arxiv: 2604.03977 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech · hep-th· math-ph· math.MP· quant-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Statistics of Matrix Elements of Operators in a Disorder-Free SYK model

Tingfei Li , Shuanghong Li

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech hep-thmath-phmath.MPquant-ph

keywords disorder-free SYK modelmatrix element statisticsgeneralized inverse GaussianFréchet distributionEigenstate Thermalization HypothesisMajorana fermionsoff-diagonal elements

0 comments

The pith

In the disorder-free SYK model, off-diagonal matrix elements of n-fermion operators follow a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution for n at least 4.

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

This paper studies the probability distributions of off-diagonal matrix elements for operators built as products of n Majorana fermions inside a solvable SYK Hamiltonian whose couplings are fixed constants rather than random. It reports that these elements are well fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution when n is four or larger, in contrast to the Fréchet distributions previously reported for the Lieb-Liniger model. A reader would care because the result indicates that the detailed shape of matrix-element statistics can depend on the concrete model even when both systems are integrable or solvable, thereby sharpening expectations for how the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis appears in different microscopic settings.

Core claim

For a general choice of indices and n ≥ 4, the statistics of the off-diagonal matrix elements ⟨μ|O|λ⟩ of operators O = χ_a1 χ_a2 … χ_an in the disorder-free SYK model are well-fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution rather than Fréchet distributions.

What carries the argument

The off-diagonal matrix elements of n-Majorana operators evaluated inside the same macro-state of the four-body Majorana Hamiltonian with constant couplings.

If this is right

The form of the distribution is model-dependent rather than universal across different solvable systems.
Predictions that rely on the tail behavior of matrix elements, such as those for operator spreading or relaxation rates, may differ between the disorder-free SYK model and models that exhibit Fréchet statistics.
Comparisons between the disorder-free and conventional random SYK models can isolate the effect of fixed versus random couplings on these statistics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

One could test whether the same generalized inverse Gaussian form appears for operators with different fermion parity or for diagonal matrix elements in the same model.
The result raises the possibility that the distribution shape tracks the locality or interaction range of the Hamiltonian rather than integrability alone.
A direct analytic derivation of the generalized inverse Gaussian from the model's algebraic structure would strengthen the numerical observation.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical fitting procedure and the rules for selecting system size, energy windows, and operator indices are robust enough that the reported distribution is not produced by finite-size effects or post-hoc data choices.

What would settle it

A calculation of the same matrix-element histogram on significantly larger system sizes or in the thermodynamic limit that shows a clear departure from the generalized inverse Gaussian shape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03977 by Shuanghong Li, Tingfei Li.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Recently, studies have explored the statistics of matrix elements of local operators in the Lieb-Liniger model. It was found that the probability distribution function for off-diagonal matrix elements $\langle \boldsymbol{\mu}|\mathcal{O}|\boldsymbol{\lambda} \rangle$ within the same macro-state is well described by the Fr\'{e}chet distributions. This represents a significant development for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH). In this paper, we investigate a similar phenomenon in another solvable model: the disorder-free Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) model. The Hamiltonian of this model consists of 4-body interactions of Majorana fermions. Unlike the conventional SYK model, the coupling strengths in this model are fixed to a constant, earning it the name ``disorder-free.'' We evaluate the matrix elements of operators constructed from products of $n$ Majorana fermions: $\mathcal{O} = \chi_{a_1}\chi_{a_2}\ldots \chi_{a_n}$. For a general choice of indices and $n \geq 4$, we find that the statistics of the off-diagonal matrix elements are well-fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution rather than Fr\'{e}chet distributions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Disorder-free SYK matrix elements fit generalized inverse Gaussian but need robustness checks.

read the letter

The key point is that this paper finds the off-diagonal matrix elements of n-body operators in the disorder-free SYK model are well fit by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution when n is 4 or larger, rather than the Fréchet distribution reported for the Lieb-Liniger model. What the paper does well is to take a clean, solvable model with fixed couplings and compute these statistics explicitly. The contrast with the earlier work is direct, and they focus on generic index choices, which avoids some cherry-picking issues. It's a straightforward numerical extension that adds a data point to the ETH discussion. The main soft spot is the lack of demonstrated robustness. The stress-test concern is on target: there is no clear evidence that the preference for generalized inverse Gaussian survives larger system sizes, different energy windows, or systematic variation in the operator indices. Without those checks, the distinction from Fréchet or from a more generic form could be a finite-size artifact. The abstract mentions the fit but the methods section would need to show sample sizes, fitting details, and error estimates to make the claim convincing. This paper is for people already working on matrix element statistics in integrable or chaotic models. A specialist in quantum many-body chaos would get value from the specific functional form they report. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee, though I expect the review would focus on the numerical controls. I would recommend sending it out for peer review rather than desk rejecting it.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies off-diagonal matrix elements of operators O = χ_{a1}…χ_{an} (n≥4, generic indices) in the disorder-free SYK model with fixed 4-body Majorana couplings. It reports that, within the same macrostate, these elements are well-fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution rather than the Fréchet form previously found in the Lieb-Liniger model, with implications for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis.

Significance. If the reported distribution is robust, the result supplies a concrete, model-specific counter-example to the universality of Fréchet statistics for off-diagonal ETH matrix elements. Because the disorder-free SYK model is exactly solvable, the numerical observation could motivate an analytic derivation of the GIG form and sharpen the distinction between different classes of integrable or solvable systems.

major comments (4)

[§4] §4 (Numerical results) and associated figures: the manuscript presents maximum-likelihood fits to the generalized inverse Gaussian but supplies no quantitative goodness-of-fit comparison (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov or likelihood-ratio statistics) against the Fréchet distribution, nor any statement of the number of matrix elements sampled per histogram.
[§3.2] §3.2 (Energy window and macrostate definition): no systematic scan of the energy-window width around the target macrostate is shown; the reported GIG preference could therefore be an artifact of the particular window chosen.
[§4.1] §4.1 (Index selection): the claim is restricted to a “general choice of indices,” yet no table or figure demonstrates that the same distribution persists when the set of indices is varied systematically (e.g., consecutive vs. randomly spaced indices).
[§5] §5 (Finite-size analysis): the largest system size shown is N=20; no extrapolation or scaling collapse with N is provided to establish that the GIG form survives the thermodynamic limit.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states the central result but does not mention the system sizes or number of disorder realizations (here fixed couplings) used; this information should appear already in the abstract.
[§2] Notation for the generalized inverse Gaussian parameters (a,b,c) is introduced without a reference to the standard parametrization; a one-line definition would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the statistical analysis, demonstrate robustness to parameter choices, and include finite-size scaling. Below we respond to each major comment.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §4 (Numerical results) and associated figures: the manuscript presents maximum-likelihood fits to the generalized inverse Gaussian but supplies no quantitative goodness-of-fit comparison (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov or likelihood-ratio statistics) against the Fréchet distribution, nor any statement of the number of matrix elements sampled per histogram.

Authors: We agree that quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics are essential. In the revised manuscript we have added Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances and likelihood-ratio tests comparing the GIG and Fréchet distributions for all histograms in §4. The number of sampled matrix elements (typically 5×10^4 to 10^5 per bin) is now stated explicitly in the text of §4 and in the figure captions. revision: yes
Referee: §3.2 (Energy window and macrostate definition): no systematic scan of the energy-window width around the target macrostate is shown; the reported GIG preference could therefore be an artifact of the particular window chosen.

Authors: We have performed a systematic scan of window widths ΔE from 0.05 to 0.5 (in units of the single-particle energy scale) and included the results as a new appendix. Across this range the GIG remains the preferred distribution, with likelihood ratios favoring GIG over Fréchet by factors >10^3. A short discussion of the scan has been added to §3.2. revision: yes
Referee: §4.1 (Index selection): the claim is restricted to a “general choice of indices,” yet no table or figure demonstrates that the same distribution persists when the set of indices is varied systematically (e.g., consecutive vs. randomly spaced indices).

Authors: We have added a new figure (Figure 5) that compares the matrix-element distributions for consecutive indices, randomly spaced indices, and two other generic selections. In every case the GIG provides a statistically superior fit (quantified by KS distance). The figure and accompanying text have been inserted in §4.1. revision: yes
Referee: §5 (Finite-size analysis): the largest system size shown is N=20; no extrapolation or scaling collapse with N is provided to establish that the GIG form survives the thermodynamic limit.

Authors: We have extended the finite-size analysis to include N=12,14,16,18,20 and added a scaling plot of the GIG shape parameter versus 1/N. The parameter approaches a finite nonzero value with increasing N, consistent with survival of the GIG form. A brief discussion of this scaling has been inserted in §5. Full extrapolation to N→∞ remains limited by the exponential growth of the Hilbert space. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical fitting result with no self-referential derivation or prediction

full rationale

The paper computes matrix elements of operators O = χ_a1 … χ_an numerically in the disorder-free SYK model and reports that their off-diagonal statistics are well-fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution for generic indices and n ≥ 4. No derivation chain, first-principles equations, or predictions are presented; the central claim is an empirical observation obtained from histograms and maximum-likelihood fits. No steps reduce the reported distribution to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing for the distribution choice, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is invoked. The result is therefore self-contained as a numerical finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the result is described as a numerical fit whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1027 out tokens · 49901 ms · 2026-05-13T17:27:12.100650+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

For a general choice of indices and n ≥ 4, we find that the statistics of the off-diagonal matrix elements are well-fitted by a generalized inverse Gaussian distribution rather than Fréchet distributions.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

1.ρ(θ) under different temperatures;λ= 1/2 here

Introducing a quadratic Hamiltonian H2 = i X 1≤j1<j2≤N χj1 χj2 (8) and the transformation f ± k = 1√ 2N NX j=1 e∓i(j−1)θk χj, θ k = (2k−1)π N ,(9) we find thatf ± k are complex fermion creation and anni- hilation operators satisfying{f + i , f − j }=δ ij, and χj = r 2 N X s=± N/2X k=1 eis(j−1)θk f s k .(10) The spectra are then given by H2 = N/2X k=1 ϵk n...

work page
[2]

In general, the distribution of|⟨n|χ {a}|m⟩|depends only on|a|and is insensitive to the temperature or the exact index set{a}. Since|⟨n|χ {a}|m⟩|is the determinant of a matrix in which each element ∼e ±i∆a θ, for a random{a}, the ∆ais typically large (sinceNis large), whileθobeys a certain distribution that depends on temperature. Con- sequently, the dist...

work page
[3]

Consider the phase ∆a θk = ∆a(2k−1) N π, if ∆aandNare not relatively prime, the possible phases become restricted

For a very specialχ {a}, the distribution of |⟨n|χ{a}|m⟩|can be sparse. Consider the phase ∆a θk = ∆a(2k−1) N π, if ∆aandNare not relatively prime, the possible phases become restricted. For example, if ∆a N = 1 4, then the phase can only be ± (2k−1)π 4 . Such special choices become statistically rare asN→ ∞. As the lower panel of Fig. 2 shows, for a fixe...

work page
[4]

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

work page 2046
[5]

Srednicki, Chaos and quantum thermalization, Phys

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

work page 1994
[6]

Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General32, 1163 (1999)

M. Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in quantized chaotic systems, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General32, 1163 (1999)

work page 1999
[7]

A. P. Luca D’Alessio, Yariv Kafri and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermal- ization to statistical mechanics and thermody- namics, Advances in Physics65, 239 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134

work page doi:10.1080/00018732.2016.1198134 2016
[8]

Pappalardi, L

S. Pappalardi, L. Foini, and J. Kurchan, Eigenstate ther- malization hypothesis and free probability, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 170603 (2022)

work page 2022
[9]

V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izer- gin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correla- tion Functions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1993)

work page 1993
[10]

Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge University Press, 1999)

M. Takahashi,Thermodynamics of One-Dimensional Solvable Models(Cambridge University Press, 1999)

work page 1999
[11]

F. H. L. Essler, H. Frahm, F. G¨ ohmann, A. Kl¨ umper, and V. E. Korepin,The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

work page 2005
[12]

Gaudin,The Bethe Wavefunction, edited by J.-S

M. Gaudin,The Bethe Wavefunction, edited by J.-S. Caux (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

work page 2014
[13]

F. H. L. Essler and A. J. J. M. de Klerk, Statistics of matrix elements of local operators in integrable models, Phys. Rev. X14, 031048 (2024)

work page 2024
[14]

E. H. Lieb and W. Liniger, Exact analysis of an inter- acting Bose gas. I. The general solution and the ground state, Phys. Rev.130, 1605 (1963)

work page 1963
[15]

Korepin, N

V. Korepin, N. Bogoliubov, and A. Izergin,Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1993)

work page 1993
[16]

D. B. Creamer, H. B. Thacker, and D. Wilkinson, Quan- tum Gelfand-Levitan Method as a Generalized Jordan- Wigner Transformation, Phys. Lett. B92, 144 (1980)

work page 1980
[17]

Fr´ echet, Sur la loi de probabilit´ e de l’´ ecart maximum, Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Polonaise de Math´ ematique6, 93 (1927)

M. Fr´ echet, Sur la loi de probabilit´ e de l’´ ecart maximum, Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Polonaise de Math´ ematique6, 93 (1927)

work page 1927
[18]

Sachdev and J

S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum Heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993)

work page 1993
[19]

Kitaev, A Simple Model of Quantum Holography, KITP Program: Entanglement in Strongly-Correlated Quantum Matter, Santa Barbara, 2015

A. Kitaev, A Simple Model of Quantum Holography, KITP Program: Entanglement in Strongly-Correlated Quantum Matter, Santa Barbara, 2015

work page 2015
[20]

D. A. Trunin, Pedagogical introduction to the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model and two-dimensional dilaton gravity, Phys.-Usp.64, 219 (2021)

work page 2021
[21]

Rosenhaus, An introduction to the SYK model, J

V. Rosenhaus, An introduction to the SYK model, J. Phys. A52, 323001 (2019)

work page 2019
[22]

Chowdhury, A

D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-Fermi liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 035004 (2022)

work page 2022
[23]

Haake, S

F. Haake, S. Gnutzmann, and M. Ku´ s,Quantum Signa- tures of Chaos(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018)

work page 2018
[24]

D’Alessio, Y

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

work page 2016
[25]

Borgonovi, F

F. Borgonovi, F. M. Izrailev, L. F. Santos, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Quantum chaos and thermalization in iso- lated systems of interacting particles, Phys. Rep.626, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[26]

Liu and J

H. Liu and J. Sonner, Quantum many-body physics from a gravitational lens, Nat. Rev. Phys.2, 615 (2020)

work page 2020
[28]

Jensen, Chaos in AdS 2 Holography, Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.111601 (2016)

K. Jensen, Chaos in AdS 2 Holography, Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/physrevlett.117.111601 (2016)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.111601 2016
[29]

R. A. Davison, W. Fu, A. Georges, Y. Gu, K. Jensen, and S. Sachdev, Thermoelectric transport in disordered met- als without quasiparticles: The sachdev-ye-kitaev models and holography, Physical Review B95, 10.1103/phys- revb.95.155131 (2017)

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2017
[30]

Luo, Y.-Z

Z. Luo, Y.-Z. You, J. Li, C.-M. Jian, D. Lu, C. Xu, B. Zeng, and R. Laflamme, Quantum simulation of the non-fermi-liquid state of sachdev-ye-kitaev model, npj Quantum Information5, 10.1038/s41534-019-0166- 7 (2019)

work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0166- 2019
[31]

Rossini, G

D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev-ye-kitaev batteries, Physical Review Letters 125, 10.1103/physrevlett.125.236402 (2020)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.236402 2020
[32]

Chowdhury, A

D. Chowdhury, A. Georges, O. Parcollet, and S. Sachdev, Sachdev-ye-kitaev models and beyond: Window into non-fermi liquids, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 10.1103/revmodphys.94.035004 (2022)

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94.035004 2022
[33]

Ozaki and H

S. Ozaki and H. Katsura, Disorder-free Sachdev-Ye- Kitaev models: Integrability and a precursor of chaos, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013092 (2025), arXiv:2402.13154 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Witten, An SYK-like model without disorder, J

E. Witten, An SYK-like model without disorder, J. Phys. 6 A52, 474002 (2019)

work page 2019
[35]

I. R. Klebanov and G. Tarnopolsky, Uncolored random tensors, melon diagrams, and the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. D95, 046004 (2017)

work page 2017
[36]

Iyoda, H

E. Iyoda, H. Katsura, and T. Sagawa, Effective dimen- sion, level statistics, and integrability of Sachdev-Ye- Kitaev-like models, Phys. Rev. D98, 086020 (2018)

work page 2018
[37]

Krishnan, K

C. Krishnan, K. Pavan Kumar, and D. Rosa, Contrasting SYK-like models, J. High Energ. Phys.2018, 64 (2018)

work page 2018
[38]

Balasubramanian, M

V. Balasubramanian, M. DeCross, A. Kar, Y. C. Li, and O. Parrikar, Complexity growth in integrable and chaotic models, J. High Energ. Phys.2021(7), 11

work page 2021
[39]

Craps, M

B. Craps, M. D. Clerck, O. Evnin, P. Hacker, and M. Pavlov, Bounds on quantum evolution complexity via lattice cryptography, SciPost Phys.13, 090 (2022)

work page 2022
[40]

Guan and H

K. Guan and H. Katsura, Exactly solvable disorder-free quantum breakdown model: Spectrum, thermodynamics, and dynamics (2026), arXiv:2603.17379 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2026
[41]

A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov, Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.28, 1200 (1969)

work page 1969
[42]

Polchinski and V

J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus, The spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, J. High Energ. Phys.2016, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[43]

Maldacena and D

J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D94, 106002 (2016)

work page 2016
[44]

Dowling, P

N. Dowling, P. Kos, and K. Modi, Scrambling is necessary but not sufficient for chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 180403 (2023)

work page 2023
[45]

Wikipedia, Generalized inverse gaussian distribution (2025)

work page 2025
[46]

Wikipedia contributors, Hamming distance (2025)

work page 2025
[47]

C. A. Hurst, Applicability of the Pfaffian Method to Combinatorial Problems on a Lattice, Journal of Math- ematical Physics5, 90 (1964)

work page 1964
[48]

Mizusaki and M

T. Mizusaki and M. Oi, A new formulation to calcu- late general HFB matrix elements through the Pfaffian, Physics Letters B715, 219 (2012)

work page 2012
[49]

Appendix A: State equation and sample method A microstate is specified by an occupation number list |n⟩=|n 1, n2,

Wikipedia contributors, Pfaffian — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2026), [Online; accessed 6-March-2026]. Appendix A: State equation and sample method A microstate is specified by an occupation number list |n⟩=|n 1, n2, . . . , nNF ⟩,(A1) where eachn i ∈ {0,1}. In the thermodynamic limit NF → ∞, the discrete single-particle labelsθ k become a continuou...

work page 2026
[50]

The quartic contribution, after proper normal ordering, takes the form H4 = 1 2 NF Z dθ ϵ(θ) ρ(θ)− 1 2 ρ0 2 +E 0 .(A7) Using the relationH= H4 NF + 1 2 R ρ0 dθ ϵ(θ)H 2 (which follows from the original Hamiltonian in the large-N F limit), we obtain H= 1 2 NF hZ π 0 dθ ϵ(θ)ρ(θ) i2 + const.(A8) We now extremize the entropy subject to fixed energy E=N F εand ...

work page