alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Liouvillian Kramers Degeneracy

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

The Kramers theorem generally guarantees the spectral degeneracy of time-reversal-invariant Hamiltonian operators with half-integer spin, underlying a variety of physical phenomena. Despite its fundamental significance, the Kramers degeneracy has been argued to be absent in Liouvillian superoperators acting on mixed states because of the double structure of the Hilbert space. Here, we instead demonstrate that the interplay of time-reversal symmetry†^† and parity symmetry enforces the Kramers degeneracy in Liouvillians. We explicitly construct dissipative many-body models of interacting fermions and spins exhibiting the Kramers degeneracy and show that their complex spectral statistics follow those of non-Hermitian random matrices in the corresponding symplectic symmetry classes. Of the three fundamental universality classes of non-Hermitian random matrices, the symplectic class has never been realized in symmetry-resolved many-body Liouvillians. Our constructions provide its explicit realizations and spectral signatures of nonintegrability in symplectic open quantum systems.

The Kramers theorem guarantees the degeneracy of energy eigenstates in quantum systems with half-integer spin [1, 2, 3, 4]. Mathematically, it arises from antiunitary time-reversal symmetry with negative sign, which defines the symplectic class in the Wigner-Dyson threefold way of Hermitian random matrices [5, 6, 7] and plays a fundamental role in the characterization of quantum chaos [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The Kramers degeneracy also underlies various condensed matter phenomena, such as the Anderson localization transitions [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] and Z2_2 topological insulator phases [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

Meanwhile, the physics of open quantum systems has attracted considerable interest. Unlike isolated quantum systems, open quantum systems interact with their environment, and the reduced dynamics is no longer governed solely by Hermitian Hamiltonians [27, 28, 29]. Instead, the open quantum dynamics is generally described by Liouvillian superoperators acting on density matrices. Understanding such dynamics is important for protecting quantum coherence against dissipation. By contrast, engineered dissipation can also be useful as a resource for quantum computation and state preparation [30, 31]. In contrast to Hamiltonians, Liouvillians act on operator spaces with a double Hilbert-space structure, giving rise to a richer symmetry framework for open quantum systems [32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41].

The Kramers theorem was extended to generic non-Hermitian operators under generalized time-reversal symmetry†, with negative sign [42, 43]. Although many-body Liouvillians are also non-Hermitian superoperators, their double Hilbert-space structure makes the Kramers degeneracy elusive. Indeed, whereas the Kramers degeneracy was investigated in dissipative fermionic systems at thermal equilibrium within the Lindblad master equation [44], Ref. [45] subsequently argued that the double Hilbert-space structure of many-body Lindbladians excludes the Kramers degeneracy within individual symmetry-resolved subspaces. This issue also has important implications for dissipative quantum chaos [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61]. In particular, the complex spectral statistics of nonintegrable open quantum systems are expected to exhibit the universal behavior of non-Hermitian random matrices in the same symmetry classes. Among the 38 symmetry classes of non-Hermitian random matrices [43, 62], 11 support the Kramers degeneracy, whereas the remaining 27 do not. Consequently, only a restricted subset of universality classes can appear in open quantum systems, if the Kramers degeneracy is indeed forbidden in Liouvillians.

In this Letter, we show how the Kramers degeneracy arises within individual symmetry subspaces of many-body Liouvillians. We find that the argument of Ref. [45] relies on restrictive assumptions about the algebra of symmetry operators and demonstrate that the interplay between time-reversal symmetry† and parity symmetry enforces the Liouvillian Kramers degeneracy. In contrast to Ref. [44], our Liouvillian Kramers degeneracy theorem is independent of particle statistics and applicable to both fermionic and bosonic systems. To illustrate this, we explicitly construct Lindbladian models of interacting fermions and spins exhibiting the Kramers degeneracy. We further show that their complex spectral statistics follow those of non-Hermitian random matrices in the corresponding symmetry classes, providing characterization of nonintegrability for open quantum systems in the symplectic class.

**Kramers theorem.—**Suppose that a generic non-Hermitian operator HH respects time-reversal symmetry† [43]

TH†T−1=H,(1)T H^\dagger T^{-1}=H, \tag*{(1)}

where TT is an antiunitary operator (i.e., TT†=T†T=1T T^\dagger= T^\dagger T = 1 and TzT−1=z∗T z T^{-1}=z^* for z∈Cz \in\mathbb{C}). Although this symmetry is equivalent to time-reversal symmetry THT−1=HT H T^{-1}=H for Hermitian HH, the two symmetries are generally distinct for non-Hermitian HH [63]. Let E∈CE \in\mathbb{C} be an eigenvalue of HH, and ∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle and ∣ψ⟩|\psi\rangle be the corresponding right and left eigenvectors, respectively (i.e., H∣ψ⟩=E∣ψ⟩H|\psi\rangle=E|\psi\rangle, ⟨ψ∣H=E⟨ψ∣\langle\psi|H=E\langle\psi|). Equation (1) leads to

H(T∣ψ⟩)=TH†∣ψ⟩=TE∗∣ψ⟩=E(T∣ψ⟩),(2)H(T|\psi\rangle)=T H^\dagger|\psi\rangle=TE^*|\psi\rangle=E(T|\psi\rangle), \tag*{(2)}

showing that T∣ψ⟩T|\psi\rangle is also a right eigenvector of HH with the same eigenvalue EE.

Depending on T2=+1T^2=+1 or T2=−1T^2=-1, the relevant symmetry class becomes class AI†{}^{\dagger} or AII†{}^{\dagger}, respectively. Specifically, T2=−1T^2=-1 enforces the Kramers degeneracy for arbitrary complex eigenvalues E∈CE\in\mathbb{C} [42, 43]. Indeed, from T†=−TT^{\dagger}=-T, we have

⟨ ⁣⟨ψ∣T†∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩=⟨ ⁣⟨ψ∣T∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩=−⟨ ⁣⟨ψ∣T∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩,(3)\langle\!\langle\psi|T^{\dagger}|\psi\rangle\!\rangle=\langle\!\langle\psi|T|\psi\rangle\!\rangle=-\langle\!\langle\psi|T|\psi\rangle\!\rangle, \tag*{(3)}

leading to ⟨ ⁣⟨ψ∣T∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩=0\langle\!\langle\psi|T|\psi\rangle\!\rangle=0. Accordingly, T∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩T|\psi\rangle\!\rangle is biorthogonal to ∣ψ⟩ ⁣⟩|\psi\rangle\!\rangle [64] and constitutes an independent eigenvector with the same eigenvalue EE, establishing the Kramers degeneracy [65]. The Kramers degeneracy underlies various physical phenomena, such as Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 non-Hermitian topology and skin effect [66, 67, 68, 69]. Furthermore, time-reversal symmetry†{}^{\dagger} governs the fundamental threefold universality classes of non-Hermitian random matrices [70], serving as a non-Hermitian counterpart of the Wigner-Dyson threefold way [5, 6].

In the presence of additional unitary symmetry that commutes with HH, such as parity symmetry considered below, the symmetry classification must be performed separately within each subspace of the corresponding conserved charge. For example, analyzing the full spectrum without resolving these subspaces obscures the characteristic spectral correlations within individual subspaces, since the spectra of different subspaces are generally uncorrelated. For Lindbladians, Ref. [45] argued that the double Hilbert-space structure excludes the Kramers degeneracy within individual symmetry subspaces. By contrast, we below demonstrate the Liouvillian Kramers degeneracy by combining time-reversal symmetry†{}^{\dagger} with parity symmetry.

Liouvillian Kramers theorem.—We consider a Liouvillian superoperator L\mathcal{L} acting on operators X∈BX\in\mathcal{B}, where B\mathcal{B} denotes operator space equipped with the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product. Similar to Eq. (1), we impose time-reversal symmetry†{}^{\dagger} on L\mathcal{L}:

TL†T−1=L,(4)\mathcal{T}\mathcal{L}^{\dagger}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=\mathcal{L}, \tag*{(4)}

where T\mathcal{T} is an antiunitary superoperator satisfying

T2=(−1)N≠1,[(−1)N]2=1(5)\mathcal{T}^2=(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}\ne1,\qquad\left[(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}\right]^2=1 \tag*{(5)}

with a parity superoperator (−1)N(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}. If L\mathcal{L} is irreducible and possesses no conserved quantities, T2\mathcal{T}^2 must take a definite sign of either +1+1 or −1-1. However, since Eqs. (4) and (5) imply [L,(−1)N]=0[\mathcal{L},(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}]=0, the entire operator space decomposes into invariant parity subspaces, for which T2\mathcal{T}^2 takes different signs. Specifically, in the subspace with (−1)N=−1(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}=-1, the Liouvillian L\mathcal{L} respects time-reversal symmetry†{}^{\dagger} with T2=−1\mathcal{T}^2=-1 and thus exhibits the Kramers degeneracy.

In general, physical Liouvillians L\mathcal{L} preserve Hermiticity of operators [i.e., (Lρ)†=Lρ(\mathcal{L}\rho)^{\dagger}=\mathcal{L}\rho for ρ†=ρ∈B\rho^{\dagger}=\rho\in\mathcal{B}]. Accordingly, L\mathcal{L} respects

JLJ−1=L,J2=+1,(6)\mathcal{J}\mathcal{L}\mathcal{J}^{-1}=\mathcal{L},\qquad\mathcal{J}^2=+1, \tag*{(6)}

where J\mathcal{J} is an antiunitary modular conjugation satisfying JX=X†\mathcal{J}X=X^{\dagger} for X∈BX\in\mathcal{B} [41]. The symmetry classification of L\mathcal{L} is determined by the interplay between T\mathcal{T} and J\mathcal{J}, as well as whether parity (−1)N(-1)^{\mathcal{N}} is strong or weak [32, 34]. Weak parity acts on an operator X∈BX\in\mathcal{B} as (−1)NX=(−1)NX(−1)N(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}X=(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}X(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}, with a unitary and Hermitian operator (−1)N∈B(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}\in\mathcal{B}. In the following physical realizations, we take the representation TX=TXT−1\mathcal{T}X=\mathcal{T}X\mathcal{T}^{-1} with T2=±(−1)N\mathcal{T}^2=\pm(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}. Since J\mathcal{J} commutes with (−1)N(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}, J\mathcal{J} is respected within each subspace of (−1)N(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}. Consequently, the Liouvillian L\mathcal{L} belongs to

{class BDI†  (T2=+1) for B+,class DIII†  (T2=−1) for B−,(7)\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\text{class BDI}^{\dagger}\;(\mathcal{T}^2=+1)\text{ for }\mathcal{B}_{+},\\ &\text{class DIII}^{\dagger}\;(\mathcal{T}^2=-1)\text{ for }\mathcal{B}_{-}, \end{aligned} \right. \tag*{(7)}

where B±\mathcal{B}_{\pm} denotes the operator subspace with fixed weak parity (−1)N=±1(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}=\pm1, and the notation of symmetry classes follows the 38-fold classification of non-Hermitian operators [43].

On the other hand, when parity is strong symmetry, the left- and right-acting parity superoperators are separately conserved: (−1)N+X=(−1)N+X(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{+}}X=(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{+}}X and (−1)N−X=X(−1)N−(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{-}}X=X(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{-}}. The operator space then decomposes into four invariant subspaces Bpq\mathcal{B}_{pq} (p,q=±1p,q=\pm1), labeled by the corresponding strong parity (−1)N+(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{+}} and (−1)N−(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{-}}. Within each subspace, the time-reversal superoperator T\mathcal{T} satisfies T2=pq\mathcal{T}^2=pq. Moreover, since modular conjugation J\mathcal{J} exchanges (−1)N+(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{+}} and (−1)N−(-1)^{\mathcal{N}_{-}}, it preserves individual subspace only for pq=1pq=1. Consequently, the relevant symmetry classes are identified as

{class BDI†  (T2=+1) for B++,B−−,class AII†  (T2=−1) for B+−,B−+.(8)\left\{ \begin{aligned} &\text{class BDI}^{\dagger}\;(\mathcal{T}^2=+1)\text{ for }\mathcal{B}_{++},\mathcal{B}_{--},\\ &\text{class AII}^{\dagger}\;(\mathcal{T}^2=-1)\text{ for }\mathcal{B}_{+-},\mathcal{B}_{-+}. \end{aligned} \right. \tag*{(8)}

These constructions circumvent the argument of Ref. [45], which relies on specific assumptions about the representations of symmetry operators. In our constructions, T2=±(−1)N\mathcal{T}^2=\pm(-1)^{\mathcal{N}} yields T2X=(−1)NX(−1)N\mathcal{T}^2X=(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}X(-1)^{\mathcal{N}}. Since T\mathcal{T} preserves each parity subspace of the Hilbert space, T\mathcal{T} acts within B+−\mathcal{B}_{+-} and B−+\mathcal{B}_{-+} separately while squaring to −1-1, enforcing the Kramers degeneracy even within each subspace. Notably, class AII†{}^{\dagger} in Eq. (8) and class DIII†{}^{\dagger} in Eq. (7) were previously argued to be absent from Lindbladians [45]. Below, we explicitly demonstrate their realizations in open quantum systems.

Lindblad master equation.—While the preceding discussion applies to generic Liouvillians, we now consider the Kramers degeneracy in the Lindblad master equation dρ/dt=Lρd\rho/dt=\mathcal{L}\rho, with [27, 28, 29, 72, 73]

Lρ=−i[H,ρ]+∑n[LnρLn†−12{Ln†Ln,ρ}],(9)\mathcal{L}\rho=-i[H,\rho]+\sum_n\left[L_n\rho L_n^{\dagger}-\frac{1}{2}\{L_n^{\dagger}L_n,\rho\}\right], \tag*{(9)}

where HH is a Hermitian Hamiltonian governing the unitary dynamics, and LnL_n’s are jump operators describing the dissipative coupling to the environment. To realize the Lindbladian Kramers degeneracy, we impose time-reversal symmetry on HH, as in Eq. (1). We further require the set of jump operators to be invariant under both time reversal and Hermitian conjugation,

TLmT−1=∑nvnmLn,Lm†=∑nwmnLn,(10)\mathcal{T}L_m\mathcal{T}^{-1}=\sum_n v_{nm}L_n,\qquad L_m^{\dagger}=\sum_n w_{mn}L_n, \tag*{(10)}

where the coefficient matrices vv and ww are unitary. A simple realization of these conditions is provided by the set of jump operators, {M,TMT−1,M†,TM†T−1}\{M,\mathcal{T}M\mathcal{T}^{-1},M^\dagger,\mathcal{T}M^\dagger\mathcal{T}^{-1}\}, where MM denotes an arbitrary operator with definite parity, (−1)NM(−1)N=±M(-1)^N M(-1)^N=\pm M. Defining the time-reversal superoperator T\mathcal{T} by TX:=TXT−1\mathcal{T}X:=\mathcal{T}X\mathcal{T}^{-1} for X∈BX\in\mathcal{B}, we find that the Lindbladian L\mathcal{L} exhibits the Kramers degeneracy in the weak-parity subspace T2=(−1)N=−1\mathcal{T}^2=(-1)^N=-1. In the following, we provide explicit fermionic and bosonic Lindbladians exhibiting the Kramers degeneracy. In the End Matter, we also demonstrate its realization in a random Lindbladian (Appendix A) and an exactly solvable dissipative spinful fermion (Appendix B).

Dissipative interacting fermions.— Let us consider the Hilbert space consisting of spinful complex fermions cmσc_{m\sigma} (m=1,2,⋯ ,Mm=1,2,\cdots,M; σ=↑,↓\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow). Time reversal is implemented by the antiunitary transformation,

Tcm↑T−1=cm↓,Tcm↓T−1=−cm↑,(11)\mathcal{T}c_{m\uparrow}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=c_{m\downarrow},\qquad\mathcal{T}c_{m\downarrow}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=-c_{m\uparrow}, \tag*{(11)}

satisfying

T2=(−1)N,N:=∑mσnmσ=∑mσcmσ†cmσ.(12)\mathcal{T}^{2}=(-1)^N,\qquad N:=\sum_{m\sigma}n_{m\sigma}=\sum_{m\sigma}c^\dagger_{m\sigma}c_{m\sigma}. \tag*{(12)}

We take the Hamiltonian to be

H=12(HSYK+THSYKT−1)−μN(μ∈R),(13)H=\frac{1}{2}\left(H_{\mathrm{SYK}}+\mathcal{T}H_{\mathrm{SYK}}\mathcal{T}^{-1}\right)-\mu N\qquad(\mu\in\mathbb{R}), \tag*{(13)}

which respects time-reversal symmetry in Eq. (1) by construction. Here, HSYKH_{\mathrm{SYK}} denotes the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model [74, 75, 76, 77, 78]

HSYK=∑1≤a<b<c<d≤4MJabcdψaψbψcψd,(14)H_{\mathrm{SYK}}=\sum_{1\leq a<b<c<d\leq4M}J_{abcd}\psi_a\psi_b\psi_c\psi_d, \tag*{(14)}

where ψa\psi_a’s (a=1,2,⋯ ,4Ma=1,2,\cdots,4M) are Majorana fermion operators ({ψa,ψb}=δab\{\psi_a,\psi_b\}=\delta_{ab}, ψa†=ψa\psi_a^\dagger=\psi_a) constructed from cmσc_{m\sigma}, and the real-valued couplings Jabcd∈RJ_{abcd}\in\mathbb{R} are independently drawn from the Gaussian distribution N(0,3!J2/(4M)3)\mathcal{N}(0,3!J^2/(4M)^3) (J≥0J\geq0).

from the Gaussian distribution N(0,3!J2/(4M)3)\mathcal{N}(0,3!J^2/(4M)^3) (J≥0J\geq0). While HSYKH_{\mathrm{SYK}} may possess additional symmetry [79, 80, 81, 82], the chemical potential term −μN≠0-\mu N\ne0 breaks such symmetry.

We introduce random dephasing through the jump operators

Lmσ=γmnmσ(γm≥0),(15)L_{m\sigma}=\sqrt{\gamma_m}n_{m\sigma}\qquad(\gamma_m\geq0), \tag*{(15)}

which transform under time reversal and Hermitian conjugation as

TLm↑T−1=Lm↓,TLm↓T−1=Lm↑;Lmσ†=Lmσ,(16)\mathcal{T}L_{m\uparrow}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=L_{m\downarrow},\qquad\mathcal{T}L_{m\downarrow}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=L_{m\uparrow};\qquad L_{m\sigma}^{\dagger}=L_{m\sigma}, \tag*{(16)}

satisfying Eq. (10). Consequently, the Lindbladian exhibits the Kramers degeneracy in the subspace of weak fermion parity (−1)N=−1(-1)^N=-1. Furthermore, these jump operators preserve strong fermion parity [i.e., (−1)NLmσ(−1)N=Lmσ(-1)^N L_{m\sigma}(-1)^N=L_{m\sigma}], and the symmetry classification follows Eq. (8).

In Figure 1(a), we show the complex Lindbladian spectra for B++\mathcal{B}_{++} and B+−\mathcal{B}_{+-}. In our numerical calculations, we sample the dephasing rates γm\gamma_m independently and uniformly from [0.05,0.45][0.05,0.45] for each mm. The overall spectra form a characteristic lemon-shaped structure, reminiscent of that observed in random Lindbladians [49, 50]. Whereas the spectrum in B++\mathcal{B}_{++} is symmetric about the real axis, that in B+−\mathcal{B}_{+-} lacks this symmetry, consistent with the presence or absence of modular conjugation symmetry. To test the strongly correlated nature of the Lindbladian, we investigate the distributions of complex spacing ratios η=reiθ\eta=re^{i\theta} [53, 71]. Given a reference eigenvalue z∈Cz\in\mathbb{C}, let zNN∈Cz_{\mathrm{NN}}\in\mathbb{C} and zNNN∈Cz_{\mathrm{NNN}}\in\mathbb{C} denote its nearest- and next-to-nearest-neighbor eigenvalues, respectively. Then, we define η\eta as

Complex spectrum and probability densities

Figure 1. Dissipative interacting fermions for strong parity (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_{-}}=+1 (blue) and (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_{-}}=-1 (orange) (M=3M=3, J=1.0J=1.0, μ=0.05\mu=0.05, γm=0.25+2εm\gamma_m=0.25+2\varepsilon_m; εm\varepsilon_m is an independent random variable uniformly distributed on [−0.1,0.1][-0.1,0.1]). (a) Complex spectrum for a single realization. (b, c) Probability densities of the (b) modulus rr and (c) argument θ\theta of complex spacing ratios reiθre^{i\theta}. ⟨r⟩=0.7220±0.0002\langle r\rangle=0.7220\pm0.0002 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.1922±0.0007\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.1922\pm0.0007 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_{-}}=+1, and ⟨r⟩=0.7488±0.0003\langle r\rangle=0.7488\pm0.0003 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.2723±0.0008\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.2723\pm0.0008 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_{-}}=-1. The densities are numerically obtained by averaging over 5000 independent realizations, restricted to the central 50% away from the real axis for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_{-}}=+1, and the central 30% including the real axis for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_{+}}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_{-}}=-1. Black dashed curves: non-Hermitian random matrices in classes A, AI†^\dagger, and AII†^\dagger[71].

η:=zNN−zzNNN−z=reiθ∈C,(17)\eta:=\frac{z_{\mathrm{NN}}-z}{z_{\mathrm{NNN}}-z}=re^{i\theta}\in\mathbb{C}, \tag*{(17)}

whose statistics characterize the local geometry and correlations of the complex spectrum. In B+−\mathcal{B}_{+-}, each complex eigenvalue forms a Kramers pair, which is counted only once for calculations of η\eta. In Figure 1 (b, Figure 1c), we show the probability densities of rr and θ\theta, which agree well with those for non-Hermitian random matrices with time-reversal symmetry1. Specifically, the negative weak-fermion-parity subspace (−1)N=−1(-1)^{N}=-1 realizes the symplectic random-matrix statistics coexisting with the Kramers degeneracy, providing the spectral signatures of nonintegrability for open quantum systems in the symplectic class.

Dissipative spin chain.—Beyond fermionic systems, our Liouvillian Kramers theorem also applies to bosonic systems. As an explicit realization, we construct a dissipative quantum spin chain exhibiting the Kramers degeneracy. Let XnX_n, YnY_n, and ZnZ_n denote Pauli matrices at site nn (n=1,2,⋯ ,Ln=1,2,\cdots,L) of a spin-1/2 chain with even length L≥4L\ge4. We choose the Hamiltonian as

H=∑n=1L−1[Jn⊥(XnXn+1+YnYn+1)+JnzZnZn+1+D(XnYn+1−YnXn+1)],(18)H=\sum_{n=1}^{L-1}\left[J_n^{\perp}\left(X_nX_{n+1}+Y_nY_{n+1}\right)+J_n^{z}Z_nZ_{n+1}+D\left(X_nY_{n+1}-Y_nX_{n+1}\right)\right], \tag*{(18)}

where Jn⊥J_n^{\perp} and JnzJ_n^{z} are the bond-dependent transverse and longitudinal exchange interactions, respectively, and DD is the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction along the zz direction. We further introduce the jump operators

Ln=γ[Zn+κ(XnXn+1−YnYn+1)](19)L_n=\sqrt{\gamma}\left[Z_n+\kappa\left(X_nX_{n+1}-Y_nY_{n+1}\right)\right] \tag*{(19)}

for n=1,2,⋯ ,L−1n=1,2,\cdots,L-1, with κ∈R\kappa\in\mathbb{R}. The two-spin terms in the jumps break conservation of magnetization ∑nZn\sum_n Z_n while preserving parity ∏nZn\prod_n Z_n.

In contrast to the preceding fermionic model, the relevant antiunitary operation is not conventional spin time reversal but its combination with a uniform π/2\pi/2 rotation about the zz axis. Specifically, we introduce an effective antiunitary time-reversal operator

T:=[∏n=1LXn−Yn2]K,(20)T:=\left[\prod_{n=1}^{L}\frac{X_n-Y_n}{\sqrt{2}}\right]\mathcal{K}, \tag*{(20)}

satisfying

T2=(−1)L/2(−1)N,(−1)N:=∏n=1LZn.(21)T^2=(-1)^{L/2}(-1)^N,\qquad(-1)^N:=\prod_{n=1}^{L}Z_n. \tag*{(21)}

Under this effective time reversal, the Hamiltonian HH is invariant as in Eq. (1), and the jump operators satisfy TLnT−1=−LnTL_nT^{-1}=-L_n. Accordingly, the resulting Lindbladian exhibits the Kramers degeneracy in the weak-parity subspace (−1)N=−1(-1)^N=-1. Similarly to the fermionic model, the jump operators also preserve strong parity [i.e., (−1)NLn(−1)N=Ln(-1)^N L_n(-1)^N=L_n], leading to the symmetry classification in Eq. (8). Notably, in the discussion following Eq. (46) of Ref. [45], η1,2\eta_{1,2} defined through q1,2=η1,2q1,2∗q_{1,2}=\eta_{1,2}q_{1,2}^{*} are assumed to be unimodular complex numbers (i.e., proportional to the identity), where

q1,2q_{1,2} correspond to the unitary part UTU_T of T:=UTKT:=U_T\mathcal{K}. By contrast, UTU_T in our model satisfies UT=(−1)L/2(−1)NUT∗U_T=(-1)^{L/2}(-1)^N U_T^{*}, violating the assumption made in Ref. [45].

In Figure 2, we investigate the complex-spacing-ratio distributions, focusing on the complex eigenvalues around the spectral center Tr⁡Lpq/Tr⁡1=−γ(1+2κ2)(L−1)\operatorname{Tr}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{pq}}/\operatorname{Tr}1=-\gamma(1+2\kappa^2)(L-1). These probability distributions show good agreement with the random-matrix distributions in the corresponding symmetry classes, despite deviations near r=1r=1 within B+,−\mathcal{B}_{+,-}. Notably, the dissipative quantum spin chain considered here is spatially local, and the corresponding Lindbladians Lpq\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{pq}} are represented by sparse matrices, as opposed to dense random matrices. Nevertheless, the complex spectral statistics of Lpq\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{pq}} exhibit the random-matrix universality, providing a spectral diagnostic of nonintegrability for open quantum systems in the symplectic class.

Dissipative quantum spin chain probability densities

Figure 2. Dissipative quantum spin chain for strong parity (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_-}=+1 (blue) and (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_-}=-1 (orange) [L=6L=6, Jn⊥=1.0(1+ϵn)J_n^{\perp}=1.0(1+\epsilon_n), Jnz=0.7(1+ϵn′)J_n^{z}=0.7(1+\epsilon'_n), D=0.7D=0.7, γ=1.0\gamma=1.0, κ=0.85\kappa=0.85; ϵn\epsilon_n and ϵn′\epsilon'_n are independent random variables uniformly distributed on [−0.1,0.1][-0.1,0.1]]. Probability densities of the (a) modulus rr and (b) argument θ\theta of complex spacing ratios reiθre^{i\theta}, ⟨r⟩=0.7234±0.0004\langle r\rangle=0.7234\pm0.0004 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.1937±0.0012\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.1937\pm0.0012 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_-}=+1, and ⟨r⟩=0.7439±0.0003\langle r\rangle=0.7439\pm0.0003 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.2841±0.0007\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.2841\pm0.0007 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_-}=-1. The densities are numerically obtained by averaging over 5000 independent realizations, restricted to the spectral window ∣Re⁡λ+12.225∣<4|\operatorname{Re}\lambda+12.225|<4, 4<Im⁡λ<64<\operatorname{Im}\lambda<6 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=+1(-1)^{N_-}=+1, and ∣Re⁡λ+12.225∣<4|\operatorname{Re}\lambda+12.225|<4, ∣Im⁡λ∣<4|\operatorname{Im}\lambda|<4 for (−1)N+=+1(-1)^{N_+}=+1, (−1)N−=−1(-1)^{N_-}=-1.

Discussion.—We have established the Kramers degeneracy theorem for Liouvillians and demonstrated their random-matrix universality in the symplectic class. While we have identified classes AII†^{\dagger} and DIII†^{\dagger} as the simplest realizations, additional symmetry can yield a broader range of symplectic classes, which can be distinguished through the spectral statistics around the symmetry-invariant lines and point [83]. As in isolated quantum systems, the Liouvillian Kramers degeneracy can underlie unique phenomena of open quantum systems. Although a stationary density matrix can always be chosen in the (−1)N=+1(-1)^N=+1 subspace, the (−1)N=−1(-1)^N=-1 subspace contains no density matrices. Nevertheless, the Kramers pairs describe independent dynamical modes, which can be probed through two-time correlations of (−1)N=−1(-1)^N=-1 operators. Our results also motivate revisiting the fragility of time-reversalinvariant topological insulators in open quantum systems [37] and exploring possible connections to symmetry fractionalization [84].

K.K. is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants No. JP26H02015, No. JP26K06970, No. JP26K17046, and JST FOREST Program Grant No. JPMJFR256P.

End Matter

Symplectic random Lindbladian

In a similar manner to Refs. [49, 50], we construct a random-matrix model of a Lindbladian exhibiting the Kramers degeneracy. Let 4D4D (D∈ND\in\mathbb{N}) be the dimension of the Hilbert space. We take the Hamiltonian to be

H=(HGOE00HGSE)(22)H=\begin{pmatrix} H_{\mathrm{GOE}} & 0 \\ 0 & H_{\mathrm{GSE}} \end{pmatrix} \tag*{(22)}

where HGOEH_{\mathrm{GOE}} and HGSEH_{\mathrm{GSE}} are 2D×2D2D\times2D Hermitian random matrices drawn from the Gaussian orthogonal and symplectic ensembles, respectively. Specifically, introducing Hermitian random matrices G±G_{\pm} with the entries

(G±)ij={∼N(0,1)(i=j),∼NC(0,1)(i<j),=(G±)ji∗(i>j),(23)(G_{\pm})_{ij}=\begin{cases} \sim\mathcal{N}(0,1) & (i=j),\\ \sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1) & (i<j),\\ =(G_{\pm})_{ji}^{*} & (i>j), \end{cases} \tag*{(23)}

we define

HGOE=h2(2D+1)(G++G+∗),(24)H_{\mathrm{GOE}}=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2(2D+1)}}(G_{+}+G_{+}^{*}), \tag*{(24)}
HGSE=h2(2D−1)(G−+ΣyG−∗Σy)(25)H_{\mathrm{GSE}}=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2(2D-1)}}(G_{-}+\Sigma_{y}G_{-}^{*}\Sigma_{y}) \tag*{(25)}

with h∈Rh\in\mathbb{R} and Σy:=σy⊗1D\Sigma_{y}:=\sigma_{y}\otimes1_{D}. Here, N(0,1)\mathcal{N}(0,1) [NC(0,1)\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1)] denotes a real (complex) Gaussian distribution with Ez=0\mathbb{E}z=0 and E∣z∣2=1\mathbb{E}|z|^{2}=1. We choose the jump operators as

L1=γ2(0A−ΣyAT0),L2=L1†(γ≥0),(26)L_{1}=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{2}}\begin{pmatrix}0&A\\-\Sigma_{y}A^{T}&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad L_{2}=L_{1}^{\dagger}\qquad(\gamma\geq0), \tag*{(26)}

where AA is a non-Hermitian random matrix drawn from the Ginibre unitary ensemble, with the independent entries distributed according to Aij∼NC(0,1/2D)A_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}_{\mathbb{C}}(0,1/2D).

The Hamiltonian HH respects time-reversal symmetry in Eq. (1), implemented by the antiunitary operator

T:=(12D00iΣy)K.(27)\mathcal{T}:=\begin{pmatrix}1_{2D}&0\\0&i\Sigma_{y}\end{pmatrix}\mathcal{K}. \tag*{(27)}

Here, T2=Σz:=σz⊗12D\mathcal{T}^{2}=\Sigma_{z}:=\sigma_{z}\otimes1_{2D} defines a parity operator. Moreover, the jump operators transform into each other under time reversal and Hermitian conjugation [Eq. (10)]:

TL1T−1=iL2,TL2T−1=−iL1;(28)\mathcal{T}L_{1}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=iL_{2},\qquad\mathcal{T}L_{2}\mathcal{T}^{-1}=-iL_{1}; \tag*{(28)}
L1†=L2,L2†=L1.(29)L_{1}^{\dagger}=L_{2},\qquad L_{2}^{\dagger}=L_{1}. \tag*{(29)}

Consequently, the Liouvillian exhibits the Kramers degeneracy in the subspace of weak parity T2=−1\mathcal{T}^{2}=-1.

In Figure 3 (a), we show the complex spectrum for a single realization. In both weak-parity subspaces, the complex spectrum is symmetric about the real axis, owing to modular conjugation symmetry. We also note that we have EHGOE2=EHGSE2=h212D\mathbb{E}H_{\mathrm{GOE}}^{2}=\mathbb{E}H_{\mathrm{GSE}}^{2}=h^{2}1_{2D} and E(L1†L1+L2†L2)=γ14D\mathbb{E}(L_{1}^{\dagger}L_{1}+L_{2}^{\dagger}L_{2})=\gamma1_{4D}. Accordingly, choosing hh and γ\gamma to be constants of order unity ensures that the Hamiltonian and dissipation contributions have comparable characteristic scales. In Figure 3 (b, Figure 3c), we show the complex-spacing ratio distributions, which agree with those of non-Hermitian random matrices in class AI†^{\dagger} (AII†^{\dagger}) for weak parity +1+1 (−1-1). Reference [45] argued that time-reversal symmetry†^{\dagger} in Eq. (4) with T2=−1\mathcal{T}^{2}=-1 always leads to strong symmetry of Lindbladians. However, our random symplectic Lindbladian exhibits the Kramers degeneracy protected by time-reversal symmetry†^{\dagger} with T2=−1\mathcal{T}^{2}=-1, despite the absence of strong symmetry.

Symplectic random Lindbladian spectra and spacing-ratio probability densities

Figure 3. Symplectic random Lindbladian for weak parity T2=+1\mathcal{T}^{2}=+1 (blue) and T2=−1\mathcal{T}^{2}=-1 (orange) (D=20D=20, h=γ=1h=\gamma=1). (a) Complex spectrum for a single realization. (b, c) Probability densities of the (b) modulus rr and (c) argument θ\theta of complex spacing ratios reiθre^{i\theta}. ⟨r⟩=0.7228±0.0014\langle r\rangle=0.7228\pm0.0014 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.189±0.004\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.189\pm0.004 for T2=+1\mathcal{T}^{2}=+1, and ⟨r⟩=0.7487±0.0018\langle r\rangle=0.7487\pm0.0018 and ⟨cos⁡θ⟩=−0.276±0.006\langle\cos\theta\rangle=-0.276\pm0.006 for T2=−1\mathcal{T}^{2}=-1. The densities are numerically obtained by averaging over 1000 independent realizations, restricted to the spectral window −1.3<Re⁡λ<−0.9-1.3<\operatorname{Re}\lambda<-0.9 and 0.8<Im⁡λ<1.60.8<\operatorname{Im}\lambda<1.6. Black dashed curves: non-Hermitian random matrices in classes A, AI†^{\dagger}, and AII†^{\dagger}[71].

Exactly solvable dissipative spinful fermion

We illustrate the Lindbladian Kramers degeneracy with a single spinful orbital, described by fermion operators c↑c_{\uparrow} and c↓c_{\downarrow}. We take the Hamiltonian to be

H=μ(n↑+n↓)+Un↑n↓+Δ(c↑†c↓†+c↓c↑),(30)H=\mu(n_{\uparrow}+n_{\downarrow})+Un_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow}+\Delta(c_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}+c_{\downarrow}c_{\uparrow}), \tag*{(30)}

with μ\mu, UU, Δ∈R\Delta\in\mathbb{R} and nσ:=cσ†cσn_{\sigma} := c_{\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{\sigma}. This Hamiltonian respects time-reversal symmetry in Eq. (1) with

T:=e−iπSyK=e−(π/2)(c↑†c↓−c↓†c↑)K.(31)T := e^{-i\pi S^{y}}\mathcal{K}=e^{-(\pi/2)(c_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{\downarrow}-c_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{\uparrow})}\mathcal{K}. \tag*{(31)}

Although the superconducting pairing term breaks particle-number conservation, fermion parity remains preserved:

(−1)NH(−1)N=H,(−1)N:=(−1)c↑†c↑+c↓†c↓.(32)(-1)^{N}H(-1)^{N}=H,\qquad(-1)^{N}:=(-1)^{c_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{\uparrow}+c_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{\downarrow}}. \tag*{(32)}

We introduce a set of four jump operators {L,L~,L†,L~†}\{L,\widetilde{L},L^{\dagger},\widetilde{L}^{\dagger}\}

L=c↑+ac↑†+ibc↑n↓,(33)L=c_{\uparrow}+ac_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}+ibc_{\uparrow}n_{\downarrow}, \tag*{(33)}
L~=TLT−1=c↓+ac↓†−ibc↓n↑(34)\widetilde{L}=TLT^{-1}=c_{\downarrow}+ac_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}-ibc_{\downarrow}n_{\uparrow} \tag*{(34)}

with a,b∈Ra,b\in\mathbb{R}. The jump LL coherently combines single-fermion loss and gain for up spin, with the loss amplitude 1+ibn↓1+ibn_{\downarrow} depending on the occupation of down spin. Since these jump operators change fermion parity, the resulting Lindbladian only preserves weak fermion parity (−1)N(-1)^{N}. By construction, this set of jump operators is closed under both time reversal and Hermitian conjugation [Eq. (10)]. Consequently, the Lindbladian exhibits the Kramers degeneracy in the subspace of weak fermion parity (−1)N=−1(-1)^{N}=-1.

Specifically, the characteristic polynomials χ±(λ):=det⁡(λ−L±)\chi_{\pm}(\lambda):=\det(\lambda-\mathcal{L}_{\pm}) in the respective weak-fermion-parity subspaces are given as

χ+(λ)=λ(λ+Γ)3{(λ+Γ)(λ+2Γ)[(λ+Γ)2+(2μ+U)2−4a2(b2+4)+4Δ2]−2b4[(λ+Γ)2+(2μ+U)2−4a2(b2+4)]}.(35)\chi_{+}(\lambda)=\lambda(\lambda+\Gamma)^{3}\left\{(\lambda+\Gamma)(\lambda+2\Gamma)\left[(\lambda+\Gamma)^{2}+(2\mu+U)^{2}-4a^{2}(b^{2}+4)+4\Delta^{2}\right]-2b^{4}\left[(\lambda+\Gamma)^{2}+(2\mu+U)^{2}-4a^{2}(b^{2}+4)\right]\right\}. \tag*{(35)}
χ−(λ)={(λ+Γ)4+[2Δ2+(2μ+U)2+U2−Γ22−2a2(b2+4)](λ+Γ)2+b2[4a2b2−U(2μ+U)](λ+Γ)+[Δ2+μ(μ+U)+(a2−1)2−b2−b44]2+b2(b2+4)[(μ+U2)2+(a2−1)2]+a2b2[32(a2+1)−b4−4μ2]−(4a2+b2)U2}2.(36)\begin{aligned} \chi_{-}(\lambda)=\Biggl\{&(\lambda+\Gamma)^{4}+\left[2\Delta^{2}+\frac{(2\mu+U)^{2}+U^{2}-\Gamma^{2}}{2}-2a^{2}(b^{2}+4)\right](\lambda+\Gamma)^{2}\\ &+b^{2}\left[4a^{2}b^{2}-U(2\mu+U)\right](\lambda+\Gamma)+\left[\Delta^{2}+\mu(\mu+U)+(a^{2}-1)^{2}-b^{2}-\frac{b^{4}}{4}\right]^{2}\\ &+b^{2}(b^{2}+4)\left[\left(\mu+\frac{U}{2}\right)^{2}+(a^{2}-1)^{2}\right]+a^{2}b^{2}\left[32(a^{2}+1)-b^{4}-4\mu^{2}\right]-(4a^{2}+b^{2})U^{2}\Biggr\}^{2}. \tag*{(36)} \end{aligned}

with Γ:=2(1+a2)+b2\Gamma:=2(1+a^{2})+b^{2}. The perfect-square form of χ−\chi_{-} demonstrates the Kramers degeneracy.

References

  1. [1]H. A. Kramers, Théorie générale de la rotation paramagnétique dans les cristaux, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. 33, 959 (1930).
  2. [2]E. Wigner, Über die Operation der Zeitumkehr in der Quantenmechanik, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen 1932, 546 (1932).
  3. [3]J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2020).
  4. [4]H. Tasaki, Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Many-Body Systems (Springer, Cham, 2020).DOI
  5. [5]E. P. Wigner, On the statistical distribution of the widths and spacings of nuclear resonance levels, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 47, 790 (1951); On the Distribution of the Roots of Certain Symmetric Matrices, Ann. Math. 67, 325 (1958).DOI
  6. [6]F. J. Dyson, The Threefold Way. Algebraic Structure of Symmetry Groups and Ensembles in Quantum Mechanics, J. Math. Phys. 3, 1199 (1962).DOI
  7. [7]M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004).
  8. [8]M. V. Berry and M. Tabor, Level clustering in the regular spectrum, Proc. R. Soc. A 356, 375 (1977).DOI
  9. [9]O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Characterization of Chaotic Quantum Spectra and Universality of Level Fluctuation Laws, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1 (1984).
  10. [10]F. Haake, S. Gnutzmann, and M. Kuś, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018).
  11. [11]R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Many-Body Localization and Thermalization in Quantum Statistical Mechanics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 15 (2015).DOI
  12. [12]L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016).DOI
  13. [13]S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaka, Spin-Orbit Interaction and Magnetoresistance in the Two Dimensional Random System, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63, 707 (1980).DOI
  14. [14]T. Ando, Numerical study of spin dependent effects on localization in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 40, 5325 (1989).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9992560
  15. [15]T. Kawarabayashi, T. Ohtsuki, K. Slevin, and Y. Ono, Anderson Transition in Three-Dimensional Disordered Systems with Symplectic Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3593 (1996).DOI
  16. [16]Y. Asada, K. Slevin, and T. Ohtsuki, Anderson Transition in Two-Dimensional Systems with Spin-Orbit Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 256601 (2002).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12484908
  17. [17]K. Efetov, Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996).
  18. [18]F. Evers and A. D. Mirlin, Anderson transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1355 (2008).
  19. [19]C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Quantum Spin Hall Effect in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005); Z2 Topological Order and the Quantum Spin Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16384250
  20. [20]R. Roy, Z2 classification of quantum spin Hall systems: An approach using time-reversal invariance, Phys. Rev. B 79, 195321 (2009); Topological phases and the quantum spin Hall effect inDOI
  21. [21]J. E. Moore and L. Balents, Topological invariants of time-reversal-invariant band structures, Phys. Rev. B 75, 121306(R) (2007).DOI
  22. [22]L. Fu, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Topological Insulators in Three Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 106803 (2007).
  23. [23]B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum Spin Hall Effect and Topological Phase Transition in HgTe Quantum Wells, Science 314, 1757 (2006).
  24. [24]M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010).
  25. [25]X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011).DOI
  26. [26]C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Classification of topological quantum matter with symmetries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016).DOI
  27. [27]M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
  28. [28]H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).DOI
  29. [29]A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012).
  30. [30]F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation, Nat. Phys. 5, 633 (2009).DOI
  31. [31]S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nat. Phys. 4, 878 (2008).DOI
  32. [32]B. Buča and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry reductions of the Lindblad equation: transport in constrained open spin chains, New J. Phys. 14, 073007 (2012).DOI
  33. [33]T. Prosen, PT-Symmetric Quantum Liouvillian Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 090404 (2012).DOI
  34. [34]V. V. Albert and L. Jiang, Symmetries and conserved quantities in Lindblad master equations, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022118 (2014).DOI
  35. [35]F. Minganti, A. Biella, N. Bartolo, and C. Ciuti, Spectral theory of Liouvillians for dissipative phase transitions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042118 (2018).DOI
  36. [36]S. Lieu, M. McGinley, and N. R. Cooper, Tenfold Way for Quadratic Lindbladians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040401 (2020).DOI
  37. [37]M. McGinley and N. R. Cooper, Fragility of time-reversal symmetry protected topological phases, Nat. Phys. 16, 1181 (2020).DOI
  38. [38]A. Altland, M. Fleischhauer, and S. Diehl, Symmetry Classes of Open Fermionic Quantum Matter, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021037 (2021).
  39. [39]D. Roberts, A. Lingenfelter, and A. A. Clerk, Hidden Time-Reversal Symmetry, Quantum Detailed Balance and Exact Solutions of Driven-Dissipative Quantum Systems, PRX Quantum 2, 020336 (2021).
  40. [40]M. Kawasaki, K. Mochizuki, and H. Obuse, Topological phases protected by shifted sublattice symmetry in dissipative quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 106, 035408 (2022).DOI
  41. [41]K. Kawabata, A. Kulkarni, J. Li, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Symmetry of Open Quantum Systems: Classification of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, PRX Quantum 4, 030328 (2023).DOI
  42. [42]M. Sato, K. Hasebe, K. Esaki, and M. Kohmoto, Time-Reversal Symmetry in Non-Hermitian Systems, Prog. Theor. Phys. 127, 937 (2012); K. Esaki, M. Sato, K. Hasebe, and M. Kohmoto, Edge states and topological phases in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B 84, 205128 (2011).DOI
  43. [43]K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, M. Ueda, and M. Sato, Symmetry and Topology in Non-Hermitian Physics, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041015 (2019).DOI
  44. [44]S. Lieu, M. McGinley, O. Shtanko, N. R. Cooper, and A. V. Gorshkov, Kramers’ degeneracy for open systems in thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B 105, L121104 (2022).DOI
  45. [45]L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Symmetry Classification of Many-Body Lindbladians: Tenfold Way and Beyond, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031019 (2023).
  46. [46]R. Grobe, F. Haake, and H.-J. Sommers, Quantum Distinction of Regular and Chaotic Dissipative Motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1899 (1988); R. Grobe and F. Haake, University of cubiclevel repulsion for dissipative quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2893 (1989).pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10038927
  47. [47]F. Haake, F. Izrailev, N. Lehmann, D. Saher, and H.-J. Sommers, Statistics of complex levels of random matrices for decaying systems, Z. Physik B 88, 359 (1992).DOI
  48. [48]R. Hamazaki, K. Kawabata, and M. Ueda, Non-Hermitian Many-Body Localization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 090603 (2019).DOI
  49. [49]S. Denisov, T. Laptyeva, W. Tarnowski, D. Chruściński, and K. Życzkowski, Universal Spectra of Random Lindblad Operators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140403 (2019).DOI
  50. [50]T. Can, Random Lindblad dynamics, J. Phys. A 52, 485302 (2019).
  51. [51]L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Spectral and steady-state properties of random Liouvillians, J. Phys. A 53, 305303 (2020).DOI
  52. [52]G. Akemann, M. Kieburg, A. Mielke, and T. Prosen, Universal Signature from Integrability to Chaos in Dissipative Open Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 254101 (2019).
  53. [53]L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and T. Prosen, Complex Spacing Ratios: A Signature of Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021019 (2020).
  54. [54]K. Wang, F. Piazza, and D. J. Luitz, Hierarchy of Relaxation Timescales in Local Random Liouvillians, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 100604 (2020).DOI
  55. [55]J. Li, T. Prosen, and A. Chan, Spectral Statistics of Non-Hermitian Matrices and Dissipative Quantum Chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 170602 (2021).DOI
  56. [56]W. Tarnowski, I. Yusipov, T. Laptyeva, S. Denisov, D. Chruściński, and K. Życzkowski, Random generators of Markovian evolution: A quantum-classical transition by superdecoherence, Phys. Rev. E 104, 034118 (2021).DOI
  57. [57]A. M. García-García, L. Sá, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Symmetry Classification and Universality in Non-Hermitian Many-Body Quantum Chaos by the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021040 (2022).
  58. [58]M. Prasad, H. K. Yadalam, C. Aron, and M. Kulkarni, Dissipative quantum dynamics, phase transitions, and non-Hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. A 105, L050201 (2022).DOI
  59. [59]S. Ghosh, S. Gupta, and M. Kulkarni, Spectral properties of disordered interacting non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134202 (2022).DOI
  60. [60]K. Kawabata and S. Ryu, Non-Hermitian Disordered Systems, arXiv:2603.20393 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2603.20393
  61. [61]L. Sá, P. Ribeiro, and S. Denisov, What We Talk About When We Talk About Dissipative Quantum Chaos, arXiv:2605.21628 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2605.21628
  62. [62]D. Bernard and A. LeClair, A Classification of Non-Hermitian Random Matrices, in Statistical Field Theories, NATO Science Series, Vol. 73, edited by A. Cappelli and G. Mussardo (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002) p. 207.DOI
  63. [63]Whereas time-reversal symmetry† enforces the Kramers degeneracy for arbitrary complex eigenvalues E ∈ C, time-reversal symmetry ensures the degeneracy only for real eigenvalues E ∈ R.
  64. [64]D. C. Brody, Biorthogonal quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A 47, 035305 (2014).DOI
  65. [65]Alternatively, Eq. (1) with T² = −1 leads to [(E − H) U_T]^T = −(E − H) U_T (T ≡ U_T𝒦) and hence det (E − H) = (Pf [(E − H) U_T])² / det U_T, implying at least the twofold degeneracy.
  66. [66]N. Okuma, K. Kawabata, K. Shiozaki, and M. Sato, Topological Origin of Non-Hermitian Skin Effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 086801 (2020); K. Kawabata, N. Okuma, and M. Sato, Non-Bloch band theory of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in the symplectic class, Phys. Rev. B 101, 195147 (2020).DOI
  67. [67]Y. Yi and Z. Yang, Non-Hermitian Skin Modes Induced by On-Site Dissipations and Chiral Tunneling Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 186802 (2020).DOI
  68. [68]E. J. Bergholtz, J. C. Budich, and F. K. Kunst, Exceptional topology of non-Hermitian systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015005 (2021).DOI
  69. [69]N. Okuma and M. Sato, Non-Hermitian Topological Phenomena: A Review, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 83 (2023).DOI
  70. [70]R. Hamazaki, K. Kawabata, N. Kura, and M. Ueda, Universality classes of non-Hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023286 (2020).DOI
  71. [71]K. Kawabata, Exact probability distributions of complex spacing ratios in non-Hermitian random matrices, arXiv:2609.35230 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2609.35230
  72. [72]V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems, J. Math. Phys. 17, 821 (1976).DOI
  73. [73]G. Lindblad, On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976).DOI
  74. [74]S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum Heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993).DOI
  75. [75]A. Kitaev, A simple model of quantum holography (2015), KITP Program: Entanglement in Strongly-Correlated Quantum Matter.
  76. [76]S. Sachdev, Black Hole Entropy and Strange Metals, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041025 (2015).
  77. [77]J. Polchinski and V. Rosenhaus, The spectrum in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, J. High Energ. Phys. 2016 (4), 1.DOI
  78. [78]J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016).DOI
  79. [79]Y.-Z. You, A. W. W. Ludwig, and C. Xu, Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model and thermalization on the boundary of many-body localized fermionic symmetry-protected topological states, Phys. Rev. B 95, 115150 (2017).DOI
  80. [80]W. Fu and S. Sachdev, Numerical study of fermion and boson models with infinite-range random interactions, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035135 (2016).DOI
  81. [81]A. M. García-García and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Spectral and thermodynamic properties of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 126010 (2016).
  82. [82]J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, Black holes and random matrices, J. High Energ. Phys. 2017 (5), 118.
  83. [83]Z. Xiao, K. Kawabata, X. Luo, T. Ohtsuki, and R. Shindou, Level statistics of real eigenvalues in non-Hermitian systems, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043196 (2022); Z. Xiao, R. Shindou, and K. Kawabata, Universal hard-edge statistics of non-Hermitian random matrices, Phys. Rev. Research 6, 023303 (2024).DOI
  84. [84]H. Yagi, K. Mochizuki, and Z. Gong, Threefold Way for Typical Entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 150401 (2025).DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_kwda9ffq
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