Random permutation circuits beyond qubits are quantum chaotic
Source abstract
Abstract
Random permutation circuits were recently introduced as minimal models for local many-body dynamics that can be interpreted both as classical and quantum. Standard dynamical complexity indicators such as damage spreading and out-of-time-order correlators (OTOCs), show that these systems exhibit sensitivity to initial conditions in the classical setting and operator scrambling in the quantum setting. Here, we address their quantum chaoticity—a stricter property—by studying the time evolution of local operator entanglement (LOE). We show that the behavior of LOE in random permutation circuits depends on the dimension of the local configuration space q . When q=2 , i.e., the circuits act on qubits, random permutations are Clifford and the LOE of any local operator is bounded by a constant, indicating that they are not truly chaotic. On the other hand, when the dimension of the local configuration space exceeds two, the LOE grows linearly in time. We prove this in the limit of large q and present numerical evidence that a three-dimensional local configuration space is sufficient for a linear growth of LOE. Our findings highlight that quantum chaos can be produced by essentially classical dynamics. Moreover, we show that LOE can be defined also in the classical realm and put it forward as a universal indicator chaos, both quantum and classical.
Source: crossref · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture · stochastic dynamics and bifurcation · Quantum Mechanics and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham
Max-Planck-Institut für Quantenoptik
University of Copenhagen
Funding
Royal Society · Leverhulme Trust · Novo Nordisk Fonden
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. A. C. Potter · 2022
2. 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031720-03065810.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031720-030658 ↗
3. 10.1103/PhysRevX.7.03101610.1103/PhysRevX.7.031016 ↗
4. 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.04101910.1103/PhysRevX.8.041019 ↗
5. 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.02101410.1103/PhysRevX.8.021014 ↗
6. 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.02101310.1103/PhysRevX.8.021013 ↗
7. 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.17420510.1103/PhysRevB.99.174205 ↗
8. 10.1103/PhysRevB.102.06430510.1103/PhysRevB.102.064305 ↗
9. 10.1090/noti247410.1090/noti2474 ↗
10. 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.21430110.1103/PhysRevB.100.214301 ↗
11. 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.01032910.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010329 ↗
12. 10.22331/q-2023-12-06-120010.22331/q-2023-12-06-1200 ↗
13. 10.1007/JHEP02(2025)12810.1007/JHEP02(2025)128 ↗
14. 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.01101510.1103/PhysRevX.15.011015 ↗
15. M. Aldana · 2003
16. 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.21430310.1103/PhysRevB.106.214303 ↗
17. 10.1103/PhysRevB.110.L02030110.1103/PhysRevB.110.L020301 ↗
18. 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)06710.1007/JHEP03(2014)067 ↗
19. 10.1007/JHEP12(2014)04610.1007/JHEP12(2014)046 ↗
20. 10.1007/JHEP03(2015)05110.1007/JHEP03(2015)051 ↗
21. 10.1007/JHEP04(2016)00110.1007/JHEP04(2016)001 ↗
22. 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)10610.1007/JHEP08(2016)106 ↗
23. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.18040310.1103/PhysRevLett.131.180403 ↗
24. 10.1007/BF0279879010.1007/BF02798790 ↗
25. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.110.1103/PhysRevLett.52.1 ↗
26. 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.03231610.1103/PhysRevA.76.032316 ↗
27. 10.1103/PhysRevE.75.01520210.1103/PhysRevE.75.015202 ↗
28. 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.18441610.1103/PhysRevB.79.184416 ↗
29. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.25060310.1103/PhysRevLett.122.250603 ↗
30. 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.09441010.1103/PhysRevB.104.094410 ↗
31. 10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.06710.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.067 ↗
32. 10.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.06810.21468/SciPostPhys.8.4.068 ↗
33. 10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.01031410.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010314 ↗
34. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.17040110.1103/PhysRevLett.129.170401 ↗
35. 10.1007/JHEP01(2020)17510.1007/JHEP01(2020)175 ↗
36. 10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.01031810.1103/PRXQuantum.4.010318 ↗
37. 10.1088/1751-8121/adc9e610.1088/1751-8121/adc9e6 ↗
38. 10.1209/0295-5075/92/6000410.1209/0295-5075/92/60004 ↗
39. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.02410110.1103/PhysRevLett.121.024101 ↗
40. 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.09410910.1103/PhysRevB.103.094109 ↗
41. M. Nielsen · 2000
42. F. Haake · 2019
43. 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.02106210.1103/PhysRevX.8.021062 ↗
44. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/ql9x-6kzj for (i) a proof of Eq. (9); (ii) further details on the permutation-averaged multireplica gates; (iii) the discussion of dynamics of permutation gates with added phases; (iv) the perturbative large local-Hilbert-space expansion; (v) additional details on the numerical methods to produce the data in the main text.
45. 10.2307/230030010.2307/2300300 ↗
46. 10.2307/231258510.2307/2312585 ↗
47. The form of |ψ1〉 depends on the specific operator O under consideration. For definiteness, in the following we take it to be real and have diagonal elements equal to ±1. Our treatment, however, can be easily carried out for any initial operator in diagonal form.
48. 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.03106610.1103/PhysRevX.10.031066 ↗
49. 10.1017/S096354830000191710.1017/S0963548300001917 ↗
50. W. Gay · 2025
51. V. Arnold · 1989
52. V. Arnold · 2012
53. E. Ott · 200210.1017/CBO9780511803260 ↗
54. I. Cornfeld · 2012