text:
# Free Loop Spaces and Cyclohedra

## Abstract.

In this note we introduce an action of the module of cyclohedra on the free loop space. We will then discuss how this action can be used in an appropriate recognition principle in the same manner as the action of Stasheff’s associahedra can be used to recognize based loop spaces. We will also interpret one result of R.L. Cohen as an approximation theorem, in the spirit of Beck and May, for free loop spaces.

###### Key words and phrases:

Cyclohedron, free loop space, recognition, approximation  The author was supported by the grant GA AV ČR A1019203
This paper is in final form and no version of it will be submitted for publication elsewhere

Recall that, while a (topological) operad is a collection $`𝒫=\{𝒫(n)\}_{n0}`$ of topological spaces with structure operations (‘compositions’)

(1)
$$_i:𝒫(k)\times 𝒫(l)𝒫(k+l1),1ik,$$

(see ), a (right) module over the operad $`𝒫`$ is a collection $`M=\{M(n)\}_{n0}`$ with structure operations (called again ‘compositions’)

(2)
$$_i:M(k)\times 𝒫(l)M(k+l1),1ik,$$

satisfying appropriate axioms which are in fact ‘linearizations’ of that of an operad, see \[4, Definition 1.3\].

###### Example 1.

Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be topological spaces. The collection

$$\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}:=\{\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}(U^{\times n},V)\}_{n0}$$

is a natural right module over the endomorphism operad $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U=\{\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}(U^{\times n},U)\}_{n0}`$. The structure operations are given in the expected manner as

(3)
$$(f_ig)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l1}):=f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},g(u_i,\mathrm{},u_{l1+i}),u_{l+i},\mathrm{},u_{k+l1}),$$

for $`f:U^{\times k}V\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}(k)`$, $`g:U^{\times l}U\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U(l)`$ and $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l1}U`$.

An algebra over the operad $`𝒫`$ (also called a $`𝒫`$-space) is a topological space $`U`$ together with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$-equivariant maps $`A_n:𝒫(n)\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}(U^{\times n},U)`$, $`n0`$, which are compatible with the compositions. Thus algebras are ‘representations’ of operads. Representations of modules are traces, introduced in \[5, Definition 2.6\] as follows:

###### Definition 2.

Let $`M`$ be a $`𝒫`$-module as above and $`U`$ a $`𝒫`$-algebra. An $`M`$-trace over $`U`$ is a topological space $`V`$ together with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$-equivariant maps $`T_n:M(n)\mathrm{𝐻𝑜𝑚}(U^{\times n},V)`$, $`n0`$, which are compatible with compositions (2) and the $`𝒫`$-algebra structure on $`U`$, that is

$$T_{k+l1}(m_ip)=T_k(m)_iA_l(p),$$

for $`mM(k)`$, $`p𝒫(l)`$, $`1ik`$, where $`_i`$ in the right hand side is as in (3).

One may also say that a trace is a map $`T:M\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$ of collections which is an homomorphism of modules over the homomorphism $`A:𝒫\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U`$ of operads.

###### Example 3.

Each space $`U`$ is clearly a tautological algebra over its endomorphism operad. Similarly, each space $`V`$ is a tautological $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$-trace over $`U`$ considered as an $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U`$-algebra.

###### Example 4.

Let $`𝒞_1=\{𝒞_1(n)\}_{n0}`$ be the little intervals operad (= the little cubes operad in dimension 1), see \[2, Example 2.49\]. Let $`𝒥_1=\{𝒥_1(n)\}_{n0}`$ be the collection of ‘little intervals’ in the circle $`𝕊^1`$, that is, $`𝒥_1(n)`$ is the space of all linear imbeddings of $`n`$ unit intervals to the circle such that the images of interiors are mutually disjoint. By linear imbeddings we of course mean imbeddings $`\alpha :[0,1]𝕊^1`$ that factor as

$$[0,1]\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{}\stackrel{\mathrm{exp}}{}𝕊^1$$

with some linear increasing map $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. Therefore, elements of $`𝒥_1(n)`$ are maps

(4)
$$d:\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}I_i𝕊^1$$

from the disjoint union of $`n`$-copies of the unit interval $`I=[0,1]`$ to the circle such that the restrictions $`\alpha _i:=d|_{I_i}`$ are, for $`1in`$, linear imbeddings and

$$\alpha _i(\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑡}(I_i))\alpha _j(\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑡}(I_j))=\mathrm{},$$

whenever $`ij`$. Then $`𝒥_1`$ is a right $`𝒞_1`$-module, the module structure being an obvious generalization of the operadic structure of the little intervals operad.

There is a subspace $`F_0(𝕊^1,n)𝒥_1(n)`$ consisting of cyclically ordered sequences of little intervals, introduced by R.L. Cohen in \[3, Definition 1.2\]. A map $`d`$ as in (4) belongs to $`F_0(𝕊^1,n)`$ if and only if there is a sequence

$$\theta _1<\theta _2<\mathrm{}<\theta _n<\theta _1+2\pi $$

of real numbers such that $`e^{𝐢\theta _i}\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}(\alpha _i)`$, for each $`1in`$. The space $`F_0(𝕊^1,n)`$ carries a natural right action of the cyclic group $`_n`$ and $`𝒥_1(n)`$ can be expressed as the induced representation

(5)
$$𝒥_1(n)\mathrm{𝐼𝑛𝑑}__n^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}F_0(𝕊^1,n),$$

where $`_n\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is interpreted as the subgroup of cyclic permutations. This equation is crucial for the proof of Theorem 12.

Let $`X`$ be a topological space. Recall that the free loop space $`X`$ is the space of continuous maps $`f:𝕊^1X`$ with compact-open topology. Given a distinguished point $`bX`$, the based loop space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bX`$ or simply $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ is the subspace of $`X`$ of all maps such that $`f()=b`$, where $`:=\mathrm{exp}(0)`$ is the distinguished point of $`𝕊^1`$.

###### Theorem 5.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ as an $`𝒞_1`$-algebra, with the classical action of M. Boardman and R. Vogt \[2, Example 2.49\]. Then $`X`$ is a $`𝒥_1`$-trace over the $`𝒞_1`$-space $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$.

###### Proof.

A $`𝒥_1`$-trace on $`X`$ is, by Definition 2, given by assigning, to any $`d𝒥_1(n)`$ and based loops $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n\mathrm{\Omega }X`$, a free loop $`T(d)(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n)X`$.

This can be done as follows. Let $`d:_1^nI_n𝕊^1𝒥_1(n)`$ be as in (4) and denote again by $`\alpha _i`$ the restriction $`d|_{I_i}`$. Then put $`T_n(d)(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n):𝕊^1X`$ to be $`\varphi _i\alpha _i^1`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}(\alpha _i)`$, $`1in`$, and $`b`$ on $`𝕊^1\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}(d)`$. It is easy to verify that this indeed defines a trace. ∎

###### Example 6.

Let $`K=\{K_n\}_{n0}`$ be Stasheff’s operad of associahedra . It is well-known that $`K_n`$ can be interpreted as a compactification of the configuration space of $`n`$ distinct points in the unit interval $`I`$. Let $`C_n`$ be a similar compactification of the space of $`n`$ distinct points in the circle $`𝕊^1`$. The space $`C_n`$ decomposes as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}\times 𝕊^1\times W_n`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}`$ is understood here as the quotient of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ modulo cyclic permutations. The space $`W_n`$ is an $`n1`$ dimensional convex polytope called, by J. Stasheff , the cyclohedron. The space $`W_1`$ is the point, $`W_2`$ is the interval and $`W_3`$ is the hexagon. The polyhedron $`W_4`$ is depicted in Figure 1.

By a slight abuse of terminology we will call $`C_n`$ the cyclohedron as well.

It is known \[5, Theorem 2.12\] that $`C=\{C_n\}_{n0}`$ forms a natural right $`K`$-module. This structure was analyzed in detail in . Philosophically, the couple $`(C,K)`$ is a minimal cofibrant model of $`(𝒥_1,𝒞_1)`$ in an appropriate closed model category. Therefore the following theorem is not surprising.

###### Theorem 7.

Consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$ as a $`K`$-algebra (= an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-space) as in . Then $`X`$ is a $`C`$-trace over the $`K`$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$.

###### Proof.

The trace structure can be constructed in the same manner as the operadic action of the operad $`K`$ on the based loop space $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$  and it is in fact a consequence of the contractibility of the component of the identity in the space of endomorphisms of the circle that preserve the base point.

A more conceptual proof follows form the above mentioned fact that the couple $`(C,K)`$ is a cofibrant model of $`(𝒥_1,𝒞_1)`$ which is more or less clear from the description of the cyclohedron given in . Here ‘cofibrant’ means that the cyclohedron is build up inductively by attaching cells so the usual obstruction theory for extending maps applies – we do not refer to any fancy closed model category structure.

To be precise, let $`\rho :K𝒞_1`$ be a weak homotopy equivalence of operads. The existence of such a map is folklore and follows from the cofibrancy of the operad $`K`$. The map $`\rho `$ induces a right $`K`$-module structure on $`𝒥_1`$. Then it follows from the definition of the cyclohedron and its cellular structure that there exist a weak homotopy equivalence of right $`K`$-modules $`\lambda :C𝒥_1`$.

Let $`T:𝒥_1\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{\mathrm{\Omega }X,X}`$ be the trace structure of Theorem 5. Then $`T\lambda :C\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{\mathrm{\Omega }X,X}`$ makes $`X`$ a $`C`$-trace over the $`K`$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$. ∎

###### Example 8.

Let us describe explicitly first components of the structure of Theorem 7. The first piece $`T_1:C_1\times \mathrm{\Omega }X𝕊^1\times \mathrm{\Omega }XX`$ of the trace is given by the reparametrization

(6)
$$T_1(\alpha ,\varphi )(u):=\varphi (u+\alpha ),\alpha 𝕊^1/,u[0,1].$$

To describe a possible choice of the second piece, $`T_2:C_2\times \mathrm{\Omega }X\times \mathrm{\Omega }XX`$, introduce coordinates $`(\alpha ,t)/\times I`$ of $`C_2𝕊^1\times I`$. $`T_2`$ is then given by

$$T_2(\alpha ,t,\varphi ,\psi )(u):=(\varphi \psi )(u+\frac{t}{2}+\alpha ),u[0,1],$$

where $`\varphi \psi `$ is the standard product (loop composition) in $`\mathrm{\Omega }X`$. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$-invariance of $`T_2`$ follows from the obvious, but very charming, equation

$$(\varphi \psi )(u+\frac{1}{2})=(\psi \varphi )(u),u[0,1],$$

which holds in $`X`$ and should be interpreted as a kind of commutativity for the $``$-product.

We believe that an appropriate form of the following recognition principle might be true:

###### Theorem 9.

A couple $`(A,B)`$ has the homotopy type of $`(X,\mathrm{\Omega }X)`$ if and only if $`B`$ is an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-space and $`A`$ is a $`C`$-trace over the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-space $`B`$.

Let $`^bXX`$ be the subspace of paths $`f:𝕊^1X`$ passing through the distinguished point $`b`$, that is, $`b\mathrm{𝐼𝑚}(f)`$. The above recognition principle seems to be related to $`^bX`$ rather than to $`X`$. Therefore the following, if fact very surprising, proposition shared with me by Saša Voronov, is important.

###### Proposition 10 (A. Voronov).

Let $`X`$ be a connected space. Then the inclusion $`^cXX`$ is, for each $`cX`$, a weak homotopy equivalence.

###### Proof due to A. Voronov.

It is easy to see that the map $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑣}:^cXX`$ given by the evaluation at $`𝕊^1`$ is a Hurewicz fibration. The fiber $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑣}^1(b)`$ over a point $`bX`$ is the subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^cX\mathrm{\Omega }_bX`$ of loops based at $`b`$ and passing through $`c`$. Observe that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^cX=\mathrm{\Omega }_cX`$. Consider the following map of fibrations:

The proposition follows from the five lemma applied to the induced map of the long exact homotopy sequences of these fibrations. ∎

The following corollary, also due to A. Voronov, immediately follows from the arguments used in the above proof. This result is so nice and surprizing that we did not resist the temptation to state it here.

###### Corollary 11 (A. Voronov).

The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^cX`$ of based loops passing through a fixed $`cX`$ is homotopy equivalent to the ordinary based loop space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bX`$.

###### Proof.

The corollary follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{𝑒𝑣}:^bXX`$ is a Hurewicz fibration, but, once one believes that the statement is true, it is not difficult write homotopy equivalences explicitly. ∎

The conceptual meaning of Theorem 9 is the following. While the recognition principle for based loop spaces (see, for example, \[2, Theorem 6.27\]) says that the path multiplication, suitably axiomatized, recognizes based loop spaces, Theorem 9 says that reparametrization (6), suitably axiomatized, recognizes free loop spaces. The cofibrancy of the couple $`(C,K)`$ is very important here, without this assumption one would not get an ‘iff’ statement.

As argued in \[6, §4\], an approximation theorem in the spirit of J. Beck and P. May  should describe, for any topological space $`X`$, the homotopy type of the free $`C`$-trace on the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-space $`\mathrm{\Omega }SX`$ which itself has, by the classical approximation theorem \[7, Corrolary 6.2\], homotopy type of the free $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-space on $`X`$. Here, as usual, $`SX`$ denotes the reduced suspension.

Let us inspect free traces more closely. Let $`𝒫`$ be an operad and $`M`$ a right $`𝒫`$-module as in Definition 2. For a $`𝒫`$-algebra $`A`$, the free $`M`$-trace $`T_M(A)`$ on $`A`$ is the quotient of the disjoint union

$$\underset{n0}{}M(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}A^{\times n}$$

modulo relations

$`M(k)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_k}A^{\times k}m\times (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},p(x_i,\mathrm{},x_{i+l1}),x_{i+l},\mathrm{},x_{k+l1})`$
$`m_ip\times (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k+l1})M(k+l1)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k+l1}}A^{\times k+l1},`$
for $`p𝒫(l)`$, $`mM(k)`$ and $`1ik`$. It is easy to see that $`T_M(A)`$ is an $`M`$-trace over the $`𝒫`$-algebra $`A`$ and that it has the obvious universal property.

In the special case when $`A=𝒫X`$ is the free $`𝒫`$-algebra on a space $`X`$, the above construction can be simplified to a formula which is very close to \[7, Construction 2.4\]. Namely, $`T_M(𝒫X)`$ is the quotient of the disjoint union

$$\underset{n0}{}M(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}X^{\times n}$$

modulo relations

$`M(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}X^{\times n}m\times (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},b,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$
$`m_i\times (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)M(n1)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}}X^{\times n1},`$
where $`bX`$ and $`𝒫(0)`$ are the distinguished points. Let us formulate and prove the approximation theorem. Its proof will be based on a result by R.L. Cohen.

###### Theorem 12 (Approximation theorem for free loop spaces).

Let $`X`$ be a connected space. Then there exists the following diagram of weak homotopy equivalences:

(7)
###### Proof.

The vertical homotopy equivalence is induced by the approximation map $`\alpha _1:𝒞_1X\mathrm{\Omega }SX`$ constructed in \[7, Corollary 6.2\].

The left horizontal arrow in (7) is induced by the weak equivalences $`\rho :K𝒞_1`$ and $`\lambda :C𝒥_1`$ introduced in the proof of Theorem 7. The existence of the right horizontal arrow follows from the following identification of $`T_{𝒥_1}(𝒞_1X)`$ with the space $`L(X)`$ constructed by R.L. Cohen in \[3, Definition 1.3\].

It follows from the description of the free trace on the free algebra given above that $`T_{𝒥_1}(𝒞_1X)`$ is the quotient of the disjoint union

(8)
$$\underset{n0}{}𝒥_1(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}X^{\times n}$$

modulo the relation

$`𝒥_1(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}X^{\times n}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},b,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$
$`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_{i1},d_{i+1},\mathrm{},d_n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)𝒥_1(n)\times _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}}X^{\times n1},`$
It follows from representation (5) that we may replace (8) by the disjoint union

$$\underset{n0}{}F_0(𝕊^1,n)\times __nX^{\times n}$$

and modify the relations accordingly. We immediately recognize the space $`L(X)`$ of \[3, Definition 1.3\]. The right horizontal arrow of (7) is then identified with the map $`h:L(X)SX`$ of \[3, Theorem 1.5\]. This finishes the proof. ∎

As proved by Jim Stasheff , the action of the associahedra induces an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$-structure on the chain complex $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }X)`$ of the based loop space. Similarly, the action of the cyclohedra on the free loop space induces a structure of an (algebraic) strongly homotopy trace on $`C_{}(X)`$. Axioms of this structure are given more or less explicitly in .

Acknowledgment. I am indebted to Jack Morava for turning my attention to . Theorem 10 and its corollary is due to Saša Voronov. I would also like to thank Eugen Paal for his hospitality during my visit of Tallinn.


format: text

text:
# Decay of the Loschmidt Echo for quantum states with sub-Planck scale structures

## Abstract

Quantum states extended over a large volume in phase space have oscillations from quantum interferences in their Wigner distribution on scales smaller than $`\mathrm{}`$ \[W.H. Zurek, Nature 412, 712 (2001)\]. We investigate the influence of those sub-Planck scale structures on the sensitivity to an external perturbation of the state’s time evolution. While we do find an accelerated decay of the Loschmidt Echo for an extended state in comparison to a localized wavepacket, the acceleration is described entirely by the classical Lyapunov exponent and hence cannot originate from quantum interference.

PACS numbers: 05.45.Mt, 05.45.Pq, 03.65.Yz, 76.60.Lz

One common interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that phase-space structures on scales smaller than $`\mathrm{}`$ have no observable consequence. The recent assertion of Zurek  that sub-Planck scale structures in the Wigner function enhance the sensitivity of a quantum state to an external perturbation, therefore, came out as particularly intriguing  and even controversial . His argument can be summarized as follows. The overlap (squared amplitude of the scalar product) of two quantum states $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ is given by the phase-space integral of the product of their Wigner functions,

$$I_{\psi ,\psi ^{}}|\psi |\psi ^{}|^2=(2\pi \mathrm{})^d𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐩W_\psi W_\psi ^{}.$$
(1)
For an extended quantum state covering a large volume $`A\mathrm{}^d`$ of $`2d`$-dimensional phase space, the Wigner function $`W_\psi `$ exhibits oscillations from quantum interferences on a scale corresponding to an action $`\delta S\mathrm{}^2/A^{1/d}\mathrm{}`$. These sub-Planck scale oscillations are brought out of phase by a shift $`\delta p`$, $`\delta x`$ with $`\delta p\delta x\delta S\mathrm{}`$. The shifted state $`\psi ^{}`$ is then nearly orthogonal to $`\psi `$ since $`I_{\psi ,\psi ^{}}0`$. Zurek concludes that sub-Planck structures substantially enhance the sensitivity of a quantum state to an external perturbation.

A measure of this sensitivity is provided by the Loschmidt Echo

$$M(t)=|\psi |\mathrm{exp}(iHt)\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)|\psi |^2,$$
(2)
giving the decaying overlap of two wave functions that start out identically and evolve under the action of two slightly different Hamiltonians $`H_0`$ and $`H=H_0+H_1`$. (We set $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) One can interpret $`M(t)`$ as the fidelity with which a quantum state can be reconstructed by inverting the dynamics with a perturbed Hamiltonian. In the context of environment-induced dephasing, $`M(t)`$ measures the decay of quantum interferences in a system with few degrees of freedom interacting with an environment (with many more degrees of freedom) . In this case $`\psi `$ represents the state of the environment, which in general extends over a large volume of phase space. This motivated Karkuszewski, Jarzynski, and Zurek  to investigate the dependence of $`M(t)`$ on short-scale structures.

In this paper we study the same problem as in Ref. , but arrive at opposite conclusions. Finer and finer structures naturally develop in phase space when an initially narrow wavepacket $`\psi _0`$ evolves in time under the influence of a chaotic Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ . As in Ref. , we observe numerically a more rapid decay of $`M(t)`$ for $`\psi =\mathrm{exp}(iH_0T)\psi _0`$ as the preparation time $`T`$ is made larger and larger, with a saturation at the Ehrenfest time. However, we demonstrate that this enhanced decay is described entirely by the classical Lyapunov exponent, and hence is insensitive to the quantum interference that leads to the sub-Planck scale structures in the Wigner function.

In the case of a narrow initial wavepacket, $`M(t)`$ has been calculated semiclassically by Jalabert and Pastawski . Before discussing extended states with short-scale structures, we recapitulate their calculation. The time-evolution of a wavepacket centered at $`𝐫_0`$ is approximated by

$`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_0\underset{s}{}K_s^H(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)\psi _0(𝐫_0)},`$ (3)
$`K_s^H(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)`$ $`=`$ $`C_s^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[iS_s^H(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)i\pi \mu _s/2].`$ (4)
The semiclassical propagator is a sum over classical trajectories (labelled $`s`$) that connect $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐫_0`$ in the time $`t`$. For each $`s`$, the partial propagator is expressed in terms of the action integral $`S_s^H(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)`$ along $`s`$, a Maslov index $`\mu _s`$ (which will drop out), and the determinant $`C_s`$ of the monodromy matrix. After a stationary phase approximation, one gets

$`M(t)`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\underset{s}{}K_s^H(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)^{}K_s^{H_0}(𝐫,𝐫_0;t)}\right|^2.`$ (5)
Squaring the amplitude in Eq. (5) leads to a double sum over classical paths $`s`$, $`s^{}`$ and a double integration over final coordinates $`𝐫`$, $`𝐫^{}`$. Accordingly, $`M(t)`$ splits into diagonal ($`s=s^{}`$, $`𝐫=𝐫^{}`$) and nondiagonal ($`ss^{}`$ or $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$) contributions. Since quantum phases entirely drop out of the diagonal contribution, its decay is solely determined by the classical quantity $`C_s\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$. Here $`\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent of the classical chaotic dynamics, which we assume is the same for $`H`$ and $`H_0`$. The nondiagonal contribution also leads to an exponential decay, which however originates from the phase difference accumulated when travelling along a classical path with two different Hamiltonians . The slope $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of this decay is the golden rule spreading width of an eigenstate of $`H_0`$ over the eigenbasis of $`H`$ . Since $`M(t)`$ is given by the sum of these two exponentials, the Lyapunov decay will prevail for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\lambda `$.

The Lyapunov decay sensitively depends on the choice of an initial narrow wavepacket $`\psi _0`$ . The faster decay of $`M(t)`$ resulting from the increased complexity of the initial state can be quantitatively investigated by considering prepared states $`\psi =\mathrm{exp}(iH_0T)\psi _0`$, i.e. narrow wavepackets that propagate during a time $`T`$ with the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ , thereby developing finer and finer structures in phase space as $`T`$ increases . The stationary phase approximation to the fidelity then reads

$$M_T(t)=\left|𝑑𝐫\underset{s}{}K_s^{H_\tau }(𝐫,𝐫_0;t+T)^{}K_s^{H_0}(𝐫,𝐫_0;t+T)\right|^2$$
(6)
with the time-dependent Hamiltonian $`H_\tau =H_0`$ for $`\tau <T`$ and $`H_\tau =H`$ for $`\tau >T`$.

We can apply the same analysis as in Ref.  to the time-dependent Hamiltonian. Only the time interval $`(T,t+T)`$ of length $`t`$ leads to a phase difference between $`K_s^{H_\tau }`$ and $`K_s^{H_0}`$, because $`H_\tau =H_0`$ for $`\tau <T`$. Hence the nondiagonal contribution to $`M_T(t)`$, which is entirely due to this phase difference, still decays $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$, independent of the preparation time $`T`$. We will see below that this is in agreement with a fully quantum mechanical approach according to which the golden rule decay is independent of the complexity of the initial state.

The preparation does however have an effect on the diagonal contribution $`M_T^{(\mathrm{d})}(t)`$ to the fidelity. It decays $`\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (t+T)]`$ instead of $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$, provided $`t`$, $`T\lambda ^1`$. This is most easily seen from the expression

$`M_T^{(\mathrm{d})}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\underset{s}{}|K_s^{H_\tau }(𝐫,𝐫_0;t+T)|^2}`$ (8)
$`\times |K_s^{H_0}(𝐫,𝐫_0;t+T)|^2,`$
by following a path from its endpoint $`𝐫`$ to an intermediate point $`𝐫_i`$ reached after a time $`t`$. The time-evolution from $`𝐫`$ to $`𝐫_i`$ leads to an exponential decrease $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$ as in Ref. . Due to the classical chaoticity of $`H_0`$, the subsequent evolution from $`𝐫_i`$ to $`𝐫_0`$ in a time $`T`$ brings in an additional prefactor $`\mathrm{exp}(\lambda T)`$.

The combination of diagonal and nondiagonal contributions results in the bi-exponential decay (valid for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$, $`\lambda t`$, $`\lambda T1`$)

$$M_T(t)=A(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)+B(t)\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (t+T)],$$
(9)
with prefactors $`A`$ and $`B`$ that depend algebraically on time. The Lyapunov decay prevails if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\lambda `$ and $`t>\lambda T/(\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda )`$, while the golden rule decay dominates if either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\lambda `$ or $`t<\lambda T/(\mathrm{\Gamma }\lambda )`$. In both regimes the decay saturates when $`M_T`$ has reached its minimal value $`1/I`$, where $`I`$ is the total accessible volume of phase space in units of $`\mathrm{}^d`$. In the Lyapunov regime, this saturation occurs at $`t=t_ET`$, where $`t_E=\lambda ^1\mathrm{ln}I`$ is the Ehrenfest time. When the preparation time $`Tt_E`$, we have a complete decay within a time $`\lambda ^1`$ of the fidelity down to its minimal value.

We now present numerical checks of these analytical results for the Hamiltonian

$$H_0=(\pi /2\tau _0)S_y+(K/2S)S_z^2\underset{n}{}\delta (tn\tau _0).$$
(10)
This kicked top model  describes a vector spin of magnitude $`S`$ undergoing a free precession around the $`y`$-axis and being periodically perturbed (period $`\tau _0`$) by sudden rotations around the $`z`$-axis over an angle proportional to $`S_z`$. The time evolution after $`n`$ periods is given by the $`n`$-th power of the Floquet operator

$$F_0=\mathrm{exp}[i(K/2S)S_z^2]\mathrm{exp}[i(\pi /2)S_y].$$
(11)
Depending on the kicking strength $`K`$, the classical dynamics is regular, partially chaotic, or fully chaotic. We perturb the reversed time evolution by a periodic rotation of constant angle around the $`x`$-axis, slightly delayed with respect to the kicks in $`H_0`$,

$$H_1=\varphi S_x\underset{n}{}\delta (tn\tau _0ϵ).$$
(12)
The corresponding Floquet operator is $`F=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi S_x)F_0`$. We set $`\tau _0=1`$ for ease of notation. We took $`S=500`$ (both $`H`$ and $`H_0`$ conserve the spin magnitude, the corresponding phase space being the sphere of radius $`S`$) and calculated the averaged decay $`\overline{M}_T`$ of $`M_T(t=n)=|\psi |(F^{})^nF_0^n|\psi |^2`$ taken over 100 initial states.

We choose $`\psi _0`$ as a Gaussian wavepacket (coherent state) centered on a point $`(\theta ,\phi )`$ in spherical coordinates. The state is then prepared as $`\psi =\mathrm{exp}(iH_0T)\psi _0`$. We can reach the Lyapunov regime by selecting initial wavepackets centered in the chaotic region of the mixed phase space for the Hamiltonian (10) with kicking strength $`K=3.9`$ . Fig. 1 gives a clear confirmation of the predicted decay $`\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (t+T)]`$ in the Lyapunov regime. The additional decay induced by the preparation time $`T`$ can be quantified via the time $`t_c`$ it takes for $`\overline{M}_T`$ to reach a given threshold $`M_c`$ . We expect

$$t_c=\lambda ^1\mathrm{ln}M_cT,$$
(13)
provided $`M_c>1/I=1/2S`$ and $`T<\lambda ^1\mathrm{ln}M_c`$. In the inset to Fig. 1 we confirm this formula for $`M_c=10^2`$. As expected, $`t_c`$ saturates at the first kick ($`t_c=1`$) when $`T\lambda ^1\mathrm{ln}M_c<t_E`$. Numerical results qualitatively similar to those shown in the inset to Fig. 1  were obtained in Ref. , and interpreted there as the accelerated decay resulting from sub-Planck scale structures. The fact that our numerical data is described so well by Eq. (13) points to a classical rather than a quantum origin of the decay acceleration. Indeed, Eq. (13) contains only the classical Lyapunov exponent as a system dependent parameter, so that it cannot be sensitive to any fine structure in phase space resulting from quantum interference.

We next illustrate the independence of $`M_T(t)`$ on the preparation time $`T`$ in the golden rule regime, i.e. at larger kicking strength $`K`$ when $`\lambda >\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . As shown in Fig. 2, the decay of $`M_T(t)`$ is the same for the four different preparation times $`T=0`$, 5, 10, and 20. We estimate the Ehrenfest time as $`t_E7`$, so that increasing $`T`$ further does not increases the complexity of the initial state.

These numerical data give a clear confirmation of the semiclassical result (9). Previous investigations have established the existence of five different regimes for the decay of $`M(t)`$ , and since only two of them are captured by the semiclassical approach used above, we now show that short-scale structures do not affect the remaining three. The five regimes correspond to different decays:
(i) Parabolic decay, $`M(t)=1\sigma ^2t^2`$, with $`\sigma ^2\psi _0|H_1^2|\psi _0\psi _0|H_1|\psi _0^2`$, which exists for any perturbation strength at short enough times.
(ii) Gaussian decay, $`M(t)\mathrm{exp}(\sigma ^2t^2)`$, valid if $`\sigma `$ is much smaller than the level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
(iii) Golden rule decay, $`M(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sigma ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Gamma }<\lambda `$.
(iv) Lyapunov decay, $`M(t)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda t)`$, if $`\lambda <\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
(v) Gaussian decay, $`M(t)\mathrm{exp}(B^2t^2)`$, if $`H_1`$ is so large thxdvat $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is larger than the energy bandwidth $`B`$ of $`H`$.

All these regimes except regime (iii) can be dealt with quantum mechanically under the sole assumption that both $`H_0`$ and $`H`$ are classically chaotic, using Random Matrix Theory (RMT) . Both sets of eigenstates $`|\alpha `$ of $`H`$ (with $`N`$ eigenvalues $`ϵ_\alpha `$) and $`|\alpha _0`$ of $`H_0`$ (with $`N`$ eigenvalues $`ϵ_\alpha ^0`$) are then rotationally invariant . Expanding $`\psi =_\alpha \psi _\alpha |\alpha `$ and assuming unbroken time-reversal symmetry, the fidelity (2) can be rewritten as

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }{}}\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta \psi _\gamma \psi _\delta \alpha |\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)|\beta `$ (15)
$`\times \gamma |\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)|\delta \mathrm{exp}[i(ϵ_\alpha ϵ_\delta )t].`$
RMT implies the $`\psi `$-independent average $`\overline{\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta \psi _\gamma \psi _\delta }=(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma })/N^2`$. The third contraction gives a contribution $`N^1`$ representing the saturation of $`M(t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$. The other two give the time dependence

$$\overline{M}(t)=N^1+2N^2\left|\underset{\alpha \beta _0}{}|\alpha |\beta _0|^2\mathrm{exp}[i(ϵ_\alpha ϵ_\beta ^0)t]\right|^2.$$
(16)
For perturbatively weak $`H_1`$ one has $`ϵ_\alpha =ϵ_\alpha ^0+\alpha |H_1|\alpha `$ and $`\alpha |\beta _0=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta _0}`$. According to RMT the matrix elements $`\alpha |H_1|\alpha `$ are independent random numbers, and for large $`N`$ the central limit theorem leads to the Gaussian decay (ii) (or the parabolic decay (i) for short times). At larger perturbation strength, $`|\alpha |\beta _0|^2`$ becomes Lorentzian,

$$|\alpha |\beta _0|^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\pi }{(ϵ_\alpha ϵ_\beta ^0)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4},$$
(17)
with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{|\alpha _0|H_1|\beta |^2}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ given by the golden rule. This leads to regime (iii). Increasing $`H_1`$ further one obtains an ergodic distribution $`\overline{|\alpha |\beta _0|^2}=N^1`$ and a straightforward calculation produces regime (v). This establishes that, under the sole assumption that $`H_0`$ and $`H`$ are classically chaotic, the decay of the fidelity in the three quantum regimes (ii), (iii), and (v) does not depend on the choice of the initial state $`\psi `$.

In summary, we have investigated the decay of the Loschmidt Echo, Eq. (2), for quantum states $`\psi =\mathrm{exp}(iH_0T)\psi _0`$ that have spread over phase space for a time $`T`$. As in Ref. , we found a faster decay of $`M_T(t)`$ than for a localized wavepacket, but only in the regime where the decay rate is set by the classical Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda `$. Since quantum interferences play no role in this regime, we conclude that sub-Planck scale structures in the Wigner representation of $`\psi `$ do not influence the decay of the Loschmidt Echo.

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM. We acknowledge helpful discussions with N. Cerruti, R.A. Jalabert, and S. Tomsovic.