alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Universality and Emergent Classicality in Krylov Space

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

Krylov complexity grows linearly at late times for many systems. In this regime, we give a general spectral formula for the leading growth coefficients of Krylov complexity and its higher moments, without requiring detailed knowledge of the Lanczos coefficients. For states with a narrow energy distribution compared to the bandwidth, dynamics in the Krylov basis resembles motion along a classical trajectory. We demonstrate our results for the critical XY chain and double-scaled SYK. For the latter, we compute the leading late-time behavior of the chord-number moments through one-loop order.

Introduction— Universality is a central organizing principle in modern physics. It refers to the phenomenon where a class of macroscopic systems with drastically different microscopic details obey the same scaling laws for coarse-grained observables. Renormalization-group fixed points provide some of its most striking examples. Another example is the level-spacing statistics of generic nonintegrable quantum systems, described by random-matrix ensembles. In this Letter, we present a notion of universality for late-time dynamics in Krylov space that applies to a broad class of physical systems. It describes the ballistic motion of a quantum state in a distinguished orthogonal basis. This motion is determined by the energy distribution of the state through a universal relation. We call this basis the Krylov basis following standard terminology. The Krylov basis relevant for describing time-evolution ∣ψ(t)⟩:=e−iHt∣ψ(0)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle:= e^{-iHt}|\psi(0)\rangle is constructed through the recursion

H∣n⟩=bn−1∣n−1⟩+an∣n⟩+bn∣n+1⟩,(1)H|n\rangle= b_{n-1}|n-1\rangle+ a_n|n\rangle+ b_n|n+1\rangle, \tag*{(1)}

with boundary conditions b−1=a−1=0b_{-1}=a_{-1}=0 and ∣0⟩:=∣ψ(0)⟩|0\rangle:= |\psi(0)\rangle, such that the basis states {∣n⟩}\{|n\rangle\} are orthonormal. The Hamiltonian HH acts like a tridiagonal matrix in this basis, i.e., Mmn:=⟨m∣H∣n⟩=bn−1δm,n−1+anδm,n+bnδm,n+1M_{mn}:=\langle m|H|n\rangle=b_{n-1}\delta_{m,n-1}+a_n\delta_{m,n}+b_n\delta_{m,n+1}. The Lanczos coefficients bnb_n, ana_n are fixed by orthogonality, in terms of ⟨ψ∣Hk∣ψ⟩\langle\psi|H^k|\psi\rangle for kk up to 2n+22n+2. The Krylov basis is entirely determined by the survival amplitude

C(t):=⟨ψ(0)∣ψ(t)⟩,(2)C(t):=\langle\psi(0)|\psi(t)\rangle, \tag*{(2)}

or equivalently, its Fourier transform

Φ(E):=12π∫−∞∞dt C(t)eiEt,(3)\Phi(E):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\,C(t)e^{iEt}, \tag*{(3)}

which we call the spectral function. In this basis the state is expanded as

∣ψ(t)⟩=∑n=0∞φn(t)∣n⟩,φn(t):=⟨n∣ψ(t)⟩,(4)|\psi(t)\rangle=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\varphi_n(t)|n\rangle,\qquad\varphi_n(t):=\langle n|\psi(t)\rangle, \tag*{(4)}

where φn(t)\varphi_n(t) are determined in terms of C(t)C(t). The moments of the distribution {∣φn(t)∣2}\{|\varphi_n(t)|^2\} are given by powers of the “complexity” operator n^:=∑nn∣n⟩⟨n∣\hat n:=\sum_n n|n\rangle\langle n| in the state ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle:

⟨n^k(t)⟩=∑nnk∣φn(t)∣2.(5)\langle\hat n^k(t)\rangle=\sum_n n^k|\varphi_n(t)|^2 . \tag*{(5)}

The Krylov basis has emerged as a framework for characterizing quantum dynamics [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. This activity was stimulated by [12] which argued that operator wavefunctions spread universally in the Krylov basis under Heisenberg evolution, and that ⟨n^(t)⟩\langle\hat n(t)\rangle grows exponentially for local operators in generic nonintegrable systems. The mean ⟨n^(t)⟩\langle\hat n(t)\rangle, called Krylov complexity is a simple measure of operator growth obtained from the operator autocorrelation function. In general, Krylov complexity shows rich phenomenology across several time scales [13, 14].

Statement— For a broad class of systems where Φ(E)\Phi(E) has bounded support, ⟨n^(t)⟩\langle\hat n(t)\rangle is expected to exhibit a parametrically long regime of linear growth [15, 16, 17, 18]. Extended linear growth is also a central feature of holographic proposals relating quantum complexity to the growth of Einstein-Rosen bridges [19, 20]. In finite systems, a maximum energy directly leads to Φ(E)\Phi(E) vanishing beyond a cutoff. In sufficiently large systems, this regime may persist for times exponential in system size, before a slow drift sets in and eventually leads to saturation. For infinite systems with bounded spectral support, the linear growth may persist indefinitely.

We shift the energies by a constant so they lie in [−E0,E0][-E_0,E_0]. We assume scenarios where Φ(E)\Phi(E) is exactly, or after coarse-graining, smooth and continuous, vanishing for ∣E∣>∣E0∣|E|>|E_0| with no gaps inside [−E0,E0][-E_0,E_0]. The generating function of ⟨n^k(t)⟩\langle\hat n^k(t)\rangle was studied in [21] which found that at late times

⟨n^k(t)⟩=vktk+O(tk−1),(6)\langle\hat n^k(t)\rangle=v_k t^k+O(t^{k-1}), \tag*{(6)}

where the slopes vkv_k have the spectral representation

vk=∫−E0E0dE Φ(E)(E02−E2)k2,(7)v_k=\int_{-E_0}^{E_0}dE\,\Phi(E)(E_0^2-E^2)^{\frac{k}{2}}, \tag*{(7)}

which can also be rewritten in the time-domain

vk=E0k+1Γ(k+22)π21−k∫−∞∞dt C(t)Jk+12(E0t)(E0t)k+12.(8)v_k=\frac{E_0^{k+1}\Gamma\left(\frac{k+2}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\pi}2^{1-k}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\,C(t)\frac{J_{\frac{k+1}{2}}(E_0t)}{(E_0t)^{\frac{k+1}{2}}}. \tag*{(8)}

if E0E_0 is known, but only C(t)C(t) is directly accessible. Ref. [21] derived (6) using the propagation generated by n^\hat{n} in the energy basis. The main technical ingredient in the derivation is the asymptotic form of ∣n⟩|n\rangle in the energy basis (22), that follows from the orthogonal polynomial asymptotics found by Szegő [22]. The O(tk−1)O(t^{k-1}) bound on corrections requires further assumptions but is expected to be generic. The asymptotics (22) also offer a way to directly approximate φn(t)\varphi_n(t) as explored in Sec. SM A. While completing this paper, we became aware of independent derivations of (7) in recent works [23, 24], for general kk and for k=1k=1, respectively.

A simpler physical argument is the following. In our conventions, lim⁡n→∞bn=E0/2\lim_{n\to\infty} b_n=E_0/2 and lim⁡n→∞an=0\lim_{n\to\infty} a_n=0. The Lanczos coefficients approach their asymptotic value at a scale ncn_c. If this approach is algebraic ∼n−γ\sim n^{-\gamma} for γ>0\gamma>0, nc(ϵ)n_c(\epsilon) can be defined as ∣bnc(ϵ)−E02∣=ϵ\left|b_{n_c(\epsilon)}-\frac{E_0}{2}\right|=\epsilon. Sometimes ncn_c can be estimated as the nn at which the saddle point of ∫dE E2nΦ(E)\int dE\,E^{2n}\Phi(E) reaches ∣E∣=E0|E|=E_0, which depends on the detailed profile of Φ(E)\Phi(E).

The equations of motion for the Heisenberg picture n^(t)\hat{n}(t) are

dn^(t)dt=eiMtBe−iMt,d2n^(t)dt2=eiMtFe−iMt,(9)\frac{d\hat{n}(t)}{dt}=e^{iMt}B e^{-iMt},\qquad\frac{d^2\hat{n}(t)}{dt^2}=e^{iMt}F e^{-iMt}, \tag*{(9)}

expressed in terms of B:=i[M,n^]B:=i[M,\hat{n}], F:=−[M,[M,n^]]F:=-[M,[M,\hat{n}]]. We denote the asymptotic form of operators at indices n≫ncn\gg n_c using the subscript ncn_c. MncM_{n_c} is a constant symmetric tridiagonal matrix with off-diagonal entries E0/2E_0/2 and zero along the diagonal. BncB_{n_c} is ii times the antisymmetrized MncM_{n_c}. This implies

Fnc≃0,Bnc2≃E02−Mnc2,(10)F_{n_c}\simeq0,\qquad B_{n_c}^{2}\simeq E_0^2-M_{n_c}^{2}, \tag*{(10)}

where in writing (10) we neglect boundary terms and deviations of the Lanczos coefficients from their asymptotic values. Since the wavepacket moves towards larger nn, we take the positive root

Bnc≃E02−Mnc2.(11)B_{n_c}\simeq\sqrt{E_0^2-M_{n_c}^2}. \tag*{(11)}

Once the wavepacket φn(t)\varphi_n(t) has propagated into this region n≫ncn\gg n_c, (10), (11) can be used to approximate the solution of (9) within expectation values. Vanishing of FncF_{n_c} implies the ballistic growth in (6). Using energy conservation of ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle, the asymptotic relation (11) gives rise to the spectral relation (7).

The onset time ton(k)t_{\mathrm{on}}^{(k)} for the validity of (6) depends on kk, but this effect is small [21], so we restrict to the single scale tont_{\mathrm{on}}. Subleading corrections in (6) encode details of the transient propagation and the approach of the Lanczos coefficients to their asymptotic values. The width of Φ(E)\Phi(E) sets the scale for Lanczos coefficients; if this scale does not depend on the system size but E0E_0 does then tont_{\mathrm{on}} grows with the system size.

Emergent classicality— When (6) is valid for sufficiently large times ⟨n^k(t)⟩/(vktk)\langle\hat{n}^k(t)\rangle/(v_k t^k) approaches 1 and the Krylov distribution is simply and universally characterized by the spectral representation of ∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle through (7). In this regime, there is a simple relation between the width of ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle in the Krylov and energy bases. In many contexts, the width of Φ(E)\Phi(E) is subextensive but E0E_0 is extensive. If Φ(E)\Phi(E) is sharply peaked about its mean μ1\mu_1, expanding (E02−E2)k/2(E_0^2-E^2)^{k/2} about μ1\mu_1 gives vk∼(E02−μ12)k/2v_k\sim(E_0^2-\mu_1^2)^{k/2} with corrections that are suppressed by the system size. ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle becomes effectively classical in the Krylov basis in the following sense. ⟨n^k(t)⟩≈⟨n^(t)⟩k\langle\hat{n}^k(t)\rangle\approx\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle^k, which means that n^\hat{n} becomes a classical macroscopic variable. Smooth functions of n^\hat{n} become deterministic, evaluated at late times. The Krylov probabilities move along a ballistic trajectory determined by (6).

Surprisingly, the phases in φn(t)\varphi_n(t) also become deterministic. Despite the obstruction to defining a global phase operator conjugate to n^\hat{n}, a simple workaround is to use the shift operator T=∑n∣n+1⟩⟨n∣T=\sum_n|n+1\rangle\langle n| [25]. The identification T=eipT=e^{ip} is valid when ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle has negligible support close to n=0n=0. arg⁡⟨T(t)⟩\arg\langle T(t)\rangle can be interpreted as the mean ⟨p⟩\langle p\rangle. Because Mnc+Bnc≈E0TM_{n_c}+B_{n_c}\approx E_0T, the pp distribution is approximately tt-independent and

⟨p⟩≈arg⁡1E0∫dEΦ(E)(E+iE02−E2),(12)\langle p\rangle\approx\arg\frac{1}{E_0}\int dE\Phi(E)\left(E+i\sqrt{E_0^2-E^2}\right), \tag*{(12)}

with analogous diagnostics for fluctuations of pp. When Φ(E)\Phi(E) is sharply peaked, so is the pp distribution and ⟨p⟩\langle p\rangle can be approximated by arccos⁡(μ1/E0)\arccos(\mu_1/E_0), see Figure 3. This, together with ∣⟨T(t)⟩∣≈1|\langle T(t)\rangle|\approx1 implies an approximately linear winding phase for φn(t)\varphi_n(t) and can be seen as one possible mechanism underlying Krylov winding studied in [26].

Saturation of p

Figure 3. Saturation of pp: for DSSYK complexified time evolution (17) at β=4,J=1\beta= 4,\mathcal{J} = 1 (and qq as indicated) and evolution generated by E(E)\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{E}) (magenta). Black dashed lines are evaluations of (12). The orange dashed lines are arccos⁡(μ1/E0)\arccos(\mu_1/E_0), which serves as a good approximation for the narrow distribution at q=0.9q = 0.9. ⟨p⟩\langle p\rangle saturates later for the toy measure because of larger tont_{\mathrm{on}}.

Thus, at late times ∣ψ(t)⟩|\psi(t)\rangle describes a well-defined trajectory (E02−μ12t,arccos⁡(μ1/E0))(\sqrt{E_0^2-\mu_1^2}t,\arccos(\mu_1/E_0)) for the semiclassical variables nn and pp. This is similar to a coherent state with large mean occupation number and a well-defined phase. The number-phase uncertainty is respected because variance of n^\hat{n} is not small in absolute terms. In fact, the variance of n^\hat{n} grows as t2t^2 but it is the relative width

δn(t)=⟨n^2(t)⟩−⟨n^(t)⟩2⟨n^(t)⟩,(13)\delta n(t)=\frac{\sqrt{\langle\hat{n}^2(t)\rangle-\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle^2}}{\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle}, \tag*{(13)}

that converges to (v2−v12)/v1(\sqrt{v_2-v_1^2})/v_1. The approach of δn(t)\delta n(t) to its t→∞t\to\infty asymptotic defines the scale tclt_{\mathrm{cl}}, marking the point where the subleading terms in (6) become negligible for k=1,2k=1,2.

There are physical scenarios where the sharpness of Krylov distribution does not hold. Take ∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle uniformly populated within an energy window of width 2E02E_0. E0E_0 could be taken finite to mimic a microcanonical state in a large system. Then (6) holds for exponentially long times tt with O(1)O(1) values of vkv_k and δn(t)\delta n(t) asymptotes to ≈0.284\approx0.284. Similarly lim⁡t→∞δn(t)≈0.202\lim_{t\to\infty}\delta n(t)\approx0.202 for the dynamics of a fully delocalized state under a Gaussian random matrix of large size assuming that coarse-grained Φ(E)\Phi(E) converges to the Wigner semicircle distribution. The narrowness condition is also not sufficient if Φ(E)\Phi(E) is sharply peaked very close to E0E_0.

Conversely, a narrow Φ(E)\Phi(E) away from the edges ±E0\pm E_0 is sufficient but not necessary for the wavepacket to become sharply peaked in the Krylov basis. δn(t)\delta n(t) decays as 1σt\frac{1}{\sigma t} when Φ(E)∝e−E22σ2\Phi(E) \propto e^{-\frac{E^2}{2\sigma^2}}, while ⟨n^(t)⟩=σ2t2\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle=\sigma^2t^2.

Operator growth— Here we estimate tont_{\mathrm{on}} and tclt_{\mathrm{cl}} using a physically motivated model for Φ(ω)\Phi(\omega) relevant for operator growth. Following [12], we assume that Φ(ω)=Φ(−ω)\Phi(\omega)=\Phi(-\omega) decays as ∼e−π2α∣ω∣\sim e^{-\frac{\pi}{2\alpha}|\omega|} in the bulk, and that it vanishes at an extensive maximal frequency ω0\omega_0. Accordingly, our analysis relies exclusively on ω0\omega_0 and α\alpha. We assume that Φ(ω)\Phi(\omega) can be treated as a smooth function and ignore additional structure such as its precise behavior near ω0\omega_0. For symmetrically ordered C(t)C(t) at finite inverse temperature β\beta, it is expected that α∼πβ\alpha\sim\frac{\pi}{\beta}. To leading order in α/ω0≪1\alpha/\omega_0\ll1, v2−v12∼α4/ω02v_2-v_1^2\sim\alpha^4/\omega_0^2 and v1∼ω0v_1\sim\omega_0.

Matching bn≈αnb_n\approx\alpha n for n≲ncn\lesssim n_c and bn=ω0/2b_n=\omega_0/2 for n≥ncn\ge n_c, we get nc≈ω0/2αn_c\approx\omega_0/2\alpha. Using the known transient exponential growth e2αton≈nce^{2\alpha t_{\mathrm{on}}}\approx n_c we get

ton≈12αlog⁡(ω0α).(14)t_{\mathrm{on}}\approx\frac{1}{2\alpha}\log\left(\frac{\omega_0}{\alpha}\right). \tag*{(14)}

To find tclt_{\mathrm{cl}}, we need control over the subleading terms in (6). In the End Matter we describe a phenomenological model designed with input from numerical experiments that gives

δn(t)∼1αt,ton≪t≪tcl.(15)\delta n(t)\sim\frac{1}{\alpha t},\qquad t_{\mathrm{on}}\ll t\ll t_{\mathrm{cl}}. \tag*{(15)}

Matching (15) with its asymptotic limit ∼α2/ω02\sim\alpha^2/\omega_0^2 gives tcl∼ω02/α3t_{\mathrm{cl}}\sim\omega_0^2/\alpha^3.

As a concrete physical example, we study the two-point function (44) of the transverse magnetic field in the critical spin-1/2 XY model (also studied in [9, 27]). This is a free system with Φ(ω)∼e−β∣ω∣/2\Phi(\omega)\sim e^{-\beta|\omega|/2} and fixed ω0=2\omega_0=2.

The saturation of δn(t)\delta n(t) becomes numerically accessible because ω0\omega_0 is a fixed O(1)O(1) number. It mimics features of generic systems as ω0≫α=πβ\omega_0\gg\alpha=\frac{\pi}{\beta} up to an overall rescaling of time. Figure 1 illustrates tont_{\mathrm{on}} and tclt_{\mathrm{cl}} consistent with our model in this system.

Critical XY model

Figure 1. Critical XY model. (a) Onset: Dashed lines show linear fits (consistent with (40)) where the slopes are computed from (8). (b) Saturation of δn(t)\delta n(t): Horizontal dashed lines are v2−v12/(βv1)\sqrt{v_2-v_1^2}/(\beta v_1) paired with corresponding β\beta. Multiplication by 1/β∝α1/\beta\propto\alpha leads to a collapse of δn(t)\delta n(t) along dashed magenta curve decaying as 1/t1/t.

Double-Scaled SYK (DSSYK)— The SYK model [28, 29] of NN Majoranas with random qq-body interactions has a solvable double-scaling limit N→∞N\to\infty and q→∞q\to\infty keeping λ:=2q2N=:−log⁡q\lambda:=\frac{2q^2}{N}=: -\log q fixed [30, 31, 32]. At low energies, SYK is dual to JT gravity [29], an effective theory of quantum gravity in two dimensions. Sine-dilaton gravity extends this description to DSSYK beyond the low-energy regime [33, 34].

The Krylov basis constructed from the infinite-temperature thermofield double, using disorder-averaged moments, coincides with the chord-number basis [35, 36, 37]. The chord number gives a notion of a discrete length in the bulk and helps to understand the emergence of a bulk Hilbert space, with semiclassical features when λ→0\lambda\to0. The dictionary between bulk length and chord number is given by [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]

⟨ℓ~(t)⟩=λ⟨n^(t)⟩β.(16)\langle\tilde{\ell}(t)\rangle=\lambda\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle_\beta. \tag*{(16)}

⟨n^(t)⟩β\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle_\beta is the Krylov complexity of complexified time evolution, incorporating the Euclidean segment required to prepare the thermofield double. To characterize the corresponding normalized Krylov distribution, we consider the moments

⟨n^k(t)⟩β:=1Z(β)⟨ψ(0)∣e−(β2−it)Hn^ke−(β2+it)H∣ψ(0)⟩.(17)\langle\hat{n}^k(t)\rangle_\beta:=\frac{1}{Z(\beta)}\langle\psi(0)|e^{-\left(\frac{\beta}{2}-it\right)H}\hat{n}^k e^{-\left(\frac{\beta}{2}+it\right)H}|\psi(0)\rangle. \tag*{(17)}

The Φ(E)\Phi(E) relevant for building the Krylov basis is the SYK density of states. In the spectral representation, the Euclidean evolution amounts to replacing Φ(E)\Phi(E) by the normalized thermal measure Z(β)−1e−βEΦ(E)Z(\beta)^{-1}e^{-\beta E}\Phi(E), while keeping the Krylov basis fixed, see [41] for a discussion. ⟨ℓ~(t)⟩\langle\tilde{\ell}(t)\rangle can be interpreted as the expectation value of the geodesic length of a wormhole in an effective twosided AdS2_2 black hole geometry whose inverse temperature βBH\beta_{\mathrm{BH}} differs from the DSSYK inverse temperature β\beta, with the two related as [33]

β=2θs−πJsin⁡(θs),βBH=πJsin⁡(θs).(18)\beta= \frac{2\theta_s-\pi}{\mathcal{J}\sin(\theta_s)}, \qquad\beta_{\mathrm{BH}} = \frac{\pi}{\mathcal{J}\sin(\theta_s)}. \tag*{(18)}

J>0\mathcal{J} > 0 is an overall energy scale present in the SYK Hamiltonian. θs\theta_s parameterizes the semiclassical saddle. From the Krylov perspective, θs\theta_s is the asymptotic value of ⟨p(t)⟩\langle p(t)\rangle. In the semiclassical limit,

⟨l~(t)⟩=2log⁡(JβBHπcosh⁡(πtβBH)),(19)\langle\tilde{l}(t)\rangle= 2\log\left(\frac{\mathcal{J}\beta_{\mathrm{BH}}}{\pi}\cosh\left(\frac{\pi t}{\beta_{\mathrm{BH}}}\right)\right), \tag*{(19)}

with length fluctuations suppressed because ⟨n^k(t)⟩β=⟨n^(t)⟩βk\langle\hat{n}^{k}(t)\rangle_{\beta}=\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle_{\beta}^{k} to leading semiclassical order. A bulk prescription for ⟨n^k(t)⟩β\langle\hat{n}^{k}(t)\rangle_{\beta} was proposed in [42], while their quantum fluctuations at infinite temperature were studied through higher-loop expansions in [23].

(7) provides a direct route to the late-time growth of all chord-number moments, including their quantum corrections. The loop expansion in vkv_k directly follows from the loop expansion in λ\lambda of the thermal energy moments, see (37) and the following discussion. The leading answer is

(λt)k⟨n^k(t)⟩β≈(2Jsin⁡(θs))k=(2πβBH)k,(20)\left(\frac{\lambda}{t}\right)^k\langle\hat{n}^{k}(t)\rangle_{\beta}\approx(2\mathcal{J}\sin(\theta_s))^k=\left(\frac{2\pi}{\beta_{\mathrm{BH}}}\right)^k, \tag*{(20)}

agreeing with (19) for t≫βBHt\gg\beta_{\mathrm{BH}}. In this example ton∼O(λ0)t_{\mathrm{on}}\sim O(\lambda^0) due to extensive energy variance [21, 36]. The one-loop answer vk(1)v_k^{(1)} is given in (38). For k=1k=1, it reproduces the large-tt value of one-loop ⟨l~(t)⟩/t\langle\tilde{l}(t)\rangle/t computed in [43, 44] after analytic continuation. We show the numerical agreement with (6) in Figure 2 where we also include a one-parameter deformation widely studied in recent times in the context of end-of-the-world branes [45, 46, 47].

DSSYK complexity and deformed DSSYK ratios

Figure 2. (a) DSSYK Complexity at β=10\beta= 10: Ratio of ⟨n^k(t)⟩\langle\hat{n}^{k}(t)\rangle to vk(1)tkv_k^{(1)}t^k using analytic one-loop vk(1)v_k^{(1)} computed in (38). (b) Deformed DSSYK: Ratio of ⟨n^(t)⟩\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle to v1tv_1t for a one-parameter deformation labeled by κ\kappa (27) at β=2\beta= 2. κ=0\kappa= 0 corresponds to undeformed DSSYK. The dashed line uses the one-loop vk(1)v_k^{(1)} and solid lines are numerically integrated vkv_k. q=0.9q = 0.9 and J=1\mathcal{J} = 1 in both panels.

Discussion

The heuristics presented in this letter have the merit that they plausibly apply to large, finite systems. There is a parametrically long regime in nn where the Lanczos coefficients are expected to be well-described by fluctuations about smooth functions b(x)b(x) and a(x)a(x) sampled at x=n/Dx=n/D, where DD is the Krylov space dimension, exponential in system size. The constant Lanczos sequence we utilized emerges from the Taylor expansion b(ncD)+(x−ncD)∂xb+…b\left(\frac{n_c}{D}\right)+\left(x-\frac{n_c}{D}\right)\partial_xb+\ldots. The gradient in the Lanczos coefficients remains parametrically small for n≪Dn\ll D, suggesting an exponentially long window with growth ⟨n^k(t)⟩∼vktk\langle\hat{n}^{k}(t)\rangle\sim v_kt^k. The size and correlations of

the fluctuations play a crucial role. For random matrix ensembles, the former decay as 1/D1/\sqrt{D} [48, 49], which is favorable for the scaling (6) to persist for exponentially long times. In real systems, the fluctuations can be much larger and are known to impede propagation in the Krylov basis—like for operator dynamics in integrable systems [50]. Since the average bnb_n is extensive, there could be much larger fluctuations and yet our results could still hold over a time window polynomial in the system size. It is an interesting problem to quantify the size of fluctuations that would be compatible with an approximate form of (7).

The more intriguing point is the possible robustness of the relation between the width of Φ(E)\Phi(E) and the sharpness of the Krylov distribution. It could very well extend far beyond cases where either the ⟨n^(k)⟩∼vkt\langle\hat n(k) \rangle\sim v k^t scaling or its predicted coefficients (7) are reliable. A preliminary numerical study is presented in Sec. SM C.

In the semiclassical limit of DSSYK, pp along with λn^\lambda\hat n become phase-space variables of the dual theory. Our work suggests that a similar classical picture can emerge dynamically at late times in more general systems. In this regime n^\hat n and pp become concentrated around a single trajectory if the state has a narrow spectral spread. This raises the question of when such an emergent classical description is physically meaningful. Our perspective complements recent studies of classicality in Krylov space using different approaches [51, 52, 53, 54, 55].

In DSSYK the chord number operator is proportional to the microscopic size operator [35] within a time regime that overlaps with the regime studied in this work. In this window, ⟨n^k(t)⟩β\langle\hat n^k(t) \rangle_\beta describes moments of the size distribution of the complexified time evolution operator e−(β/2+it)He^{-(\beta/2+it)H} [56]. Thus (7) determines the leading growth of its size moments, including their fluctuations, directly from the ensemble-averaged density of states. More generally, the operator Krylov complexity moments whose late-time behavior we studied are known to upper bound operator size moments [12]. Both examples we studied suggest a deeper connection between operator size and spectral data that involves the spectral edge E0E_0. Understanding the physical mechanism behind this connection and its broader applicability is an interesting problem for the future.

Acknowledgements— I thank B. Bhattacharjee, A. Dymarsky, S. Aguilar-Gutierrez, O. Parrikar and D. Rosa for discussions that helped this work. I am supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) through the grant 2024/13100-8. I acknowledge the use of Chat-GPT and Claude for language feedback and LaTeX troubleshooting.

References

End Matter

Orthogonal polynomials and Szego Asymptotics

The Krylov vectors ∣n⟩=pn(H)∣0⟩|n\rangle= p_n(H)|0\rangle where pn(x)p_n(x) is the orthonormal polynomial of order nn satisfying the same recursion as (1) with p0(x)=1p_0(x)=1. If the integral

∫−E0E0dElog⁡Φ(E)E02−E2,(21)\int_{-E_0}^{E_0} dE \frac{\log\Phi(E)}{\sqrt{E_0^2-E^2}}, \tag*{(21)}

exists, the n≫1n\gg1 asymptotics are given by

pn(E0cos⁡(θ))=2πΦ(E0cos⁡(θ))E0sin⁡(θ)cos⁡(nθ+γ(θ)),(22)p_n(E_0\cos(\theta))=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi\Phi(E_0\cos(\theta))E_0\sin(\theta)}}\cos(n\theta+\gamma(\theta)), \tag*{(22)}

in terms of cos⁡(θ)=E0/E\cos(\theta)=E_0/E. γ(θ)\gamma(\theta) is also calculable in terms of Φ(E)\Phi(E) but we ignore its precise value in this work.

The propagator associated with the amplitude ⟨E1∣einφ^∣E2⟩\langle E_1|e^{in\hat{\varphi}}|E_2\rangle underlies the physical time-evolution of the global mode in the bipartite scar construction of [57]. [21] derived (6), (7) by computing an approximation of this propagator using (22). The integral resulting from inserting this approximate propagator in the generating function ⟨ψ(t)∣einφ^∣ψ(t)⟩\langle\psi(t)|e^{in\hat{\varphi}}|\psi(t)\rangle can be evaluated in the t→∞t\to\infty limit using the stationary phase method. Expanding in small φ\varphi isolates the vktkv_k t^k piece and gives the explicit form (7).

DSSYK Complexity

After ensemble averaging, the energy spectrum of DSSYK is given by

E(θ)=2Jcos⁡(θ)λ(1−q),θ∈[0,π],(23)E(\theta)=\frac{2\mathcal{J}\cos(\theta)}{\sqrt{\lambda(1-q)}},\qquad\theta\in[0,\pi], \tag*{(23)}

such that E0=2Jλ(1−q)E_0=\frac{2\mathcal{J}}{\sqrt{\lambda(1-q)}}. The density of states is also conveniently expressed in terms of θ\theta as

Φ~(θ)dθ=12π(e−i2θ,q)∞(ei2θ,q)∞(q,q)∞dθ,(24)\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)d\theta=\frac{1}{2\pi}(e^{-i2\theta},q)_\infty(e^{i2\theta},q)_\infty(q,q)_\infty d\theta, \tag*{(24)}

where Φ~(θ)=E0Φ(E0cos⁡(θ))sin⁡(θ)\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)=E_0\Phi(E_0\cos(\theta))\sin(\theta). (a,q)n(a,q)_n stands for the q-Pochammer symbol ∏j=1n(1−aqj−1)\prod_{j=1}^{n}(1-aq^{j-1}). The corresponding Lanczos coefficients are given by

bn=J1−qn+1λ(1−q),an=0.(25)b_n=\mathcal{J}\frac{\sqrt{1-q^{n+1}}}{\sqrt{\lambda(1-q)}},\qquad a_n=0. \tag*{(25)}

There is a simple generalization at the level of an effective chord Hamiltonian description given by the measure

Φ~(θ)dθ=12π(e−i2θ,q)∞(ei2θ,q)∞(q,q)∞(κeiθ,q)∞(κe−iθ,q)∞dθ,(26)\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)d\theta=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{(e^{-i2\theta},q)_\infty(e^{i2\theta},q)_\infty(q,q)_\infty}{(\kappa e^{i\theta},q)_\infty(\kappa e^{-i\theta},q)_\infty}d\theta, \tag*{(26)}

and Lanczos coefficients

bn=J1−qn+1λ(1−q),an=κJλ(1−q)qn,(27)b_n=\mathcal{J}\frac{\sqrt{1-q^{n+1}}}{\sqrt{\lambda(1-q)}},\qquad a_n=\frac{\kappa\mathcal{J}}{\sqrt{\lambda(1-q)}}q^n, \tag*{(27)}

which reduces to (24), (25) when κ=0\kappa=0. We restrict to ∣κ∣<1|\kappa|<1 to avoid bound-state contributions.

Combining (17) with (7) gives

vk=E0kZ(β)∫Φ~(θ)e−βE0cos⁡(θ)sin⁡(θ)kdθ.(28)v_k=\frac{E_0^k}{Z(\beta)}\int\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)e^{-\beta E_0\cos(\theta)}\sin(\theta)^k d\theta. \tag*{(28)}

Semiclassical Limit

The semiclassical λ→0\lambda\to0 limit when κ=0\kappa=0 is given by

Z(β)≈12πλ∫dθexp⁡(−1λF+h),(29)Z(\beta)\approx\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi\lambda}}\int d\theta\exp\left(-\frac{1}{\lambda}F+h\right), \tag*{(29)}

where following [43] we call

F=2(θ−π2)+2Jβcos⁡(θ),(30)F=2\left(\theta-\frac{\pi}{2}\right)+2\mathcal{J}\beta\cos(\theta), \tag*{(30)}
h=log⁡(2sin⁡(θ))−Jβcos⁡(θ)2.(31)h=\log(2\sin(\theta))-\frac{\mathcal{J}\beta\cos(\theta)}{2}. \tag*{(31)}

The saddle point is defined by ∂θF∣θ=θs=0\left.\partial_\theta F\right|_{\theta=\theta_s}=0 giving rise to the first equation in (18). It is conveniently parametrized using

u=π2−θs,β(u)=−2uJcos⁡(u),(32)u=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_s,\qquad\beta(u)=-\frac{2u}{\mathcal{J}\cos(u)}, \tag*{(32)}

(18) and (28) imply the classical result vk=(2Jλsin⁡(θs))kv_k=\left(\frac{2\mathcal{J}}{\lambda}\sin(\theta_s)\right)^k. The one-loop Z(β)Z(\beta) is given by [43, 44]

cos⁡(u)1+utan⁡uexp⁡(−2uλ(u−2tan⁡u)+utan⁡u).(33)\frac{\cos(u)}{\sqrt{1+u\tan u}}\exp\left(-\frac{2u}{\lambda}(u-2\tan u)+u\tan u\right). \tag*{(33)}

The one-loop answer is accurate away from the edges, i.e., λ≪π−θs\lambda\ll\pi-\theta_s. Using (33) we write

μ1=2Jsin⁡uλ+μ1(1)+O(λ),(34)\mu_1=\frac{2\mathcal{J}\sin u}{\lambda}+\mu_1^{(1)}+O(\lambda), \tag*{(34)}
μ1(1)=J(2u2tan⁡(u)+u−sin⁡(u)cos⁡(u))4cos⁡(u)(utan⁡(u)+1)2,(35)\mu_1^{(1)}=\frac{\mathcal{J}\left(2u^2\tan(u)+u-\sin(u)\cos(u)\right)}{4\cos(u)(u\tan(u)+1)^2}, \tag*{(35)}
μ2−μ12=J2cos⁡2(u)λ(utan⁡(u)+1)+O(1),(36)\mu_2-\mu_1^2=\frac{\mathcal{J}^2\cos^2(u)}{\lambda(u\tan(u)+1)}+O(1), \tag*{(36)}

where μ1(1)\mu_1^{(1)} is the O(1)O(1) contribution to the energy. To compute the O(λ)O(\lambda) correction to λkvk\lambda^k v_k, it is sufficient to keep μ1\mu_1 up to μ1(1)\mu_1^{(1)} and energy variance to O(1λ)O\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right).

This can be seen by expanding zk(E)=(E02−E2)k/2z_k(E) = (E_0^2-E^2)^{k/2} around μ1\mu_1

λkvk=λkZ(β)∑rzk(r)(μ1)∫Φ(E)(E−μ1)re−βEdE(37)\lambda^k v_k = \frac{\lambda^k}{Z(\beta)} \sum_r z_k^{(r)}(\mu_1) \int\Phi(E)(E-\mu_1)^r e^{-\beta E}dE \tag*{(37)}

where zk(r)z_k^{(r)} is the rrth derivative of zkz_k. It is easy to verify that zk(r)(E)/zk(E)z_k^{(r)}(E)/z_k(E) scales as λr\lambda^r by switching variables to ϵ→λE\epsilon\to\lambda E and by restricting to θs\theta_s away from the edges. From the moment-cumulant formula, it can be seen that the central moment in (37) comes with a leading factor of λ−⌊r/2⌋\lambda^{-\lfloor r/2\rfloor}, which means that rrth term in (37) contributes at λ⌈r/2⌉\lambda^{\lceil r/2\rceil}, taking r≥2r \ge2. To obtain λkvk\lambda^k v_k through O(λp)O(\lambda^p) it suffices to truncate the expansion on the rhs of (37) at r=2pr=2p, while evaluating the semiclassical free energy log⁡Z(β)\log Z(\beta) up to O(λp−1)O(\lambda^{p-1}). The one-loop result computed using (33) is

vk(1)=(2Jcos⁡(u)λ)k(1+λksin⁡2(u)((k−1)utan⁡(u)+k)+2utan⁡(u)+18cos⁡2(u)(utan⁡(u)+1)2).(38)v_k^{(1)} = \left(\frac{2J\cos(u)}{\lambda}\right)^k \left(1+\lambda k\frac{\sin^2(u)((k-1)u\tan(u)+k)+2u\tan(u)+1}{8\cos^2(u)(u\tan(u)+1)^2}\right). \tag*{(38)}

Operator growth

Estimating the timescales— The heuristic derivation in the main text suggests the approximate operator equation

n^(t)≈Bnct+X,(39)\hat{n}(t) \approx Bn_c t + X, \tag*{(39)}

valid for the physical trajectory in the relevant regime, where crucially XX is time-independent. Matching the solution at t=tont=t_{\mathrm{on}} gives

⟨n^(t)⟩=v1t−v12αlog⁡(ω02α)+ω02α,(40)\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle= v_1t-\frac{v_1}{2\alpha}\log\left(\frac{\omega_0}{2\alpha}\right)+\frac{\omega_0}{2\alpha}, \tag*{(40)}

where the intercept can be understood as ⟨X⟩\langle X\rangle. Numerics confirm the scaling of intercept in (40), although the two-parameter model does not exactly give the numerical value of the intercept. (39) implies that ⟨n^(t)2⟩\langle\hat{n}(t)^2\rangle is a quadratic polynomial in tt. Importantly, (39) constrains the coefficients of these polynomials in terms of those of ⟨n^(t)⟩2\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle^2. We write a quadratic polynomial ansatz for the variance

⟨n^(t)⟩2−⟨n^(t)⟩≈A2t2+A1t+A0.(41)\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle^2-\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle\approx A_2t^2+A_1t+A_0. \tag*{(41)}

where A2=v2−v12A_2=v_2-v_1^2. A0A_0 can be approximated by evaluating (41) at t=tont=t_{\mathrm{on}} using the answer from the exponential growth regime, that gives A0≈e4αton=(ω02α)2A_0\approx e^{4\alpha t_{\mathrm{on}}}=\left(\frac{\omega_0}{2\alpha}\right)^2. We empirically find that A1<0A_1<0 and A2≪∣A1∣≪A0A_2\ll|A_1|\ll A_0, which we can attribute to small negative covariance of BncB_{n_c} with XX. This hierarchy of coefficients predicts approximate A0/(v1t)\sqrt{A_0}/(v_1t) decay for parametrically long times and a small negative drift below v2−v12/v1\sqrt{v_2-v_1^2}/v_1, before δn(t)\delta n(t) reaches saturation. These features are confirmed in Figure 1 and Figure S2.

Plot of the approach of $\delta n(t)$ to $\sqrt{v_2-v_1^2}/v_1$

Figure S2. The approach of δn(t)\delta n(t) for (S8) to v2−v12/v1\sqrt{v_2-v_1^2}/v_1 with α=1/15\alpha=1/15.

The XY Spin Chain— We consider isotropic XY Hamiltonian in terms of Pauli matrices σjα\sigma_j^\alpha at site jj:

H=14∑j=1N(σjxσj+1x+σjyσj+1y),(42)H=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left(\sigma_j^x\sigma_{j+1}^x+\sigma_j^y\sigma_{j+1}^y\right), \tag*{(42)}

with periodic boundary conditions, and the N→∞N\to\infty limit of the (unnormalized) two-point function

C(t)=14tr⁡(e−βH)tr⁡(e−βH/2σjz(t)e−βH/2σjz(0)),(43)C(t)=\frac{1}{4\operatorname{tr}(e^{-\beta H})}\operatorname{tr}\left(e^{-\beta H/2}\sigma_j^z(t)e^{-\beta H/2}\sigma_j^z(0)\right), \tag*{(43)}

which was evaluated in [27, 58] as

C(t)=14π2(∫−11dx1−x2cosh⁡(βx/2)cos⁡(tx))2.(44)C(t)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\left(\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{1-x^2}\cosh(\beta x/2)}\cos(tx)\right)^2. \tag*{(44)}

Taking the Fourier transform gives the convolution Φ(E)=(gβ∗gβ)(E)\Phi(E)=(g_\beta*g_\beta)(E) in terms of

gβ(x)=Θ(1−x2)2π1−x2cosh⁡(βx/2),(45)g_\beta(x)=\frac{\Theta(1-x^2)}{2\pi\sqrt{1-x^2}\cosh(\beta x/2)}, \tag*{(45)}

where Θ\Theta is the Heaviside function. The claim ω0=2\omega_0=2 follows directly from the support of gβ(x)g_\beta(x).

Numerics using truncated Jacobi matrix— For numerical computations of complexity, we truncate the matrix MM at ncutn_{\mathrm{cut}}. Consistency of the answers obtained using the cutoff is enforced by ensuring that φn(t)≈0\varphi_n(t)\approx0 (up to numerical precision) for the sampled tt, for nn much smaller than ncutn_{\mathrm{cut}}.

For (44), it is straightforward to sample moments with enough accuracy such that nn is much larger than ncutn_{\mathrm{cut}} and the bnb_n coefficients have converged to ω0/2\omega_0/2 up to small <10−3<10^{-3} fluctuations. To access late times to see the saturation of δn(t)\delta n(t), we padded the numerically computed MM with ω0/2\omega_0/2 along the off-diagonal. We verified that this padding does not change the time-dependence of ⟨n^(t)⟩\langle\hat{n}(t)\rangle to any observable effect in this regime.

Krylov amplitudes from saddle point

The asymptotic form (22) provides a good starting point for computing φn(t)\varphi_n(t)

φn(t)=2E0π∫0πdθΦ~(θ)cos⁡(nθ+γ)e−iE0tcos⁡θ,(46)\varphi_n(t)=\sqrt{\frac{2E_0}{\pi}}\int_0^\pi d\theta\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)}\cos(n\theta+\gamma)e^{-iE_0t\cos\theta}, \tag*{(46)}

using the stationary phase method, where we remind that Φ~(θ)=E0Φ(E0cos⁡θ)sin⁡(θ)\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)=E_0\Phi(E_0\cos\theta)\sin(\theta). We expand the cos⁡(nθ+γ)\cos(n\theta+\gamma) and keep

φn(t)≈2E0π∫0πdθΦ~(θ)e−iF(θ),(47)\varphi_n(t)\approx\sqrt{\frac{2E_0}{\pi}}\int_0^\pi d\theta\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)}e^{-iF(\theta)}, \tag*{(47)}

where we reuse F(θ)F(\theta) to mean

F(θ)=nθ+E0tcos⁡θ+γ(θ).(48)F(\theta)=n\theta+E_0t\cos\theta+\gamma(\theta). \tag*{(48)}

Assuming that ∂θγ(θ)\partial_\theta\gamma(\theta) isn’t negative with a very large modulus, the integrand is localized around ∂θF(θ)=0\partial_\theta F(\theta)=0 for t>0t>0. Now we will further drop ∂θγ(θ)\partial_\theta\gamma(\theta) as a first approximation. This is not necessarily justified, but is done for the sake of simplicity. Then the stationary points are defined by the equation

n=E0tsin⁡θ,(49)n=E_0t\sin\theta, \tag*{(49)}

which has solutions θ1=arcsin⁡(n/E0t)\theta_1=\arcsin(n/E_0t) and θ2=π−θ1\theta_2=\pi-\theta_1. Evaluating ∂θ2F(θ)\partial_\theta^2F(\theta) at the stationary points gives r1:=∂θ2F(θ)∣θ=θ1=−(E0t)2−(n)2r_1:=\partial_\theta^2F(\theta)|_{\theta=\theta_1}=-\sqrt{(E_0t)^2-(n)^2} and r2=−r1r_2=-r_1. The stationary point answer gives

φn(t)≈1(E02t2−n2)14[Φ~(θ1)eiχ+(−1)nΦ~(θ2)e−iχ],(50)\varphi_n(t)\approx\frac{1}{(E_0^2t^2-n^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}}\left[\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta_1)}e^{i\chi}+(-1)^n\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta_2)}e^{-i\chi}\right], \tag*{(50)}

in terms of χ=−nθ1−E02t2−n2+π4\chi=-n\theta_1-\sqrt{E_0^2t^2-n^2}+\frac{\pi}{4}. The overall phase in (S5) should not be trusted because γ\gamma was neglected. (S5) diverges as n=E0tn=E_0t. This signals the breakdown of the Gaussian approximation as the two saddles θ1\theta_1 and θ2\theta_2 merge at π2\frac{\pi}{2}. Expanding F(θ)F(\theta) to cubic order around θ=π2\theta=\frac{\pi}{2} gives the expansion near n=E0tn=E_0t

φn(t)≈e−inπ/22π∫Φ~(θ)e−i(n−E0t)(θ−π2)+E0t6(θ−π2)3 dθ,(51)\varphi_n(t)\approx\frac{e^{-in\pi/2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta)}e^{-i(n-E_0t)(\theta-\frac{\pi}{2})+\frac{E_0t}{6}(\theta-\frac{\pi}{2})^3}\,d\theta, \tag*{(51)}

To get a simple analytical approximation for (S6), we assume that Φ~(θ)\widetilde{\Phi}(\theta) is slowly varying around θ=π2\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}, so that we can approximate the integral by only keeping Φ~(π2)\sqrt{\widetilde{\Phi}(\frac{\pi}{2})} in the Taylor expansion. Then the integral over θ\theta can be cast into the standard Airy integral by extending integration domain to R\mathbb{R}. This gives the answer near n∼E0tn\sim E_0t

φn(t)≈2πΦ~(π/2)(2E0t)13e−inπ2Ai⁡(−ξ),(52)\varphi_n(t)\approx\sqrt{2\pi\widetilde{\Phi}(\pi/2)}\left(\frac{2}{E_0t}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}e^{-in\frac{\pi}{2}}\operatorname{Ai}(-\xi), \tag*{(52)}

where ξ=(2E0t)13(E0t−n)\xi=\left(\frac{2}{E_0t}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}(E_0t-n). (S7) resembles the continuum limit answers obtained by [15]. The oscillatory asymptotics of (S7) matches on to (S5). It is easy to see this for the prefactor. To match the phase we can take and eiχ+e−iχ∼cos⁡(χ)e^{i\chi}+e^{-i\chi}\sim\cos(\chi) and then expand in (E0t−n)/E0t(E_0t-n)/E_0t to get sin⁡(23ξ3/2+π4)\sin\left(\frac{2}{3}\xi^{3/2}+\frac{\pi}{4}\right) which matches the oscillatory piece in the expansion of Ai⁡(−ξ)\operatorname{Ai}(-\xi) for ξ>0\xi>0. (S7) should be matched on to (S5) for some nmatchn_{\mathrm{match}} such that E0t−nmatch≲O(1)(E0t)13E_0t-n_{\mathrm{match}}\lesssim O(1)(E_0t)^{\frac{1}{3}}. Together (S5), (S7) can provide a remarkably good approximation for ∣φn(t)∣2|\varphi_n(t)|^2.

In Figure S1, we present an example for DSSYK. A word of caution is that numerics show that the phase γ(θ)\gamma(\theta) can cause important corrections when taking the λ→0\lambda\to0 limit at fixed tt.

Comparison of $|\varphi_n(t)|^2$ with the approximation

Figure S1. Comparison of ∣φn(t)∣2|\varphi_n(t)|^2 with the combination of (S5) and (S7) matched at nmatch=3770n_{\mathrm{match}}=3770 for DSSYK specified by (25). t=400t=400 and J=1\mathcal{J}=1

Varying bandwidth

We numerically studied complexity dynamics for the measure

Φ(ω)=πe−π∣ω∣2α4α(1−e−πω02α),∣ω∣≤ω0,(53)\Phi(\omega)=\frac{\pi e^{-\frac{\pi|\omega|}{2\alpha}}}{4\alpha\left(1-e^{-\frac{\pi\omega_0}{2\alpha}}\right)},\qquad|\omega|\leq\omega_0, \tag*{(53)}

and Φ(ω)=0\Phi(\omega)=0 for ω>ω0\omega>\omega_0 to substantiate the model following [37]. (S8) shows a distinct discontinuous edge-behavior. We use it to examine cases where α\alpha is held fixed but ω0\omega_0 is allowed to vary, to complement the study of the XY model spectral function where α\alpha varied but ω0\omega_0 was held fixed. Figure S2 confirms that δn(t)\delta_n(t) decays but 1αt\frac{1}{\alpha t} independent of ω0\omega_0, before drifting slightly below its infinite time asymptotic.

Finite size signatures

We numerically study the Hamiltonian

H=−∑j=1N−1σjzσj+1z+1.05∑j=1Nσjx+0.4∑j=1N−2σjxσj+1xσj+2x(54)H=-\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\sigma_j^z\sigma_{j+1}^z+1.05\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sigma_j^x+0.4\sum_{j=1}^{N-2}\sigma_j^x\sigma_{j+1}^x\sigma_{j+2}^x \tag*{(54)}

The three-body interaction is chosen to preserve a spectral reflection symmetry while maintaining nonintegrability. For the initial states considered, this symmetry enforces an=0a_n=0 reducing overall fluctuations. For the system sizes studied, 11≤N≤1411\leq N\leq14, the expected linear-growth regime is not yet clearly resolved.

Nonetheless δn(t)\delta n(t) shows a clear trend that we illustrate with two examples

∣ψ1⟩=12N/2∑n=12N∣En⟩,∣ψ2⟩∝∑n=12Ne−En2/(32)∣En⟩.(55)|\psi_1\rangle=\frac{1}{2^{N/2}}\sum_{n=1}^{2^N}|E_n\rangle,\qquad|\psi_2\rangle\propto\sum_{n=1}^{2^N}e^{-E_n^2/(32)}|E_n\rangle. \tag*{(55)}

The density of states ρ(E)\rho(E) is approximately Gaussian towards the center of the spectrum with variance growing with NN. For ∣ψ1⟩|\psi_1\rangle, Φ(E)=ρ(E)\Phi(E)=\rho(E), while for ∣ψ2⟩|\psi_2\rangle, Φ(E)\Phi(E) has a fixed width σ=4\sigma=4 independent of NN. Since the spectral bandwidth grows linearly with NN, the width of Φ(E)\Phi(E) relative to the bandwidth scales as N−1/2N^{-1/2} and N−1N^{-1}, respectively.

Figure S3 shows δn(t)\delta n(t) for a time window that could become the linear growth regime in larger systems. δn(t)\delta n(t) changes slowly over this window and is seen to become flatter for larger NN. δn\delta n is inversely correlated with the width of Φ(E)\Phi(E) rescaled by the bandwidth. This correlation persists across different Hamiltonians and initial states, but eventually saturates when the width σ\sigma becomes sufficiently small.

Plot of $\delta n(t)$ for $|\psi_1\rangle$ and $|\psi_2\rangle$

Figure S3. δn(t)\delta n(t) for ∣ψ1⟩|\psi_1\rangle (dark blue) and ∣ψ2⟩|\psi_2\rangle (dark orange) evolved by (S9) for N=12N=12 (solid lines) and N=14N=14 (dashed lines).

References

  1. [1]A. Dymarsky and A. Gorsky, Quantum chaos as de-localization in krylov space, Physical Review B 102, 10.1103/physrevb.102.085137 (2020).
  2. [2]P. Caputa, J. M. Magan, and D. Patramanis, Geometry of Krylov complexity, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013041 (2022), arXiv:2109.03824 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2109.03824
  3. [3]A. Dymarsky and M. Smolkin, Krylov complexity in conformal field theory, Physical Review D 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.1081702 (2021).DOI
  4. [4]V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, J. M. Magan, and Q. Wu, Quantum chaos and the complexity of spread of states, Physical Review D 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.046007 (2022).DOI
  5. [5]A. Bhattacharya, P. Nandy, P. P. Nath, and H. Sahu, Operator growth and krylov construction in dissipative open quantum systems, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep12(2022)081 (2022).DOI
  6. [6]B. Bhattacharjee, X. Cao, P. Nandy, and T. Pathak, Krylov complexity in saddle-dominated scrambling, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep05(2022)174 (2022).DOI
  7. [7]V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan, and Q. Wu, Quantum chaos, integrability, and late times in the Krylov basis, Phys. Rev. E 111, 014218 (2025), arXiv:2312.03848 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2312.03848
  8. [8]J. Erdmenger, S.-K. Jian, and Z.-Y. Xian, Universal chaotic dynamics from krylov space, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 10.1007/jhep08(2023)176 (2023).DOI
  9. [9]N. Angelinos, D. Chakraborty, and A. Dymarsky, Temperature dependence in Krylov space, J. Phys. A 59, 235204 (2026), arXiv:2508.19233 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2508.19233
  10. [10]K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Krylov subspace methods for quantum dynamics with time-dependent generators, Physical Review Letters 134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.030401 (2025).DOI
  11. [11]A. Grabarits and A. del Campo, Universal growth of krylov complexity across a quantum phase transition (2026), arXiv:2510.13947 [quant-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2510.13947
  12. [12]D. E. Parker, X. Cao, A. Avdoshkin, T. Scaffidi, and E. Altman, A universal operator growth hypothesis, Physical Review X 9, 10.1103/physrevx.9.041017 (2019).DOI
  13. [13]E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, Krylov complexity (2025), arXiv:2507.06286 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2507.06286
  14. [14]P. Nandy, A. S. Matsuoka-Roubea s, P. Martínez-Azc ona, A. Dymarsky, and A. del Campo, Quantum dynamics in krylov space: Methods and applications, Physics Reports 1125-1128, 1–82 (2025).DOI
  15. [15]J. Barbón, E. Rabinovici, R. Shir, and R. Sinha, On the evolution of operator complexity beyond scrambling, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 10.1007/jhep10(2019)264 (2019).DOI
  16. [16]S.-K. Jian, B. Swingle, and Z.-Y. Xian, Complexity growth of operators in the syk model and in jt gravity, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 10.1007/jhep03(2021)014 (2021).DOI
  17. [17]E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, Operator complexity: a journey to the edge of krylov space, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 10.1007/jhep06(2021)062 (2021).DOI
  18. [18]A. Kar, L. Lamprou, M. Rozali, and J. Sully, Random matrix theory for complexity growth and black hole interiors, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep01(2022)016 (2022).DOI
  19. [19]L. Susskind, Computational complexity and black hole horizons (2014), arXiv:1402.5674 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/1402.5674
  20. [20]D. Stanford and L. Susskind, Complexity and shock wave geometries, Physical Review D 90, 10.1103/physrevd.90.126007 (2014).DOI
  21. [21]D. Chakraborty, Krylov Complexity from Loschmidt Amplitude (2026), arXiv:2607.10921 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2607.10921
  22. [22]G. Szegö, Orthogonal Polynomials, Vol. 23 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1959).
  23. [23]E. Alfinito and M. Beccaria, Higher-loop wormhole length in sine-dilaton gravity from dssyk krylov complexity (2026), arXiv:2606.20220 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2606.20220
  24. [24]L.-C. Qu, A geodesic distance interpretation of lanczos coefficients (2026), arXiv:2608.16982 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2608.16982
  25. [25]L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Phys. Physique Fizika 1, 49 (1964).DOI
  26. [26]R. Perugu, B. Kobrin, M. O. Flynn, and T. Scaffidi, Krylov winding and emergent coherence in operator growth dynamics, Physical Review Letters 136, 10.1103/bt23-4v1t (2026).DOI
  27. [27]A. Avdoshkin, A. Dymarsky, and M. Smolkin, Krylov complexity in quantum field theory, and beyond, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024, 10.1007/jhep06(2024)066 (2024).DOI
  28. [28]S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993).DOI
  29. [29]J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Physical Review D 94, 10.1103/physrevd.94.106002 (2016).DOI
  30. [30]M. Berkooz, P. Narayan, and J. Simón, Chord diagrams, exact correlators in spin glasses and black hole bulk reconstruction, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 10.1007/jhep08(2018)192 (2018).DOI
  31. [31]M. Berkooz, A. Isachenkov, V. Narovlansky, and G. Torrents, Towards a full solution of the large n double-scaled syk model, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 10.1007/jhep03(2019)079 (2019).DOI
  32. [32]M. Berkooz and O. Mamroud, A cordial introduction to double scaled syk, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 036001 (2025).arxiv.org/abs/2407.09396
  33. [33]A. Blommaert, T. G. Mertens, and J. Papalini, The dilaton gravity hologram of double-scaled syk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025, 10.1007/jhep06(2025)050 (2025).DOI
  34. [34]A. Blommaert, A. Levine, T. G. Mertens, J. Papalini, and K. Parmentier, An entropic puzzle in periodic dilaton gravity and dssyk (2025), arXiv:2411.16922 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2411.16922
  35. [35]H. W. Lin, The bulk hilbert space of double scaled syk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep11(2022)060 (2022).
  36. [36]E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, A bulk manifestation of Krylov complexity, JHEP 08, 213, arXiv:2305.04355 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2305.04355
  37. [37]M. Ambrosini, E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, Operator K-complexity in DSSYK: Krylov complexity equals bulk length, JHEP 08, 059, arXiv:2412.15318 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2412.15318
  38. [38]J. Xu, On chord dynamics and complexity growth in double-scaled SYK, JHEP 06, 259, arXiv:2411.04251 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2411.04251
  39. [39]M. P. Heller, J. Papalini, and T. Schuhmann, Krylov spread complexity as holographic complexity beyond jackiw-teitelboim gravity, Physical Review Letters 135, 10.1103/spcr-jgm6 (2025).DOI
  40. [40]S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, Building the holographic dictionary of the DSSYK from chords, complexity & wormholes with matter, JHEP 10, 221, arXiv:2505.22716 [hep-th].
  41. [41]A. Bhattacharya, M. Flory, M. P. Heller, E. Rizza, and T. Schuhmann, The quadratic growth of krylov spread complexity in the btz black hole (2026), arXiv:2608.09922 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2608.09922
  42. [42]Y. Fu, H.-S. Jeong, K.-Y. Kim, and J. F. Pedraza, Toward krylov-based holography in double-scaled syk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2026, 10.1007/jhep05(2026)056 (2026).DOI
  43. [43]K. Okuyama and K. Suzuki, Correlators of double scaled syk at one-loop, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023, 10.1007/jhep05(2023)117 (2023).DOI
  44. [44]A. Goel, V. Narovlansky, and H. Verlinde, Semiclassical geometry in double-scaled SYK, JHEP 11, 093, arXiv:2301.05732 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2301.05732
  45. [45]K. Okuyama, End of the world brane in double scaled SYK, JHEP 08, 053, arXiv:2305.12674 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2305.12674
  46. [46]S. E. Aguilar-Gutierrez, T. Kukolj, and J. Seitz, q-Askey deformations of double-scaled SYK, JHEP 09, 196, arXiv:2605.13956 [hep-th].
  47. [47]H. Rajgadia and J. Xu, Emergent states and algebras from the double-scaling limit of pure states in syk (2026), arXiv:2604.14387 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2604.14387
  48. [48]I. Dumitriu and A. Edelman, Matrix models for beta ensembles, J. Math. Phys. 43, 5830 (2002), arXiv:math-ph/0206043.DOI
  49. [49]V. Balasubramanian, J. M. Magan, and Q. Wu, A tale of two hungarians: Tri diagonalizing random matrices (2022), arXiv:2208.08452 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2208.08452
  50. [50]E. Rabinovici, A. Sánchez-Garrido, R. Shir, and J. Sonner, Krylov complexity from integrability to chaos, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep07(2022)151 (2022).DOI
  51. [51]A. Bhattacharya, O. Parrikar, and V. Singh, A semiclassical hilbert space for random matrix theory (2026), arXiv:2608.23689 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2608.23689
  52. [52]V. Balasubramanian, P. Caputa, O. Parrikar, and V. Singh, Wigner negativity in krylov space and emergent semiclassicality (2026), arXiv:2607.03151 [hep-th].
  53. [53]R. Basu, A. Ganguly, S. Nath, and O. Parrikar, Complexity growth and the krylov-wigner function (2025), arXiv:2402.13694 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2402.13694
  54. [54]R. Basu, P. Chowdhury, A. Ganguly, S. Nath, O. Parrikar, and S. Paul, Wigner negativity, random matrices and gravity (2025), arXiv:2506.02110 [hep-th].arxiv.org/abs/2506.02110
  55. [55]J. Murugan and H. J. R. van Zyl, A Schwinger-Keldysh Formulation of Semiclassical Operator Dynamics (2026), arXiv:2602.02106 [quant-ph].arxiv.org/abs/2602.02106
  56. [56]X.-L. Qi and A. Streicher, Quantum epidemiology: operator growth, thermal effects, and syk, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019, 10.1007/jhep08(2019)012 (2019).DOI
  57. [57]D. Chakraborty and D. Rosa, Revival Dynamics from Equilibrium States: Scars from Chords in SYK, SciPost Phys. 21, 064 (2026), arXiv:2512.16836 [cond-mat.str-el].DOI
  58. [58]T. Niemeijer, Some exact calculations on a chain of spins 12, Physica 36, 377 (1967).

Paper details

vlnc:W_kmexdgup
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents