arXiv:2008.09318v2 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 21 Jan 2021 Hamiltonian [3–6]. thermalization quantum mechanism the a for provides eigenstate (ETH) the hypothesis that dis- believed thermalization is fluctuation It the (FDT). by theorem governed sipation be should fluctuations equi- responses temporal the and that to and equal average be ensemble expec- should librium observable eigenstate an thermal- Hamiltonian of The value the tation 2]. that [1, requires evolution state quan- ization time equilibrium isolated unitary thermal the an the through approach whether can ask system tum to question fascinating hs ainei xoetal ml.TeEHfroff- for as ETH reads The distribution elements small. diagonal Gaussian exponentially the is variance follow second whose Thus, elements the size. diagonal quantity, system the extensive the with an exponentially decreases is term entropy the Since nteGusa rhgnlo ntr nebe and ensemble, unitary or orthogonal and Gaussian the in xetto au,i ie by given is value, expectation h hroyai nrp ihteBlzancon- Boltzmann the with stant entropy thermodynamic the ttsadteegnaus epciey h T 3 7] [3, elements ETH matrix The that respectively. proposes eigenvalues, the and states where servable O nioae unu ytmi hrceie ythe by characterized is system quantum isolated An a been has it mechanics, quantum of birth the Since codn oteEH ignleeet eigenstate element, diagonal a ETH, the to According γα f O iesaetemlzto yohssadeigenstate-to- and hypothesis thermalization Eigenstate k = E B O are O γα O O ˆ αα 1, = γα ( hudtk h omof form the take should smooth E ≡ ( iltdi h oitgal n h nerbespin-1 integrable the and nonintegrable the in violated aaeesol.Orrsl xlisteoii o h brea the ETH. for eigenstate-to-eigen the origin The of the meaning system. integrable explains the result in theorem Our elements integr matrix the only. the in parameters that size implies system the fluctuation with to-eigenstate decrease not does variance ttsial qiaett ahohr hc sconsisten is which other, i each de behavior self-averaging moments to The equivalent second statistically columnar system. off-diagon the nonintegrable varian of the of finite variance in a moment relative with second the distributed the that are measure moments eigens con second we the of columnar to submatrix, shells correspond energy each rows into In and divided columns is whose space elem constructed Hilbert matrix The of properties basis. statistical of analysis resolved = H 6= γα ˆ γ eivsiaeteetn owihteegntt thermaliz eigenstate the which to extent the investigate We ( O Let . ) R ) E .INTRODUCTION I. δ ( = γα γ E γα e α ucin fterarguments. their of functions + saeeeet farno matrix random a of elements are ’s − {| + + ) S E α e ( α E i} − e ) γα S − / and ( S 2, ) E eateto hsc,Uiest fSol eu 20,Ko 02504, Seoul Seoul, of University Physics, of Department / ( γα E 2 f ω α { ) O O γα ) / E / 2 ( γα 2 f E α f O ≡ } γα O h ≡ ( eteeeg eigen- energy the be ( E ω , E E γα γ α γ γα | , ω , − O 0) ˆ ) R γα | R E α γα αα α i ) Dtd aur 2 2021) 22, January (Dated: R , . fa ob- an of . γα S ( a ogNoh Dong Jae , E is ) (3) (2) (1) O n i)i em ob mohfnto of function smooth a be to seems it states, of (ii) density the and to The (i) proportional inversely features: is variance important two share systems integrable nonintegrable the pro- in 29]. inversely as 26, be states [25, of to systems Inter- density found reports the also to distribution. [25] portional is log-normal study variance a model the follow estingly, A may Gaus- the they 25]. follow that not [17, do distribution They sian systems. integrable the in [20]. numerically osntoe h T 2] epeetabifreview ference brief ETH. a the present on latter We works the numerical [28]. previous while ETH the ETH, the on the obey obey not to does known is [10–27]. former systems The integrable the and nonintegrable 7–10]. generic [5, FDT system the quantum obeys eigenstate isolated energy an an that in guarantees fluctuations. ETH temporal The govern elements off-diagonal The iyo tts n a siaetefunction den- the the estimate and can with variance one consistent the states, also Using of are system sity behaviors prediction. the These density ETH with the the 27]. exponentially to [25, decreases size proportional and inversely states systems. of is nonintegrable variance the in The distribution Gaussian the 25]. sys- the [18, mean with size slowly their tem more sys- and or integral support algebraically the decreases nonvanishing in value consis- a hand, are have other behaviors the they On These tems, (2). 25]. Eq. 23, with tent 20, the [16, with size exponentially system mean decrease to the the shown and been In have support value their [16]. both eigenstates systems, neighboring nonintegrable of values pectation h ffdaoa lmnsi h oitgal n the and nonintegrable the in elements off-diagonal The investigated also been have elements off-diagonal The o h ignleeet,oemymauetedif- the measure may one elements, diagonal the For the for extensively tested been has ansatz ETH The h ffdaoa lmnshv ensont follow to shown been have elements off-diagonal The nso bevbe nteeeg eigenstate energy the in observables of ents / ihteEH ncnrs,terelative the contrast, In ETH. the with t tt utain hd e ih nthe on light new a sheds fluctuations state 2 antb hrceie ihteenergy the with characterized be cannot dctsta h nryegnttsare eigenstates energy the that ndicates XXZ δO besse.Tepritn eigenstate- persisting The system. able tn it,adaboksbarxis submatrix block a and width, stant dw fteflcuto dissipation fluctuation the of kdown efrfiieszdsses eshow We systems. finite-sized for ce ae ntersetv nryshells. energy respective the in tates α rae stesse ieincreases size system the as creases to yohss(T)i ai or valid is (ETH) hypothesis ation = his epromteenergy- the perform We chains. leeet naclm.The column. a in elements al | O ( α +1)( iesaefluctuations eigenstate α +1) rea − O αα | nteegntt ex- eigenstate the in | f E O γα ( ,ω E, and ) | 2

ˆ J x x y y z z ωγα. These suggest that the off-diagonal elements in the where hl,m 2 (ˆσl σˆm +ˆσl σˆm +∆ˆσl σˆm). Note that ∆ integrable systems may follow the ansatz of Eq. (3) with is an anisotropy≡− parameter and λ is the relative strength non-Gaussian random variables Rγα. We notice that the of the next nearest neighbor interactions. The overall two common features are the essential ingredients leading coupling constant J will be set to unity so that the energy to the FDT at the energy eigenstates [5, 9]. Apparently, becomes dimensionless. The Hamiltonian is integrable it is contradictory to the known fact that the FDT is when λ = 0, and nonintegrable when λ = 0 [9, 21, 24]. 6 violated in the integrable systems [30, 31]. The Hamiltonian commutes with the total magnetiza- In this paper, we perform the energy-resolved study tion operator in the z direction, the translation opera- of the statistical properties of matrix elements Oγα of tor, the spatial reflection operator, and the spin inver- { } observables in the integrable and in the nonintegrable sion operator. Especially, in the translationally invariant spin-1/2 XXZ models. From the full matrix, one can subspace with zero magnetization, all the symmetry op- construct a block submatrix O˜ whose columns and rows erators mutually commute [25, 32]. We focus our atten- correspond to the energy eigenstates belonging to an en- tion on the translationally invariant subspace with zero ergy shell of width ∆E. Each block is characterized with magnetization that are even under the spatial reflection constant energy parameters Eγα and ωγα up to ∆E. In- and the spin inversion, which will be called the maxi- vestigating the probability distribution of the elements mum symmetry sector (MSS) [32]. The Hilbert space within each block, one can test the ETH ansatz at vari- dimensions of the MSS are D = 2518, 8359, and 28968 ous energy values. Furthermore, one can also investigate for L = 20, 22, and 24, respectively. In this paper, we an eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuation by comparing the present the numerical results obtained at λ = 0 (inte- probability distributions of matrix elements in different grable case) and λ = 1 (nonintegrable case) with fixed columns. ∆=1/2. As a main result, we will show that the eigenstate-to- We numerically diagonalize the Hamiltonian in the eigenstate fluctuation vanishes in the nonintegrable sys- MSS to obtain the energy eigenvalues Eα and the tem while it remains finite in the integrable system in eigenstates α with α =1, ,D [32, 33].{ } The eigen- the large system size limit. The ETH ansatz in Eq. (3) states are arranged{| i} in the ascending··· order of the energy for the off-diagonal elements requires that all matrix el- eigenvalues. Using the eigenvalue spectrum, we define a ements should be equivalent statistically within a block function submatrix for a sufficiently small ∆E. Otherwise, the function fO(E,ω) cannot be a smooth function of the −βEγ Eγ e arguments. The eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuation dis- E¯(β)= Pγ . (5) −βEγ proves the existence of such a smooth function in the γ e P integrable system. Thus, it resolves the puzzle in regard to the FDT. If the system is thermal, E¯(β) corresponds to the equi- This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we intro- librium canonical ensemble average of the energy at the duce the spin-1/2 XXZ Hamiltonian and the observables inverse temperature β. One can assign the temperature investigated in this paper. We also explain the method to each energy eigenstate using the relation E¯(β)= Eα. to construct block submatrices. In Sec. III, we present Such an assignment is useful even in the nonthermal case the numerical results for the energy-resolved statistics since it allows one to parametrize the energy eigenvalue for matrix elements within each submatrix. In Sec. IV, with an intensive variable β. The parameter β will be we investigate the eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations in called the inverse temperature in both cases for conve- statistics of off-diagonal matrix elements. It will uncover nience. the clear difference between the integrable system and Once all eigenvectors are obtained, it is straightforward the nonintegrable system. We conclude the paper with to calculate the matrix elements O of an observable summary and discussions in Sec. V. γα Oˆ. For a detailed study, we introduce a block subma- trix. To a given value of β and E¯ = E¯(β), we define an energy shell a (a = 0, 1, 2, ) as the subspace II. MODEL SYSTEM AND NUMERICAL consisting of energyS eigenstates± ± with···E¯ + (a 1 )∆ SETUP 2 E ¯ 1 − ≤ Eα < E + (a + 2 )∆E. The energy resolution ∆E is taken to be a constant independent of L. The number We study the spin-1/2 XXZ model in a one- of energy eigenstates within a shell a is denoted by a. dimensional lattice of L sites under the periodic bound- (b,a) S N A block submatrix O˜ (β) is defined as a ( b a) ary condition. Letσ ˆp be the Pauli matrix in the p (= N × N l matrix consisting of elements Oγα with γ b and XXZ | i ∈ S x,y,z) direction at site l (= 1, ,L). The Hamil- α . All elements of O˜(b,a) are characterized by con- tonian is given by ··· | i ∈ Sa stant Eγα E¯(β) + (a + b)∆E/2 and ωγα (b a)∆E up to ∆ .≃ We illustrate the block submatrix≃ structure− L E 1 in Fig. 1. Hˆ = hˆ + λhˆ , (4) 1+ λ X h l,l+1 l,l+2i l=1 As observables, we choose the nearest neighbor inter- 3

small and large ∆E. For small ∆E, one can study the in- trinsic statistical property at a given energy scale. How- ever, statistics becomes worse because an energy shell Eγ includes fewer eigenstates. As ∆E increases, statistics becomes better but a systematic correction arises. For S O˜(2,−2) 2 instance, in Fig. 2 (a) and (e), the histogram broadens as ∆E increases. A diagonal element Oαα is an energy S O˜(1,−1) 1 eigenstate expectation value. With finite ∆E, the his- togram is given by the superposition of the intrinsic dis- (0,0) S0 O˜ tribution functions at different energy values. The ex- trinsic fluctuation due to the energy dispersion results (−1,1) S−1 O˜ in the broadening. In order to suppress the extrinsic fluctuation, ∆E should be smaller than the energy dis- d/2 (−2,2) persion δE = O(L ) with dimensionality d of the ther- S−2 O˜ mal equilibrium state. In this paper, we will use the intermediate value of ∆E = 0.3 unless stated otherwise. The block submatrix O˜(0,0)(β) is of size where S− S− S S S E 2 1 0 1 2 α = 1278 (1062) for β = 0.0 (0.2) whenN ×λ N= 1 and N = 916 (741) for β =0.0 (0.2) when λ = 0. N The diagonal and off-diagonal elements of both ob- FIG. 1. Illustration of the block submatrix structure. Each servables follow the Gaussian distribution in the non- square corresponds to a block submatrix. In Sec. III, we study integrable case. In Figs. 2(b) and (f), we compare the the statistical properties of matrix elements in each shaded numerical histogram of the off-diagonal elements with block. The columnar stripe represents matrix elements involv- the symmetric Gaussian function, represented with cir- ing a given energy eigenstate. Statistical fluctuations from cular symbols, of the same variance. They are in perfect column to column, that is, the eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluc- agreement. The ETH predicts that the variance of the tuations will be studied in Sec. IV. diagonal elements is twice that of the off-diagonal ele- ments [20, 23]. In Figs. 2(a) and (e), we compare the numerical histogram of the diagonal elements with the action energy Gaussian function whose variance is set to a double of the variance of the off-diagonal elements. The center of ˆ 1 z z O1 = σˆl σˆl+1 (6) the Gaussian is shifted to the mean value of the diago- √L X l nal elements. The perfect agreement confirms the ETH ansatz in Eq. (1) for ωγα 0. and the zero momentum distribution function In the integrable case, the≃ numerical data are not com- 1 patible with the ETH ansatz. The histograms of diagonal Oˆ = σˆ+σˆ− . (7) 2 L X l m elements, shown in Figs. 2(c) and (g), and of off-diagonal l,m elements, shown in Figs. 2(d) and (h), do not have the Gaussian shape. The histogram of the off-diagonal ele- Notice that Oˆ1 is normalized with √L instead of L. ments is fitted well with a stretched exponential function −q|x|θ With this choice, the Hilbert-Schmidt norm becomes L- fs(x)= pe , which is plotted with square symbols in independent and the ETH analysis becomes easy [25, 34]. Fig. 2(d) and (h). The exponent takes a value θ 0.47 in Fig. 2(d) and θ 0.34 in Fig. 2(h). Our numerical≃ re- sults suggest that the≃ exponent may vary with β. Statis- III. NUMERICAL RESULTS tics of the off-diagonal elements of Oˆ1 is also investigated in Ref. [25] at different values of ∆. It is reported that A. Diagonal blocks they may follow a log-normal distribution. A theoretical study is necessary in order to understand the nature of We focus on a diagonal block O˜(0,0)(β) which is char- the offdiagonal elements in the integrable systems, which is beyond the scope of the current work. acterized with Eγα E¯(β) and ωγα 0. A diagonal block includes both diagonal≃ and off-diagonal≃ matrix ele- The variance of off-diagonal elements, denoted by 2 ˆ ments. Thus, one can compare the distributions of both σo[O] with subscript o standing for off-diagonal elements, quantities. Figure 2 presents the histograms obtained at depends on the system size L. We investigate the size de- pendence at β =0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and0.3. The ETH predicts β =0.0 for Oˆ1 and 0.2 for Oˆ2. Before proceeding, we remark on the effect of the en- that ¯ ergy shell size ∆E (see also discussions in Ref. [27]). 2 ˆ −S(E) ¯ 2 σo[O]= e fO(E,ω = 0) . (8) In Fig. 2, we compare the histograms obtained with | | ∆E =0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0. There is a tradeoff between The system size dependence comes into play through 4

102 102 101 100

(a) (b) (c) (d) 100 100 10−1 10−2 PDF 10−2

10−2 10−4 10−3 10−4 −0.25 −0.20 −0.15 −0.10 −0.05 0.00 0.05 −2 −1 0 1 −0.4 0.0 0.4 d1 o1 d1 o1 102 101 100 (e) 101 (f) (g) (h) 100 10−2 100

PDF −2 10 −1 10 10−4

10−2 10−5 10−2 10−6 0.5 0.6 0.7 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0 1 2 −0.25 0.00 0.25 d2 o2 d2 o2

(0,0) (0,0) FIG. 2. Histograms of the matrix elements in the diagonal blocks O˜ (β = 0) for Oˆ1 (upper row) and O˜ (β = 0.2) for Oˆ2 (lower row). (a), (b), (e), and (f) are for the nonintegrable case with λ = 1, and the others for the integrable case with λ = 0. The energy shell widths are ∆E = 0.1 (blue solid), 0.3 (green dashed), 0.5 (red dashed-dotted), and 1.0 (orange dotted). Diagonal and off-diagonal matrix elements of Oˆi are denoted as di and oi, respectively. The numerical histograms are compared with the Gaussian distribution functions (circular symbols) and the stretched exponential functions (square symbols).

the entropy function S(E¯(β)). It can be estimated as 0.5 0.2 S(E¯) = ln (E¯) where (E¯)= /∆ is the density of D D N0 E (a) (b) the states. 0.4 D D ] ] 1 1

The variance multiplied by is plotted in Fig. 3 as a ˆ ˆ 0.1 O O [ L = 20 [ 2 2 D o o

σ . σ function of β. In the nonintegrable case, the curves from 0 3 L = 22 different system sizes L = 20, 22, and 24 tend to align L = 24 along a single curve, which corresponds to the function 0.2 0.0 2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 fO(E¯(β),ω = 0) for the observable Oˆ1 or Oˆ2 appear- β β |ing in Eq. (8). This| behavior is fully consistent with the 0.3 0.10 prediction of the ETH. Most of previous works investi- (c) (d)

gated the scaling of the off-diagonal elements correspond- D D ] ] 2 2

ˆ 0.2 ˆ 0.05 O O ing to the infinite temperature state (β = 0) where is [ [ 2 2 o o proportional to the dimensionality of the total HilbertD σ σ space [20, 23, 25]. Our work confirms the scaling form of 0.1 0.00 Eq. (8) at finite temperature states. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 In the integrable system, the scaled variances obtained β β at different system sizes are rather scattered. Neverthe- less, from the plots in Fig. 3(b) for L = 22 and 24, we FIG. 3. Scaled variance of off-diagonal elements within a di- ˆ agonal block O˜(0,0)(β). The variance is multiplied by the expect that the off-diagonal elements of O1 follow the ¯ same scaling form of Eq. (8) for large enough system density of states D(E(β)). (a) and (c) correspond to the non- ˆ integrable case (λ = 1), while the others corresponds to the sizes. The data for O2 are more scattered. However, fur- integrable case (λ = 0). The system sizes are L = 20, 22, and ther analysis in the following subsection supports that 24. 2 ˆ the scaling form σo 1/ is also valid for O2. Such a scaling has been also∝ reportedD in the integrable XXZ model with other parameter values [25]. 2 We remark that the scaling σo 1/ should not be regarded as the evidence for the ETH.∝ D We have already shown in Fig. 3 is that the fluctuation amplitude of the shown that the off-diagonal elements in the integrable off-diagonal elements scales as 1/ in both integrable and system do not follow the Gaussian distribution. What is nonintegrable systems. D 5

103 10−3

β = 0.0 −3 (a) (b) 1 (a) 10 (b) ˆ − 10 100 O1 10 4 ] ] 1 1

ˆ ˆ − O O 4 [ [ 10 2 2 o o PDF PDF −2 10−3 σ 10−5 10 σ ◦β = 0.0 −5 ⋄β = 0.2 10 10−6 10−6 10−5 −0.05 0.00 0.05 102 103 104 −0.4 0.0 0.4 102 103 104 o1 D o1 D 104 10−4 10−3 β = 0.0 (c) (d) 1 (c) (d) ˆ 10 101 O2 ] ] 2 − 2 −

ˆ 6 ˆ 5 O O

[ 10 [ 10 2 2 o o PDF PDF −2 10−2 σ 10 σ ◦β = 0.0 ⋄β = 0.2 10−5 10−8 10−5 10−7 −0.015 0.000 0.015 102 103 104 −0.3 0.0 0.3 102 103 104 o2 D o2 D

− FIG. 4. Numerical data for the off-diagonal blocks O˜(b, b)(β) FIG. 5. The same plots as in Fig. 4 for the integrable case. with ω = 2b∆E with 2b = 4 (blue solid), 8 (green dashed), The sizes of the block submatrices with 2b = 4 are (886×895) 12 (red dashed dotted), and 16 (orange dotted) in the nonin- at β = 0.0 and (808 × 678) at β = 0.2 when L = 24. tegrable case. (a) and (c) show the histograms for Oˆ1 and Oˆ2, respectively, at L = 24 and β = 0. Each numerical histogram is compared with the Gaussian function, marked with circular symbols, of the same variance. The variance is plotted against the density of states D(E¯(β)) in (b) for Oˆ1 and (d) for Oˆ2 at β = 0.0 (◦) and 0.2 (⋄). The thick straight line of slope −1 values of β and ω. Their slopes correspond to the func- tions f (E,ω¯ ) 2. These numerical results, together with is a guide to the eye. The sizes of the block submatrices with | O | 2b = 4 are (1269 × 1226) at β = 0.0 and (1182 × 912) at those in the preceding subsections, strongly support the β = 0.2 when L = 24. The other block submatrices are of ETH ansatz in Eq. (1) at all energy scales. similar size. Integrable case.– We have performed the same analy- sis in the integrable system. The histograms for Oˆ1 and B. Off-diagonal blocks Oˆ2 are presented in Fig. 5(a) and (c), respectively. As in the case with ω = 0 [Figs. 2(d) and (h)], the distribu- We investigate matrix elements of off-diagonal blocks tion functions are non-Gaussian. They decay more slowly O˜(b,a)(β) with b = a. As explained in Sec. II, a block than an exponential function in the tail. 6 submatrix O˜(b,a)(β) consists of matrix elements O { γα} with Eα E¯(β)+ a∆E and Eγ E¯(β)+ b∆E. Off- We also investigate the finite-size scaling behavior of diagonal blocks≃ with b = a include≃ only off-diagonal el- the variance. We have measured the variance of the ma- ements. Specifically, we6 will consider the block subma- trix elements in each off-diagonal block O˜(b,−b)(β) at dif- trices with b = a (= 1, 2, ) in which E E¯(β) ferent system sizes L = 20, 22, and 24. They are plotted − ··· γα ≃ and ωγα ω = 2b∆E. They are represented by the against the density of states (E¯(β)) in Figs. 5(b) and shaded squares≃ in Fig. 1. We have measured the proba- (d). The overall behavior is consistentD with the scaling 2 ˆ bility distribution and the variance at each off-diagonal σo(O) 1/ for both observables at all parameter val- block. The numerical results at β = 0 and 0.2 are pre- ues. Such∝ aD scaling was also reported for the integrable sented in Fig. 4 for the nonintegrable case and Fig. 5 for systems at the center of the energy spectrum [17, 25]. In the integrable case. comparison to the data shown in Fig. 4, the data suf- Non-integrable case.— At all values of E¯(β) and ω con- fer from stronger fluctuations. These behaviors were also sidered, off-diagonal matrix elements follow the symmet- observed in the diagonal blocks [see Figs. 3(b) and (d)]. ric Gaussian distribution. In Fig. 4(a) and (c), we com- pare the numerical histogram obtained at L = 24 with In this subsection, we have investigated the statistical the symmetric Gaussian function of the same variance. property of off-diagonal matrix elements O within { γα} The agreement is almost perfect, which indicates the va- each block characterized with Eγα E¯(β) and ωγα lidity of the ETH. ω = 0. We have confirmed that the nonintegrable≃ system≃ The variance of the elements within O˜(b,−b)(β) at dif- follows6 the prediction of the ETH in Eq. (3) with Gaus- ferent system sizes L = 20, 22, and 24 is plotted as a sian random variables Rγα. In the integrable systems, function of the density of states (E¯(β)) in Figs. 4(b) off-diagonal matrix elements do not follow the Gaussian D and (d). For both observables Oˆ1 and Oˆ2, the variance distribution. However, the variance is still inversely pro- is inversely proportional to the density of states at all portional to the density of states. 6

101 101 0.4 2.0 (a) (b) (a) (b) 0.3 1.5 100 ] ] 1 1

−1 ˆ ˆ O . O . 10 [ 0 2 [ 1 0 PDF PDF − Oˆ Oˆ m m 10 1 1 1 σ σ . . λ = 1 λ = 0 0 1 0 5 10−2 10−3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 m m ω ω 101 101 3 (c) (d) L = 20 L = 20 0.4 L (c) (d) L = 22 = 22 100 L = 24 2 ] ]

L = 24 2 2

−1 ˆ ˆ O O

10 [ [ PDF PDF − Oˆ Oˆ m 0.2 m 10 1 2 2 σ σ 1 λ = 1 λ = 0 10−2 10−3 0.0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 m m ω ω

FIG. 6. Histogram of the normalized columnar second mo- FIG. 7. Standard deviation σm[Oˆi] of the normalized colum- ments, m = M2/hM2i, of off-diagonal elements within a block nar second moments of off-diagonal elements in O˜b,−b(β = 0). (b,−b) submatrix O˜ (β) with β = 0.0 and b = 8. When L = 24, The data are plotted as a function of ω = 2b∆E . Lines with the sizes of the block submatrices are (921 × 829) in the non- symbols represent the data with ∆E = 0.3, while lines with- integrable case and (712 × 776) in the integrable case. out symbols represent the data with ∆E = 0.1. The panels (a) and (c) are for the nonintegrable system, and (b) and (d) are for the integrable system. IV. EIGENSTATE-TO-EIGENSTATE FLUCTUATIONS signature suggesting that the width of the distribution may decrease with the system size. The ETH ansatz in Eq. (1) is a strong requirement We quantify the eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuation that all matrix elements involving nearby energy eigen- with the standard deviation of m. The numerical data states should be statistically equivalent. The equivalence are plotted in Fig. 7. In the nonintegrable case (λ = 1), for the diagonal elements has been tested by performing the standard deviation decreases as the system size in- the finite size scaling analysis of δOα = O (α+1)(α+1) creases at all values of ω =2b∆E. On the other hand, in O [16, 19, 23] and of the deviation of| eigenstate ex-− αα| the integrable case (λ = 1), the standard deviation tends pectation values from the microcanonical ensemble aver- to converge to nonzero values. age [21]. However, off-diagonal elements have been stud- We remark that there are two sources of the fluctua- ied only at the coarse-grained level. The eigenstate-to- tions leading to nonzero values of σm. First of all, any eigenstate fluctuations for off-diagonal elements have not intrinsic eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations, which we been studied both for the nonintegrable and the inte- are interested in, are responsible for the variation of m. grable systems, which will be addressed in this section. In addition, extrinsic fluctuations due to the energy dis- ˜(b,−b) We consider a block submatrix O (β) character- persion of the order of ∆E among eigenstates also con- ized with E E¯(β) and ω ω = 2b∆ . A col- γα ≃ γα ≃ E tribute to the fluctuations. In order to reduce the effect umn corresponding to an energy eigenstate α −b of the extrinsic fluctuations, we have also measured the is a set of O ’s where γ (see Fig. 1).| i Instead ∈ S γα | i ∈ Sb standard deviation of m using the smaller values of the of measuring the moment of all elements in a block, we energy shell width ∆E = 0.1. The two data sets from measure the second moment M2 of the elements in a col- ∆E = 0.1 and 0.3 are compared in Fig. 7, which gives umn separately. Then, we can quantify the eigenstate- a hint on the nature of the intrinsic fluctuations. In the to-eigenstate fluctuations from the distribution of the nonintegrable case, the relative standard deviation de- columnar second moments. cays more rapidly with the system size at ∆E = 0.1. In In Fig. 6, we present the histogram of the normalized the integrable case, the relative fluctuation becomes even columnar second moments m M2/ M2 where M2 stronger at ∆ =0.1. ≡ h i h i E is the mean value of the second moments of all columns Based on the numerical results, we conclude that the within a block submatrix. In the nonintegrable case with intrinsic eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations vanish in λ = 1, shown in Figs. 6(a) and (c), the distribution func- the nonintegrable system while they remain finite in the tions are peaked around m 1.0. Furthermore, the peak integrable system in the infinite size limit. Our result ≃ becomes narrower as the system size L increases. provides a strong support for the ETH ansatz for off- The integrable system (λ = 0) exhibits distinct behav- diagonal elements in the nonintegrable systems. It also iors. The distribution functions shown in Figs. 6(b) and reveals that the eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations as (d) have a long tail. Furthermore, we cannot find any well as the non-Gaussian distribution functions invali- 7 date the ETH for off-diagonal elements in the integrable In the Gibbs state, the correlation function and the re- systems. sponse function are related through the FDT [36]. Re- cently, it is shown that the FDT is also valid in an energy eigenstate for the isolated quantum systems obeying the V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS ETH [5, 9, 10]. The derivation relies on the properties that the second moment of Oγα’s is a smooth function of In summary, we have performed a thorough numerical Eγα and ωγα and is inversely proportional to the density analysis on the statistical property of matrix elements of states (Eγα). Interestingly, the numerical results of D Oγα of observables in the energy eigenstate basis of the Sec. III B and the literatures, e.g., Ref. [25], show that integrable{ } and the nonintegrable spin-1/2 XXZ chains. the integrable systems have the same properties at the Using the block submatrix, we have investigated the sta- coarse-grained level. It is puzzling because the FDT is tistical property in the energy-resolved way. Our study violated in the integrable systems [30, 31]. This puzzle is confirms that the ETH ansatz characterizes statistics of resolved by the eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations. matrix elements in the nonintegrable model at all en- The FDT can be casted in the form of the Kubo- ergy scales. In various regions with different values of Martin-Schwinger (KMS) relation [36, 37] Eγα E¯ and ωγα ω, the distribution functions are shown≃ to follow the≃ prediction of the ETH. S¯(ω)= eβωS¯( ω). (10) − Statistics in the integrable system is subtle. Both the diagonal and off-diagonal elements do not follow the It constrains that 1 ln[S¯(ω)/S¯( ω)] should depend only ω − Gaussian distribution of the ETH. On the other hand, on the inverse temperature β. It should be independent the variance of off-diagonal elements within blocks seems of ω and the eigenstate quantum number α. The correla- to be well-defined and inversely proportional to the den- tion function S¯(ω) in Eq. (9) involves a columnar second sity of states. However, we discover that the eigenstate- moment. In the presence of the eigenstate-to-eigenstate to-eigenstate fluctuations are relevant in the integrable fluctuations, the columnar second moment has an ex- system. Figures 6 and 7 show that the eigenstate-to- plicit eigenstate dependence, which results in ω and α eigenstate fluctuations are of the same order of magni- dependence of 1 ln[S¯(ω)/S¯( ω)] in general. It explains ω − tude as the overall fluctuations, which disproves a scaling the reason why the FDT is violated in the integrable sys- form such as in Eq. (8). tems. In the nonintegrable system, the eigenstate-to- The eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuations presented in eigenstate fluctuation vanishes in the large system size Fig. 7 depend on the choice of ∆E . In order to reduce limit. It implies that the nonintegrable system has the the effect of the extrinsic fluctuations and achieve a good self-averaging property that nearby energy eigenstates statistics, one need to choose a smaller value of ∆E at are statistically equivalent to each others. It provides larger system sizes. We leave a more quantitative study a strong justification of the ETH. on the finite size scaling property at larger systems as a The eigenstate-to-eigenstate fluctuation is important future work. to understand the origin for the breakdown of the FDT in the integrable system. When a system is prepared ini- tially at an energy eigenstate α , a dynamic correlation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∞ | i function S¯(ω) = dt Oˆ(t)Oˆ(0) eiωt of an observable R−∞ h i Oˆ in the frequency domain is given by [35] This work is supported by the National Research Foun- dation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea gov- S¯(ω)=2π O O δ(ω ω ). (9) ernment (MSIP) (Grant No. 2019R1A2C1009628). X αγ γα − γα γ6=α

[1] J. von Neumann, Beweis des Ergodensatzes und des H- 65, 239 (2016). Theorems in der neuen Mechanik, Z. Phys. 57, 30 (1929). [6] J. M. Deutsch, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis, [2] J. von Neumann, Proof of the ergodic theorem and the Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 082001 (2018). H-theorem in quantum mechanics, Eur. Phys. J. H 35, [7] M. Srednicki, The approach to thermal equilibrium in 201 (2010). quantized chaotic systems, J. Phys. A 32, 1163 (1999). [3] M. Srednicki, Thermal fluctuations in quantized chaotic [8] E. Khatami, G. Pupillo, M. Srednicki, and M. Rigol, systems, J. Phys. A 29, L75 (1996). Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem in an Isolated System [4] M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Thermalization of Quantum Dipolar Bosons after a Quench, Phys. Rev. and its mechanism for generic isolated quantum systems, Lett. 111, 050403 (2013). Nature 452, 854 (2008). [9] J. D. Noh, T. Sagawa, and J. Yeo, Numerical Verifica- [5] L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, tion of the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem for Isolated From quantum chaos and eigenstate thermalization to Quantum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 050603 (2020). statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Adv. Phys. [10] A. Schuckert and M. Knap, Probing eigenstate thermal- 8

ization in quantum simulators via fluctuation-dissipation (2019). relations, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043315 (2020). [24] J. D. Noh, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, Heating and cooling [11] M. Rigol, Breakdown of Thermalization in Finite One- of quantum gas by eigenstate Joule expansion, Phys. Rev. Dimensional Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 100403 E 100, 010106(R) (2019). (2009). [25] T. LeBlond, K. Mallayya, L. Vidmar, and M. Rigol, En- [12] R. Steinigeweg, J. Herbrych, and P. Prelovˇsek, Eigenstate tanglement and matrix elements of observables in in- thermalization within isolated spin-chain systems, Phys. teracting integrable systems, Phys. Rev. E 100, 062134 Rev. E 87, 012118 (2013). (2019). [13] T. N. Ikeda, Y. Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Finite-size scal- [26] M. Brenes, T. LeBlond, J. Goold, and M. Rigol, Eigen- ing analysis of the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis state Thermalization in a Locally Perturbed Integrable in a one-dimensional interacting Bose gas, Phys. Rev. E System, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 070605 (2020). 87, 012125 (2013). [27] J. Richter, A. Dymarsky, R. Steinigeweg, and J. Gem- [14] R. Steinigeweg, A. Khodja, H. Niemeyer, C. Gogolin, mer, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis beyond stan- and J. Gemmer, Pushing the Limits of the Eigenstate dard indicators: Emergence of random-matrix behavior Thermalization Hypothesis towards Mesoscopic Quan- at small frequencies, Phys. Rev. E 102, 042127 (2020). tum Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 130403 (2014). [28] Systems exhibiting many-body localizations or scars do [15] W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Finite-size not obey the ETH either. They are not discussed in this scaling of eigenstate thermalization, Phys. Rev. E 89, work. 042112 (2014). [29] K. Mallayya and M. Rigol, Heating Rates in Periodically [16] H. Kim, T. N. Ikeda, and D. A. Huse, Testing whether all Driven Strongly Interacting Quantum Many-Body Sys- eigenstates obey the eigenstate thermalization hypothe- tems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240603 (2019). sis, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052105 (2014). [30] L. Foini, L. F. Cugliandolo, and A. Gambassi, [17] W. Beugeling, R. Moessner, and M. Haque, Off-diagonal Fluctuation-dissipation relations and critical quenches in matrix elements of local operators in many-body quan- the transverse field Ising chain, Phys. Rev. B 84, 212404 tum systems, Phys. Rev. E 91, 012144 (2015). (2011). [18] V. Alba, Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis and in- [31] L. Foini, L. F. Cugliandolo, and A. Gambassi, Dynamic tegrability in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B 91, correlations, fluctuation-dissipation relations, and effec- 155123 (2015). tive temperatures after a quantum quench of the trans- [19] R. Mondaini, K. R. Fratus, M. Srednicki, and M. Rigol, verse field Ising chain, J. Stat. Mech. , P09011 (2012). Eigenstate thermalization in the two-dimensional trans- [32] J.-H. Jung and J. D. Noh, Guide to Exact Diagonaliza- verse field Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 93, 032104 (2016). tion Study of Quantum Thermalization, J. Korean Phys. [20] R. Mondaini and M. Rigol, Eigenstate thermalization in Soc. 76, 670 (2020). the two-dimensional transverse field Ising model. II. Off- [33] A. W. Sandvik, Computational Studies of Quantum Spin diagonal matrix elements of observables, Phys. Rev. E Systems, AIP Conf. Proc. 1297, 135 (2010). 96, 012157 (2017). [34] M. Mierzejewski and L. Vidmar, Quantitative Impact of [21] T. Yoshizawa, E. Iyoda, and T. Sagawa, Numerical Large Integrals of Motion on the Eigenstate Thermalization Hy- Deviation Analysis of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hy- pothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 040603 (2020). pothesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 200604 (2018). [35] In general, the FDT is formulated for two different oper- [22] C. Nation and D. Porras, Off-diagonal observable ele- ators. In this work, it suffices to consider the autocorre- ments from random matrix theory: distributions, fluctu- lation function. ations, and eigenstate thermalization, New J. Phys. 20, [36] G. F. Mazenko, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics 103003 (2018). (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006). [23] D. Jansen, J. Stolpp, L. Vidmar, and F. Heidrich- [37] R. Haag, N. M. Hugenholtz, and M. Winnink, On the Meisner, Eigenstate thermalization and quantum chaos Equilibrium states in quantum statistical mechanics, in the Holstein polaron model, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155130 Commun. Math. Phys. 5, 215 (1967).