Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

For generic, spatially local open quantum systems whose Lindblad spectra match random-matrix predictions, the paper argues that an eigenoperator's decay rate is tightly correlated with its Pauli-string size, that bulk eigenoperators are nea

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:27 UTC pith:4CR2EFXS

load-bearing objection Plausible size-based picture of local Lindbladian eigenoperators, but the universal purity-decay claim rests on a within-sector scrambling premise that one of the paper's own displayed realizations contradicts. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.15193 v3 pith:4CR2EFXS submitted 2025-10-16 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Open-system dynamics in local Lindbladians with chaotic spectra

Sanket Chirame , Fiona J. Burnell This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el MSC 81S2281Q5082C10 PACS 03.65.Yz05.45.Mt
keywords Lindblad dynamicsrandom matrix theoryGinibre ensembleoperator sizedecoherencepurityquantum chaosopen quantum systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish what random-matrix spectral statistics imply for the dynamics of local Lindbladians — open-system generators with spatially local interactions and dissipation. Its central claim is that eigenoperators of such Lindbladians are organized by Pauli-string size: faster-decaying modes carry almost entirely large-weight operators, while slow modes carry small-weight operators. Within a fixed size sector, bulk eigenoperators are close to maximally scrambled, as random as possible given the size constraint. The paper argues this structure gives quasi-universal early-time decay of non-linear state quantities such as purity — independent of the initial entangled state — while local-operator evolution is governed by eigenmodes outside the bulk and is generically suppressed. It also identifies an exception: when two-site dissipation dominates, some finite-size models host anomalously long-lived large-weight modes.

Core claim

Local Lindbladian eigenoperators are not random in the Pauli basis: their Pauli-weight distribution is strongly correlated with the real part of the eigenvalue (decay rate), with bulk modes concentrated on high-weight strings and slow modes on low-weight strings. Yet, within each weight sector, bulk eigenoperators have inverse participation ratios close to the maximal random-matrix value b_N(s)/2, i.e., they are as scrambled as allowed by their size. As a consequence, generic highly entangled initial states, being high-weight non-local operators, overlap the bulk modes nearly uniformly; purity and Rényi-2 correlators therefore decay with a common rate independent of the initial state. Local

What carries the argument

Size-resolved decomposition of the Lindblad superoperator. Expand eigenoperators in the reflection-symmetric Pauli-string basis and define size s as the number of non-identity factors; then coarse-grain the weight p_s(r), p_s(l) and the inverse participation ratio IPR_s by the spectral coordinate Re(λ). The two working principles are (i) the size-decay correlation p_s(λ), and (ii) near-maximal scrambling IPR_s ≈ b_N(s)/2 inside the bulk. The non-interacting single-site toy model supplies the analytic template for p^R_s and p^L_s, and first-order perturbative corrections give an exponentially suppressed short-string overlap in the bulk.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that generic entangled initial states see a universal purity rate rests on the premise that bulk eigenoperators are near-maximally scrambled within each Pauli-weight sector — IPR ≈ b_N(s)/2 — so that initial-state overlap with bulk modes is uniform; if this randomness-within-sectors property degrades in the thermodynamic limit, the state-independence and the universal rate would be lost.

What would settle it

Compute IPR_s(λ)/b_N(s) for bulk eigenoperators of a fixed local Lindbladian at N = 9, 10, 11, or track the variance of purity decay rates across an ensemble of Haar-entangled initial states at those sizes. If IPR/b_N(s) falls toward 0.2 and keeps decreasing with N, or if the spread of decoherence rates fails to shrink, the universality claim is falsified. A second check: prepare initial states that are entangled but have little overlap with high-weight Pauli strings; if their purity decay differs measurably, the size-scrambling mechanism is not sufficient.

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

If this is right

  • Purity of a generic entangled state decays at early times with a rate that is independent of the initial state and grows linearly with system size N.
  • The early-time universal window shrinks as 1/N, so bulk random-matrix modes control nonlinear state quantities only at short times.
  • Local observables and local operators are controlled by non-bulk eigenmodes; their norm-decay rate stays O(1) even though the bulk spectrum extends to |Re(λ)| ~ N.
  • Under single-site-dominated dissipation, an operator's decoherence rate is approximately linear in its Pauli weight, even when two-site jump operators are present.
  • When two-site-only dissipation dominates, some finite-size models show anomalously long-lived full-size operators; their eigenvalues move with N, suggesting fine-tuning is needed for the effect to persist in the thermodynamic limit.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-maximal IPR premise degrades with N — as the paper's own seed=1 realization hints, with C(λ) ≈ 0.2 rather than 0.5 — then the universal purity rate would be lost; a quantitative criterion separating scrambling-generic from scrambling-degraded realizations is a natural next step.
  • The size-decay correlation resembles an ETH-like ansatz for open systems: instead of energy density, the controlling label is Pauli size. One could test this by predicting higher-order nonlinear correlators beyond purity from the size distribution alone.
  • The anomalous two-site-dominated slow modes resemble dissipation-stabilized large operators; if they persist in larger systems under some fine-tuning, they could serve as resources for storing coherence or as targets for error-suppression protocols.
  • Because the universal window shrinks as 1/N, experimental observation of state-independent decoherence requires intermediate system sizes; monitoring the variance of decoherence rates across initial states is a direct diagnostic.

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 studies two classes of one-dimensional local Lindbladians whose eigenvalue spectra display Ginibre-like complex spacing ratio statistics. Its central claims are that (i) eigenoperators have a strong, eigenvalue-dependent Pauli-weight (size) distribution; (ii) within each Pauli-size sector, bulk eigenoperators are nearly maximally scrambled, IPR ≈ b_N(s)/2; and (iii) as a consequence, non-linear state quantities such as purity and Rényi-2 correlators exhibit early-time decay that is universal for generic highly entangled initial states, while local operators are governed by eigenmodes outside the spectral bulk. A simplified non-interacting model and a perturbative argument are used to explain the exponential suppression of short-operator overlap in the bulk, and the paper also reports an anomalous regime with two-site-only dissipation where high-weight slowly decaying operators can appear at finite system sizes. The evidence is primarily numerical for system sizes N ≤ 8, with parameters for the random realizations tabulated in the appendices.

Significance. If the universal early-time purity decay and the associated size-scrambling picture hold generically, this would be a valuable step toward a practical, RMT-based description of open many-body dynamics, analogous in spirit to ETH but adapted to Lindbladians. The paper is careful in many respects: it distinguishes local from non-local models, provides a transparent toy model, gives parameter tables for reproducibility, and repeatedly hedges finite-size statements. The main intrinsic value is the proposed one-parameter size-decay relation combined with near-maximal within-sector scrambling, which yields concrete falsifiable predictions for state and operator dynamics. However, the strongest claim—initial-state-independent purity decay—depends on a genericity assumption about within-sector scrambling that the paper does not yet establish with realization-resolved data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.C, Fig. 9] The premise that bulk eigenoperators exhibit near-maximal scrambling within each Pauli-size sector, IPR_s ≈ b_N(s)/2, is not established as a generic property of Ginibre-spectrum local Lindbladians. The only random-model IPR data shown, seed=1 (Fig. 9), has C(λ)=IPR/b_N(N) peaking near 0.2 rather than 0.5 and decreasing from N=5 to N=7. The text states that the 'majority of 20 other realizations' scale approximately as b_N(s)/2, but no distribution of C across realizations is shown and no quantitative criterion is given to separate 'generic' from 'anomalous' realizations. Since seed=1 satisfies Ginibre CSR statistics (Appendix A), Ginibre spectral statistics does not by itself imply within-sector scrambling. This gap directly undermines the universality argument in Sec. V.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (64)] The derivation of initial-state-independent purity decay assumes coarse-grained uniform overlaps [Eq. (64)] of generic entangled states with bulk left eigenoperators, which in turn follows from near-maximal within-sector scrambling. For seed=1-like realizations with C(λ)≈0.2 and possibly decreasing with N, the effective support dimension C(λ) b_N(s) may stop growing exponentially with N, and the uniform-overlap argument leading to Eq. (64) fails. The paper does not show state-averaged overlaps or purity dynamics for multiple realizations, including the anomalous seed=1 realization. Thus the 'quasiuniversal' claim in the abstract is not yet distinguished from a property of selected realizations.
  3. [Sec. IV.C, Figs. 8 and 9] The finite-size scaling evidence is contradictory across the two models. For the Ising model (Fig. 8), IPR/b_N(s) is approximately N-independent in the bulk, supporting the scrambled picture. For seed=1 of the random model (Fig. 9), C(λ) decreases as N goes from 5 to 7, with N=8 ambiguous. The manuscript acknowledges inter-realization variability but does not resolve whether this variability shrinks or grows in the thermodynamic limit. Since thermodynamic-limit statements about local-operator dynamics (Sec. VI.F) and the vanishing early-time window (Sec. V) also depend on the bulk structure, N>8 data for all realizations and models are needed to determine which behavior is generic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B.c, Eqs. (53)–(54)] The perturbative derivation of the exponential suppression contains a factorial 1/(n-1)! in Eq. (53), but Eq. (54) retains only the exponential factor (γ2/γ1)^n. The resummation of subleading terms that would eliminate the factorial is asserted rather than demonstrated. Since the paper itself labels this a sketch, please either provide the resummation argument or state more explicitly that Eq. (54) is a heuristic supported by the numerical data in Figs. 5 and 6.
  2. [Sec. III.C and Appendix A] The fits for the overlap exponent α (Fig. 3(b) and Fig. A5(b)) report values ≈d_L^0.64 and ≈d_L^0.65 based on four system sizes. The paper correctly cautions about the pre-factors and the number of data points, but the comparison with the Ginibre exponent 0.5 would be more useful with confidence intervals on the fitted exponent.
  3. [Sec. V] The abstract and Sec. V use both 'quasiuniversal' and 'universal' for the initial-state independence of purity decay. Since the observed spread in decoherence rates is finite at the accessible N, please define a quantitative measure of 'universality' (e.g., the variance of D_ρ0 across initial states as a function of N) and state the threshold used in the claim.
  4. [Sec. VI.F, Eq. (91)] The 'freezing time' τ_F is defined with a factor 2 and the boundary |X|+2σ_X, but the relation to the bulk cutoff is not derived. A brief justification of why this particular timescale correctly approximates the time after which bulk modes are negligible would improve the readability of Fig. 21.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; Ginibre benchmark is external, purity rate is independently computed, and seed=1 is a documented falsifiable exception rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. The RMT/Ginibre input is used as an external benchmark: the CSR statistics in Sec. III.B and Appendix A are compared with explicitly diagonalized Ginibre matrices, and those spectral statistics are not used to fit the later dynamics. The size/decay-rate correlation and the IPR≈b_N(s)/2 scrambling statement in Sec. IV are measured properties of the same models, so they are empirical premises, not outputs derived from the RMT input. The universal early-time purity claim in Sec. V is supported by an independent closed-form decoherence rate D_{ρ0} in Eqs. (67)-(68), evaluated directly from the Lindblad generator and the initial-state ensemble, and then compared with an exponential fit of the actual purity evolution in Fig. 11(b); no parameter extracted from the purity curve is fed back into the eigenoperator characterization. The uniform spectral overlaps in Fig. 12 are measured and used heuristically, not derived by assuming the conclusion. The non-interacting toy model in Sec. IV.B is explicitly described as a simplified explanatory model and is not a fit to the central curves. The only author self-citation I identified is ref. [17] in a background list on quantum scars; it is not load-bearing. The paper itself flags the main limitation: for seed=1, Fig. 9 shows C(λ)≈0.2 rather than 0.5, and the majority claim rests on data the paper says are 'not shown here'. That is a real robustness/correctness concern, but it is the opposite of circularity: the scrambling premise is empirical, falsifiable, and applied conditionally. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results are numerical and do not require fitted constants beyond a scaling exponent; the main assumptions are the GHS/RMT input, generic diagonalizability, extensivity of the spectrum, and two ad hoc simplifications in the analytic explanation of the size-rate correlation.

free parameters (1)
  • overlap scaling exponent b = ≈0.64 (Ising), ≈0.65 (random)
    Fitted to mean |α| vs d_L over N=5-8 in Fig. 3b and Fig. A5b; used to argue eigenoperators are not uncorrelated random vectors, but not needed for the core size-decay claims.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption GHS conjecture: spectra of chaotic open quantum systems follow complex Ginibre ensemble correlations.
    The paper's RMT input; verified by CSR only on a selected bulk window for N≤8, and the seed=17 realization shows weaker agreement (Fig. A2).
  • domain assumption Lindbladian is bi-orthogonally diagonalizable with distinct eigenvalues and no strong symmetries except weak reflection symmetry.
    Used throughout Sec. II; breaks down if degeneracies or strong symmetries are present, which the paper avoids by model choice.
  • domain assumption Spatial locality and boundedness of H and jump operators imply spectrum scales as X∼N and σ_X, σ_Y∼√N via the central limit theorem.
    Basis for defining the spectral bulk and the freezing time τ_F in Eq. (91).
  • ad hoc to paper Non-interacting toy model with degenerate local eigenvalues λ(k)=λ0 and uniform µ captures qualitative size distributions (Eqs. 41 and 46).
    Simplification not justified from the actual models; used to explain the numerically observed exponential suppression of short-operator weight in bulk modes.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbative series in Eq. (48) converges and subleading corrections lead to the exponential suppression in Eq. (54).
    No convergence proof or numerical verification of the exponent; this is load-bearing for the explanation of Fig. 5(a).
  • domain assumption Random initial states in Eq. (61) with χ=1,2,4 are representative of 'generic, highly entangled' states.
    The universality claim is made over this ensemble; product states violate it (Figs. 11-12).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 54387 in / 14237 out tokens · 129783 ms · 2026-08-04T09:27:03.872784+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the physical consequences of having a spectrum that satisfies random matrix theory (RMT) for generic Lindbladians, and compare its implications for spatially local and completely random Lindblad dynamics in one spatial dimension. We find that Lindbladians whose spectrum is described by RMT exhibit quasiuniversal early-time dynamics for quantities nonlinear in the density matrix, in the sense that for generic, highly entangled initial states, the early time evolution is independent of the choice of initial state. We numerically investigate how locality generically imposes constraints on the size-dependence of Lindblad eigenoperators. This size dependence implies that linear observables, such as expectation values of local operators, are highly sensitive to eigenmodes outside the bulk of the spectrum in the thermodynamic limit, and plays a central role in limiting operator growth in the presence of dissipation. We find that when single-site dissipation dominates, an operator's decoherence scales approximately linearly with its Pauli weight, even in the presence of two-site jump operators. When two-site only dissipation dominates, however, this generic trend in operator size can be violated for numerically accessible system sizes, leading to long-lived high Pauli-weight operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.15193 by Fiona J. Burnell, Sanket Chirame.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The eigenvalue spectrum of dissipative Ising model: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Statistics of complex spacing ratios (CSR) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Eigenoperator overlaps in dissipative Ising model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The complex eigenvalue ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The coarse-grained weights of eigenoperators on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Eigenoperator size distribution for random Lindblad model: The model parameters are set to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The coarse-grained inverse participation ratio (IPR) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Coarse-grained inverse participation ratio (IPR) is shown as a function of the real part of eigenvalues for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The inverse participation ratio (IPR) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Unusually large size of slow decay modes: (a) Total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Dynamics of purity in realization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The overlap of initial states with the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Scalings of initial state deviations in random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: R´enyi-2 correlator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Operator norm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The average rate of change of norm for Pauli basis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Operator size distribution: The operator size distribution of the time evolving operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: The average size of the time evolved operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Unusual operator growth in large [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: The relevant timescales for the operator dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Parametric correlations in non-Hermitian quantum chaos: random matrix approach

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Derives closed-form parametric number covariance for non-Hermitian Ginibre ensembles with finite eigenvalues in the bulk.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. P. Wigner, Characteristic vectors of bordered matri- ces with infinite dimensions, Annals of Mathematics62, 548 (1955)

    1955

  2. [2]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Character- ization of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1 (1984)

    1984

  3. [3]

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

    2046

  4. [4]

    Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys. Rev. E50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 1163 (1999), arXiv:cond- mat/9809360

    M. Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General32, 1163 (1999), arXiv:cond- mat/9809360

    arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum sys- tems, Nature452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    M¨ uller, S

    S. M¨ uller, S. Heusler, P. Braun, F. Haake, and A. Al- tland, Semiclassical foundation of universality in quan- tum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 014103 (2004)

    2004

  9. [9]

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

    2018

  10. [10]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Col- loquium: Many-body localization, thermalization, and entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Metal– insulator transition in a weakly interacting many- electron system with localized single-particle states, An- nals of physics321, 1126 (2006)

    2006

  12. [12]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-body localiza- tion and thermalization in quantum statistical mechan- ics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Vidmar and M

    L. Vidmar and M. Rigol, Generalized gibbs ensemble in integrable lattice models, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2016, 064007 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking from quan- tum many-body scars, Nature Physics14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Quan- tum many-body scars and hilbert space fragmentation: A review of exact results, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 086501 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Chandran, T

    A. Chandran, T. Iadecola, V. Khemani, and R. Moess- ner, Quantum Many-Body Scars: A Quasiparticle Per- spective, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 443 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    O’Dea, F

    N. O’Dea, F. Burnell, A. Chandran, and V. Khemani, From tunnels to towers: Quantum scars from lie alge- bras andq-deformed lie algebras, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043305 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Foss-Feig, G

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics16, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-032822- 045619 (2024)

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-032822- 2024

  19. [19]

    Jiang, C

    Y.-Y. Jiang, C. Deng, H. Fan, B.-Y. Li, L. Sun, X.- S. Tan, W. Wang, G.-M. Xue, F. Yan, H.-F. Yu,et al., Advancements in superconducting quantum computing, National Science Review12, nwaf246 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. Hazzard, Quan- tum computation and quantum simulation with ultra- cold molecules, Nature Physics20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  22. [22]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 821 (1976)

    1976

  23. [23]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    T. c. v. Prosen and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Eigenvalue statistics as an indicator of integrability of nonequilibrium density operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 124101 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    Richter, L

    J. Richter, L. S´ a, and M. Haque, Integrability versus chaos in the steady state of many-body open quantum systems, Physical Review E111, 064103 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    G. Rufo, S. Rufo, P. Ribeiro, and S. Chesi, Quantum and Semi-Classical Signatures of Dissipative Chaos in the Steady State (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Spectral and steady- state properties of random Liouvillians, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 20 (2020), arXiv:1905.02155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Grobe, F

    R. Grobe, F. Haake, and H.-J. Sommers, Quantum dis- tinction of regular and chaotic dissipative motion, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1899 (1988)

    1988

  29. [29]

    Grobe and F

    R. Grobe and F. Haake, Universality of cubic-level re- pulsion for dissipative quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2893 (1989)

    1989

  30. [30]

    Akemann, M

    G. Akemann, M. Kieburg, A. Mielke, and T. c. v. Prosen, Universal signature from integrability to chaos in dissipative open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 254101 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Altland, M

    A. Altland, M. Fleischhauer, and S. Diehl, Symmetry Classes of Open Fermionic Quantum Matter, Physi- cal Review X11, 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021037 (2021), arXiv:2007.10448

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    S. Lieu, M. McGinley, and N. R. Cooper, Tenfold Way for Quadratic Lindbladians, Physical Review Letters124, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.040401 (2020), arXiv:1908.08834

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. c. v. Prosen, Symmetry clas- sification of many-body lindbladians: Tenfold way and beyond, Phys. Rev. X13, 031019 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Kawabata, Symmetry of Open Quantum Systems: Classification of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030328 (2023)

    K. Kawabata, Symmetry of Open Quantum Systems: Classification of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030328 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.030328 2023

  35. [35]

    Hamazaki, K

    R. Hamazaki, K. Kawabata, N. Kura, and M. Ueda, Universality classes of non-Hermitian random matri- ces, Physical Review Research2, 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.2.023286 (2020), arXiv:1904.13082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    J. Li, T. c. v. Prosen, and A. Chan, Spectral statistics of non-hermitian matrices and dissipative quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 170602 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Complex Spacing Ra- tios: A Signature of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys- 40 ical Review X10, 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021019 (2020), arXiv:1910.12784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, T. Can, and T. c. v. Prosen, Spectral transitions and universal steady states in random kraus maps and circuits, Phys. Rev. B102, 134310 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Peyruchat, F

    L. Peyruchat, F. Minganti, M. Scigliuzzo, F. Ferrari, V. Jouanny, F. Nori, V. Savona, and P. Scarlino, Landau–Zener without a qubit: Multiphoton sidebands interaction and signatures of dissipative quantum chaos, npj Quantum Information11, 62 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Ferrari, L

    F. Ferrari, L. Gravina, D. Eeltink, P. Scarlino, V. Savona, and F. Minganti, Dissipative quantum chaos unveiled by stochastic quantum trajectories, Physical Review Research7, 013276 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Villase˜ nor, L

    D. Villase˜ nor, L. F. Santos, and P. Barberis-Blostein, Breakdown of the Quantum Distinction of Regular and Chaotic Classical Dynamics in Dissipative Systems, Physical Review Letters133, 240404 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Villase˜ nor and P

    D. Villase˜ nor and P. Barberis-Blostein, Analysis of chaos and regularity in the open dicke model, Phys. Rev. E109, 014206 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Mondal, L

    D. Mondal, L. F. Santos, and S. Sinha, Transient and steady-state chaos in dissipative quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2506.05475 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    ´Alvaro Rubio-Garc ´ ıa, R. A. Molina, and J. Dukelsky, From integrability to chaos in quantum Liouvillians, Sci- Post Phys. Core5, 026 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Almeida, P

    G. Almeida, P. Ribeiro, M. Haque, and L. S´ a, Uni- versality, robustness, and limits of the eigenstate ther- malization hypothesis in open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2504.10261 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Ferrari, V

    F. Ferrari, V. Savona, and F. Minganti, Chaos and thermalization in open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2505.18260 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Y. Li, Y. Wang, and Y.-C. Liu, Open-system analogy of Berry conjecture (2025), arXiv:2509.14644 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Y. Yang, Z. Xu, and A. del Campo, Decoherence rate in random lindblad dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023229 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Hamazaki, M

    R. Hamazaki, M. Nakagawa, T. Haga, and M. Ueda, Lindbladian many-body localization, arXiv:2206.02984 [cond-mat.dis-nn] (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Z. Lu, L. S´ a, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Lindblad many-body scars (2025), arXiv:2503.06665 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    K. Wang, F. Piazza, and D. J. Luitz, Hierarchy of re- laxation timescales in local random liouvillians, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 100604 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Schuster and N

    T. Schuster and N. Y. Yao, Operator growth in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 160402 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Weinstein, S

    Z. Weinstein, S. P. Kelly, J. Marino, and E. Altman, Scrambling transition in a radiative random unitary cir- cuit, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 220404 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    Y.-L. Zhang, Y. Huang, and X. Chen, Information scrambling in chaotic systems with dissipation, Phys. Rev. B99, 014303 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    Z. Xu, L. P. Garc ´ ıa-Pintos, A. Chenu, and A. del Campo, Extreme Decoherence and Quantum Chaos, Physical Review Letters122, 014103 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Nathan and M

    F. Nathan and M. S. Rudner, Universal lindblad equa- tion for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B102, 115109 (2020)

    2020

  57. [57]

    Shiraishi, M

    K. Shiraishi, M. Nakagawa, T. Mori, and M. Ueda, Quantum master equation for many-body systems based on the Lieb-Robinson bound, Physical Review B 111, 184311 (2025)

    2025

  58. [58]

    Alicki and K

    R. Alicki and K. Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applications, Vol. 717 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  59. [59]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Non-hermitian physics, Advances in Physics69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Oganesyan and D

    V. Oganesyan and D. A. Huse, Localization of inter- acting fermions at high temperature, Phys. Rev. B75, 155111 (2007)

    2007

  62. [62]

    Y. Y. Atas, E. Bogomolny, O. Giraud, and G. Roux, Distribution of the ratio of consecutive level spacings in random matrix ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 084101 (2013)

    2013

  63. [63]

    Prasad, H

    M. Prasad, H. K. Yadalam, C. Aron, and M. Kulka- rni, Dissipative quantum dynamics, phase transitions, and non-hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. A105, L050201 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Denisov, T

    S. Denisov, T. Laptyeva, W. Tarnowski, D. Chru´ sci´ nski, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, Universal spectra of random lind- blad operators, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140403 (2019)

    2019

  65. [65]

    L. S´ a, P. Ribeiro, and T. c. v. Prosen, Lindbladian dis- sipation of strongly-correlated quantum matter, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022068 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Tarnowski, I

    W. Tarnowski, I. Yusipov, T. Laptyeva, S. Denisov, D. Chru´ sci´ nski, and K.˙Zyczkowski, Random generators of markovian evolution: A quantum-classical transition by superdecoherence, Phys. Rev. E104, 034118 (2021)

    2021

  67. [67]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics14, 073007 (2012)

    2012

  68. [68]

    V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022118 (2014)

    2014

  69. [69]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, J. I. Cirac, and M. B. Hastings, Strong and weak thermalization of infinite nonintegrable quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 050405 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    H. Kim, T. N. Ikeda, and D. A. Huse, Testing whether all eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hy- pothesis, Phys. Rev. E90, 052105 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    Chiba, Proof of absence of local conserved quantities in the mixed-field ising chain, Phys

    Y. Chiba, Proof of absence of local conserved quantities in the mixed-field ising chain, Phys. Rev. B109, 035123 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    J. Li, S. Yan, T. Prosen, and A. Chan, Spectral form fac- tor in chaotic, localized, and integrable open quantum many-body systems (2024), arXiv:2405.01641 [cond- mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    E. J. Torres-Herrera, J. Karp, M. T´ avora, and L. F. Santos, Realistic many-body quantum systems vs. full random matrices: Static and dynamical properties, En- tropy18, 359 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    Edelman, E

    A. Edelman, E. Kostlan, and M. Shub, How many eigen- values of a random matrix are real?, Journal of the American Mathematical Society7, 247 (1994)

    1994

  75. [75]

    T. Can, V. Oganesyan, D. Orgad, and S. Gopalakrish- nan, Spectral gaps and midgap states in random quan- tum master equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 234103 (2019)

    2019

  76. [76]

    Can, Random lindblad dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 485302 (2019)

    T. Can, Random lindblad dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 485302 (2019). 41

    2019

  77. [77]

    J. T. Chalker and B. Mehlig, Eigenvector statistics in non-hermitian random matrix ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3367 (1998)

    1998

  78. [78]

    Y. V. Fyodorov, On statistics of bi-orthogonal eigenvec- tors in real and complex ginibre ensembles: combining partial schur decomposition with supersymmetry, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics363, 579 (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    Bourgade and G

    P. Bourgade and G. Dubach, The distribution of over- laps between eigenvectors of ginibre matrices, Probabil- ity Theory and Related Fields177, 397 (2020)

    2020

  80. [80]

    N. D. Hartmann, J. L. Li, and D. J. Luitz, Fate of dissi- pative hierarchy of timescales in the presence of unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, 054203 (2024)

    2024

Showing first 80 references.