pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29745 · v1 · pith:YGMDUDGHnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn · cond-mat.stat-mech

Geometry and localization: Probing Localization Landscape Theory on the Bethe Lattice

Lorenzo Tonetti , Leticia F. Cugliandolo , Marco Tarzia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 00:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Localization Landscape TheoryAnderson localizationBethe latticepercolation transitionmobility edgemean-field universalitydensity of states
0
0 comments X

The pith

The LLT percolation transition on the Bethe lattice follows standard mean-field universality while the Anderson transition does not.

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

The paper extends prior exact solutions for both the Anderson model and Localization Landscape Theory percolation on the Bethe lattice. It establishes that these two transitions are distinct, with LLT percolation exhibiting conventional mean-field critical behavior in contrast to the unconventional critical behavior of the Anderson transition. The analysis shows that LLT nevertheless reproduces several exact features in the very low-disorder regime, including the position of the isolated eigenvalue, the minimal disorder for the mobility edge, and the Aizenman-Warzel lower bound, while overestimating the tails of the density of states near the continuous spectrum boundary.

Core claim

On the Bethe lattice the LLT percolation transition falls into the standard mean-field universality class in sharp contrast with the unconventional critical behavior of the Anderson transition. The LLT framework reproduces several exact results in the very low-disorder regime: it predicts the position of the isolated eigenvalue, the minimal disorder at which both the LLT percolation curve and the mobility edge first appear, and the Aizenman-Warzel lower bound for localization. It also overestimates the amplitude of the density-of-states tails close to the boundary of the continuous spectrum.

What carries the argument

Exact solvability of the Anderson model and the LLT percolation problem on the Bethe lattice, allowing direct comparison of their critical behaviors.

If this is right

  • LLT does not generally reproduce the quantum critical properties of Anderson localization.
  • LLT remains useful for predicting features of the very low-disorder regime.
  • The LLT prediction for the density of states overestimates the amplitude of the tails near the boundary of the continuous spectrum.
  • The dependence of the LLT percolation threshold on energy shift can be evaluated exactly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Numerical agreement between LLT and Anderson localization observed in three dimensions may be limited to the low-disorder regime rather than the critical point.
  • Geometric interpretations of localization may require additional corrections to capture unconventional critical behavior on tree-like structures.
  • Extreme-value statistics of the variables controlling LLT could be tested on other exactly solvable graphs.

Load-bearing premise

The Bethe lattice permits exact, directly comparable solutions for both the Anderson model and the LLT percolation problem.

What would settle it

A direct computation of the critical exponents for the LLT percolation threshold on the Bethe lattice that either matches or deviates from the known unconventional exponents of the Anderson transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29745 by Leticia F. Cugliandolo, Lorenzo Tonetti, Marco Tarzia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The phase diagram of the Anderson model on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rescaled correlation functions in the delocalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic representation of a Cayley tree and a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shifting regimes. The statistical properties of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of the percolation critical curve on the shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density of States (DoS) of the Anderson model on the Bethe lattice with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exponent governing the exponential growth or de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fitting procedure used to determine the asymptotic critical energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Marginal distributions of cavity Green’s functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mutual information of cavity Green’s functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlations of cavity variables. (a) Correlation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plots of P(g, η) and its mean-field approximation for K = 5, t = 1, and W = 6. (a) Histogram of the joint probability distribution obtained through population dynamics (see Sec. VI A) with N = 107 . (b) The mean-field approximation obtained by shuffling the cavity Green’s functions of the pairs (g, η) from panel (a). 3. Lower bound for the critical disorder and isolated eigenvalue It is important to note … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: presents the phase diagram obtained in the high-connectivity limit. It displays both the curve de￾rived from the independent-site approximation condition [Eq. (183)] for the edge-shift perscription (Esh(W) = Eedge(W)) and the one obtained using the exact crite￾rion [Eq. (265)]. The phase diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Percolation phase diagram for K = 5 and t = 1. Hamiltonian with the statistically symmetric spectrum of Eq. (2). All the curves have been obtained from the ones in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Localization Landscape Theory (LLT) offers a classical analogy for understanding Anderson localization through an effective confining potential, whose percolation threshold has been proposed to mark the mobility edge. While this correspondence shows striking numerical agreement in three dimensions, its theoretical foundations remain an open question. In this work, we extend the analysis of the LLT on the Bethe lattice presented in~\cite{Tonetti2026}. In this setting in both the Anderson localization transition and the LLT percolation problem admit exact solutions. Our analysis reveals that the two transitions are distinct, with markedly different critical behaviors. Notably, the LLT percolation transition falls into the standard mean-field universality class, in sharp contrast with the unconventional critical behavior of the Anderson transition on the Bethe lattice. Nonetheless, the LLT framework reproduces several exact results, capturing nontrivial features of the very low-disorder regime: it predicts the position of the isolated eigenvalue, the minimal disorder at which both the LLT percolation curve and the mobility edge first appear, and the Aizenman--Warzel lower bound for localization. We also study the dependence of the LLT percolation threshold on the energy shift, evaluate the LLT prediction for the Density of States, and derive several results on the statistical properties of the variables controlling the problem. Finally, we develop an extreme-value analysis showing that the LLT prediction for the Density of States overestimates the amplitude of the tails close to the boundary of the continuous spectrum. These findings provide an exact analytical benchmark showing that, despite its geometric appeal, the LLT does not generally reproduce the quantum critical properties of Anderson localization, while still offering a powerful tool to understand its very low-disorder regime.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends prior analysis of Localization Landscape Theory (LLT) on the Bethe lattice, where both the Anderson localization transition and LLT percolation admit exact solutions. It demonstrates that the transitions are distinct, with LLT percolation belonging to the standard mean-field universality class in contrast to the unconventional critical behavior of the Anderson transition. LLT is shown to reproduce several exact low-disorder results, including the isolated eigenvalue position, the minimal disorder at which percolation and the mobility edge appear, and the Aizenman-Warzel bound, while also examining energy-shift dependence, the LLT density-of-states prediction, statistical properties of controlling variables, and an extreme-value analysis indicating overestimation of DOS tails near the continuous spectrum boundary.

Significance. If the exact solutions and comparisons hold, the work supplies a valuable analytical benchmark on a solvable model, clarifying that LLT captures nontrivial low-disorder features of Anderson localization but does not reproduce its quantum critical properties. The parameter-free exact derivations, direct comparison of critical behaviors, and falsifiable predictions for the DOS tails constitute clear strengths.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The citation to Tonetti2026 in the abstract and introduction should include the full reference details and a brief statement of which results are extended versus newly derived.
  2. Notation for the statistical variables controlling the LLT percolation problem could be introduced with a short table or explicit definitions early in the text to aid readers unfamiliar with the prior setup.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript, including the recognition of its exact solutions, comparisons of critical behaviors, and falsifiable predictions. We appreciate the recommendation to accept.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior setup; central claims rest on independent exact solutions and comparisons

full rationale

The manuscript extends the Bethe-lattice LLT setup introduced in the authors' cited prior work (Tonetti2026) but derives its core findings—the distinct universality classes of the LLT percolation transition (standard mean-field) versus the Anderson transition (unconventional), plus exact reproduction of the isolated eigenvalue, minimal disorder threshold, and Aizenman-Warzel bound—directly from the model's exact solvability and new statistical analysis. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or load-bearing self-citation chain; the self-citation supplies only the lattice framework while the critical-behavior contrasts and low-disorder benchmarks are independently verifiable against the Bethe-lattice equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the exact solvability of the Anderson Hamiltonian and LLT percolation on the Bethe lattice, plus standard properties of mean-field percolation and extreme-value statistics.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Bethe lattice admits exact solutions for both the Anderson localization transition and the LLT percolation problem.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the basis for the comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5848 in / 1317 out tokens · 34751 ms · 2026-06-29T00:00:04.133430+00:00 · methodology

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. Anderson localization on the Bethe lattice

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Pedagogical review of the cavity equations, order parameter, and critical behavior for Anderson localization on the Bethe lattice.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    (209), and checked numeri- cally

    Quality of the factorization approximation The joint probability distribution of the cavity Green’s function and the cavity auxiliary fieldsP(g,η) is the one satisfying the self-consistent distributional equation P(g,η) = ∫ dεγ+(ε) ∫ K∏ k=1 [dgkdηk P(gk,ηk)] ×δ ( g− 1 ε−t2 ∑ kgk ) ×δ ( η−1−t ∑ k gkηk ) .(219) As we have anticipated in the previous Section...

  2. [2]

    Lower bound for the critical disorder and isolated eigenvalue It is important to note that, for physical consistency, the expectation value of the cavity rescaled fields must be non-negative, since the opposite would imply nega- tive Localization Landscape variables, which is impossi- ble, as explained in the End Matter of Ref. [1]. Therefore, Eqs. (214) ...

  3. [3]

    III D, we start from the self-consistent distributional equation (95)

    Linear stability analysis Following the same idea of [44], and already used in the analysis of the Anderson problem in Sec. III D, we start from the self-consistent distributional equation (95). Using the integral representation of the Dirac delta 34 δ ( p−θ(gη−1/E+) ∑ k pk ) = ∫ ∞ −∞ dλ′ 2πe−iλ′(p−θ(gη−1/E+) ∑ kpk),(247) we can rewrite P(g,η,p) = ∫ dλ′ 2...

  4. [4]

    In the general case, a cluster consists of a connected component of lattice sitesiwhereu i≥1/E+

    Divergence of the average cluster size An alternative method to determine the critical curve involves deriving an expression for the average cluster size Sand identifying the values (E,W) for whichSdiverges. In the general case, a cluster consists of a connected component of lattice sitesiwhereu i≥1/E+. The sta- tistical dependence betweenu i andu k (fork...

  5. [5]

    It displays both the curve de- rived from the independent-site approximation condition [Eq

    The high-connectivity phase diagram Figure 13 presents the phase diagram obtained in the high-connectivity limit. It displays both the curve de- rived from the independent-site approximation condition [Eq. (183)] for the edge-shift perscription (E sh(W) = Eedge(W)) and the one obtained using the exact crite- rion [Eq. (265)]. The phase diagram in Fig. 13 ...

  6. [6]

    Hamiltonian with the statistically symmetric spectrum of Eq. (2). All the curves have been obtained from the ones in Fig. 13 by means of a translation and inversion of sign as explained in Sec. VII B 6. The independent-site critical curve has not been plotted as it loses its physical interpretation in the symmetric case. Red dots: Localization Landscape p...

  7. [7]

    Cavity Green’s functions’ marginal We consider the closed recursion of Eq. (51). As the cavity Green’s functions are real and positive, the denominator of Eq. (51) must always be positive, this means thatt 2 ∑ l∈∂k\iGl→k≤εi for any draw ofεk and {Gl→k}l∈∂k\ifrom their respective distributions. Since 38 the support of the distribution ofεk is bounded, it f...

  8. [8]

    Cavity rescaled fields’ marginal The probability density function of the cavity rescaled fields can have either bounded or unbounded support, depending on the value of the additional shiftX. In- deed, if the normal and cavity rescaled fields had finite upper bounds ˜MηandMη, respectively, then the coupled equations Mη= 1 +tKM gMη,(321) ˜Mη= 1 +t(K+ 1)M gM...

  9. [9]

    Localization Landscape variables’ marginal and effective potentials We now study the marginal distribution of the Local- ization Landscape variables. From Eq. (48) one has ui =G iiηi .(382) The diagonal Green’s functions are positive and bounded in the interval [˜mg, ˜Mg], where ˜Mg = 1 εmin−(K+ 1)t2Mg ,(383) ˜mg = 1 εmax−(K+ 1)t2mg .(384) HereM g, mg are...

  10. [10]

    Fondation CFM pour la recherche

    Summary of the tail results We summarize here the main asymptotic results ob- tained for the right tails of the cavity Green’s functions, the rescaled fields, and the Localization Landscape vari- ables. First, the marginal distribution of the cavity Green’s functions is supported on a compact interval [mg,Mg]⊂ (0,+∞) in presence of an extra shiftX >0. Def...

  11. [11]

    Tonetti, L

    L. Tonetti, L. F. Cugliandolo, and M.Tarzia,Testing the localization landscape theory(2026), arXiv:2512.04037

    work page arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev.109, 1492 (1958), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.109.1492

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.109.1492 1958

  13. [13]

    P. A. Lee and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys.57, 287 (1985), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.57.287

    1985

  14. [15]

    Lagendijk, B

    A. Lagendijk, B. A. van Tiggelen, and D. S. Wiersma, Phys. Today62, 24 (2009), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1063/1.3206091

    2009

  15. [16]

    Segev, Y

    M. Segev, Y. Silberberg, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nat. Phot.7, 197 (2013), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ nphoton.2013.30

    2013

  16. [17]

    Aspect and M

    A. Aspect and M. Inguscio, Phys. Today62, 30 (2009), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.3206092

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3206092 2009

  17. [18]

    Roati, C

    G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Ingus- cio, Nature453, 895 (2008), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nature07071

    2008

  18. [19]

    Billy, V

    J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Cl´ ement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, Nature453, 891 (2008), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/nature07000

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07000 2008

  19. [20]

    Kondov, W

    S. Kondov, W. McGehee, J. Zirbel, and B. DeMarco, Sci- 48 ence334, 66 (2011), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1209019

    2011

  20. [21]

    Jendrzejewski, A

    F. Jendrzejewski, A. Bernard, K. Mueller, P. Cheinet, V. Josse, M. Piraud, L. Pezz´ e, L. Sanchez-Palencia, A. Aspect, and P. Bouyer, Nat. Phys.8, 398 (2012), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2256

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2256 2012

  21. [22]

    Semeghini, M

    G. Semeghini, M. Landini, P. Castilho, S. Roy, G. Spag- nolli, A. Trenkwalder, M. Fattori, M. Inguscio, and G. Modugno, Nat. Phys.11, 554 (2015), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/nphys3339

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys3339 2015

  22. [24]

    H. Hu, A. Strybulevych, J. H. Page, S. E. Skipetrov, and B. A. van Tiggelen, Nat. Phys.4, 945 (2008), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1101

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys1101 2008

  23. [25]

    N. F. Mott and W. D. Twose, Adv. Phys.10, 107 (1961), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00018736100101271

    work page doi:10.1080/00018736100101271 1961

  24. [26]

    L. P. Gor’kov, A. I. Larkin, and D. E. Khmel’nitski˘ ı, Particle conductivity in a two-dimensional random poten- tial(World Scientific, 1996), pp. 157–161, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1142/9789814317344_0022

    work page doi:10.1142/9789814317344_0022 1996

  25. [27]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 673 (1979), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.673

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.42.673 1979

  26. [28]

    Kramer and A

    B. Kramer and A. MacKinnon, Rep. Prog. Phys.56, 1469 (1993), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/56/ 12/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/56/ 1993

  27. [29]

    Wegner, Z

    F. Wegner, Z. Phys. B Cond. Matt.35, 207 (1979), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01319839

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01319839 1979

  28. [30]

    A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Scripta2016, 014001 (2015), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/ 2015/T168/014001

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/ 2015

  29. [31]

    P. W. Brouwer, C. Mudry, B. D. Simons, and A. Altland, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 862 (1998), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.862

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.862 1998

  30. [32]

    Senthil, M

    T. Senthil, M. P. A. Fisher, L. Balents, and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4704 (1998), URLhttps://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4704

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.4704 1998

  31. [33]

    I. A. Gruzberg, A. W. W. Ludwig, and N. Read, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4524 (1999), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.82.4524

    1999

  32. [34]

    Senthil, J

    T. Senthil, J. B. Marston, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B60, 4245 (1999), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.60.4245

    1999

  33. [35]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B61, 10267 (2000), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.10267

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.61.10267 2000

  34. [36]

    Titov, P

    M. Titov, P. W. Brouwer, A. Furusaki, and C. Mudry, Phys. Rev. B63, 235318 (2001), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.235318

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.63.235318 2001

  35. [37]

    D. M. Basko, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)321, 1126 (2006), ISSN 0003, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2005.11.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.11.014 2006

  36. [38]

    I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and D. G. Polyakov, Phys. rev. lett.95, 206603 (2005), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.95.206603

    2005

  37. [39]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys.6, 15 (2015), ISSN 1947-5462, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-031214-014726

    2015

  38. [40]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 021001 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.021001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.021001 2019

  39. [41]

    Alet and N

    F. Alet and N. Laflorencie, C. R. Phys.19, 498 (2018), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2018.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2018.03.003 2018

  40. [42]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Lewenstein, A. Scardicchio, L. Vidmar, and J. Zakrzewski, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 026502 (2025), ISSN 0034-4885, 1361-6633, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6633/ad9756

    2025

  41. [43]

    Rodr´ ıguez, L

    A. Rodr´ ıguez, L. J. V´ asquez, K. Slevin, and R. A. R¨ omer, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 046403 (2010), URLhttps://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.046403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.046403 2010

  42. [44]

    Tarquini, G

    E. Tarquini, G. Biroli, and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094204 (2017), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.95.094204

    2017

  43. [45]

    Filoche and S

    M. Filoche and S. Mayboroda, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. 109, 14761 (2012), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1120432109

    2012

  44. [46]

    D. N. Arnold, G. David, D. Jerison, S. Mayboroda, and M. Filoche, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 056602 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.056602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.056602 2016

  45. [47]

    D. N. Arnold, G. David, M. Filoche, D. Jerison, and S. Mayboroda, Comm. in P.D.E.44, 1186 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1080/03605302.2019.1626420

    work page doi:10.1080/03605302.2019.1626420 2019

  46. [48]

    D. N. Arnold, G. David, M. Filoche, D. Jerison, and S. Mayboroda, SIAM Journal on Sci. Comp.41, B69 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/17M1156721

    work page doi:10.1137/17m1156721 2019

  47. [49]

    Stability of entropic optimal transport and Schrödinger bridges.J

    G. David, M. Filoche, and S. Mayboroda, Adv. in Math. 390, 107946 (2021), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j. aim.2021.107946

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2021

  48. [50]

    Filoche, P

    M. Filoche, P. Pelletier, D. Delande, and S. Mayboroda, Phys. Rev. B109, L220202 (2024), URLhttps://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.L220202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.l220202 2024

  49. [51]

    Comtet and C

    A. Comtet and C. Texier, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 219701 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.124.219701

    2020

  50. [52]

    Dijkstra and Yoshitaka Tanimura

    M. Filoche, D. Arnold, G. David, D. Jerison, and S. May- boroda, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 219702 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 124.219702

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2020

  51. [53]

    Bollob´ as,Random Graphs (2nd ed.)(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2001), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511814068

    B. Bollob´ as,Random Graphs (2nd ed.)(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2001), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511814068

    2001

  52. [54]

    Abou-Chacra, D

    R. Abou-Chacra, D. J. Thouless, and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. C: Sol. St. Phys.6, 1734 (1973), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/6/10/009

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3719/6/10/009 1973

  53. [55]

    M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B34, 6394 (1986), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.34.6394

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.34.6394 1986

  54. [56]

    J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Nuc. Phys. B300, 263 (1988), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(88) 90598-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88 1988

  55. [57]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Nuc. Phys. B366, 507 (1991), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(91) 90028-V

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(91 1991

  56. [58]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, J. of Phys. A: Math. Gen.24, 2273 (1991), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 0305-4470/24/10/016

    1991

  57. [59]

    Y. V. Fyodorov and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2049 (1991), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.67.2049

    2049

  58. [60]

    Y. V. Fyodorov, A. D. Mirlin, and H.-J. Sommers, J. de Phys. I2, 1571 (1992), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1051/ jp1:1992229

    1992

  59. [61]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, J. de Phys. I4, 655 (1994), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1051/jp1:1994168

    work page doi:10.1051/jp1:1994168 1994

  60. [62]

    A. D. Mirlin and Y. V. Fyodorov, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 526 (1994), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ 49 PhysRevLett.72.526

    1994

  61. [63]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 99, 024202 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.99.024202

    2019

  62. [64]

    K. S. Tikhonov and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B 99, 214202 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.99.214202

    2019

  63. [65]

    Biroli, G

    G. Biroli, G. Semerjian, and M. Tarzia, Prog. Theor. Phys.184, 187 (2010), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1143/ PTPS.184.187

    2010

  64. [66]

    Biroli, A

    G. Biroli, A. K. Hartmann, and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B105, 094202 (2022), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.105.094202

    2022

  65. [67]

    Difference between level statistics, ergodicity and localization transitions on the Bethe lattice

    G. Biroli, A. C. Ribeiro-Teixeira, and M. Tarzia,Differ- ence between level statistics, ergodicity and localization transitions on the Bethe lattice(2012), 1211.7334, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7334

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [68]

    De Luca, B

    A. De Luca, B. Altshuler, V. Kravtsov, and A. Scardic- chio, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 046806 (2014)

    2014

  67. [69]

    Kravtsov, B

    V. Kravtsov, B. Altshuler, and L. Ioffe, Annals of Physics 389, 148–191 (2018), ISSN 0003-4916, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2017.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2017.12.009 2018

  68. [70]

    Pino, Phys

    M. Pino, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 042031 (2020), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2. 042031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2 2020

  69. [71]

    S. Bera, G. De Tomasi, I. M. Khaymovich, and A. Scardicchio, Phys. Rev. B98, 134205 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 98.134205

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb 2018

  70. [72]

    De Tomasi, S

    G. De Tomasi, S. Bera, A. Scardicchio, and I. M. Khay- movich, Phys. Rev. B101, 100201 (2020), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.101.100201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.100201 2020

  71. [73]

    N. C. Wormald, inSurveys in Combinatorics, 1999, edited by J. D. Lamb and D. A. Preece (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999), vol. 267 ofLondon Mathematical Society Lecture Note Se- ries, pp. 239–298, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511721335.010

    1999

  72. [74]

    Baroni, G

    M. Baroni, G. Garc´ ıa Lorenzana, T. Rizzo, and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B109, 174216 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.174216

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.174216 2024

  73. [75]

    K. S. Tikhonov, A. D. Mirlin, and M. A. Skvortsov, Phys. Rev. B94, 220203 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.220203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.94.220203 2016

  74. [76]

    Castellani, C

    C. Castellani, C. D. Castro, and L. Peliti, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General19, L1099–L1103 (1986), ISSN 1361-6447, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0305-4470/19/17/009

    1986

  75. [77]

    M´ ezard and G

    M. M´ ezard and G. Parisi, The Eur. Phys. J. B-Cond. Matt. & Compl. Sys.20, 217 (2001)

    2001

  76. [78]

    Warzel, inXVIIth International Congress on Math- ematical Physics(World Scientific, Singapore, 2012), pp

    S. Warzel, inXVIIth International Congress on Math- ematical Physics(World Scientific, Singapore, 2012), pp. 239–253, URLhttps://www.worldscientific.com/ doi/abs/10.1142/9789814449243_0014

    work page doi:10.1142/9789814449243_0014 2012

  77. [79]

    Rizzo and M

    T. Rizzo and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B110, 184210 (2024), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.110. 184210

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110 2024

  78. [80]

    Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource

    F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1355 (2008), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys. 80.1355

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2008

  79. [81]

    Biroli and M

    G. Biroli and M. Tarzia, Phys. Rev. B102, 064211 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.102.064211

    2020

  80. [82]

    Sonner, K

    M. Sonner, K. Tikhonov, and A. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. B96, 214204 (2017), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevB.96.214204

    2017

Showing first 80 references.