Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

The moments of the spectral form factor in SYK

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows the SYK spectral form factor matches random-matrix statistics only for low-order moments, the leading correction growing as $k^2/N^{q-2}$ from spectral-edge fluctuations and amplified by sparsification.

desk verdict Solid saddle-point analysis of SYK spectral form factor moments; the leading-order result is right, but the headline 1/N correction relies on an unevaluated edge quantity whose extensivity is assumed, so the paper is conditionally acceptable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18737 v2 pith:EPKTWR5N submitted 2024-12-25 hep-th cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Andrea Legramandi , Neil Talwar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elquant-ph PACS 05.45.Mt
keywords spectralformfactorSYKmodelrandommatrixtheoryquantumchaosmomentslarge-Nexpansionedgesparse
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 sets out to show that the higher moments of the spectral form factor, the statistic that captures the erratic noise around the universal ramp, can be computed in the SYK model by a family of pairing saddle points, and that the result agrees with random-matrix theory only for low order. The central quantitative claim is a leading correction to the moment ratio $\langle |Z|^{2k}\rangle/\langle |Z|^2\rangle^k$ that grows as $k^2/N^{q-2}$, is driven by fluctuations near the edge of the spectrum, and is inversely proportional to the number of independent random couplings in the Hamiltonian. If correct, it means the SYK model mimics a random matrix only up to $k\sim N^{q/2-1}$, and that sparser realizations of the model deviate from universality even earlier; numerical study of sparse SYK supports this. The $q=2$ free-fermion case is shown to be sharply different, with an exponential ramp and noise that grows exponentially in time. This matters because the moments are a stricter test of quantum chaos than the ramp alone, and because the deviations delimit how faithfully SYK and its approximations can stand in for random-matrix chaos.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the collective-field path integral (3.4) for $\langle |Z(iT)|^{2k}\rangle$ with $2k$ replicas, written with a $2k\times 2k$ antisymmetric matrix of bilocal fields $(G,\Sigma)$. The relevant saddle points are pairing configurations in which $(G,\Sigma)$ are block diagonal, with each block a copy of the two-replica ramp saddle point built by summing images of thermofield-double correlators over relative time shifts $\Delta$ and auxiliary inverse temperatures $\beta_{\rm aux}$; the spontaneous breaking of the $k$ relative time translations supplies the ramp power $T^k$, and the breaking of the discrete replica symmetry $S_k\times S_k\to S_k$ (or $S_{2k}\to S_k\times S_2^k$ for $q=2\bmod 4$) supplies the combinatorial factor $k!$ (or $(2k-1)!!$). The one-loop determinant factorizes over the blocks, and the leading $1/N$ correction comes exclusively from the 'perpendicular' fluctuations $\delta G_\perp,\delta\Sigma_\perp$: every candidate Feynman diagram vanishes except those with one $\delta G_\perp^q$ and one $\delta G^q$ vertex, producing $\frac{q!}{N^q}T^2|\Delta E|^2$ with $\Delta E(\beta_{\rm aux})=\frac{iN}{q}\partial_t(G_{LL}+G_{RR})|_{t\to0^+}$. In the $q=2$ free-fermion limit the symmetry enhances to $U(2k)$ acting on each Fourier mode, and the zero-mode manifold with volume ${\rm vol}(U(2k)/U(k)^2)$ per mode inside $|\omega_n|<2J$ generates the exponential ramp.

What would settle it

One could settle the claim numerically: for fixed $q=4$, solve the SYK saddle-point equations by iteration at inverse temperatures $\beta_{\rm aux}\gtrsim T$, compute $\Delta E$ from (3.35), and test whether it is extensive in $N$ and matches the conformal-image approximation; if it does not, equation (3.37) is not established. A complementary check is exact-diagonalization data on unsparsified $q=4$ SYK at two values of $N$, asking whether the time-averaged moment correction $B/k(k-1)$ scales as $N^{-2}$ across the ramp plateau as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the large-$N$ limit the ratio of moments takes the random-matrix value, $k!$ for $q=0 \bmod 4$ and $(2k-1)!!$ for $q=2 \bmod 4$, reproduced by saddle points that pair the $2k$ replicas into $k$ blocks. Around these saddles the leading correction is $$\frac{\langle |Z(iT)|^{2k}\rangle}{\langle |Z(iT)|^2\rangle^k}=\Bigl(1+\frac{k(k-1)}{4}\frac{q!}{N^q}\,$T^{2}$|\$\Delta$ E|^2+\cdots\Bigr)\times\begin{cases} k!, & q=0\bmod 4,\\ (2k-1)!!, & q=2\bmod 4,\end{cases}$$ where $\Delta E$ is a replica energy imbalance inherited from the thermofield-double construction, is dominated by the spectral-edge regime $\beta_{\rm aux}\gtrsim T$, and is extensive in $N$, so the correction effectively scales as $k^2/N^{q-2}$. The paper argues this is the earliest departure from random-matrix universality and ties it to the count of independent random couplings $N^q/q!$; numerics on sparsified SYK confirm the $k(k-1)$ law and a coefficient growing roughly as $p^{-1.2}$ in the sparsification probability, while a microcanonical filter that removes the spectral edges restores random-matrix behavior. For $q=2$ the effective symmetry enhances to a $U(2k)$ action on each Fourier mode, producing a zero-mode volume that grows with every mode inside $|\omega_n|<2J$: an exponential ramp, moments growing exponentially in $k$ and in time, and a plateau at $JT\sim 2N$ with $\langle |Z|^{2k}\rangle=\binom{2k}{k}^{N/2}$; a dual $N\times N$ matrix integral controls the $k\gg N$ regime.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ramp saddle-point solution remains valid in the spectral-edge regime that dominates the correction, and that the energy imbalance it defines grows with $N$; if the edge region is not captured by the solution, the predicted $k^2/N^{q-2}$ scaling of the deviation is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $q>2$ SYK the normalized moments $\langle |Z|^{2k}\rangle/\langle |Z|^2\rangle^k$ equal $k!$ or $(2k-1)!!$ at leading order, so the noise statistics match random-matrix theory for low order, with the first deviation appearing near $k\sim N^{q/2-1}$.
  • The leading correction is inversely proportional to the number of independent random couplings, so the deviation is amplified in sparsified SYK; numerics confirm the $k(k-1)$ dependence and a coefficient growing roughly as $p^{-1.2}$ with the sparsification probability $p$, in a regime where the linear ramp is still intact.
  • A microcanonical filter that removes the spectral edges restores the random-matrix values of the moments, confirming that the non-universal correction originates from edge fluctuations rather than the bulk of the spectrum.
  • In $q=2$ SYK the moments grow exponentially in $k$ and in time, with noise of order $e^{T\log(N/T)}$, and the plateau value is $\langle |Z|^{2k}\rangle=\binom{2k}{k}^{N/2}$, far from the $k!$ form of a complex Gaussian.
  • Since deviations show up at $k\sim N^{q/2-1}$, much earlier than the exponential-in-$N$ scale expected in random-matrix ensembles, SYK belongs to a different, 'sparse' universality class of chaotic systems whose higher moments reveal the difference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural generalization the paper leaves implicit is a criterion for any disordered Hamiltonian: the order $k$ at which moment universality breaks should scale with the square root of the number of independent random couplings times an edge-fluctuation factor, a prediction that could be tested in Sachdev-Ye and spin-glass models without changing the method.
  • Because the deviation appears while the ramp is unchanged, the moments act as a stricter chaos diagnostic than the spectral form factor; experimental quantum-simulation claims for SYK should therefore verify the moment ratio, not just the two-point ramp, before concluding random-matrix behavior.
  • If the edge-dominated correction has a gravitational counterpart, it should appear as a non-perturbative, edge-sensitive effect beyond the double-cone wormhole, giving a concrete target for matter or multi-boundary corrections in the dual dilaton-gravity description rather than genus-suppressed contributions.
  • The $q=2$ zero-mode volume mechanism suggests an organizing principle: the ramp shape, linear versus exponential, is set by the dimension and growth of the spontaneously broken zero-mode manifold, which could serve as a diagnostic separating single-particle from many-body scrambling in other free or weakly interacting models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the moments of the spectral form factor in the SYK model and in a sparse variant. The authors identify saddle-point configurations that describe the power-law ramp of ⟨|Z(iT)|^{2k}⟩, show that at leading order in large N the moments reduce to the RMT values k! (or (2k−1)!! for q=2 mod 4), and compute a perturbative 1/N correction around these saddles. Their central result, Eq. (3.37), states that the ratio ⟨|Z|^{2k}⟩/⟨|Z|²⟩^k equals k! (or (2k−1)!!) times a factor 1 + k(k−1) q! T²|ΔE|²/(4N^q) + …, and by assuming ΔE is extensive in N they convert this into a 1/N^{q−2} correction that becomes important when k ∼ N^{q/2−1}. The paper also analyzes the q=2 model, where an enhanced U(2k) symmetry produces an exponential ramp with heavy-tailed moments, and presents exact diagonalization results for sparse SYK, where the k(k−1) correction is observed numerically and grows as p is decreased.

Significance. If the central result holds, it gives a concrete, falsifiable statement about how SYK departs from random matrix universality: high moments deviate when k reaches a fixed fraction of N^{q/2−1}, with the correction controlled by the number of independent random couplings. The saddle-point framework is natural and the factorization argument that produces the k! factor is clearly presented. The paper contains several genuine strengths: an exact treatment of the one-time-point SYK model, a diagrammatic identification of the leading 1/N term in section 2, extensive numerics for sparse SYK, and an interesting separate analysis of the q=2 model. However, the central quantitative scaling rests on properties of ΔE that are assumed rather than derived, and the numerical support does not currently isolate the N-dependence of the correction. The significance is therefore high if the ΔE assumption can be justified, but the paper is not yet self-contained at this load-bearing point.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, Eqs. (3.34)–(3.38)] The central claim that the leading correction is ∼ k(k−1) q! T²|ΔE|²/(4N^q), and hence ∼ k(k−1)/N^{q−2} when ΔE is extensive, rests on two unproved inputs. First, ΔE(β_aux) is never computed; it is defined by Eq. (3.35) and averaged in Eq. (3.38). Second, the saddle-point solution imported from [24] that is used to evaluate the relevant correlators is explicitly stated in §3.2 to be accurate only for β_aux ≪ T, whereas the integral defining ΔE is dominated by β_aux ≳ T, near the spectral edge. The sentence 'since ΔE is extensive in N' in §3.4 is therefore an assumption, not a derivation. Because the headline scaling k ∼ N^{q/2−1} and the claimed departure from RMT follow entirely from this extensivity, the paper needs either a direct estimate of the edge contribution to ΔE, a consistency argument, or a substantial reformulation of the quantitative claim.
  2. [§5, Figs. 6–7] The numerical evidence for the parametric dependence in Eq. (3.37) is incomplete. The fit B = α k(k−1) in Fig. 6 confirms the k-dependence, which is a useful check. However, Fig. 7 gives α ∼ p^{−1.2} rather than the expected α ∼ p^{−1}, and no N-dependence of α is reported. Since the crucial physical statement is the 1/N^{q−2} suppression (α ∼ 1/N² for q=4), a scan over N at fixed p and k is needed before the numerics can be said to support the extensive-ΔE mechanism. In addition, because the sparse-SYK variance in Eq. (5.3) is rescaled by 1/p, changing p changes both the number of couplings and their strength, so the interpretation 'correction ∝ 1/(number of random parameters)' is not isolated by these data.
  3. [§3.4, §3.5, Eq. (5.5)] The claim that the correction is approximately independent of T is not directly demonstrated. Eq. (3.37) contains the combination T²|ΔE|², which could have nontrivial time dependence; the numerical quantity B in Eq. (5.5) is time-averaged over the ramp, so the flat plateaus in Fig. 5 do not by themselves show T-independence. A direct plot or fit of B(T), or of the coefficient |ΔE(T)|, would be needed to substantiate the statement that the correction is approximately constant in time.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Footnote 11] The footnote quotes a negative correction for the CUE plateau, −k(k−1)/(4L), while the sparse-SYK correction in Fig. 6 is positive; if 'similar behaviour' refers only to the k(k−1) growth, the sign difference should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'behvaiour' in §3.4 and 'seciton' in §5 and in footnote 11; these should be corrected in a final version.
  3. [Fig. 7] The quantity α is presented without error bars, and the text calls the k(k−1) curve an 'interpolation' when it is in fact a fit; please clarify the fitting procedure and report uncertainties.
  4. [§4.2–4.3] The comparison of Eq. (4.37) with numerics is shown only for N=50, k=2, and the large-k formula (4.52) is explicitly derived without the full one-loop determinant; a sentence stating the expected size of the missing one-loop effects would help the reader judge the accuracy of the k≫N extrapolation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the leading 1/N correction is derived from an independent saddle-point expansion, with the unevaluated edge quantity ΔE posing an unproven-assumption risk rather than a by-construction equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central large-N factor (k! or (2k−1)!!) follows from the orbit size of the discrete replica symmetry of pairing saddle points (Sec. 3.3), independent of any fit and consistent with the RMT review in App. A. The 1/N correction (3.37) is obtained from an explicit Feynman-diagram analysis around those saddle points: the leading non-vanishing diagrams (3.29)–(3.36) contribute q!/N^q times a combination of saddle-point correlators, and the coefficient is expressed through ΔE defined in (3.35) from the saddle-point solution itself—not through the moments being predicted. This is a genuine derivation, not a restatement of the target result. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main limitations: the SSS image-sum solution (3.11) is only accurate for βaux ≪ T while ΔE is dominated by βaux ≳ T, and the N-extensivity of ΔE that converts q!/N^q into 1/N^{q−2} is asserted rather than proven ('Notice that since ∆E is extensive in N, the correction ultimately scales as 1/N^{q−2}'). These are unverified assumptions and correctness risks, but they are not circular: ΔE is an independently defined physical quantity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The sparse-SYK numerics independently test the k(k−1) shape and find α ∼ p^{−1.2}, which is only qualitative agreement with the 1/p expectation; again this is a partial check, not a fit that manufactures the analytic result. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the saddle-point construction is imported from the external works [24] and [29], and the paper's own [48] is only a peripheral remark on sampling issues in the q=2 plateau.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard collective-field saddle point technology plus several unproven inputs: dominance of pairing saddles, validity of the TFD image-sum solution near the spectral edge, extensivity of ΔE, and the fitted form of the sparse corrections. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • ΔE (edge energy fluctuation) = not computed
    Defined in (3.35), (3.38); enters the central 1/N correction (3.37). The paper does not evaluate it analytically, only asserts extensivity and time independence from numerics.
  • α (sparse SYK correction coefficient) = ≈ 1/p^1.2 (N=18)
    Fitted to numerical sparse SYK moments in Sec. 5, Fig. 7; used as evidence that the leading correction scales inversely with the number of random parameters. The fitted exponent 1.2 deviates from the analytic expectation 1/p.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pairing saddle points dominate; multi-boundary wormhole saddles are subleading.
    Assumed in Sec. 3.3; supported by numerics in Fig. 2 and footnote 9, but not proven.
  • domain assumption The auxiliary TFD/image-sum saddle from [24] approximates the exact saddle for the ramp, including at βaux ≳ T where it is not controlled.
    Used in Sec. 3.2-3.4; the authors note in Sec. 3.2 that for βaux ≳ T the solution can differ significantly.
  • ad hoc to paper ΔE is extensive in N.
    Stated in Sec. 3.4 after (3.37); no derivation is given, and it is required for the claimed 1/N^{q-2} scaling.
  • standard math Standard large-N saddle point and 1/N perturbation theory for collective fields.
    Used throughout Sec. 3; standard for SYK.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The moments of the spectral form factor in SYK." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPKTWR5N

@misc{pith2026241218737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The moments of the spectral form factor in SYK},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPKTWR5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18737}
}
abstract

In chaotic quantum systems the spectral form factor exhibits a universal linear ramp and plateau structure with superimposed erratic oscillations. The mean signal and the statistics of the noise can be probed by the moments of the spectral form factor, also known as higher-point spectral form factors. We identify saddle points in the SYK model that describe the moments during the ramp region. Perturbative corrections around the saddle point indicate that SYK mimics random matrix statistics for the low order moments, while large deviations for the high order moments arise from fluctuations near the edge of the spectrum. The leading correction scales inversely with the number of random parameters in the SYK Hamiltonian and is amplified in a sparsified version of the SYK model, which we study numerically, even in regimes where a linear ramp persists. Finally, we study the $q=2$ SYK model, whose spectral form factor exhibits an exponential ramp with increased noise. These findings reveal how deviations from random matrix universality arise in disordered systems and motivate their interpretation from a bulk gravitational perspective.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: the spectral form factor (divided by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spectral form factor (divided by 2N ) and its moments for q = 4 SYK (top) and q = 6 SYK (bottom) with N = 20 and averaged over 20K realisations. The red, orange, and green curves are k = 2, k = 3, and k = 4, respectively. Initially the spectral form factor is self-averaging. At later times, it fluctuates around the predicted values (3.17): k! for q = 4 and (2k − 1)!! for q = 6. The oscillations in the moments ne… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: the spectral form factor (divided by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of f(k) = π JT log(⟨|Z(iT)| 2k ⟩/2 kN ) for N = 150, comparing two different expres￾sions for the moments of the spectral form factor. The blue curve is obtained from (4.33) and is valid for k ≪ N while the orange one, given by (4.52), is valid for k ≫ N. Both cur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The spectral form factor and its moments for the sparse SYK model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The behaviour of the time-averaged correction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of α, as defined in (5.6), on p for 1.8M samples of an N = 18 sparsified SYK model. Each value of α was obtained by interpolating B(k), as shown in figure 6. According to our expectation, the leading correction to the moments of the spectral form factor is i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The microcanonical spectral form factor |Y (iT)| 2 (5.8) and its moments for the SYK model with N = 18 fermions, averaged over 1.8 million realisations. The Gaussian filtering function is centered around zero with ∆ = 0.1. The plots correspond to k = 1, 4, 5, 6 from le…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity

    Phil Saad, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stanford. “A semiclassical ramp in SYK and in gravity”. In: (June 2018). arXiv: 1806.06840 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Quasiclassical method in the theory of super- conductivity

    Anatoly I Larkin and Yu N Ovchinnikov. “Quasiclassical method in the theory of super- conductivity”. In: Sov Phys JETP 28.6 (1969), pp. 1200–1205. 57

    work page 1969

  3. [2]

    A bound on chaos

    Juan Maldacena, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stanford. “A bound on chaos”. In: JHEP 08 (2016), p. 106. arXiv: 1503.01409 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Chaos in quantum channels

    Pavan Hosur, Xiao-Liang Qi, Daniel A. Roberts, and Beni Yoshida. “Chaos in quantum channels”. In: JHEP 02 (2016), p. 004. arXiv: 1511.04021 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Out-of-time-order corre- lations in many-body localized and thermal phases

    Xiao Chen, Tianci Zhou, David A. Huse, and Eduardo Fradkin. “Out-of-time-order corre- lations in many-body localized and thermal phases”. In: Annalen der Physik 529.7 (Dec. 2016). issn: 1521-3889. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201600332

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.201600332 2016

  6. [5]

    Characterization of Chaotic Quantum Spectra and Universality of Level Fluctuation Laws

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit. “Characterization of Chaotic Quantum Spectra and Universality of Level Fluctuation Laws”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1 1984), pp. 1–4. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.1

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.52.1 1984

  7. [6]

    The Threefold Way. Algebraic Structure of Symmetry Groups and Ensembles in Quantum Mechanics

    Freeman J. Dyson. “The Threefold Way. Algebraic Structure of Symmetry Groups and Ensembles in Quantum Mechanics”. In: J. Math. Phys. 3.6 (1962), p. 1199

    work page 1962

  8. [7]

    Nonstandard symmetry classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures

    Alexander Altland and Martin R. Zirnbauer. “Nonstandard symmetry classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures”. In: Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997), pp. 1142–1161. arXiv: cond-mat/9602137

    arXiv 1997

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Semiclassical theory of spectral rigidity

    Michael Victor Berry. “Semiclassical theory of spectral rigidity”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 400.1819 (1985), pp. 229– 251

    1985

  2. [9]

    Random matrices

    Madan Lal Mehta. Random matrices. Elsevier, 2004

    2004

  3. [10]

    Spectral form factor in a random matrix theory

    E. Br´ ezin and S. Hikami. “Spectral form factor in a random matrix theory”. In: Physical Review E 55.4 (Apr. 1997), 4067–4083. issn: 1095-3787. url: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevE.55.4067

    1997

  4. [11]

    What is the Simplest Linear Ramp?

    Suman Das, Sumit K. Garg, Chethan Krishnan, and Arnab Kundu. “What is the Simplest Linear Ramp?” In: JHEP 01 (2024), p. 172. arXiv: 2308.11704 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Chaos, Complexity, and Random Matrices

    Jordan Cotler, Nicholas Hunter-Jones, Junyu Liu, and Beni Yoshida. “Chaos, Complexity, and Random Matrices”. In: JHEP 11 (2017), p. 048. arXiv: 1706.05400 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos

    Junyu Liu. “Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos”. In: Phys. Rev. D 98.8 (2018), p. 086026. arXiv: 1806.05316 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A simple model of quantum holography

    Alexei Kitaev. “A simple model of quantum holography”. In: (2015). Talks at KITP, April and May 2015. url: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/

    2015

  8. [15]

    Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy and Strange Metals

    Subir Sachdev. “Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy and Strange Metals”. In: Phys. Rev. X 5.4 (2015), p. 041025. arXiv: 1506.05111 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    The Spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model

    Joseph Polchinski and Vladimir Rosenhaus. “The Spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model”. In: JHEP 04 (2016), p. 001. arXiv: 1601.06768 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Gapless Spin-Fluid Ground State in a Random Quantum Heisenberg Magnet

    Subir Sachdev and Jinwu Ye. “Gapless Spin-Fluid Ground State in a Random Quantum Heisenberg Magnet”. In: Physical Review Letters 70.21 (1993), pp. 3339–3342

    1993

  11. [18]

    Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model

    Juan Maldacena and Douglas Stanford. “Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model”. In: Phys. Rev. D 94.10 (2016), p. 106002. arXiv: 1604.07818 [hep-th]. 58

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Chaos in AdS 2 Holography

    Kristan Jensen. “Chaos in AdS 2 Holography”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 117.11 (2016), p. 111601. arXiv: 1605.06098 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The soft mode in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual

    Alexei Kitaev and S. Josephine Suh. “The soft mode in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and its gravity dual”. In: JHEP 05 (2018), p. 183. arXiv: 1711.08467 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space

    Juan Maldacena, Douglas Stanford, and Zhenbin Yang. “Conformal symmetry and its breaking in two dimensional Nearly Anti-de-Sitter space”. In:PTEP 2016.12 (2016), p. 12C104. arXiv: 1606.01857 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Lower dimensional gravity

    Roman Jackiw. “Lower dimensional gravity”. In: Nuclear Physics B 252 (1984), pp. 343– 356

    1984

  16. [23]

    Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimen- sions

    Claudio Teitelboim. “Gravitation and Hamiltonian Structure in Two Space-Time Dimen- sions”. In: Physics Letters B 126 (1983), pp. 41–45

    1983

  17. [25]

    Hydrodynamic Theory of the Connected Spectral form Factor

    Michael Winer and Brian Swingle. “Hydrodynamic Theory of the Connected Spectral form Factor”. In:Phys. Rev. X 12.2 (2022), p. 021009. arXiv:2012.01436 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tenfold way and many-body zero modes in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model

    Jan Behrends, Jens H. Bardarson, and Benjamin B´ eri. “Tenfold way and many-body zero modes in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model”. In: Physical Review B 99.19 (May 2019). issn: 2469-9969. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.195123

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Black holes and random matrices

    Jordan S. Cotler, Guy Gur-Ari, Masanori Hanada, Joseph Polchinski, Phil Saad, Stephen H. Shenker, Douglas Stanford, Alexandre Streicher, and Masaki Tezuka. “Black holes and random matrices”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2017.5 (May 2017). issn: 1029-8479. url: http://dx....

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Repulsion of energy levels and conductivity of small metal samples

    O. L. Al’tshuler and B. I. Shklovskii. “Repulsion of energy levels and conductivity of small metal samples”. In: Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 64.1 (July 1986), p. 127

    1986

  21. [29]

    Spectral form factor of a quantum spin glass

    Michael Winer, Richard Barney, Christopher L. Baldwin, Victor Galitski, and Brian Swingle. “Spectral form factor of a quantum spin glass”. In: JHEP 09 (2022), p. 032. arXiv: 2203. 12753 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022

  22. [30]

    Quantum chaos on edge

    Alexander Altland, Kun Woo Kim, Tobias Micklitz, Maedeh Rezaei, Julian Sonner, and Jacobus J. M. Verbaarschot. “Quantum chaos on edge”. In: Phys. Rev. Res. 6.3 (2024), p. 033286. arXiv: 2403.13516 [hep-th]

    2024

  23. [31]

    Exact moments of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model up to order 1 /N2

    Antonio M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Yiyang Jia, and Jacobus J. M. Verbaarschot. “Exact moments of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model up to order 1 /N2”. In: JHEP 04 (2018), p. 146. arXiv: 1801.02696 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Spectral Fluctuations in the Sachdev-Ye- Kitaev Model

    Yiyang Jia and Jacobus J. M. Verbaarschot. “Spectral Fluctuations in the Sachdev-Ye- Kitaev Model”. In: JHEP 07 (2020), p. 193. arXiv: 1912.11923 [hep-th]. 59

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Multi-trace cor- relators in the SYK model and non-geometric wormholes

    Micha Berkooz, Nadav Brukner, Vladimir Narovlansky, and Amir Raz. “Multi-trace cor- relators in the SYK model and non-geometric wormholes”. In: JHEP 21 (2020), p. 196. arXiv: 2104.03336 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Sparse Model of Quan- tum Holography

    Shenglong Xu, Leonard Susskind, Yuan Su, and Brian Swingle. “A Sparse Model of Quan- tum Holography”. In: (Aug. 2020). arXiv: 2008.02303 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Quantum chaos in the sparse SYK model

    Patrick Orman, Hrant Gharibyan, and John Preskill. “Quantum chaos in the sparse SYK model”. In: (Mar. 2024). arXiv: 2403.13884 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    An exponential ramp in the quadratic Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model

    Michael Winer, Shao-Kai Jian, and Brian Swingle. “An exponential ramp in the quadratic Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), p. 250602. arXiv: 2006.15152 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    JT gravity as a matrix integral

    Phil Saad, Stephen H. Shenker, and Douglas Stanford. “JT gravity as a matrix integral”. In: (Mar. 2019). arXiv: 1903.11115 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Comments on the double cone wormhole

    Yiming Chen, Victor Ivo, and Juan Maldacena. “Comments on the double cone wormhole”. In: JHEP 04 (2024), p. 124. arXiv: 2310.11617 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wormholes without averaging

    Phil Saad, Stephen H. Shenker, Douglas Stanford, and Shunyu Yao. “Wormholes without averaging”. In: JHEP 09 (2024), p. 133. arXiv: 2103.16754 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wormholes in AdS

    Juan Martin Maldacena and Liat Maoz. “Wormholes in AdS”. In: JHEP 02 (2004), p. 053. arXiv: hep-th/0401024

    2004 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On the moments of traces of matrices of classical groups

    Leonid Pastur and Vladimir Vasilchuk. “On the moments of traces of matrices of classical groups”. In: Communications in mathematical physics 252 (2004), pp. 149–166

    2004

  34. [42]

    Linear Functionals of Eigenvalues of Random Matri- ces

    Persi Diaconis and Steven N. Evans. “Linear Functionals of Eigenvalues of Random Matri- ces”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 353.7 (2001), pp. 2615–2633. issn: 00029947, 10886850. url: http : / / www . jstor . org / stable / 221816(visited on 12/22/2024)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Elizabeth S. Meckes. The Random Matrix Theory of the Classical Compact Groups . Cam- bridge Tracts in Mathematics. Available online at https : / / case . edu / artsci / math / mwmeckes/elizabeth/web/Haar_book.pdf. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Quantum ergodicity in the SYK model

    Alexander Altland and Dmitry Bagrets. “Quantum ergodicity in the SYK model”. In: Nucl. Phys. B 930 (2018), pp. 45–68. arXiv: 1712.05073 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Many-body level statistics of single- particle quantum chaos

    Yunxiang Liao, Amit Vikram, and Victor Galitski. “Many-body level statistics of single- particle quantum chaos”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), p. 250601. arXiv: 2005.08991 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The discreet charm of the discrete series in dS 2

    Dionysios Anninos, Tarek Anous, Ben Pethybridge, and Gizem S ¸eng¨ or. “The discreet charm of the discrete series in dS 2”. In: J. Phys. A 57.2 (2024), p. 025401. arXiv: 2307.15832 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Level correlations in disordered metals: The replica σ model

    Alex Kamenev and Marc M´ ezard. “Level correlations in disordered metals: The replica σ model”. In: Physical Review B 60.6 (1999), p. 3944. 60

    1999

  40. [48]

    Many-body spectral transitions through the lens of variable-range SYK2 model

    Andrea Legramandi, Soumik Bandyopadhyay, and Philipp Hauke. “Many-body spectral transitions through the lens of variable-range SYK2 model”. In: (Dec. 2024). arXiv: 2412. 14280 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024

  41. [49]

    Intersection theory from duality and replica

    E. Brezin and S. Hikami. “Intersection theory from duality and replica”. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 283 (2008), pp. 507–521. arXiv: 0708.2210 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Late Time Correlation Functions, Baby Universes, and ETH in JT Gravity

    Phil Saad. “Late Time Correlation Functions, Baby Universes, and ETH in JT Gravity”. In: (Oct. 2019). arXiv: 1910.10311 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sparse Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, quantum chaos and gravity duals

    Antonio M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Yiyang Jia, Dario Rosa, and Jacobus J. M. Verbaarschot. “Sparse Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, quantum chaos and gravity duals”. In: Phys. Rev. D 103.10 (2021), p. 106002. arXiv: 2007.13837 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Black Hole on a Chip: Proposal for a Physical Realization of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model in a Solid-State System

    D.I. Pikulin and M. Franz. “Black Hole on a Chip: Proposal for a Physical Realization of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model in a Solid-State System”. In: Physical Review X 7.3 (July 2017). issn: 2160-3308. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.031006

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Approximating the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model with Majorana wires

    Aaron Chew, Andrew Essin, and Jason Alicea. “Approximating the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model with Majorana wires”. In: Phys. Rev. B 96 (12 2017), p. 121119. url: https : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.121119

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Quantum Holography in a Graphene Flake with an Irregular Boundary

    Anffany Chen, R. Ilan, F. de Juan, D.I. Pikulin, and M. Franz. “Quantum Holography in a Graphene Flake with an Irregular Boundary”. In: Physical Review Letters 121.3 (July 2018). issn: 1079-7114. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.036403

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Digital Quantum Simulation of Minimal AdS /CFT

    L. Garc ´ ıa-´Alvarez, I. L. Egusquiza, L. Lamata, A. del Campo, J. Sonner, and E. Solano. “Digital Quantum Simulation of Minimal AdS /CFT”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (4 2017), p. 040501. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.040501

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Quantum simulation of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model by asymmetric qubitization

    Ryan Babbush, Dominic W. Berry, and Hartmut Neven. “Quantum simulation of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model by asymmetric qubitization”. In: Phys. Rev. A 99 (4 2019), p. 040301. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.040301

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Phase transition in the density of states of quantum spin glasses

    L´ aszl´ o Erd˝ os and Dominik Schr¨ oder. “Phase transition in the density of states of quantum spin glasses”. In: Mathematical Physics, Analysis and Geometry 17.3 (2014), pp. 441–464

    2014

  50. [58]

    Quenched vs Annealed: Glassiness from SK to SYK

    C. L. Baldwin and B. Swingle. “Quenched vs Annealed: Glassiness from SK to SYK”. In: Phys. Rev. X 10.3 (2020), p. 031026. arXiv: 1911.11865 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A model of randomly-coupled Pauli spins

    Masanori Hanada, Antal Jevicki, Xianlong Liu, Enrico Rinaldi, and Masaki Tezuka. “A model of randomly-coupled Pauli spins”. In: JHEP 05 (2024), p. 280. arXiv: 2309.15349 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model and Thermalization on the Boundary of Many-Body Localized Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological States

    Yi-Zhuang You, Andreas W. W. Ludwig, and Cenke Xu. “Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model and Thermalization on the Boundary of Many-Body Localized Fermionic Symmetry Protected Topological States”. In:Phys. Rev. B 95.11 (2017), p. 115150. arXiv:1602.06964 [cond-mat. str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Complete random matrix classification of SYK models with N = 0, 1 and 2 supersymmetry

    Takuya Kanazawa and Tilo Wettig. “Complete random matrix classification of SYK models with N = 0, 1 and 2 supersymmetry”. In: JHEP 09 (2017), p. 050. arXiv: 1706.03044 [hep-th]. 61

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    JT gravity and the ensembles of random matrix theory

    Douglas Stanford and Edward Witten. “JT gravity and the ensembles of random matrix theory”. In: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 24.6 (2020), pp. 1475–1680. arXiv: 1907 . 03363 [hep-th]. 62

    2020

Pith tools

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