research�, L012019 (2021)

    2021

  67. [67]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body localization in the age of classical computing, Rep. Prog. Phys.��, 026502 (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    Repulsion of energy levels

    N. Rosenzweig and C. E. Porter, “Repulsion of energy levels” in complex atomic spectra, Physical Review���, 1698 (1960)

    1960

  69. [69]

    A. D. Mirlin, Y. V. Fyodorov, F.-M. Dittes, J. Quezada, and T. H. Seligman, Transition from localized to ex- tended eigenstates in the ensemble of power-law random banded matrices, Phys. Rev. E��, 3221 (1996)

    1996

  70. [70]

    A. D. Mirlin and F. Evers, Multifractality and critical fluctuations at the anderson transition, Phys. Rev. B��, 7920 (2000)

    2000

  71. [71]

    Evers and A

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Fluctuations of the inverse participation ratio at the anderson transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 3690 (2000)

    2000

  72. [72]

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

    2015

  73. [73]

    Bogomolny and M

    E. Bogomolny and M. Sieber, Power-law random banded matrices and ultrametric matrices: Eigenvector distribu- tion in the intermediate regime, Phys. Rev. E��, 042116 (2018)

    2018

  74. [74]

    Šuntajs and L

    J. Šuntajs and L. Vidmar, Ergodicity breaking transition in zero dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 060602 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    Pawlik, P

    K. Pawlik, P. Sierant, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Many-body mobility edge in quantum sun models, Phys. Rev. B���, L180201 (2024)

    2024

  76. [76]

    Pawlik, N

    K. Pawlik, N. Laflorencie, and J. Zakrzewski, Uncon- ventional thermalization of a localized chain interacting with an ergodic bath (2026), arXiv:2507.18286 [cond- mat.dis-nn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Kliczkowski, R

    M. Kliczkowski, R. Świętek, M. Hopjan, and L. Vidmar, Fading ergodicity, Phys. Rev. B���, 134206 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    Świ¸ etek, P

    R. Świ¸ etek, P. Łydżba, and L. Vidmar, Fading ergodicity meets maximal chaos, Phys. Rev. B���, 184203 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    Świętek, M

    R. Świętek, M. Hopjan, C. Vanoni, A. Scardicchio, and L. Vidmar, Scaling theory of fading ergodicity, Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 170401 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    Świętek, M

    R. Świętek, M. Kliczkowski, M. Hopjan, and L. Vidmar, Fading ergodicity and quantum dynamics in random matrix ensembles (2026), arXiv:2603.23616

    arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.