Abstract
In a quantum many-body system, autocorrelation functions can determine linear responses nearby equilibrium and quantum dynamics far from equilibrium. In this letter, we bring out the connection between the operator complexity and the autocorrelation function. In particular, we focus on a particular kind of operator complexity called the Krylov complexity. We find that a set of Lanczos coefficients \(\{b_{n}\}\) computed for determining the Krylov complexity can reveal the universal behaviors of autocorrelations, which are otherwise impossible. When the time axis is scaled by \(b_{1}\), different autocorrelation functions obey a universal function form at short time. We further propose a characteristic parameter deduced from \(\{b_{n}\}\) that can largely determine the behavior of autocorrelations at the intermediate time. This parameter can also largely determine whether the autocorrelation function oscillates or monotonically decays in time. We present numerical evidences and physical intuitions to support these universal hypotheses of autocorrelations. We emphasize that these universal behaviors are held across different operators and different physical systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The autocorrelation function refers to the temporal correlation of the same operators Ô at two different times, denoted by \(\mathcal{C}(t)=\langle\hat{O}(t)\hat{O}(0)\rangle\). It plays an important role in studying quantum matters, including condensed matter materials, ultracold atomic gases, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) systems [1–9]. The autocorrelation functions can be measured by spectroscopy methods, which reveals linear response nearby equilibrium. It can also be measured in far-from-equilibrium dynamics, for example, through quench experiments. In non-equilibrium situations, autocorrelation functions can determine quantum dynamics involving highly excited states.
The behavior of the autocorrelation function \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) crucially depends on the time evolution of \(\hat{O}(t)\), which follows the Heisenberg evolution \(\hat{O}(t)=e^{i\hat{H}t}\hat{O}e^{-i\hat{H}t}\), with Ĥ being the Hamiltonian of the physical system. Usually, \(\hat{O}(t)\) becomes more and more complicated as time evolves, consequently reducing the autocorrelation \(\mathcal{C}(t)\). This observation brings out the connection between operator complexity and its autocorrelation function. In the past years, various measures have been proposed to describe operator complexity quantitatively and to study how the complexity of an operator grows under the Heisenberg evolution [10–21]. In particular, the Krylov complexity has been proposed to quantify operator complexity recently [21]. The Krylov complexity emerges as a novel diagnostic tool for unraveling quantum chaos, enriching our comprehension of operator growth and quantum dynamics. Its implications extend across various disciplines, spanning from strongly correlated systems and quantum gravity to integrable models. The advantage of the Krylov complexity is that it exhibits universal behavior for generic chaotic quantum many-body systems, and such universal behaviors are shared by a large class of different quantum many-body Hamiltonians [22–65].
Therefore, it is natural to ask whether these recent developments in measuring operator complexity can help us better understand the autocorrelation function’s universal behavior. Especially, since the Krylov complexity exhibits universality, the question is, by utilizing the notation introduced for studying the Krylov complexity, whether we can reveal hidden universal behaviors of the autocorrelation function, which are otherwise impossible.
Let us first introduce the notation for describing the Krylov complexity [21]. Given a Hilbert space spanned by \(\{\vert i\rangle\}\), an operator \(\hat{O}(t)=\sum_{ij}O_{ij}(t)\vert i\rangle\langle j\vert\) can be mapped to a state \(\vert\hat{O}(t)\rangle\) in the double space as \(\vert\hat{O}(t)\rangle=\sum_{ij}O_{ij}(t)\vert i\rangle\otimes \vert j\rangle\), and vice versa. By using the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula, the Heisenberg evolution can be expressed as
where \(\hat{L}\hat{O}(0)\equiv[\hat{H},\hat{O}(0)]\). Equation (1) can be viewed as expanding a state \(\vert\hat{O}(t)\rangle\) under a set of states \(\{\vert\hat{L}^{n}\hat{O}(0)\rangle\}\). However, this set of states are neither orthogonal nor normalized. Applying the Gram–Schmidt procedure to this set of states yields a set of orthogonal basis, denoted by the Krylov basis \(\vert\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{n}\rangle\) [21]. Here the inner product is introduced as \(\langle\hat{O}_{1}\vert\hat{O}_{2}\rangle=\text{Tr}[\hat {O}^{\dagger}_{1} \hat{O}_{2}]\), which is the expectation value taken under an infinite temperature density matrix. In general, the larger n, the more complicated the operator \(\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{n}\) becomes. Expanding \(\vert\hat{O}(t)\rangle \) under the Krylov basis gives
It has been shown that \(\varphi_{n}(t)\) obeys the following differential equation [21, 66]
The Krylov complexity is defined as \(K(t)=\sum_{n} n|\varphi_{n}(t)|^{2}\). Here \(\{b_{n}\}\) are called the Lanczos coefficients introduced in the Gram–Schmidt procedure. They depend on both the choice of operator \(\hat{O}(t)\) and the system Hamiltonian Ĥ. The units of \(\{b_{n}\}\) are energy. Note that \(\vert\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{0}\rangle=\frac{1}{b_{0}}\vert\hat {O}(0)\rangle\) with a normalization factor \(b^{2}_{0}=\langle\hat{O}(0)\vert\hat{O}(0)\rangle\), we have \(\varphi_{0}(t)=\langle\hat{\mathcal{W}}_{0}\vert\hat {O}(t)\rangle= \frac{1}{b_{0}}\mathcal{C}(t)\). That is to say, the time evolution of \(\varphi_{0}\) gives rise to the autocorrelation function, normalized by its value at \(t=0\).
Equation (3) is reminiscent of the Schrödinger equation for a single particle hopping along a half-infinite chain. At \(t=0\), only \(\varphi_{0}=1\) and all other \(\varphi_{n\neq0}=0\). As time evolves, this particle hops away from \(n=0\), consequently reducing the autocorrelation \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) and increasing the Krylov complexity. Inspired by this connection, it is realized that the dynamics of \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) is governed by the Lanczos coefficients \(\{b_{n}\}\). Hence, if there exist certain universal behaviors of \(\mathcal{C}(t)\), it is conceivable that their information is hidden inside \(\{b_{n}\}\).
2 Summary of the main results
Before presenting the details, we first summarize the main findings of this work. First of all, we note that originally the Lanczos coefficients \(b_{n}\) are only defined for all non-negative integers. However, we can use these data, especially the data with small n, to interpolate a smooth function \(b[x]\) defined for all \(x>0\). We require that the interpolated function has to be smooth enough and cannot strongly vary between two neighboring integers. Such an interpolation allows us to take derivatives of \(b[x]\) and the first-order derivative is denoted by \(b^{\prime}[x]\). With the help of \(b[x]\) and \(b^{\prime}[x]\), we present the following three universal hypothesis of \(\mathcal{C}(t)\).
1. Short-Time Universality: When the time t is scaled by \(b[1]\), the autocorrelation function \({\mathcal{C}}\) as a function of \(t b[1]\) exhibits universal behavior for \(tb[1]\lesssim1\) across all different choices of operators and Hamiltonians.
2. Intermediate-Time Universality: If two different operators with two different Hamiltonians share the same value of \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\), the autocorrelation function \({\mathcal {C}}(tb[1])\) exhibits universal behavior for \(tb[1]\sim\mathcal{O}(1)\).
3. Oscillatory Behavior: There exists a general trend that \({\mathcal{C}}(tb[1])\) exhibits an oscillatory behavior when \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) is small, and \({\mathcal{C}}(tb[1])\) monotonically decays when \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) is larger.
We have run extensive numerical tests which support these hypothesis. Below, we first present a set of representative numerical evidences, and the complete code to verify our hypothesis are also available [67].
3 Gedanken simulations
Here we first present a Gedanken numerical simulation. This simulation does not involve physical Hamiltonians and only solves Eq. (3) with a set of given \(\{b_{n}\}\). We assume \(b[n]=\alpha f(n)\), where α is an energy unit and \(f(n)\) can choose different smooth functions. In this paper, we consider the \(f(n)\) with a form of \((a+b n^{\beta})^{\gamma}\). By choosing different values of a, b, β and γ, \(f(n)\) can realize different functions as shown in the inset of Fig. 1. Each function generates a set of \(\{b_{n}\}\) at integer values of n, and by solving Eq. (3) with this set of \(\{b_{n}\}\), we can obtain \(\varphi_{0}(t)\) as normalized \(\mathcal{C}(t)\). The results are shown in Fig. 1.
As shown in the inset of Fig. 1, when \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) is plotted in terms of tα, \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) deviates from each other once tα is non-zero. However, when \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) is plotted in terms of \(tb_{1}\), all \(\mathcal{C}(tb_{1})\) collapse when \(tb_{1}\lesssim1\). This difference can be seen clearly by comparing Fig. 1(b) with its inset. This demonstrates the first hypothesis.
However, these curves shown in Fig. 1(b) do not collapse when \(tb_{1}\gtrsim1\). To exhibit universality in the intermediate time, we require that different set of \(\{b_{n}\}\) share a common characteristic parameter. A main finding of this work is this characteristic parameter, which turns out to be \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\). In Fig. 1(c) and (e), we show two sets of \(\{b_{n}\}\). Within each set, the values of \(\{b_{n}\}\) are very different. However, they share the same value of \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\). It is easy to check that the five different sets of \(\{b_{n}\}\) shown in Fig. 1(c) and Fig. 1(e) respectively share \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]=1/10\) and \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]=2/3\). We then calculate \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) using \(\{b_{n}\}\) shown in Fig. 1(c) and (e), which respectively lead to results shown in Fig. 1(d) and (f). The inset of Fig. 1(d) and (f) also show that these autocorrelations \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) behave very different in term of tα. However, when they are plotted in terms of \(tb_{1}\), Fig. 1(d) and (f) show that they perfectly collapse into a single curve up to \(tb_{1} \sim5\). This demonstrates the second hypothesis.
The numbers shown in the legend of Fig. 1(a) are \(b^{\prime}[1]/ b[1]\) for different choices of \(\{b_{n}\}\). We find that when \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]< \sim0.5\), the corresponding \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) all exhibit oscillatory behavior. This can also be seen from all cases in Fig. 1(c) and (d). When \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]> \sim0.5\), the corresponding \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) all monotonically decay, as one can also seen from all cases in Fig. 1(e) and (f). This demonstrates the third hypothesis. All together, the Gedanken simulation shows that the autocorrelation function exhibits universal behavior in terms of \(tb_{1}\) and a single parameter \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) can largely determine the behavior of \(\mathcal{C}(t)\).
4 Physical models
The Gedanken numerical simulation is inspiring and generic because it does not depend on the concrete physical operator and physical Hamiltonian. However, it also has limitations because the Lanczos coefficients \(\{b_{n}\}\) obtained from physical models are usually not smooth enough. To show how much the discussion above can hold for realistic models, we show results calculated with two typical physical models below.
The first model is the one-dimensional quantum Ising model with both transversal and longitudinal fields, whose Hamiltonian is written as
\(h/J\) and \(g/J\) are two tunable parameters in this model. The second model is the one-dimensional spinless fermion Hubbard model, whose Hamiltonian is written as
Here J and \(J^{\prime}\) denote the nearest and the next nearest neighbor hopping strengths. \(V_{1}\) and \(V_{2}\) are the nearest and the next nearest interaction strengths. In both models, we use J as the natural energy unit although they represent different energy scales in two models.
In Fig. 2, we first compare \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) of two different operators in the quantum Ising model, but with different model parameters, as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b). Then, we compare \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) for two different operators in two different physical systems, one in the quantum Ising model and the other in the spinless Hubbard model. The results are shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d). The Lanczos coefficients \(\{b_{n}\}\) are now calculated with the chosen operators and the physical Hamiltonian. Then we use polynomial function to fit \(\{b_{n}\}\) with respect to a few smallest integer n, up to \(n\sim10\). With the fitted function, we can obtain \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) with an error bar from the fitting error. The fitting error also includes fluctuation due to varying the range of polynomial function and varying the number of integer points included in the fitting.
Each figure of Fig. 2(a) and (c) shows two cases with same value of \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) within the error bars. Their corresponding \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) in terms of \(tb_{1}\) are respectively shown in Fig. 2(b) and (d), compared with \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) plotted in terms of tJ in the insets. It is clear that by changing tJ to \(tb_{1}\), the horizontal axes is stretched such that the two cases shown in each figure are in good agreement with each other up to \(tb_{1}\sim2-5\).
Figure 3(a) shows four cases with small \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\), with two from the quantum Ising model and two from the spinless Hubbard model. Their corresponding \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) all exhibit the oscillatory behavior. In contrast, Fig. 3(c) show four cases from these two models with larger \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\). Their corresponding \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) all monotonically decay. Moreover, we note that because all these cases have different values of \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\), therefore their \(\mathcal{C}(t)\) do not collapse when \(tb_{1}\gtrsim1\) but they all collapse when \(tb_{1}\lesssim1\). Hence, the information presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 demonstrate the three hypothesis in realistic models.
Here, we would like to emphasize that we should first fit \(b[n]\) with a smooth function and then take a derivative on this smooth function. This scheme becomes inaccurate on exceptional cases where the first few \(b[n]\) displays very strong variation.
5 Intuitions
Finally we discuss the intuitions that lead to these hypothesis. First, since all \(\varphi_{n}=0\) at \(t=0\) except for \(\varphi_{0}\), and \(\varphi_{0}\) only couples to \(\varphi_{1}\), the short-time dynamics of \(\varphi_{0}\) is dominated by its coupling to \(\varphi_{1}\). Hence, by ignoring all \(\varphi_{n>1}\), we can obtain
This gives rise to a solution \(\varphi_{0}=\cos(tb_{1})\). This shows that \(b_{1}\) is a natural unit to scale t, resulting in a universal function form for autocorrelation functions at short-time.
Secondly, we take the continuum limit of Eq. (3), which results in the following differential equation
Now if we make a frame transformation to redefine \(t^{\prime}=tb[x]\), we arrive at the following equation
where ∂̃ is defined as
Hence, in the new frame, the differential equation is solely controlled by \(b^{\prime}[x]/b[x]\). Since the autocorrelation function only concerns the time dynamics of φ at \(x=0\), we conjecture that \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) largely determines the behavior of the autocorrelation.
Thirdly, as for the different behaviors between smaller and larger \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\), the intuition comes from solving simple situation with \(b_{n}=\alpha n^{\delta}\). In these situations, \(b[1]=\alpha\) and \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]=\delta\). It turns out that Eq. (3) can be solved exactly for \(\delta=0\), \(1/2\) and 1, which respectively give
where \(\mathcal{B}_{1}\) denotes the Bessel function of the first kind. The case with \(\delta=1/2\) can be realized by the integrable Ising model with \(g=0\) and operator being \(\sigma^{y}_{i}\) or \(\sigma^{z}_{i}\) [28]. But a generic statement on the relation between \(b_{n}\) and integrality, to our best knowledge, is still lacking. For generic δ, there is no analytical solution but the equation can be easily solved numerically. It is found that non-monotonic oscillation exists when \(\delta<0.5\) but disappears when \(\delta>0.5\).
Summary and Outlook. In summary, we have found three universal properties of the autocorrelation functions with the help of the Krylov complexity. To reveal these universal properties, two key findings are the characteristic parameter \(b^{\prime}[1]/b[1]\) and scaling time with \(b[1]\). We emphasize that these universal properties are shared by different operators in different systems. On the theory side, our results bring out the generic connection between complexity and correlation in quantum many-body systems that deserves further theoretical investigations. On the experimental side, the quench experiments recently performed in NMR and cold atom systems directly measure the autocorrelation function [2], and our results can be straightforwardly verified in these experiments.
Note Added. Oscillatory versus non-oscillatory behavior of auto-correlation function in random spin model has been discussed in Ref. [68].
Data availability
The complete code and data can be find at the following link: https://github.com/RenZhangPhy/KrylovCorrelation.git.
References
Joshi MK, Kranzl F, Schuckert A, Lovas I, Maier C, Blatt R, Knap M, Roos CF (2022) Observing emergent hydrodynamics in a long-range quantum magnet. Science 376:720
Wei D, Abadal AR, Ye B, Machado F, Kemp J, Srakaew K, Hollerith S, Rui J, Gopalakrishnan S, Yao NY, Bloch I, Zeiher J (2022) Quantum gas microscopy of Kardar–Parisi–Zhang superdiffusion. Science 376:716
Zu C, Machado F, Ye B, Choi S, Kobrin B, Mittiga T, Hsieh S, Bhattacharyya P, Markham M, Twitchen D, Jarmola A, Budker D, Laumann CR, Moore JE, Yao NY (2021) Emergent hydrodynamics in a strongly interacting dipolar spin ensemble. Nature 597:45
Martin LS, Zhou H, Leitao NT, Maskara N, Makarova O, Gao H, Zhu Q-Z, Park M, Tyler M, Park H, Choi S, Lukin MD (2023) Phys Rev Lett 130:210403
Peng P, Yin C, Huang X, Ramanathan C, Cappellaro P (2021) Floquet prethermalization in dipolar spin chains. Nat Phys 17:444
Peng P, Ye B, Yao NY, Cappellaro P (2023) Exploiting disorder to probe spin and energy hydrodynamics. Nat Phys 19:1027
Martin LS, Zhou H, Leitao NT, Maskara N, Makarova O, Gao H, Zhu Q-Z, Park M, Tyler M, Park H, Choi S, Lukin MD (2023) Controlling local thermalization dynamics in a Floquet-engineered dipolar ensemble. Phys Rev Lett 130:210403
Gopalakrishnan S, Vasseur R (2019) Kinetic theory of spin diffusion and superdiffusion in XXZ spin chains. Phys Rev Lett 122:127202
Ljubotina M, Desaules J-Y, Serbyn M, Papić Z (2023) Superdiffusive energy transport in kinetically constrained models. Phys Rev X 13:011033
Roberts DA, Yoshida B (2017) Chaos and complexity by design. J High Energy Phys 04:121
Jefferson R, Myers RC (2017) Circuit complexity in quantum field theory. J High Energy Phys 10:107
Roberts DA, Stanford D, Streicher A (2018) Operator growth in the SYK model. J High Energy Phys 06:122
Yang R-Q (2018) Complexity for quantum field theory states and applications to thermofield double states. Phys Rev D 97:066004
Khan R, Krishnan C, Sharma S (2018) Circuit complexity in fermionic field theory. Phys Rev D 98:126001
Yang R-Q, An Y-S, Niu C, Zhang C-Y, Kim K-Y (2019) Principles and symmetries of complexity in quantum field theory. Eur Phys J C 79:109
Qi XL, Streicher A (2019) Quantum epidemiology: operator growth, thermal effects, and SYK. J High Energy Phys 08:012
Zhang P, Gu Y Operator size distribution in large N quantum mechanics of Majorana Fermions. arXiv:2212.04358
Lucas A (2019) Operator size at finite temperature and planckian bounds on quantum dynamics. Phys Rev Lett 122:216601
Balasubramanian V, Decross M, Kar A, Parrikar O (2020) Quantum complexity of time evolution with chaotic Hamiltonians. J High Energy Phys 01:134
Balasubramanian V, DeCross M, Kar A, Li YC, Parrikar O (2021) Complexity growth in integrable and chaotic models. J High Energy Phys 07:011
Parker DE, Cao X, Avdoshkin A, Scaffidi T, Altman E (2019) A universal operator growth hypothesis. Phys Rev X 9:041017
Barbón JLF, Rabinovici E, Shir R, Sinha R (2019) On the evolution of operator complexity beyond scrambling. J High Energy Phys 10:264
Avdoshkin A, Dymarsky A (2020) Euclidean operator growth and quantum chaos. Phys Rev R 2:043234
Dymarsky A, Gorsky A (2020) Quantum chaos as delocalization in Krylov space. Phys Rev B 102:085137
Jian SK, Swingle B, Xian ZY (2021) Complexity growth of operators in the SYK model and in JT gravity. J High Energy Phys 03:014
Rabinovici E, Sánchez-Garrido A, Shir R, Sonner J (2021) Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of Krylov space. J High Energy Phys 06:062
Dymarsky A, Smolkin M (2021) Krylov complexity in conformal field theory. Phys Rev D 104:081702
Noh JD (2021) Operator growth in the transverse-field Ising spin chain with integrability-breaking longitudinal field. Phys Rev E 104:034112
Trigueros FB, Lin CJ (2022) Krylov complexity of many-body localization: operator localization in Krylov basis. SciPost Phys 13:037
Pawel C, Shouvik D (2021) Operator growth in 2d CFT. J High Energy Phys 12:188
Patramanis D (2022) Probing the entanglement of operator growth. Prog Theor Exp Phys 6:063A01
Caputa P, Magan JM, Patramanis D (2022) Geometry of Krylov complexity. Phys Rev R 4:013041
Lv C, Zhang R, Zhou Q Building Krylov complexity from circuit complexity. arXiv:2303.07343
Kar A, Lamprou L, Rozali M, Sully J (2022) Random matrix theory for complexity growth and black hole interiors. J High Energy Phys 01:016
Kim J, Murugan J, Olle J, Rosa D (2022) Operator delocalization in quantum networks. Phys Rev A 105:L010201
Hörnedal N, Carabba N, Matsoukas-Roubeas AS, del Campo A (2022) Ultimate physical limits to the growth of operator complexity. Commun Phys 5:207
Rabinovici E, Sánchez-Garrido A, Shir R, Sonner J (2022) Krylov localization and suppression of complexity. J High Energy Phys 03:211
Bhattacharjee B, Cao X, Nandy P, Pathak T (2022) Krylov complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling. J High Energy Phys 05:174
Balasubramanian V, Caputa P, Magan J, Wu Q (2022) Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states. Phys Rev D 106:046007
Heveling R, Wang J, Gemmer J (2022) Numerically probing the universal operator growth hypothesis. Phys Rev E 106:014152
Adhikari K, Choudhury S (2022) Cosmological Krylov complexity. Fortschr Phys 12:2200126
Adhikari K, Choudhury S, Roy A (2023) Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond. Nucl Phys B 993:116263
Caputa P, Liu S (2022) Quantum complexity and topological phases of matter. Phys Rev B 106:195125
Mück W, Yang Y (2022) Krylov complexity and orthogonal polynomials. Nucl Phys B 984:115948
Banerjee A, Bhattacharyya A, Drashni P, Pawar S (2022) From CFTs to theories with Bondi–Metzner–Sachs symmetries: complexity and out-of-time-ordered correlators. Phys Rev D 106:126022
Fan ZY (2022) Universal relation for operator complexity. Phys Rev A 105:062210
Fan ZY (2022) The growth of operator entropy in operator growth. J High Energy Phys 08:232
Rabinovici E, Sánchez-Garrido A, Shir R, Sonner J (2022) K-complexity from integrability to chaos. J High Energy Phys 07:151
Bhattacharya A, Nandy P, Nath PP, Sahu H (2022) Operator growth and Krylov construction in dissipative open quantum systems. J High Energy Phys 12:081
Bhattacharjee B, Sur S, Nandy P (2022) Probing quantum scars and weak ergodicity-breaking through quantum complexity. Phys Rev B 106:205150
Liu C, Tang H, Zhai H (2023) Krylov complexity in open quantum systems. Phys Rev Res 5:033085
Bhattacharjee B, Cao X, Nandy P, Pathak T (2023) Operator growth in open quantum systems: lessons from the dissipative SYK. J High Energy Phys 03:054
Bhattacharya A, Nandy P, Nath PP, Sahu H On Krylov complexity in open systems: an approach via bi-Lanczos algorithm. arXiv:2303.04175
Afrasiar M, Basak JK, Dey B, Pal K, Pal K Time evolution of spread complexity in quenched Lipkin–Meshkov–Glick model. arXiv:2208.10520
Erdmenger J, Jian S-K, Xian Z-Y (2023) Universal chaotic dynamics from Krylov space. J High Energy Phys 08:176
Kundu A, Malvimat V, Sinha R State dependence of Krylov complexity in 2d CFTs. arXiv:2303.03426
Nizami AA, Shrestha AW Krylov construction and complexity for driven quantum systems. arXiv:2305.00256
Guo S Operator growth in SU(2) Yang–Mills theory. arXiv:2208.13362
He S, Lau PHC, Xian Z-Y, Zhao L (2022) Quantum chaos, scrambling and operator growth in TT̄ deformed SYK models. J High Energy Phys 12:070
Bhattacharjee B, Nandy P, Pathak T (2023) Krylov complexity in large-q and double-scaled SYK model. J High Energy Phys 08:099
Khetrapal S (2023) Chaos and operator growth in 2d CFT. J High Energy Phys 03:176
Du B, Huang M Krylov complexity in Calabi–Yau quantum mechanics. arXiv:2212.02926
Haque SS, Murugan J, Tladi M, Zyl HJRV Krylov complexity for Jacobi coherent states. arXiv:2212.13758
Camargo HA, Jahnke V, Kim K-Y, Nishida M (2023) Krylov complexity in free and interacting scalar field theories with bounded power spectrum. J High Energy Phys 05:226
Hörnedal N, Carabba N, Takahashi K, Campo A (2023) Geometric operator quantum speed limit, Wegner Hamiltonian flow and operator growth. Quantum 7:1055
Our definition of \(\varphi_{n}\) differs from that in Ref. [21] by a factor of \(i^{n}\). Therefore, our Eq. (3) also differs from that in Ref. [21] by a factor
The codes for our numerical calculation is available at https://github.com/RenZhangPhy/KrylovCorrelation.git
Zhou TG, Zheng W, Zhang P Universal aspect of relaxation dynamics in random spin models. arXiv:2305.02359
Acknowledgements
We thank Pengfei Zhang, Tian-Gang Zhou, Chang Liu, Yingfei Gu and Shang Liu for helpful discussions.
Funding
This work is supported by NSFC 12174300 (RZ), the National Key R&D Program of China 2018YFA0307601(RZ), Tang Scholar (RZ), Innovation Program for Quantum Science and Technology 2021ZD0302005 (HZ), 2021ZD0302001(RZ), the Beijing Outstanding Young Scholar Program (HZ) and the XPLORER Prize (HZ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HZ delivers the idea. RZ performs the numerical calculation. Both authors analysis the results and draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
HZ is an editorial board member for Quantum Frontiers and was not involved in the editorial review, or the decision to publish, this article. All authors declare that there are no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, R., Zhai, H. Universal hypothesis of autocorrelation function from Krylov complexity. Quantum Front 3, 7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44214-024-00054-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44214-024-00054-4