Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

When Abelian symmetries act with projective phases instead of commuting, thermalization of charged observables is governed by a generalized Gibbs ensemble that keeps a memory of the initial state's projective charge, not the standard Gibbs

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 ↗

For systems with projective symmetry representations, the paper proposes a modified ETH and shows that charged operators with symmetry-supplied charges thermalize to a generalized Gibbs ensemble, not the ordinary Gibbs ensemble.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, interesting extension of ETH to projective Abelian symmetries; the GGE result is clean but rests on an ansatz whose domain is narrower than the numerics demonstrate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01931 v2 pith:URO6FTTV submitted 2025-09-02 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis with projective representation

Soma Onoda , Osamu Fukushima , Ryusuke Hamazaki , Okuto Morikawa This is my paper
classification hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph PACS 05.30.-d
keywords eigenstate thermalization hypothesisprojective representationmixed anomalygeneralized Gibbs ensemblethermalizationdegenerate energy eigenstateslattice gauge theoryhigher-form symmetry
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.

The reading

The paper extends the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis to quantum systems whose Abelian symmetry groups act projectively — symmetry operators that commute only up to a U(1) phase, a signature of mixed quantum anomalies. It argues that such projective structures force every energy eigenstate into a degenerate multiplet, and it formulates a projective-representation ETH (prETH) whose matrix-element ansatz applies to the symmetry-neutralized combination of a charged operator with the symmetry generators. The central consequence is a three-way operator classification: neutral and Type I charged operators still thermalize to the standard Gibbs ensemble, whereas Type II charged operators — whose charge is supplied by the symmetry operators themselves — settle at a stationary value that carries the initial state's projective charge. That value is reproduced by a non-commutative generalized Gibbs ensemble, not by the Gibbs ensemble, which selection rules force to zero for every charged operator. If prETH holds, dephasing alone cannot erase the memory of anomalous symmetry charge in highly excited states.

Core claim

Central claim: when Z_N × Z_N symmetry acts projectively, the long-time average of a Type II charged operator equals the initial state's expectation value of the symmetry operator (U1)^{q2}(U2)^{-q1} times a smooth function of energy density, up to O(V^{-1/2}) corrections (Eq. 3.37). The factorization follows exactly from the degeneracy selection rules; the prETH ansatz (Eq. 3.16) — smooth diagonal, exponentially suppressed off-diagonal neutralized matrix elements — makes the stationary value state-independent. Selection rules force the Gibbs ensemble to give zero for every charged operator, so Type II observables cannot thermalize to Gibbs. The paper instead builds a non-commutative general

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the projective commutation relation U2U1 = e^{−2πi/N}U1U2, the minimal nontrivial projective phase for Z_N × Z_N corresponding to a mixed anomaly; it forces every energy eigenstate into an N-fold degenerate multiplet. On top of this sits the prETH ansatz (Eq. 3.16): the symmetry-neutralized matrix element ⟨⟨Ei||O_{q1,q2}(U2)^{q1}(U1)^{-q2}||Ej⟩⟩ has the standard ETH shape, with a smooth diagonal function O^{(q1,q2)}(E/V) and exponentially suppressed off-diagonal noise. This ansatz converts the exact selection-rule factorization of the long-time average into the stationary value (3.37). The matching ensemble is the non-commutative GGE (Eq. 4.10), exp(−βH − Σ μ_r Q_r

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the prETH ansatz, Eq. (3.16): that the symmetry-neutralized matrix element of any charged operator takes the standard ETH form, with a smooth diagonal function and exponentially suppressed off-diagonal entries — a conjecture the paper checks numerically for a few selected operators but does not derive, and the whole generalized-Gibbs picture collapses if arbitrary charged operators violate it.

What would settle it

Exact diagonalization of larger systems (beyond L = 13 for the spin chains and 3×4 for the gauge theory): if the neutralized diagonal ⟨⟨Ei||O_{q1,q2}(U2)^{q1}(U1)^{-q2}||Ei⟩⟩ for a Type II operator stops being a smooth O(1) function of energy density, or if the long-time average deviates from Eq. (3.37) by more than O(V^{-1/2}), the prETH ansatz fails. Sharper test: prepare the engineered state |ψan⟩ of Eq. (6.23) and measure a Type II stationary value; it should shift by O(V^{-1/2}) relative to the mean-energy prediction — if the shift scales as V^{-1}, the anomalous-scaling mechanism is wron

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

If this is right

  • Type II charged operators — charge supplied by the symmetry operators themselves — equilibrate to a value carrying ⟨ψin|(U1)^{q2}(U2)^{-q1}|ψin⟩, so the stationary state retains exact memory of the initial projective charge even after dephasing.
  • The standard Gibbs ensemble is provably wrong for these observables; the non-commutative GGE reproduces them to O(V^{-1/2}), so thermal equilibrium in anomalous systems means generalized-Gibbs equilibrium, not Gibbs.
  • Neutral and Type I operators still follow the conventional Gibbs prediction, so familiar ETH thermalization survives exactly within the neutralized sector.
  • Type II observables show anomalous finite-size corrections of order V^{-1/2} rather than the usual V^{-1}; such corrections are exponentially atypical among random initial states but can be engineered by superposing few energy eigenstates, as in the explicit state |ψan⟩.
  • The predictions reach beyond abstract chains: the Z_2 lattice gauge theory with odd L_x or L_y realizes the projective structure through its 0-form and electric 1-form symmetry operators, placing the effect inside physical gauge theories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If prETH holds, the diagonal ensemble provides a symmetry-protected quantum memory — the value ⟨ψin|(U1)^{q2}(U2)^{-q1}|ψin⟩ survives thermalization and is readable through any Type II observable, suggesting anomalous systems could store quantum information in highly excited states.
  • The anomalous O(V^{-1/2}) scaling could serve as an experimental diagnostic: measuring how a Type II operator's stationary value approaches its infinite-volume GGE value reveals the projective-charge content of the initial state without full state tomography.
  • The prETH logic should transfer to other anomalous group structures — central extensions of larger Abelian groups, or mixed 0-form/higher-form anomalies — wherever a neutralized matrix element can be defined; the paper's appendix already takes a first step for Z_{N1} × Z_{N2} with N1 ≠ N2.
  • A sharp boundary question is whether every local charged operator is genuinely Type I; if a local counterexample with non-vanishing neutralized diagonal exists, the GGE predictions would need revision, making the Type I conjecture an independently testable claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a projective-representation generalization of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (prETH) for isolated quantum systems with Abelian Z_{N1} × Z_{N2} symmetries acting projectively. The projective structure forces degeneracies in the energy spectrum, and the authors derive an exact selection-rule expression for the long-time average of charged operators, Eq. (3.15). They then conjecture the prETH ansatz, Eq. (3.16), for the neutralized matrix elements, and classify charged operators as neutral, Type I (vanishing diagonal in the thermodynamic limit), or Type II (nonvanishing diagonal). The main claim is that Type II operators retain memory of the projective charge of the initial state through the factor <ψ_in|(U_1)^{q_2}(U_2)^{-q_1}|ψ_in>, so their stationary values are not described by the standard Gibbs ensemble but by a noncommuting generalized Gibbs ensemble, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.20). The paper supports this with exact diagonalization studies in Z_2 × Z_2 and Z_3 × Z_3 spin chains and in a (2+1)-dimensional Z_2 lattice gauge theory, and discusses anomalous O(V^{-1/2}) finite-size corrections in Section 6. The general Z_{N1} × Z_{N2} case is treated in Appendix A, where the authors themselves exhibit a violation of diagonal prETH for operators involving center elements.

Significance. If the prETH ansatz is accepted, the paper gives a clean and interesting extension of ETH to degenerate spectra induced by projective representations and 't Hooft anomalies, and it demonstrates a concrete mechanism by which the standard Gibbs ensemble fails while a noncommutative GGE succeeds. The exact selection-rule time-average, Eq. (3.15), and the GGE matching calculation are valuable and appear correct. The numerical evidence, while limited to small systems, is consistent with the claimed smooth diagonal structure and with GGE matching for the selected operators. However, the central predictive claim is conditional on a conjectural ansatz whose domain is not fully specified: the paper's own Appendix A shows that the diagonal prETH can fail for certain symmetry-structure operators, and the numerical Type II examples all reduce to local neutralized operators. The significance is therefore real but conditional on a sharper statement of the validity domain.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.16), and Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.21)] The central result is only as general as the prETH ansatz, and that ansatz is not universal even within the paper's own framework. For G = Z_{N1} × Z_{N2} with N1 ≠ N2, Eq. (A.21) shows that operators of the form O_{q'1,q'2}(U_1)^n(U_2)^n have diagonal matrix elements equal to a sector-dependent phase times the neutralized diagonal element, so at least one of the two related operators cannot have a smooth diagonal function of E/V. The main-text Type II numerical tests (Figs. 1, 2, 5) are all of the special form (3.21), where the neutralized operator is just the local neutral O_{0,0}; no test exercises a genuinely nonlocal neutralized operator. Consequently Eq. (3.37) and the GGE statement (4.20) are established only for the subclass in which (3.16) is assumed. The abstract and Section 4 state a more general Type II claim. Please state the domain of validity explicitly, and either prove s
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.14)-(4.20)] The equality between the long-time average and the GGE is substantially built in by construction. The GGE parameters are fixed by Eq. (4.14) to match <ψ_in|(U_1)^{q_2}(U_2)^{-q_1}|ψ_in> for all (q_1,q_2), and the Type II GGE expectation value in Eq. (4.19) is proportional to exactly this same quantity. Thus Eq. (4.20) follows from the matching conditions once prETH supplies the smooth diagonal function O^{(q1,q2)}. This does not make the derivation wrong, but it means the GGE is not making an independent prediction of the stationary value; the nontrivial content is the prETH ansatz and the nonvanishing of O^{(q1,q2)}. The paper should state this limitation explicitly in Section 4, otherwise readers may overinterpret the GGE agreement as a stronger test than it is.
  3. [§3.2, Type I conjecture, Eqs. (3.18)-(3.19)] The classification of local charged operators as Type I is a conjecture, supported only by a heuristic argument about the support of the neutralized operator and by a few numerical examples. This distinction is load-bearing: if a local charged operator were actually Type II, the Gibbs-ensemble prediction for that operator would fail, and the Type I/II boundary would move. The current evidence covers only Z_1, X_1 X_2 U_1, σ^x_ℓ, and W_y for particular couplings and system sizes. I recommend either a more systematic numerical study (several local operators at several sizes, with explicit scaling of the diagonal matrix elements) or a more rigorous locality-based argument, so that the classification is not a per-operator numerical observation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.33)] The matrix element in Eq. (3.33) is written as <⟨E_i|| O_{q1,q2} ||E_i⟩>, but Eq. (3.15) and the surrounding text require the neutralized operator O_{q1,q2}(U_2)^{q1}(U_1)^{-q2} inside the matrix element. Please correct this notation to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§5.1, Z_3 × Z_3 example and Fig. 2 caption] There is an inconsistency in the labeling of Type I and Type II operators. The text defines O_{0,1}^{I}=Z_1 and O_{0,1}^{II}=X_1^† X_2 U_1, but the Fig. 2 caption appears to swap these labels. Please make the notation uniform.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.26)] The bound in Eq. (A.26) is displayed as an equality O(V^{-1/2}) for all n ≥ 1, but for n ≥ 2 the standard estimate gives O(V^{-1}) under the same assumptions. Since Eq. (A.27) only needs an upper bound, this does not affect the final result, but the displayed equality should be corrected.
  4. [Throughout] There are several small presentation issues: 'bahaviors' in Section 1.3 should be 'behaviors'; Z_N × Z_N spacing is inconsistent in places; and the notation <⟨E_i|| ... ||E_j⟩> with double angle brackets should be defined once and used consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

GGE description of Type II stationary values reduces by construction to the charge-matching conditions (4.14) plus the prETH ansatz; the numerical GGE agreement is a consistency check, not an independent prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.13)-(4.14), (4.19)-(4.20)]
    "The N^2 parameters, β and µr, are tuned according to the initial state |ψin⟩ as ... tr ρGGE(U1)^q2(U2)^−q1 = ⟨ψin|(U1)^q2(U2)^−q1|ψin⟩ ∀(q1,q2) ∈ ZN × ZN ... tr ρGGE Oq1,q2 = tr[ρGGE(U1)^q2(U2)^−q1] O^(q1,q2)(tr{ρGGE ε}) + O(V^−1/2) for Type II charged operators."

    The long-time average, Eq. (3.37), is ⟨ψin|A|ψin⟩ O^(q1,q2)(ε̄) + O(V^-1/2) with A=(U1)^q2(U2)^−q1. Equation (4.14) forces the GGE to have exactly the same value of A, and (4.13) fixes the same mean energy. Substituting these matching conditions into the Type II line of (4.19) yields precisely the right-hand side of (3.37). Hence Eq. (4.20) is an algebraic identity once prETH (3.16) and the matching conditions are assumed; for the operators actually tested, which are of the form O0,0 (U1)^q2(U2)^−q1 (Eq. 3.21), the GGE 'prediction' is forced by fitting the initial-state charges rather than independently derived.

full rationale

The paper's independent content is the prETH ansatz, Eq. (3.16), which is explicitly stated as a proposed generalization of ETH and numerically tested for selected local/neutralized operators. That ansatz is not circular: it is a conjecture with finite-size numerical support, and it does not follow from the GGE construction. However, the headline claim that stationary values of Type II operators are described by the GGE is weaker than it appears. The GGE parameters are fixed by matching the initial state's energy and the expectation values of (U1)^q2(U2)^−q1 for all charges (Eq. 4.14). The long-time average (Eq. 3.37) contains exactly those same expectation values multiplied by the prETH diagonal function. Therefore Eq. (4.20) is guaranteed by construction once prETH is assumed; it is a consistency check, not an independent prediction. In addition, the paper itself shows in Appendix A.2 that the diagonal prETH can be violated for operators involving the center elements (U1)^n(U2)^n when N1 ≠ N2, so the general Type II GGE claim has an under-specified domain. No load-bearing self-citation is present: Refs. [34] and [44] are contextual, and the projective relation in the gauge-theory example is derived in the text. Overall, the central GGE reduction is built in, while the underlying prETH ansatz remains an independent, partially tested conjecture; hence partial circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No ad hoc numbers are fitted to the central claim; the GGE chemical potentials are fixed by the initial state, and the couplings in the numerical models are arbitrary but not fitted. The prETH ansatz itself is the main unproved input and is logged as an axiom. No new particles, forces, or separate physical entities are introduced; Type I/II operator classes and the prETH ansatz are conceptual categories, not independent entities.

axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The prETH ansatz (3.16): neutralized matrix elements <⟨Ei||O_{q1,q2}(U2)^{q1}(U1)^{-q2}||Ej⟩⟩ have a smooth diagonal part O^{(q1,q2)}(E/V) and exponentially small off-diagonal part e^{-S/2} f R.
    This is the central conjecture, verified numerically for selected local operators in Sec. 5 but not proven. It is the load-bearing step converting exact selection rules into thermal/GGE predictions.
  • domain assumption The only degeneracies of the Hamiltonian are those induced by the projective representation; energy gaps obey the non-resonance condition (Eq. B1).
    Used in Sec. 3.1 and App. B to replace the time average with δij and to make temporal fluctuations vanish. The numerical models add randomness to enforce this, but it is an assumption about generic Hamiltonians.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture that local charged operators are Type I, i.e., their diagonal matrix elements vanish in the thermodynamic limit (Eq. 3.18).
    Stated as a conjecture with a heuristic support argument in Sec. 3.2; numerically verified for Z1 and σ^x_ℓ examples but not proven.
  • domain assumption Standard ETH in non-degenerate systems (Eq. 1.7) is valid as a baseline for neutral operators and non-resonant systems.
    The paper takes the standard ETH as given, following Srednicki and others; used for neutral operators O_{0,0}.
  • domain assumption The initial state energy-density distribution is sharply localized (Eq. 3.8, with Δ_n=O(1) assumption) so Taylor expansions of O(ε) converge and higher moments are O(V^{-1}).
    Used in Sec. 3.2 to estimate corrections; plausible for microcanonical-type states, and the paper justifies it fully only for states in a microcanonical shell.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis with projective representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/URO6FTTV

@misc{pith2026250901931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis with projective representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/URO6FTTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01931}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH) provides a sufficient condition for thermalization of isolated quantum systems. While the standard ETH is formulated in the absence of degeneracy, physical systems often possess symmetries that induce degenerate energy eigenstates. In this paper, we investigate ETH in the presence of nontrivial projective representations of Abelian symmetries, which arise naturally from 't~Hooft anomalies. We argue that such projective structures can lead to degenerate excited states, and how the ETH can be formulated under such degeneracies. In the presence of projective charges supplied by symmetry operators, our projective-representation ETH indicates that the stationary values of the operators are described by the generalized Gibbs ensemble instead of the standard Gibbs ensemble. Our findings elucidate the role of symmetry and degeneracy in quantum thermalization and pave the way for further exploration of the ETH in anomalous symmetry settings.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems,

    M. Srednicki, “The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems,” J. Phys. A32 no. 7, (1999) 1163

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,

    J. M. Deutsch, “Quantum statistical mechanics in a closed system,” Phys. Rev. A43 no. 4, (1991) 2046

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,

    M. Srednicki, “Chaos and Quantum Thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E50 (3, 1994) , arXiv:cond-mat/9403051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    Subsystem ETH,

    A. Dymarsky, N. Lashkari, and H. Liu, “Subsystem ETH,” Phys. Rev. E97 (2018) 012140, arXiv:1611.08764 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems,

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, “Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems,” Nature 452 no. 7189, (2008) 854–858, arXiv:0708.1324 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Onset of quantum chaos in one-dimensional bosonic and fermionic systems and its relation to thermalization,

    L. F. Santos and M. Rigol, “Onset of quantum chaos in one-dimensional bosonic and fermionic systems and its relation to thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E81 no. 3, (2010) 036206

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Eigenstate Randomization Hypothesis: Why Does the Long-Time Average Equal the Microcanonical Average?

    T. N. Ikeda, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, “Eigenstate randomization hypothesis: Why does the long-time average equal the microcanonical average?,” Phys. Rev. E84 no. 2, (2011) 021130, arXiv:1012.3237 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Eigenstate thermalization within isolated spin-chain systems,

    R. Steinigeweg, J. Herbrych, and P. Prelovˇ sek, “Eigenstate thermalization within isolated spin-chain systems,” Phys. Rev. E87 no. 1, (2013) 012118

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,

    H. Kim, T. N. Ikeda, and D. A. Huse, “Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. E90 no. 5, (2014) 052105

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Finite-size scaling of eigenstate thermalization,

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, “Finite-size scaling of eigenstate thermalization,” Phys. Rev. E 89 no. 4, (2014) 042112

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Pushing the Limits of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis towards Mesoscopic Quantum Systems,

    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.112 no. 13, (2014) 130403

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and integrability in quantum spin chains,

    V. Alba, “Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and integrability in quantum spin chains,” Phys. Rev. B91 no. 15, (2015) 155123. 54

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Off-diagonal matrix elements of local operators in many-body quantum systems,

    W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, “Off-diagonal matrix elements of local operators in many-body quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. E91 no. 1, (2015) 012144

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional transverse field Ising model. II. Off-diagonal matrix elements of observables,

    R. Mondaini and M. Rigol, “Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional transverse field Ising model. II. Off-diagonal matrix elements of observables,” Phys. Rev. E96 no. 1, (2017) 012157

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Off-Diagonal Observable Elements from Random Matrix Theory: Distributions, Fluctuations, and Eigenstate Thermalization

    C. Nation and D. Porras, “Off-diagonal observable elements from random matrix theory: distributions, fluctuations, and eigenstate thermalization,” New Journal of Physics20 no. 10, (2018) 103003, arXiv:1803.01650 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Random-matrix behavior of quantum nonintegrable many-body systems with Dyson's three symmetries

    R. Hamazaki and M. Ueda, “Random-matrix behavior of quantum nonintegrable many-body systems with Dyson’s three symmetries,” Phys. Rev. E99 no. 4, (2019) 042116, arXiv:1901.02119 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Eigenstate Thermalization, Random Matrix Theory and Behemoths

    I. M. Khaymovich, M. Haque, and P. A. McClarty, “Eigenstate thermalization, random matrix theory, and behemoths,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122 no. 7, (2019) 070601, arXiv:1806.09631 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Numerical Large Deviation Analysis of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,

    T. Yoshizawa, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, “Numerical Large Deviation Analysis of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120 no. 20, (2018) 200604

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Eigenstate thermalization and quantum chaos in the Holstein polaron model,

    D. Jansen, J. Stolpp, L. Vidmar, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, “Eigenstate thermalization and quantum chaos in the Holstein polaron model,” Phys. Rev. B99 no. 15, (2019) 155130

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Test of Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis Based on Local Random Matrix Theory

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, “Test of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis Based on Local Random Matrix Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126 no. 12, (2021) 120602, arXiv:2005.06379 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Eigenstate Thermalization in Long-Range Interacting Systems

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, “Eigenstate Thermalization in Long-Range Interacting Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129 no. 3, (2022) 030602, arXiv:2111.12484 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Bounds on eigenstate thermalization

    S. Sugimoto, R. Hamazaki, and M. Ueda, “Bounds on eigenstate thermalization,” arXiv:2303.10069 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Holographic Quantum Scars,

    D. Liska, V. Gritsev, W. Vleeshouwers, and J. Min´ aˇ r, “Holographic Quantum Scars,”arXiv:2212.05962 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Comments on Thermalization in 2D CFT

    J. de Boer and D. Engelhardt, “Remarks on thermalization in 2D CFT,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 12, (2016) 126019, arXiv:1604.05327 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Thermality of eigenstates in conformal field theories,

    P. Basu, D. Das, S. Datta, and S. Pal, “Thermality of eigenstates in conformal field theories,” Phys. Rev. E 96 no. 2, (2017) 022149, arXiv:1705.03001 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Typicality and thermality in 2d CFT,

    S. Datta, P. Kraus, and B. Michel, “Typicality and thermality in 2d CFT,” JHEP 07 (2019) 143, arXiv:1904.00668 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters, “Virasoro Conformal Blocks and Thermality from Classical Background Fields,” JHEP 11 (2015) 200, arXiv:1501.05315 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Quantum thermalization and Virasoro symmetry,

    M. Be¸ sken, S. Datta, and P. Kraus, “Quantum thermalization and Virasoro symmetry,” J. Stat. Mech.2006 (2020) 063104, arXiv:1907.06661 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    Generalized Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in 2D Conformal Field Theories,

    A. Dymarsky and K. Pavlenko, “Generalized Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in 2D Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123 no. 11, (2019) 111602, arXiv:1903.03559 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in Conformal Field Theory,

    N. Lashkari, A. Dymarsky, and H. Liu, “Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in Conformal Field Theory,” J. Stat. Mech.1803 no. 3, (2018) 033101, arXiv:1610.00302 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Thermalization of Gauge Theories from their Entanglement Spectrum,

    N. Mueller, T. V. Zache, and R. Ott, “Thermalization of Gauge Theories from their Entanglement Spectrum,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129 no. 1, (2022) 011601, arXiv:2107.11416 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    SU(2) gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions on a plaquette chain obeys the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,

    X. Yao, “SU(2) gauge theory in 2+1 dimensions on a plaquette chain obeys the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 3, (2023) L031504, arXiv:2303.14264 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Eigenstate thermalization in (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory,

    L. Ebner, B. M¨ uller, A. Sch¨ afer, C. Seidl, and X. Yao, “Eigenstate thermalization in (2+1)-dimensional SU(2) lattice gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 1, (2024) 014504, arXiv:2308.16202 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Violation of Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in Quantum Field Theories with Higher-Form Symmetry,

    O. Fukushima and R. Hamazaki, “Violation of Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in Quantum Field Theories with Higher-Form Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 13, (2023) 131602, arXiv:2305.04984 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Generalized Gibbs ensemble in a nonintegrable system with an extensive number of local symmetries

    R. Hamazaki, T. N. Ikeda, and M. Ueda, “Generalized Gibbs ensemble in a nonintegrable system with an extensive number of local symmetries,” Phys. Rev. E93 (2016) 032116, arXiv:1511.08581 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Non-Abelian Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,

    C. Murthy, A. Babakhani, F. Iniguez, M. Srednicki, and N. Y. Halpern, “Non-Abelian Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130 no. 14, (2023) 140402, arXiv:2206.05310 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Numerical evidence for the non-Abelian eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,

    A. Lasek, J. D. Noh, J. LeSchack, and N. Y. Halpern, “Numerical evidence for the non-Abelian eigenstate thermalization hypothesis,” arXiv:2412.07838 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Eigenstate thermalization in spin-12 systems with SU(2) symmetry,

    R. Patil and M. Rigol, “Eigenstate thermalization in spin-12 systems with SU(2) symmetry,” Phys. Rev. B 111 no. 20, (2025) 205126, arXiv:2503.01846 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Kubo-Martin-Schwinger relation for energy 55 eigenstates of SU(2)-symmetric quantum many-body systems,

    J. D. Noh, A. Lasek, J. LeSchack, and N. Y. Halpern, “Kubo-Martin-Schwinger relation for energy 55 eigenstates of SU(2)-symmetric quantum many-body systems,” arXiv:2507.07249 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics,

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, “From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics,” Adv. Phys.65 no. 3, (2016) 239–362, arXiv:1509.06411 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Microcanonical and resource-theoretic derivations of the thermal state of a quantum system with noncommuting charges,

    N. Yunger Halpern, P. Faist, J. Oppenheim, and A. Winter, “Microcanonical and resource-theoretic derivations of the thermal state of a quantum system with noncommuting charges,” Nature Communications 7 no. 1, (July, 2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12051

    doi:10.1038/ncomms12051 2016

  42. [42]

    Anomalies and unusual stability of multicomponent Luttinger liquids in Zn×Zn spin chains,

    Y. Alavirad and M. Barkeshli, “Anomalies and unusual stability of multicomponent Luttinger liquids in Zn×Zn spin chains,” Phys. Rev. B104 no. 4, (2021) 045151, arXiv:1910.00589 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    An Introduction to Lattice Gauge Theory and Spin Systems,

    J. B. Kogut, “An Introduction to Lattice Gauge Theory and Spin Systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys.51 (1979) 659

    work page 1979

  44. [44]

    Remarks on effects of projective phase on eigenstate thermalization hypothesis

    O. Fukushima, “Remarks on Effects of Projective Phase on Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis,” PTEP 2024 no. 4, (2024) 043B03, arXiv:2310.11425 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions,

    P. Reimann, “Foundation of statistical mechanics under experimentally realistic conditions,” Physical Review Letters 101 no. 19, (Nov., 2008) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.190403. 56

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.190403 2008

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.