Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Size Operator and Spectral Clustering in the Two Coupled SYK Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The finite-N spectrum of the two coupled SYK model is organized into clusters labeled by operator size, and these clusters, not individual eigenstates, carry the conformal towers, the revival dynamics, and the wormhole-to-black-hole…

desk verdict Finite-N coupled SYK spectrum does organize by operator size, and the paper's case is mostly sound, but the dressed-size label at N>=14 rests on an approximation validated only at N=12. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02696 v1 pith:SKUVXPOW submitted 2026-08-03 hep-th cond-mat.str-elquant-ph

Juan Santos-Suárez , Martí Berenguer , Javier Mas , Alfonso V. Ramallo This is my paper
classification hep-thcond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords twocoupledSYKmodeloperatorsizespectralclusteringconformaltowerstraversablewormholeweakergodicitybreakingquantummany-bodyscarsrevivaldynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the finite-N spectrum of the two coupled Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) models, which at large N is the holographic dual of an eternal traversable wormhole, is organized into well-separated clusters of eigenstates labeled by operator size. It identifies these clusters as the finite-N precursors of the conformal matter and graviton towers, so that a tower level is a cluster of states rather than a single eigenstate. It then shows that the same clusters move coherently under time evolution, producing the alternating transmission revivals, and that the competition between the size entropy and the size energy of the clusters reproduces, at finite N, the wormhole-to-two-black-hole transition. The paper matters because it gives a concrete, size-based principle that connects the discrete spectrum of a small quantum system to emergent gravitational physics, and it supplies an experimentally accessible diagnostic for quantum simulators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dressed size operator $\tilde{Q}(\mu)=SQS^{-1}$, with $S(\mu)=\exp\big(-\beta_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu)(H_L^{\mathrm{SYK}}+H_R^{\mathrm{SYK}})/4\big)$, a non-unitary similarity transformation that maps the Fock vacuum to the thermofield-double state at effective inverse temperature $\beta_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu)$. Its oblique spectral projectors $\tilde{P}_k(\mu)$ define size sectors at finite coupling, and the Kirkwood-Dirac quasiprobability $W_k(n)=\langle E_n|\tilde{P}_k|E_n\rangle$ assigns each eigenstate a membership in cluster $k$. Together with the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ symmetry, which blocks the Hamiltonian into four sectors and forces $\Delta k \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$, and the Feshbach-Fano effective-Hamiltonian analysis, which controls the cluster widths and self-consistent centroid shifts, this machinery turns operator size into a sharp but approximate quantum number that organizes the spectrum and its dynamics.

What would settle it

At N=14 or N=16, track the eigenstates as the coupling is slowly lowered from large values, assigning each state a size label by maximal overlap from step to step, and compare those exact labels with the labels assigned by the paper's single-temperature dressing for mu>0.1; if more than a few percent of the low-lying states are mislabeled, the cluster-tower identification fails. A second check is to measure the time it takes the revival amplitude to decay and compare it with the inverse cluster width 1/$\Delta$ E_k; a clear mismatch would falsify the coherent-cluster picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that operator size k, continued away from the harmonic limit by a dressed size operator built from the thermofield-double ground state, labels spectrally resolved clusters whose centroids $\bar{E}_k$ form ladders. The $\mathbb{Z}_4$ symmetry restricts size mixing to $\Delta k \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ and the $q=4$ SYK interaction restricts $|\Delta k| \le 4$, making the Hamiltonian banded in the size label; cluster widths shrink as $\Delta E_k \sim k/\sqrt{N}$ (and $\Delta E_1 \sim 1/N$), so low-$k$ clusters stay resolved while high-$k$ clusters overlap. The matter tower is reproduced by odd-size clusters, $E_n^{(m)} = \bar{E}_{2n+1} - E_0$, and the graviton tower by $k \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$ clusters, $E_n^{(g)} = \bar{E}_{4(n+1)} - E_0$, with spacings that cross over from harmonic slopes to conformal slopes and recover the $\mu^{2/3}$ gap scaling. Dynamically, an injected fermion decomposes into size components whose nearly equispaced centroids cause periodic revivals with period $2\pi/(p_1^{(m)} E_{\mathrm{gap}}^{(m)})$ and alternating left-left/left-right transmission, while internal widths set the dephasing time; the low-size sectors form a weak-ergodicity-breaking subspace. Finally, a size-resolved free energy $\beta F_k = -S_k + \beta \bar{E}_k - V_k$ has a high-temperature minimum at $k \approx N/2$ (the chaotic, black-hole-like phase) and a competing low-temperature minimum at $k=0$ (the wormhole), degenerate at a critical temperature $T_c$; scanning $(T,\mu)$ gives a finite-N phase diagram that is the microscopic precursor of the large-N transition.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results assume that size labels can be tracked by cooling the vacuum to a single effective temperature; this approximation is checked only at N=12 and breaks down in the same narrow coupling window where the clusters merge, so the paper's quantitative claims are confined to couplings above that window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At finite N, a conformal tower level is a cluster of eigenstates with a common dominant size $k$, not a single eigenstate; the tower energies are cluster centroids $\bar{E}_{2n+1}-E_0$ and $\bar{E}_{4(n+1)}-E_0$.
  • The long-lived alternating revivals of the traversable wormhole are a coherent-cluster effect: wavepacket components in different size sectors realign with period $2\pi/(p_1^{(m)}E_{\mathrm{gap}}^{(m)})$, and the finite internal width of each cluster sets the decoherence time.
  • The low-size sectors $k<k_c$ form a weak-ergodicity-breaking subspace of dimension $\sum_{k<k_c}\binom{N}{k}$, protected by the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ symmetry, placing wormhole dynamics in the quantum many-body scar class.
  • The wormhole-to-black-hole transition has a finite-N precursor in the size-resolved free energy: entropy favors the large-size sector $k\approx N/2$ at high temperature, while size energy favors $k=0$ at low temperature, with the two minima degenerate at $T_c$.
  • Resolved size clusters persist only while the cluster width $\Delta E_k$ stays below the inter-cluster spacing; for N=16 this restricts the wormhole regime to $\mu\gtrsim 0.1$, below which the spectrum becomes random-matrix-like.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not draw this conclusion, but the width-versus-spacing criterion implies a quantitative finite-size scaling: the resolved window should widen with N roughly as $k_c \sim \sqrt{N}\,\Delta_0/J$, so larger N should exhibit conformal $\mu^{2/3}$ scaling down to smaller couplings; exact diagonalization at N=24 or larger can test this.
  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to replace the single-temperature thermofield-double dressing by a multi-parameter or variational vacuum; comparing that dressing against the exact adiabatic flow at N=14 would show whether the resolved window widens or the breakdown is intrinsic.
  • Because the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ symmetry forbids odd $\Delta k$ transitions, a periodic drive coupled through $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ can only create matter-tower excitations in pairs; this predicts absorption thresholds at twice the tower spacing, with the graviton resonance just below the first threshold, which a driving experiment could check.
  • If the cluster width is indeed the finite-N avatar of gravitational backreaction, as the paper conjectures in its Outlook, then injecting larger excitations should merge low-size clusters faster and suppress revivals sooner; a quantum simulator could test this by measuring the revival envelope as a function of the size of the injected operator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the finite-N spectrum of two coupled SYK models and proposes that it is organized into spectral clusters labeled by operator size k. Operator size is extended away from the harmonic limit via a non-unitary TFD dressing, and the resulting oblique projectors assign each eigenstate a dominant size sector. Exact diagonalization for N=14-20 shows well-resolved clusters at large mu and merging at small mu; the cluster centroids are identified with the matter and graviton conformal towers, E_n^(m)=Ebar_{2n+1}-E0 and E_n^(g)=Ebar_{4(n+1)}-E0. The authors further show that the alternating revivals of the transmission amplitude and the wormhole-black hole transition can be understood from cluster centroids, widths, and the competition between size energy and size entropy. The supplemental material contains derivations of the cluster-width scalings (with a parameter-free prediction for the k=1 width), the Feshbach-Fano/SCBA analysis of centroids, and a benchmark of the dressing against the exact adiabatic flow at N=12.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete finite-N organizing principle for emergent gravitational physics in the coupled SYK model: operator size acts as a sharp label for the spectral clusters that become the conformal towers, the scar-like subspace behind revivals, and the thermodynamic phases. The work is strengthened by several machine-checkable or parameter-free elements: the exact second-order calculation of the k=1 width with a fixed prefactor (Eq. S54), the explicit comparison of the dressing with the exact adiabatic flow at N=12 (Fig. S5), and the non-circular comparison of the gap scaling with external large-N Schwinger-Dyson results. The proposal that the wormhole-black hole transition corresponds to the competition between size energy and size entropy is conceptually appealing and yields concrete predictions for quantum simulators. The main fragility is the reliance on the TFD dressing approximation at system sizes and couplings where the quantitative claims are made.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. S3B, Figs. S2, S5] The benchmark of the dressed oblique projectors against the exact adiabatic flow is performed only at N=12. The diagnostics available for N=14-20 (TFD overlap deficit and per-mode annihilation residual) are ground-state intensive quantities; they do not certify the cluster labels of the excited eigenstates that form the towers. Since the analysis is restricted to mu > 0.1 and the dressing breakdown is located at mu ~ 0.06-0.13, the tower fits and the phase-diagram boundary are extracted where the approximation is weakest. This is load-bearing for the claimed mu^(2/3) gap scaling at N=14-20 and for the phase diagram, because misassigned excited states would shift the centroids Ebar_k and hence E_gap and p1. Please provide a benchmark of dominant-label fidelity at N>=14 (for example, comparison of cluster centroids with spectral-function peak positions as a function of N) or a sensitivity analysis under variations of beta_eff within the resolved window.
  2. [Sec. S2B, Eq. (S63)] The Feshbach-Fano analysis provides an upper bound on the cluster width, not an exact computation, and the extension of Delta E_k ~ k/sqrt(N) to the conformal regime relies on a self-consistent Born approximation that is not controlled in that regime. The asymptotic statement that low-size clusters become degenerate eigenspaces in the large-N limit for all mu is therefore a conjecture beyond the perturbative regime. The numerical data at mu=1.20 and 0.30 are consistent with cluster resolution, but no direct finite-N test of the width scaling is presented at small mu within the resolved window. Please label this scaling as conjectural in the conformal regime and, if possible, provide a numerical check of the width scaling at smaller mu.
  3. [Sec. S2B, Eqs. (S67)-(S70)] The SCBA analysis of the centroids does not solve the coupled size-space chain; the mu^(2/3) scale is imported from the known large-N Schwinger-Dyson solution rather than derived from the microscopic model. The main text's wording that the Feshbach-Fano partitioning shows the centroids are displaced 'consistent with the conformal scale' is stronger than the derivation supports. Please clarify that the analytic content is the structure of the self-energy and the cancellation of the O(N) terms, while the mu^(2/3) dependence is an input from large-N results, with the exact diagonalization comparison providing the finite-N evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The methodological detail that cluster centroids are computed only from states with D(n)>0.7 appears only in the caption; this important restriction should also be stated in the main text near the definition of Ebar_k.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The factor 2 in the expression for T_LL(t) is not explained; a brief note on the normalization of the injected wavepacket would help the reader.
  3. [Footnote [59]] The explanation of why the scar entanglement is invisible in S_LR is elliptical; a sentence in the supplement clarifying the bipartition adapted to the d-modes would improve readability.
  4. [Supplement, Eq. (S83)] The second equality in Eq. (S83) inserts a resolution of identity with redundant indices; simplifying this expression would make the biorthogonal structure clearer.
  5. [Fig. 4(b)] The dotted line labeled T_eff = 1/beta_eff is not defined in the caption or main text; please clarify what T_eff represents in the phase diagram.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tower and scaling claims are computed from the finite-N spectrum and compared with external large-N results, not fitted to them; the lone fitted parameter beta_eff sets the cluster basis but not the predicted gaps.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the exact Hamiltonian through the dressed size operator to the cluster centroids and the tower identifications. The cluster centroids are defined by Eq. (S88), Ebar_k = sum_n W_k(n) E_n / sum_n W_k(n), using the finite-N eigenenergies themselves, and the tower positions are then read off as Ebar_{2n+1}-E0 and Ebar_{4(n+1)}-E0. The paper does not tune these centroids to reproduce Eq. (4); instead it states 'the conformal gap scaling E_gap^(m) ~ mu^(2/3) is recovered for every size studied, N=14-20, matching the SD result,' i.e., the scaling is a comparison against the external large-N Schwinger-Dyson result rather than an input. The only fitted quantity is beta_eff, fixed by Eq. (S75) as argmax_beta |<E0(mu)|TFD(beta)>|^2, i.e., by ground-state overlap alone; it enters the definition of the dressing S(mu)=exp(-beta_eff(H_L^SYK+H_R^SYK)/4), but no tower spacing, gap, or phase-boundary value is used in that fit. The dressing approximation itself is benchmarked at N=12 against the exact adiabatic projectors in Sec. S3B (Fig. S5), and the paper explicitly restricts quantitative analysis to mu>0.1 where the benchmarks show the dressing remains faithful. The only self-citation that could be relevant, Ref. [23], supplies a supplementary large-N SD reference curve; the primary tower and Z4-symmetry inputs are external Refs. [16,22,34]. The finite-N free-energy decomposition of the wormhole-black-hole transition is an exact rearrangement of the partition function via Eq. (7), so its double-minimum structure is a property of the computed spectrum, not a fitted result. Overall, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs; the central predictions are independently computed and externally benchmarked.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on the Z4 symmetry (proved in SM), the large-N conformal tower benchmark from Refs. [16,22], and the TFD dressing approximation. The SCBA and Feshbach-Fano analysis in SM S2 are used to argue for the width scaling but are uncontrolled approximations; the numerical benchmarks support them in the resolved window. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • beta_eff(mu) = determined by maximizing |<E0(mu)|TFD(beta)>|^2
    Effective temperature parameterizing the TFD dressing S(mu); fitted to the ground-state overlap and used to construct the dressed size operator. It is a parameter of the analysis basis, not a fundamental constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The large-N low-energy spectrum of the coupled SYK model consists of matter and graviton conformal towers with gaps set by epsilon ~ mu^(2/3) (Eq. 4).
    Taken from Refs. [16,22]; used as the benchmark against which the cluster centroids are compared.
  • domain assumption The ground state of H(mu) is well approximated by a thermofield double state with beta_eff(mu), allowing the replacement of the exact adiabatic flow by the similarity transformation S(mu).
    Invoked in the main text and SM S3; validated against exact adiabatic flow at N=12 within the resolved window.
  • standard math The Z4 symmetry and q=4 restrict size mixing to Delta k ≡ 0 (mod 4) with |Delta k| <= 4.
    Follows from the algebra of H_int and the quartic SYK interaction; proved in SM S1 and used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The Feshbach-Fano partitioning and self-consistent Born approximation capture the width and centroid scaling of clusters.
    Used in SM S2 to derive Delta E_k ~ k/sqrt(N) and the SCBA gap equation; the approximations are uncontrolled in general but benchmarked numerically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Size Operator and Spectral Clustering in the Two Coupled SYK Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKUVXPOW

@misc{pith2026260802696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Size Operator and Spectral Clustering in the Two Coupled SYK Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKUVXPOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02696}
}
abstract

At large $N$, two coupled Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models realize an eternal traversable wormhole with a discrete spectrum. We show that at finite $N$ the spectrum organizes into clusters labeled by operator size. Low-size clusters evolve into the conformal towers and define a weak-ergodicity-breaking subspace responsible for the long-lived wormhole revival dynamics. Moreover, the competition between size energy and size entropy provides a microscopic interpretation of the wormhole-black hole transition. These results reveal operator size as the bridge between the finite-$N$ spectrum and the emergent gravitational physics at large $N$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spectral clustering for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Clustering diagnostics of eigenstates of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectral functions, transmission revivals and tower positions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum Information Scrambling: From Holography to Quantum Simulators

    A. Bhattacharyya, L. K. Joshi, and B. Sundar, European Physical Journal C82, 458 (2022), arXiv:2111.11945 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Uhrich, S

    P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopadhyay, N. Sauerwein, J. Sonner, J.-P. Brantut, and P. Hauke, A cavity quantum elec- trodynamics implementation of the sachdev–ye–kitaev model (2023), arXiv:2303.11343 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Baumgartner, P

    R. Baumgartner, P. Pelliconi, S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Orsi, N. Sauerwein, P. Hauke, J.-P. Brantut, and J. Sonner, Quantum simulation of the sachdev-ye-kitaev model us- ing time-dependent disorder in optical cavities (2025), arXiv:2411.17802 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Creffield, F

    C. Creffield, F. Sols, M. Schir` o, and N. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 046302 (2026), arXiv:2512.02755 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Observation of gravity-like signatures in holographic codes on a quantum computer

    D. Biswas, G. Cheng, K. Karthikeyan, D. Mu˜ noz- Valencia, V. P. Su, H. Gharibyan, D. Zhu, G. Salton, E. Epifanovsky, M. Roetteler, C. Monroe, J. Preskill, N. M. Linke, C. Cao, and C. Noel, Observation of gravity- like signatures in holographic codes on a quantum com- puter (2026), arXiv:2607.12047 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Holographic quantum codes with trapped ions

    A. Steiner, G. A. Munn´ e, R. Freund, I. Pogorelov, M. Meth, R. J. Harris, G. Brennen, T. M. Stace, T. Monz, R. Blatt, F. Huber, and M. Ringbauer, Holographic quantum codes with trapped ions (2026), arXiv:2607.16503 [quant-ph]. 6

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    J. Bang, M. Byun, K. Cho, K.-Y. Kim, and H. Lee, Hayden–preskill recovery at finite temperature on a quantum processor: dynamics and initial state from the syk model (2026), arXiv:2607.28486 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    P. Gao, D. L. Jafferis, and A. C. Wall, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 10.1007/jhep12(2017)151 (2017), arXiv:1608.05687 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Gao and D

    P. Gao and D. L. Jafferis, Journal of High En- ergy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep07(2021)097 (2021), arXiv:1911.07416 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jafferis, A

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, Nature 612, 51 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Schuster, B

    T. Schuster, B. Kobrin, P. Gao, I. Cong, E. T. Khabi- boulline, N. M. Linke, M. D. Lukin, C. Monroe, B. Yoshida, and N. Y. Yao, Physical Review X12, 10.1103/physrevx.12.031013 (2022), arXiv:2102.00010 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, S. Leichenauer, H. W. Lin, S. Nezami, G. Salton, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and M. Walter, PRX Quantum4, 010320 (2023), arXiv:1911.06314 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nezami, H

    S. Nezami, H. W. Lin, A. R. Brown, H. Gharibyan, S. Leichenauer, G. Salton, L. Susskind, B. Swingle, and M. Walter, PRX Quantum4, 010321 (2023), arXiv:2102.01064 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kobrin, T

    B. Kobrin, T. Schuster, and N. Y. Yao, Comment on ”traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum proces- sor” (2023), arXiv:2302.07897 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    comment on “traversable wormhole dynam- ics on a quantum processor

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, Com- ment on “comment on “traversable wormhole dynam- ics on a quantum processor” ” (2023), arXiv:2303.15423 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Maldacena and X.-L

    J. Maldacena and X.-L. Qi, Eternal traversable wormhole (2018), arXiv:1804.00491 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Physical Review Letters70, 3339 (1993), arXiv:cond-mat/9212030 [cond-mat]

    1993 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kitaev, Talk at KITPhttps://online.kitp.ucsb

    A. Kitaev, Talk at KITPhttps://online.kitp.ucsb. edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/(2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Kitaev, Talk at KITPhttps://online.kitp.ucsb

    A. Kitaev, Talk at KITPhttps://online.kitp.ucsb. edu/online/entangled15/kitaev2/(2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Phys. Rev. D94, 106002 (2016), arXiv:1604.07818 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Polchinski and V

    J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.06768 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Plugge, E

    S. Plugge, E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221601 (2020), arXiv:2003.03914 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Berenguer, A

    M. Berenguer, A. Dey, J. Mas, J. Santos-Su´ arez, and A. V. Ramallo, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 10.1007/jhep06(2024)106 (2024), arXiv:2404.08394 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Berenguer, J

    M. Berenguer, J. Mas, J. Santos-Su´ arez, and A. V. Ramallo, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 10.1007/jhep03(2025)110 (2025), arXiv:2501.04660 [hep- th]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. Zhou, and N. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 080201 (2026), arXiv:2509.17417 [quant-ph]

    2026

  18. [26]

    J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. A17, L385 (1984)

    1984

  19. [27]

    J. L. Cardy, Nucl. Phys. B270, 186 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    H. W. J. Bloete, J. L. Cardy, and M. P. Nightingale, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 742 (1986)

    1986

  21. [29]

    Affleck, Phys

    I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 746 (1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    Milsted and G

    A. Milsted and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B96, 245105 (2017), arXiv:1706.01436 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Y. Zou, A. Milsted, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 230402 (2018), arXiv:1710.05397 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. Sun, Y. Le, S. Naus, R. B.-S. Tsai, L. R. B. Picard, S. Murciano, M. Knap, J. Alicea, and M. Endres, Ex- perimental observation of conformal field theory spectra (2026), arXiv:2601.16275 [quant-ph]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Haake, S

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

    2018

  26. [34]

    A. M. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Nosaka, D. Rosa, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D100, 026002 (2019), arXiv:1901.06031 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    F. Alet, M. Hanada, A. Jevicki, and C. Peng, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep02(2021)034 (2021), arXiv:2001.03158 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C´ aceres, A

    E. C´ aceres, A. Misobuchi, and R. Pimentel, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep11(2021)015 (2021), arXiv:2108.08808 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schuster, B

    T. Schuster, B. Kobrin, V. P. Su, H. Marrochio, and N. Y. Yao, Cooling the sachdev-ye-kitaev model using ther- mofield double states (2025), arXiv:2511.09620 [quant- ph]

    2025

  30. [38]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and A. Streicher, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep06(2018)122 (2018), arXiv:1802.02633 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Qi and A

    X.-L. Qi and A. Streicher, Journal of High En- ergy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep08(2019)012 (2019), arXiv:1810.11958 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang and Y

    P. Zhang and Y. Gu, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 10.1007/jhep10(2023)018 (2023), arXiv:2212.04358 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Ser- byn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018), arXiv:1806.10933 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Poll- mann, Phys. Rev. X10, 011047 (2020), arXiv:1904.04266 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. Ren, C. Liang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 120604 (2021), arXiv:2007.10380 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking through the lens of quantum entanglement, inEntanglement in Spin Chains (Springer International Publishing, 2022) pp

    Z. Papi´ c, Weak ergodicity breaking through the lens of quantum entanglement, inEntanglement in Spin Chains (Springer International Publishing, 2022) pp. 341–395, arXiv:2108.03460 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. Yu, J. Hu, and S.-X. Zhang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.11922 (2025), arXiv:2506.11922 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Milekhin and N

    A. Milekhin and N. Sukhov, Physical Review D110, 10.1103/physrevd.110.046023 (2024), arXiv:2307.11348 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S1) ofH(µ), the derivation of the cluster widths (Sec

    See the Supplemental Material for theZ 4 block- diagonalization (Sec. S1) ofH(µ), the derivation of the cluster widths (Sec. S2), a complete analysis of the dressed size basis and the soft-clustering weights (Sec. S3), and further information on the selection rules that dictat...

  40. [48]

    Kota, Physics Reports347, 223 (2001)

    V. Kota, Physics Reports347, 223 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Feshbach, Reviews of Modern Physics36, 1076 (1964)

    H. Feshbach, Reviews of Modern Physics36, 1076 (1964)

    1964

  42. [50]

    Fano, Phys

    U. Fano, Phys. Rev.124, 1866 (1961)

    1961

  43. [51]

    L¨ owdin, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 969 (1962)

    P.-O. L¨ owdin, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 969 (1962)

    1962

  44. [52]

    Zelevinsky, B

    V. Zelevinsky, B. Brown, N. Frazier, and M. Horoi, Physics Reports276, 85 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Cottrell, B

    W. Cottrell, B. Freivogel, D. M. Hofman, and S. F. 7 Lokhande, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep02(2019)058 (2019), arXiv:1811.11528 [hep- th]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    B. J. J. Khor, N. LiTenn, M. Sasieta, and B. Swingle, Preparing high-fidelity thermofield double states (2026), arXiv:2605.03017 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. F. Hofmann, New Journal of Physics14, 043031 (2012), arXiv:1107.0536 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Yunger Halpern, B

    N. Yunger Halpern, B. Swingle, and J. Dressel, Phys- ical Review A97, 10.1103/physreva.97.042105 (2018), arXiv:1704.01971 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    T. Guhr, A. M¨ uller–Groeling, and H. A. Wei- denm¨ uller, Physics Reports299, 189 (1998), arXiv:cond- mat/9707301 [cond-mat]

    1998

  50. [58]

    G. J. Rodgers and A. J. Bray, Physical Review B37, 3557 (1988)

    1988

  51. [59]

    ItsZ 4 protection is stronger than theZ 2 of the Krylov tower in the relatedH L SYK −H R SYK + µQmodel [62]

    Unlike a measure-zero tower of isolated eigenstates [44, 60, 61] or a subspace polynomial inN[43], L k≲kc Hk has dimension P k≲kc N k . ItsZ 4 protection is stronger than theZ 2 of the Krylov tower in the relatedH L SYK −H R SYK + µQmodel [62]. The low scar entanglement is inv...

  52. [60]

    Serbyn, D

    M. Serbyn, D. A. Abanin, and Z. Papi´ c, Nature Physics 17, 675 (2021), arXiv:2011.09486 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Moudgalya, B

    S. Moudgalya, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Regnault, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 086501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00548 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chakraborty and D

    D. Chakraborty and D. Rosa, Revival dynamics from equilibrium states: Scars from chords in syk (2025), arXiv:2512.16836 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  55. [63]

    Qi and P

    X.-L. Qi and P. Zhang, Journal of High En- ergy Physics2020, 10.1007/jhep05(2020)129 (2020), arXiv:2003.03916 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    This coin- cidence occurs because forN= 16 the barrier separating the minima is subthermal

    We fixT c by the degeneracy of the two competing min- ima; the Borgs–Koteck´ y criterion [65], which instead bal- ances their integrated Boltzmann weight, shifts it by a few percent (β c ≃13.1→13.7 atµ= 0.148). This coin- cidence occurs because forN= 16 the barrier separating ...

  57. [65]

    Borgs and R

    C. Borgs and R. Koteck´ y, Journal of Statistical Physics 61, 79 (1990)

    1990

  58. [66]

    Maldacena, D

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, Fortschritte der Physik65, 10.1002/prop.201700034 (2017), arXiv:1704.05333 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    The approximation is the factorization ⟨Wk±R(E)W † k±⟩ → ⟨W k±W † k±⟩ ⟨R(E)⟩: no disor- der line connects the couplings inW k± to those inside R(E), i.e., non-crossing contractions with no vertex cor- rections. This is a Born / non-crossing self-energy, linear in a single dres...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.