Enhanced entanglement from quantum ergodicity

Amit Vikram

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhanced entanglement from quantum ergodicity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ergodic quantum dynamics can generate parametrically more entanglement than maximally scrambling dynamics, via non-demolition coupling of a smooth initial state.

desk verdict The exact purity-return-probability relation is solid, but the parametric entanglement advantage only holds for states spread over the whole spectrum, not the smooth wavepackets advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08067 v2 pith:HRYYD7BH submitted 2025-07-10 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thnlin.CD

Amit Vikram This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechhep-thnlin.CD MSC 81P4581Q50

keywords quantumergodicityspectralstatisticsentanglementgenerationEPRstateteleportationpurityKrylovvectorsoperatortransfer

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that ergodic quantum dynamics—dynamics whose energy levels have small spectral fluctuations, as in random matrix theory—is a usable resource for preparing highly entangled states, and can outperform even maximally scrambling dynamics such as random unitary circuits. It considers two systems coupled by a non-demolition interaction that entangles a simple control system with a complex one, and derives an exact formula for the evolving purity in terms of the return probability of Bob's initial state. The conclusion is that with an ergodic spectrum and a smoothly behaved initial state, the purity reaches the near-EPR form $1/d_A + O(d_A/d_B^2)$, which is parametrically smaller than the $1/d_A + 1/d_B$ achieved by infinite-temperature scramblers. If true, this gives a concrete operational payoff to spectral statistics and a practical route to better EPR-state preparation and quantum teleportation with smaller auxiliary systems.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is the Krylov set $\mathcal{K}_{d_A}(U_{t_0},|\phi\rangle_B) = \{|\phi\rangle_B, U_{t_0}|\phi\rangle_B, \ldots, U_{t_0}^{d_A-1}|\phi\rangle_B\}$ generated by successive applications of Bob's unitary $U_{t_0} = e^{-iH_B t_0}$; the orthonormality of this set, which the paper calls Krylov vector ergodicity, decides how close the joint state is to an EPR state. The purity is expressed through the return probability $p_\phi(t) = |\langle\phi|e^{-iH_B t}|\phi\rangle_B|^2$, split into a state-independent spectral contribution $f_E(t)$ and a wavefunction contribution $f_\phi(t)$. Small spectral fluctuations make $f_E(t) \sim t/d_B^2$ rather than $1/d_B$, while a smooth $\phi(E)$ makes $f_\phi(t)$ vanish, together producing the parametric purity advantage.

What would settle it

Measure the time-averaged return probability $p_\phi(t)$ of Bob's initial state under $H_B$ for times between the ramp time and the Heisenberg time: if it saturates at $1/d_B$ rather than following the ramp-like behavior $t/d_B^2$, then the purity correction in Eq. (15) is $1/d_B$ rather than $d_A/d_B^2$, and the claimed advantage disappears. Equivalently, compute the purity in Eq. (10) for a concrete ergodic Hamiltonian with a Gaussian wavepacket initial state and check whether the deviation from $1/d_A$ actually scales as $d_A/d_B^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ergodicity and scrambling are logically distinct resources, and that ergodicity can produce more entanglement than maximal scrambling. In the protocol where Alice's system is coupled to Bob's by the non-demolition Hamiltonian $H = N_A \otimes H_B$, the purity of the entangled state is exactly controlled by the return probability $p_\phi(t)$ of Bob's initial state under $H_B$. With an ergodic spectrum (small energy-level fluctuations) and an initial state with smooth energy-space amplitudes $\phi(E)$, the return probability after the ramp time behaves as $f_E(t) + f_\phi(t) \sim t/d_B^2 + 0$, giving a purity $P(t_0) = 1/d_A + O(d_A/d_B^2)$ in Eq. (15). This is parametrically smaller than the purity $1/d_A + 1/d_B$ of infinite-temperature scramblers in Eq. (17), and it translates into a factor-of-$1/\epsilon$ reduction in the required dimension of Bob's system for operator transfer with error $\epsilon$ in Eq. (22).

Load-bearing premise

The parametric advantage rests on preparing Bob's initial state with a smooth energy-space wavefunction so that the wavefunction fluctuation term $f_\phi(t)$ vanishes, a preparation the paper itself calls the primary challenge; without it, the protocol at best matches infinite-temperature scrambling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With an ergodic spectrum and a smooth initial state, EPR-like states can be prepared with purity $1/d_A + O(d_A/d_B^2)$, a factor of about $d_A/d_B$ closer to maximal entanglement than infinite-temperature scramblers give.
Operator transfer with error at most $\epsilon$ becomes achievable with Bob's dimension $d_B \gtrsim (\kappa d_A^{1+\gamma}/\epsilon^2)^{1/2}$ for ergodic smooth dynamics, versus $d_B \gtrsim \kappa d_A^\gamma/\epsilon^2$ for generic initial states or infinite-temperature scramblers, a factor-of-$1/\epsilon$ advantage.
Even with a generic random initial state $\phi(E)$, an ergodic spectrum in Bob's system matches the entanglement of an ideal infinite-temperature scrambler and beats Poisson spectral statistics by a factor of two in purity.
Finite-temperature local Hamiltonian scramblers cannot reach the purity needed to transfer all operators, but the same kind of local Hamiltonian used as $H_B$ in the non-demolition protocol can, showing that ergodicity can unlock entanglement that scrambling alone cannot.
The results reframe spectral statistics as a practical resource for quantum information processing in intermediate-scale systems, rather than only a diagnostic of quantum chaos.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the paper's practical advantage is concentrated entirely in the top row of Eq. (15); if preparing a smooth-energy initial state in a complex system is as hard as the paper's Discussion suggests, the protocol robustly falls back to scrambler-level performance, so the experimental question is whether controllable smooth states can be produced in ergodic many-body systems.
Editorial inference: the exact purity-return-probability relation in Eq. (10) could be inverted experimentally, using measured second-Renyi entanglement entropy as an operational readout of the spectral form factor, turning an abstract spectral-statistics probe into an accessible entanglement-based observable.
Editorial inference: the multidimensional extension in Appendix A suggests that systems with several commuting conserved charges can generate higher-dimensional Krylov spaces, potentially extending the entanglement advantage beyond the single-charge setting to models where multiple non-demolition couplings are available.
Editorial inference: because the advantage is tied to near-EPR quality rather than to a specific physical system, the same mechanism may benefit other protocols that consume high-quality EPR pairs, such as quantum error correction and entanglement distillation, though the paper does not make this claim.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this paper has one very clean result—Eq. (10), an exact relation between the purity of the non-demolition coupled state and the return probability of Bob's initial state—and one load-bearing claim that, as written, does not hold for the states it promises.

What's genuinely good: Eq. (10) is a short, exact derivation, and the Krylov-vector-ergodicity framing is a useful way to connect spectral statistics to entanglement. The operator-transfer bounds in App. C are rigorous and give clean necessary/sufficient conditions. The paper's honesty in its Discussion about preparation challenges is also to its credit.

The soft spot is the top row of Eq. (15). The O(d_A/d_B^2) purity advantage is obtained by importing the state-independent spectral form factor ramp, t/d_B^2, which is only correct when the initial state is spread over all d_B eigenstates. App. B lists Gaussians and coherent Gibbs states as 'smooth' examples, but those have a finite participation ratio N_eff, and their long-time return probability has a floor of order 1/N_eff. That floor dominates the global ramp whenever N_eff < d_B, so the claimed parametric advantage does not follow for those states. The stress-test note is right: this is not just a preparation problem, it's a missing support/normalization condition in Eqs. (14)-(15). The advantage survives only for states that are essentially uniform in the energy eigenbasis, which is a much more restrictive—and harder to prepare—class than the paper implies.

The generic-state rows are more defensible and match infinite-temperature scrambling, which is still noteworthy when Bob's Hamiltonian is local. But the headline 'enhanced' entanglement rests on the smooth-state scaling, and that needs fixing.

Nobody should desk-reject this. The exact relation and the transfer capacity analysis are real contributions, and the flaw is pointed and correctible. A serious referee should ask for a restricted statement of the smooth-state condition, or a numerical check of the scaling for actual wavepackets. I'd expect it to come back with significant revisions, but it's worth refereeing.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol in which a simple system A is coupled to a complex system B by a non-demolition interaction H = N_A ⊗ H_B, starting from an equal superposition of N_A eigenstates in A and an arbitrary pure state |φ⟩ in B. The central object is the exact purity formula Eq. (10), which expresses the purity of the entangled state at time t0 in terms of return probabilities p_φ(τ t0) of |φ⟩ under H_B. Using literature estimates for the return probability after the ramp time, the paper claims that for ergodic spectra and 'smooth' initial states the purity is P(t0) = 1/d_A + O(d_A/d_B^2), parametrically smaller than the infinite-temperature scrambler result P = 1/d_A + 1/d_B. This enhanced purity is then converted, via operator-transfer bounds in App. C, into a dimension requirement for Bob's system that is parametrically smaller than for scrambling dynamics, with applications to teleportation.

Significance. If the scaling claims hold, the paper would establish a genuinely operational use of spectral statistics for entanglement preparation and quantum information transfer, going beyond the usual diagnostic role of level statistics. The exact derivation of Eq. (10), the Krylov-vector framing, and the operator-transfer bounds in App. C are concrete and rigorous components, and the paper is commendably explicit about the distinction between ergodicity and scrambling and about the experimental caveats. The main significance, however, is conditional on a support condition for the smooth initial state that the current manuscript does not state or prove; as written, the advertised parametric advantage may not follow for the Gaussian-type wavepackets explicitly cited in App. B.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B / Eqs. (12)-(15)] The first row of Eq. (14), f_φ(t) ∼ 0 for smooth φ(E), and the statement in App. B that this row includes Gaussian wavepackets, are not supported by Eq. (11). For any normalized φ supported on N_eff energy eigenstates, the diagonal terms in Eq. (11) contribute a floor ∑_n |φ(E_n)|^4 ≳ 1/N_eff. The ramp estimate Eq. (13), f_E ∼ t/d_B^2, is derived (App. B) by setting φ(E_n)=1/d_B over all d_B levels; the level-repulsion cancellations that remove the diagonal floor act on the full eigenphase sum, and it is not shown that they operate for a sub-extensive smooth envelope. With p_φ(t) ∼ 1/N_eff at the relevant times, Eq. (10) gives P(t0) − 1/d_A ∼ 1/N_eff, which exceeds the scrambler baseline 1/d_B whenever N_eff < d_B. The claimed parametric advantage in the top row of Eq. (15) therefore requires N_eff ∼ d_B, i.e. the smooth state must be spread over essentially the entire spectrum; the paper does not state this normalization/support condition, and the explicit inclusion of finite-width Gaussians in App. B is not justified.
[Eqs. (10), (15), and Discussion] The comparison between the ergodic protocol and infinite-temperature scramblers is made conditional on a resource that is not accounted for: the top row of Eq. (15) uses an initial Bob state with smooth amplitudes over the full spectrum, while the baseline Eq. (17) uses generic dynamics from an unspecified (typically simple or random) initial state. The Discussion correctly says that the 'primary challenge is the complexity of preparing a smooth initial state,' but the manuscript does not identify that this is not merely an experimental difficulty: without the N_eff ∼ d_B condition, the theoretical scaling itself fails, as argued in the previous comment. The revision should either restrict the high-ergodicity claim to full-spectrum smooth states and clearly name this as an idealized resource, or provide an argument that such states can be prepared with sub-EPR resources; otherwise the claimed advantage over scrambling is not a fair comparison.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] Eq. (A2) omits the n-dependent phases e^{-i E_{A,n} t0} generated by the H_A term in H0; if H_A is nonzero these phases are not common to all terms and the displayed expression is not literally the time-evolved state. Since these are diagonal phases on A they do not affect the purity, so the issue is readily fixable, but the formula as written is misleading.
[Eq. (13) and surrounding text] The time variable t in f_E ∼ t/d_B^2 is dimensionless in what appears to be units of inverse mean level spacing, but this convention is never stated; the reader cannot tell whether t0 is measured in physical time units or in units where the Heisenberg time is O(d_B). Please state the convention explicitly.
[App. B, paragraph on the spectral form factor] The sentence 'for this choice, p_φ(t) exactly corresponds to the state-independent spectral form factor' is confusing because p_φ is normalized by the state weights; what is meant is the spectral form factor divided by d_B^2. Please rephrase to avoid conflating the state-independent object with the state-dependent return probability.
[Eq. (21)] The parameters κ and γ are used in Eq. (21) before they are defined in the following paragraph; move the definitions (κ=1 for the strict all-operator condition, γ=1 or 2, and γ=0 with κ≫1 for typical operators) before the display.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central purity relation is an exact identity, and the spectral-statistics estimates are imported from external literature rather than fitted or self-cited into place.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. Equation (10), P(t0)=1/d_A+(2/d_A)sum_tau(1-tau/d_A)p_phi(tau t0), follows from an exact partial trace over the state in Eq. (7); it contains no fitted parameters and does not presuppose the claimed entanglement advantage. The top row of Eq. (15) is assembled from the standard spectral-form-factor estimate in Eq. (13), O(t/d_B^2) for ergodic spectra, and the wavefunction-fluctuation estimate in Eq. (14), with the latter attributed in Appendix B to Refs. [64,65,83]. These are external input hypotheses about random-matrix spectral statistics, not outputs of this paper's protocol. The same-author citations are used mainly for conceptual framing: Ref. [37] motivates 'Krylov vector ergodicity,' but the paper explicitly says 'it is difficult to make a direct quantitative connection of our present protocol with this notion,' so that citation is not load-bearing. Ref. [38] is only an aside about a conjectured correspondence. The Discussion also honestly flags the main limitation: 'the primary challenge is the complexity of preparing a smooth initial state that shows maximally ergodic dynamics.' That is a stated assumption/liability, not a disguised input. The skeptic's concern that a finite-width Gaussian wavepacket may leave a return-probability floor ~1/N_eff is a technical validity question about the f_phi ~ 0 estimate, not a circular reduction: no equation is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained conditional on the stated spectral-statistics and smoothness assumptions.

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

The ledger is short: no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The central claim rests on standard random matrix theory estimates for spectral form factors and return probabilities, on the phenomenological decomposition of return probability into spectral and wavefunction parts, and on the assumption that smooth energy-space initial states are preparable. These are domain assumptions imported from the literature, and the last one is explicitly flagged by the authors as the primary challenge.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Complex quantum systems generically exhibit random-matrix spectral statistics ('ergodic E_n'), with spectral form factor ramp f_E(t) ~ t/d_B^2 for t_ramp < t << t_H.
Invoked in Eqs. (13) and (15) via the quantum chaos conjecture; cited to Refs. [1,2,8-14]. The paper does not prove this for any specific Hamiltonian.
domain assumption The return probability decomposes as p_phi(t) ≈ f_E(t) + f_phi(t) for t > t_ramp, with independent spectral and wavefunction fluctuation contributions.
Used for Eq. (12); based on literature [64,65,83], stated in App. B to be approximate and only valid for sufficiently random fluctuations.
domain assumption Smooth energy-space wavefunctions (e.g., Gaussian wavepackets or coherent Gibbs states) have f_phi(t) ≈ 0, while generic (Haar-random) wavefunctions have f_phi(t) ≈ 1/d_B.
Used for Eq. (14); the top row of Eq. (15) requires smooth phi(E), which the Discussion admits is hard to prepare.
domain assumption Infinite-temperature scramblers (random unitary circuits) produce purity P = 1/d_A + 1/d_B at late times.
Baseline used in Eq. (17); standard result for Haar-random states, cited to Refs. [71-74].
domain assumption The non-demolition coupling H = N_A ⊗ H_B can be realized in quantum dots and Rydberg arrays.
Practical feasibility claim cited to Refs. [22,39].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced entanglement from quantum ergodicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRYYD7BH

@misc{pith2026250708067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced entanglement from quantum ergodicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRYYD7BH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08067}
}

read the original abstract

The quantum chaos conjecture associates the spectral statistics of a quantum system with abstract notions of quantum ergodicity. Such associations are taken to be of fundamental and sometimes defining importance for quantum chaos, but their practical relevance has been challenged by theoretical and experimental developments. Here, in counterpoint, we show that ergodic dynamics can be directly utilized for the preparation of quantum states with parametrically higher entanglement than generated by maximally scrambling dynamics such as in random unitary circuits. Our setting involves quantum systems coupled via a "non-demolition" interaction of conserved charges. We derive an exact relation between the evolving entanglement of an initial product state and a measure of spectral statistics of the interacting charges in this state. This connection is explained via a notion of Krylov vector ergodicity, tied to the ability of quantum dynamics to generate orthonormal states over time. We consider exploiting this phenomenon for the preparation of approximate Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) states between complex systems, a crucial resource for tasks such as quantum teleportation. We quantitatively show that the transfer of operators between entangled systems, which underlies the utility of the EPR state, can be performed with parametrically larger capacity for entanglement generated via ergodic dynamics than with maximal scrambling. Our analysis suggests a direct application of "ergodic" spectral statistics as a potential resource for quantum information tasks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Non-perturbative saturation of Krylov complexity, and its implications in quantum gravity
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Full-spectrum Krylov complexity provably saturates at ~e^{S(E)} log(1/λ) in every low-energy state — near the energy-dependent Heisenberg time, not the maximal e^{S_max} — because discrete-spectrum orthogonal polynomi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

F.Haake,Quantumsignaturesofchaos(Springer,Berlin,Hei- delberg,2001)

2001
[2]

M.L.Mehta,Randommatrices(Elsevier,2004)

2004
[3]

S. W. McDonald and A. N. Kaufman, Spectrum and eigen- functionsforaHamiltonianwithstochastictrajectories,Phys. Rev.Lett.42,1189(1979)

1979
[4]

G.Casati,F.Valz-Gris,andI.Guarnieri,Ontheconnection betweenquantizationofnonintegrablesystemsandstatistical theoryofspectra,Lett.NuovoCimento28,279(1980)

1980
[5]

M.V.Berry,Quantizingaclassicallyergodicsystem: Sinai’s billiardandtheKKRmethod,Ann.Phys.131,163(1981)

1981
[6]

O.Bohigas,M.-J.Giannoni,andC.Schmit,Characterization ofchaoticquantumspectraanduniversalityoflevelfluctua- tionlaws,Phys.Rev.Lett.52,1(1984)

1984
[7]

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

1977
[8]

J.Cotler,N.Hunter-Jones,J.Liu,andB.Yoshida,Chaos,com- plexity,andrandommatrices,J.HighEnergyPhys.2017(11), 1

2017

Show all 92 references

[9]

P. Kos, M. Ljubotina, and T. Prosen, Many-body quantum chaos: Analytic connection to random matrix theory, Phys. Rev.X8,021062(2018)

2018
[10]

A.Chan,A.DeLuca,andJ.Chalker,Solutionofaminimal modelformany-bodyquantumchaos,Phys.Rev.X8,041019 (2018)

2018
[11]

A. J. Friedman, A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. Chalker, Spec- tralstatisticsandmany-bodyquantumchaoswithconserved charge,Phys.Rev.Lett.123,210603(2019)

2019
[12]

Gharibyan, M

H. Gharibyan, M. Hanada, S. H. Shenker, and M. Tezuka, Onset of random matrix behavior in scrambling systems, J. HighEnergyPhys.2018(7),1

2018
[13]

P.Saad,S.H.Shenker,andD.Stanford,Asemiclassicalramp inSYKandingravity,arXivpreprintarXiv:1806.06840 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[14]

J.Šuntajs,J.Bonča,T.Prosen,andL.Vidmar,Quantumchaos challengesmany-bodylocalization,Phys.Rev.E102,062144 (2020)

2020
[15]

J. von Neumann, Proof of the ergodic theorem and the H- theoreminquantummechanics.Translationof: Beweisdes ErgodensatzesunddesH-TheoremsinderneuenMechanik, Eur.Phys.J.H35,201(2010),Original(inGerman): Zeit.für Phys.57,30(1929)

2010
[16]

Lett.54,1879(1985)

R.V.JensenandR.Shankar,Statisticalbehaviorindetermin- 8 isticquantumsystemswithfewdegreesoffreedom,Phys.Rev. Lett.54,1879(1985)

1985
[17]

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

1991
[18]

E50,888(1994)

M.Srednicki,Chaosandquantumthermalization,Phys.Rev. E50,888(1994)

1994
[19]

Rigol, V

M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and itsmechanismforgenericisolatedquantumsystems,Nature 452,854(2008)

2008
[20]

D’Alessio, Y

L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanicsandthermodynamics,Adv.Phys.65,239(2016)

2016
[21]

J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, Rep. Prog.Phys.81,082001(2018)

2018
[22]

D.V.Vasilyev,A.Grankin,M.A.Baranov,L.M.Sieberer,and P.Zoller,Monitoringquantumsimulatorsviaquantumnon- demolitioncouplingstoatomicclockqubits,PRXQuantum 1,020302(2020)

2020
[23]

L. K. Joshi, A. Elben, A. Vikram, B. Vermersch, V. Galitski, andP.Zoller,Probingmany-bodyquantumchaoswithquan- tumsimulators,Phys.Rev.X12,011018(2022)

2022
[24]

H. Dong, P. Zhang, C. B. Dağ, Y. Gao, N. Wang, J. Deng, X.Zhang,J.Chen,S.Xu,K.Wang,etal.,Measuringthespec- tralformfactorinmany-bodychaoticandlocalizedphasesof quantumprocessors,Phys.Rev.Lett.134,010402(2025)

2025
[25]

Pilatowsky-Cameo, A

A.K.Das,C.Cianci,D.G.Cabral,D.A.Zarate-Herrada,P.Pin- ney, S. Pilatowsky-Cameo, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, V. S. Batista, A. del Campo, E. J. Torres-Herrera,et al., Proposal formany-bodyquantumchaosdetection,Phys.Rev.Res.7, 013181(2025)

2025
[26]

Vikram, Bypassing eigenstate thermalization with ex- perimentallyaccessiblequantumdynamics,arXivpreprint arXiv:2503.07729 (2025)

A. Vikram, Bypassing eigenstate thermalization with ex- perimentallyaccessiblequantumdynamics,arXivpreprint arXiv:2503.07729 (2025)

2025
[27]

A. Y. Khinchin,Mathematical foundations of statistical me- chanics(CourierCorporation,1949)

1949
[28]

A. I. Shnirelman, Ergodic properties of eigenfunctions, Us- pekhiMat.Nauk29,181(1974)

1974
[29]

Y.ColindeVerdière,Ergodicitéetfonctionspropresdulapla- cien,Commun.Math.Phys.102,497(1985)

1985
[30]

S.Zelditch,Uniformdistributionofeigenfunctionsoncom- pacthyperbolicsurfaces,DukeMathematicalJournal55,919 (1987)

1987
[31]

S.Zelditch,Quantumtransitionamplitudesforergodicand for completely integrable systems, J. Funct. Anal.94, 415 (1990)

1990
[32]

S.Zelditch,Quantummixing,J.Funct.Anal.140,68(1996)

1996
[33]

T.Sunada,Quantumergodicity,inProgressininversespectral geometry(Springer,1997)pp.175–196

1997
[34]

S.Zelditch,Quantumergodicityandmixing,arXivpreprint math-ph/0503026 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[35]

N.Anantharaman,DelocalizationofSchrödingereigenfunc- tions, inProceedings of the International Congress of Math- ematicians: RiodeJaneiro2018(World Scientific, 2018) pp. 341–375

2018
[36]

J.M.MaganandQ.Wu,Twotypesofquantumchaos: testing thelimitsoftheBohigas-Giannoni-Schmitconjecture,arXiv preprintarXiv:2411.08186 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[37]

Vikram and V

A. Vikram and V. Galitski, Dynamical quantum ergodicity fromenergylevelstatistics,Phys.Rev.Res.5,033126(2023)

2023
[38]

Akers, A

C. Akers, A. Lucas, and A. Vikram, On the reconstruction mapinJTgravity,arXivpreprintarXiv:2506.18975 (2025)

2025
[39]

Giedke, J

G. Giedke, J. M. Taylor, D. D’Alessandro, M. D. Lukin, and A.Imamoğlu,Quantummeasurementofamesoscopicspin ensemble,Phys.Rev.A74,032316(2006)

2006
[40]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanicaldescriptionofphysicalrealitybeconsideredcom- plete?,Phys.Rev.47,777(1935)

1935
[41]

N.Lashkari,D.Stanford,M.Hastings,T.Osborne,andP.Hay- den,Towardsthefastscramblingconjecture,J.HighEnergy Phys.2013(4),1

2013
[42]

G.Bentsen,Y.Gu,andA.Lucas,Fastscramblingonsparse graphs,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.116,6689(2019)

2019
[43]

A.Lucas,Quantummany-bodydynamicsonthestargraph, arXivpreprintarXiv:1903.01468 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[44]

A.VikramandV.Galitski,Exactuniversalboundsonquan- tum dynamics and fast scrambling, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 040402(2024)

2024
[45]

A.Vikram,L.Shou,andV.Galitski,Proofofauniversalspeed limitonfastscramblinginquantumsystems,arXivpreprint arXiv:2404.15403 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[46]

Rev.Lett.70,1895(1993)

C.H.Bennett,G.Brassard,C.Crépeau,R.Jozsa,A.Peres,and W.K.Wootters,Teleportinganunknownquantumstatevia dualclassicalandEinstein-Podolsky-Rosenchannels,Phys. Rev.Lett.70,1895(1993)

1993
[47]

M.A.NielsenandI.L.Chuang,QuantumComputationand QuantumInformation(CambridgeUniversityPress,2010)

2010
[48]

Braunstein,Advancesinquantumteleportation,NaturePho- ton.9,641(2015)

S.Pirandola,J.Eisert,C.Weedbrook,A.Furusawa,andS.L. Braunstein,Advancesinquantumteleportation,NaturePho- ton.9,641(2015)

2015
[49]

X.-M.Hu,Y.Guo,B.-H.Liu,C.-F.Li,andG.-C.Guo,Progress inquantumteleportation,Nat.Rev.Phys.5,339(2023)

2023
[50]

Molmer, and A

M.M.Khan,E.Chaparro,B.Sundar,A.Carter,J.Bollinger, K. Molmer, and A. M. Rey, Generating Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen correlations for teleporting collective spin states in a two-dimensional trapped ion crystal, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022019(2025)

2025
[51]

Erhard, M

M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Advances in high- dimensionalquantumentanglement,Nat.Rev.Phys.2,365 (2020)

2020
[52]

Xing,C.-X.Huang,Y.-F.Huang,C.-F.Li,etal.,Experimental high-dimensionalquantumteleportation,Phys.Rev.Lett.125, 230501(2020)

X.-M.Hu,C.Zhang,B.-H.Liu,Y.Cai,X.-J.Ye,Y.Guo,W.-B. Xing,C.-X.Huang,Y.-F.Huang,C.-F.Li,etal.,Experimental high-dimensionalquantumteleportation,Phys.Rev.Lett.125, 230501(2020)

2020
[53]

Y.-H.Luo, H.-S.Zhong, M.Erhard, X.-L.Wang, L.-C.Peng, M.Krenn,X.Jiang,L.Li,N.-L.Liu,C.-Y.Lu,etal.,Quantum teleportationinhighdimensions,Phys.Rev.Lett.123,070505 (2019)

2019
[54]

P.HaydenandJ.Preskill,Blackholesasmirrors: quantum informationinrandomsubsystems,J.HighEnergyPhys.2007 (09),120

2007
[55]

E.Schrödinger,Discussionofprobabilityrelationsbetween separatedsystems,inMath.Proc.Camb.Philos.Soc.,Vol.31 (CambridgeUniversityPress,1935)pp.555–563

1935
[56]

L. P. Hughston, R. Jozsa, and W. K. Wootters, A complete classificationofquantumensembleshavingagivendensity matrix,Phys.Lett.A183,14(1993)

1993
[57]

Math.,491(1931)

A.N.Krylov,Delarésolutionnumériquedel’équationservant àdéterminerdansdesquestionsdemécaniqueappliquéeles fréquencesdepetitesoscillationsdessystèmesmatériels,Izv. Math.,491(1931)

1931
[58]

Y.G.Sinai,Introductiontoergodictheory,Vol.18(Princeton UniversityPress,1977)

1977
[59]

J.LiesenandZ.Strakos,Krylovsubspacemethods: principles andanalysis(OxfordUniversityPress,2013)

2013
[60]

Balasubramanian, P

V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J. M. Magan, and Q. Wu, Quantumchaosandthecomplexityofspreadofstates,Phys. Rev.D106,046007(2022),2202.06957

2022 arXiv
[61]

Nandy, A

P. Nandy, A. S. Matsoukas-Roubeas, P. Martínez-Azcona, 9 A. Dymarsky, and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in Krylov space: Methods and applications, Physics Reports 1125,1(2025),arXiv:2405.09628

2025 arXiv
[62]

R.Horodecki,P.Horodecki,M.Horodecki,andK.Horodecki, Quantumentanglement,Rev.Mod.Phys.81,865(2009)

2009
[63]

Lanyon,P.Zoller,R.Blatt,andC.F.Roos,ProbingRényien- tanglemententropyviarandomizedmeasurements,Science 364,260(2019)

T.Brydges,A.Elben,P.Jurcevic,B.Vermersch,C.Maier,B.P. Lanyon,P.Zoller,R.Blatt,andC.F.Roos,ProbingRényien- tanglemententropyviarandomizedmeasurements,Science 364,260(2019)

2019
[64]

J.WilkieandP.Brumer,Time-dependentmanifestationsof quantumchaos,Phys.Rev.Lett.67,1185(1991)

1991
[65]

R.Soc.A375,20160434(2017)

E.Torres-HerreraandL.F.Santos,Dynamicalmanifestations ofquantumchaos: correlationholeandbulge,Philos.Trans. R.Soc.A375,20160434(2017)

2017
[66]

P.BocchieriandA.Loinger,Quantumrecurrencetheorem, Phys.Rev.107,337(1957)

1957
[67]

A.R.BrownandL.Susskind,Secondlawofquantumcom- plexity,Phys.Rev.D97,086015(2018)

2018
[68]

T.-C.LuandT.Grover,Renyientropyofchaoticeigenstates, Phys.Rev.E99,032111(2019)

2019
[69]

C.Liu,X.Chen,andL.Balents,Quantumentanglementof theSachdev-Ye-Kitaevmodels,Phys.Rev.B97,245126(2018)

2018
[70]

F.Monteiro,M.Tezuka,A.Altland,D.A.Huse,andT.Mick- litz,Quantumergodicityinthemany-bodylocalizationprob- lem,Phys.Rev.Lett.127,030601(2021)

2021
[71]

A.Hamma,S.Santra,andP.Zanardi,Quantumentanglement inrandomphysicalstates,Phys.Rev.Lett.109,040502(2012)

2012
[72]

71,1291(1993)

D.N.Page,Averageentropyofasubsystem,Phys.Rev.Lett. 71,1291(1993)

1993
[73]

Gorin and T

T. Gorin and T. H. Seligman, A random matrix approach todecoherence,J.Opt.B:QuantumSemiclass.Opt.4,S386 (2002)

2002
[74]

VinayakandM.Žnidarič,Subsystemdynamicsunderrandom Hamiltonianevolution,J.Phys.A.: Math.Theor.45,125204 (2012)

2012
[75]

Workinprogresswithcollaborators
[76]

Themaximalscramblingcriterionusedin[ 44,45]isinturn anecessaryconditionforthistoholdwith𝜖=𝑜(1)
[77]

Goldstein, J

S. Goldstein, J. L. Lebowitz, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì, Canonicaltypicality,Phys.Rev.Lett.96,050403(2006)

2006
[78]

S.Popescu,A.J.Short,andA.Winter,Entanglementandthe foundationsofstatisticalmechanics,Nat.Phys.2,754(2006)

2006
[79]

Frigg, J

R. Frigg, J. Berkovitz, and F. Kronz, The ergodic hierarchy, TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,Fall2020Edition (2020)

2020
[80]

Taranto, S

P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K.Modi,Higher-orderquantumoperations,arXivpreprint arXiv:2503.09693 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[81]

Taylor, A

J. Taylor, A. Imamoglu, and M. Lukin, Controlling a meso- scopicspinenvironmentbyquantumbitmanipulation,Phys. Rev.Lett.91,246802(2003)

2003
[82]

R. E. Prange, The spectral form factor is not self-averaging, Phys.Rev.Lett.78,2280(1997)

1997
[83]

M.Schiulaz,E.J.Torres-Herrera,andL.F.Santos,Thouless andrelaxationtimescalesinmany-bodyquantumsystems, Phys.Rev.B99,174313(2019)

2019
[84]

Liu, Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos, Phys.Rev.D.98,086026(2018)

J. Liu, Spectral form factors and late time quantum chaos, Phys.Rev.D.98,086026(2018)

2018
[85]

A. Chan, A. De Luca, and J. Chalker, Spectral statistics in spatiallyextendedchaoticquantummany-bodysystems,Phys. Rev.Lett.121,060601(2018)

2018
[86]

N.Carabba,N.Hörnedal,andA.delCampo,Quantumspeed limitsonoperatorflowsandcorrelationfunctions,Quantum 6,884(2022)

2022
[87]

F. W. Byron and R. W. Fuller,Mathematics of classical and quantumphysics(DoverPublications,2012)

2012
[88]

R.BhatiaandC.Davis,Abetterboundonthevariance,The AmericanMathematicalMonthly107,353(2000)

2000
[89]

Massart,Concentration inequalities and model selec- tion: Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXIII-2003 (Springer,2007)pp.17,Lemma2.3

P. Massart,Concentration inequalities and model selec- tion: Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXIII-2003 (Springer,2007)pp.17,Lemma2.3

2003
[90]

R.J.AdlerandJ.E.Taylor,Gaussianinequalities,inRandom FieldsandGeometry(SpringerNewYork,NewYork,NY,2007) pp.49–64

2007
[91]

F.OrabonaandD.Pal,Optimalnon-asymptoticlowerbound ontheminimaxregretoflearningwithexpertadvice,arXiv preprintarXiv:1511.02176 (2015)

2015 arXiv
[92]

J.CotlerandN.Hunter-Jones,Spectraldecouplinginmany- bodyquantumchaos,J.HighEnergyPhys.2020(12),1

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F.Haake,Quantumsignaturesofchaos(Springer,Berlin,Hei- delberg,2001)

2001

[2] [2]

M.L.Mehta,Randommatrices(Elsevier,2004)

2004

[3] [3]

S. W. McDonald and A. N. Kaufman, Spectrum and eigen- functionsforaHamiltonianwithstochastictrajectories,Phys. Rev.Lett.42,1189(1979)

1979

[4] [4]

G.Casati,F.Valz-Gris,andI.Guarnieri,Ontheconnection betweenquantizationofnonintegrablesystemsandstatistical theoryofspectra,Lett.NuovoCimento28,279(1980)

1980

[5] [5]

M.V.Berry,Quantizingaclassicallyergodicsystem: Sinai’s billiardandtheKKRmethod,Ann.Phys.131,163(1981)

1981

[6] [6]

O.Bohigas,M.-J.Giannoni,andC.Schmit,Characterization ofchaoticquantumspectraanduniversalityoflevelfluctua- tionlaws,Phys.Rev.Lett.52,1(1984)

1984

[7] [7]

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

1977

[8] [8]

J.Cotler,N.Hunter-Jones,J.Liu,andB.Yoshida,Chaos,com- plexity,andrandommatrices,J.HighEnergyPhys.2017(11), 1

2017