Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Nonstabilizerness in the unitary and monitored quantum dynamics of XXZ-staggered and SYK models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Under continuous measurement, three monitored many-body models keep their magic linear in system size at every coupling, so no measurement-induced nonstabilizerness transition appears.

desk verdict Useful first numerical study of magic under continuous monitoring for XXZ-staggered and SYK models; the no-transition claim is plausible but rests on small sizes and an unexplained Lorentzian fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01431 v3 pith:GWMOTSDE submitted 2025-02-03 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Angelo Russomanno , Gianluca Passarelli , Davide Rossini , Procolo Lucignano This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords nonstabilizernessmagicstabilizerRényientropymonitoredquantumdynamicstrajectoriesSYKmodelXXZspinchainmeasurement-inducedtransitions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether continuous measurement can strip a many-body quantum system of its 'magic'—the resource that makes a state hard to simulate classically—and finds that it cannot produce a phase transition in that resource. It tracks the stabilizer Rényi entropy (SRE) along the quantum trajectories of three models: an integrable XX-staggered chain, a nonintegrable XXZ-staggered chain, and the SYK model. In the absence of measurements, only the SYK model reaches the random-state bound and follows the predicted chaotic scaling. Under continuous monitoring, the steady-state SRE as a function of measurement coupling is fit by a generalized Lorentzian whose parameters scale so that the SRE remains linear in system size at every coupling, in all three models. The paper takes this as evidence that no measurement-induced transition in nonstabilizerness occurs in these systems, and that these steady states always require more non-Clifford resources as they grow.

What carries the argument

The stabilizer Rényi entropy of order 2, M2 = -ln($2^{{-L}}$ Σ_{P∈P_L} ⟨ψ|P|ψ⟩^4), is the quantity that carries the argument: it measures how far the pure state is from the set of stabilizer states, hence how much non-Clifford resource the state holds. The measurement protocol is the quantum-state-diffusion unraveling, a stochastic Schrödinger evolution Eq. (4) that on average reproduces the Lindblad equation Eq. (6). The fit that carries the scaling argument is the generalized Lorentzian f_L(γ) of Eq. (7), whose three parameters—amplitude A_L, width γ_{0,L}, and steepness b_L—are extracted from the numerical steady-state SRE curves and then studied as functions of L. What this machinery does is convert the question 'is there a magic transition?' into the question 'do the fit parameters scale in a way that changes the character of f_L as L grows?'; the answer found here is no, because the amplitude is linear while the width and exponent saturate.

What would settle it

Compute the steady-state SRE for L=16 or 18 (using the efficiency methods suggested in the paper for Gaussian fermions or matrix product states) and check whether M2 vs L remains linear at each γ and whether the fit of Eq. (7) continues to hold with b_L and γ_{0,L} saturated; a curvature in M2 vs L or a divergence of γ_{0,L} with L would falsify the no-transition conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that for the quantum-state-diffusion monitored dynamics of the XX-staggered, XXZ-staggered, and SYK models, the steady-state stabilizer Rényi entropy grows linearly with system size L for every value of the measurement coupling γ. The dependence of the steady-state SRE on γ is accurately captured by the generalized Lorentzian f_L(γ)=A_L/(1+(γ/γ_{0,L})^{b_L}), with A_L linear in L and b_L and γ_{0,L} saturating as L grows. Consequently no measurement-induced transition in nonstabilizerness appears in the considered parameter range. The paper also establishes that in unitary dynamics only the SYK model saturates the random-state value of the SRE and matches the chaotic prediction M2 ~ ln(N_L), while the spin chains show a slower, still approximately linear growth. In the monitored case the γ→0 limit of the nonintegrable XXZ chain is singular, recovering the random-state value rather than the unitary time average, because weak measurement noise breaks energy conservation; the SYK model instead shows no such singularity.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the generalized Lorentzian fit f_L(γ) of Eq. (7) describing the steady-state SRE exactly, and on extrapolating the observed scaling of A_L, b_L, and γ_{0,L} to larger system sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the linear-in-L steady-state SRE holds for larger sizes, the monitored steady states of all three models cannot be efficiently simulated by Clifford circuits, and the number of non-Clifford gates needed to prepare them keeps growing with system size.
  • The absence of a measurement-induced transition in nonstabilizerness contrasts with previously observed magic transitions in Clifford+T circuits and measurement-only circuits, suggesting that continuous Hamiltonian monitoring of this kind is not sufficient to drive such a transition.
  • For the nonintegrable XXZ chain, the singular γ→0 limit implies that an infinitesimal monitoring completely changes the long-time magic content relative to unitary dynamics, restoring the random-state value; any experiment probing magic in this model should therefore specify the monitoring even for arbitrarily weak coupling.
  • The SYK model saturating the random-state bound at small sizes strengthens the view that its unitary dynamics thermalizes even nonlocal quantities like the SRE, so its trajectories can serve as a benchmark for chaotic magic generation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural testable extension is to push the XX-staggered chain to larger L using the fermionic-Gaussian sampling techniques the paper cites; if logarithmic corrections to the linear slope persist or grow, the conclusion of no transition would need to be qualified for integrable monitored systems.
  • The generalized Lorentzian fit has no identified physical origin, so an analytical derivation of f_L(γ) from the Lindblad dynamics—or a counterexample where the fit fails—would be the next step; this is the paper's own stated open problem.
  • The same Lorentzian ansatz could be tried on the slope m(γ) of SRE versus L for other monitored Hamiltonians with different conservation laws, which would test whether the volume-law magic with no transition is generic for continuous measurements or specific to these models.
  • Because the SRE is nonlinear in the state, the trajectory-averaged result may depend on the choice of unraveling; an interesting check is whether a jump-based unraveling of the same Lindblad equation gives the same linear-in-L steady-state SRE or reveals a transition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stabilizer Rényi entropy (SRE), a measure of nonstabilizerness, along quantum trajectories generated by quantum-state-diffusion monitoring of three models: the integrable XX-staggered chain, the interacting XXZ-staggered chain, and the SYK model. In the unitary limit, the authors find that the SYK model saturates the random-state value and follows the predicted ln(N_L) chaotic scaling, while the spin chains show a slower, approximately linear growth. In the monitored case, the steady-state SRE as a function of the measurement coupling γ is fitted to a generalized Lorentzian (Eq. (7)); from the scaling of the fitted parameters with system size L, the authors conclude that the steady-state SRE is linear in L for all γ in all three models and that no measurement-induced transition in nonstabilizerness occurs.

Significance. The conclusion that monitored Hamiltonian dynamics preserves a volume-law nonstabilizerness for all measurement strengths, in contrast to the measurement-induced entanglement transitions studied for the same setups, would be a significant and useful counterpoint for the resource theory of nonstabilizerness and for questions of classical simulability. The paper's strengths include a careful exact-diagonalization/Krylov implementation, a subspace-adapted evaluation of the SRE over all Pauli strings, and systematic benchmarking against random-phase and Haar random states and against the ln(N_L) prediction for chaotic systems. The authors also explicitly flag their own main uncertainty, the unexplained generalized-Lorentzian fit, which is the appropriate focus for a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (7)] The central no-transition claim is carried by the generalized Lorentzian fit f_L(γ)=A_L/(1+(γ/γ_{0,L})^{b_L}). The authors state in §IV that they 'could not identify the physical origin of why the fitting function reproduces the data so well.' Because A_L is an extrapolated γ→0 limit rather than a directly measured value, and because b_L and γ_{0,L} are fitted using only L≤14, the inference that A_L∝L while b_L and γ_{0,L} saturate is not protected against a different true scaling form. Please add a scaling test that does not rely on this ansatz, for example fitting M2 vs L to aL+c ln L or aL^α, or a data collapse of M2/AL vs γ/γ_{0,L}, and for the free-fermion XX-staggered model use the fermionic-Gaussian method of Ref. [131] to reach larger L.
  2. [§IV, Fig. 5(c)] For the SYK model, the authors note that the curves bend downwards for L=14 and γ≥0.045 and attribute this to smaller available sampling. With data only at L=4,...,14, a linear fit has no protection against a crossover to sublinear scaling, and a downward bend at the largest size is precisely the signature of such a crossover. Please quantify the sampling effect by showing M2 at L=14 with error bars as a function of the number of realizations, and test whether including a logarithmic or sublinear term changes the fitted asymptotic behavior.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 5(a)] For the XX-staggered model at γ<0.05, the authors report oscillations superimposed on the linear increase and cite Ref. [129], which attributes such oscillations to logarithmic corrections that disappear above a threshold. This is an internal indication that the linear-in-L behavior at small γ may not be asymptotic. Since the no-transition claim includes arbitrarily small γ, the paper should either extend the accessible L range for this free-fermion case or provide a quantitative argument that the logarithmic corrections cannot change the asymptotic scaling.
  4. [§III and §IV, Fig. 2(a) vs Fig. 3(b)] The claimed singular γ→0 limit for the XXZ-staggered model is asserted rather than demonstrated. The argument is that infinitesimal stochastic noise breaks energy conservation and restores the random-state value, yet the smallest simulated γ is finite (γ=0.002) and the unitary time average lies well below the random-state value (Fig. 2(a)). Unless the data show a clear trend toward the random-state value as γ→0 at fixed L, or an analytic argument is supplied, A_L in Eq. (7) should be treated as an extrapolation rather than a measured limit. This also weakens the interpretation of Fig. 4(a), where the XXZ-staggered A_L closely follows the random-phase state value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV] The notation for the trajectory-averaged SRE M2(t) and the time-and-trajectory-averaged M2 is introduced quickly and is easy to confuse; please define both symbols explicitly with distinct names, e.g., \(\overline{M_2(t)}\) for the time average.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The definition of the SYK Hamiltonian in the spin representation is terse; please state explicitly that the \(\hat{S}_j\) are Jordan-Wigner strings that enforce fermionic anticommutation, and specify the ordering of the four string operators in the interaction term.
  3. [Footnote [126]] Footnote [126] says the Trotterization is 'equivalent to a slightly different unraveling than Eq. (5)' and then displays a different equation; the reference to Eq. (5) appears twice in a way that confuses the Trotterized evolution with the alternative unraveling. Please correct the equation numbers.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract contains a stray closing brace in 'the steady-state} SRE'; please remove it.
  5. [Captions of Fig. 3 and Fig. 5] The captions specify \(N_r\) only as 'Nr ≥ 11' for L=14; please state the exact number of trajectories for each L and justify the reduction from \(N_r=48\).
  6. [Sec. V] The concluding statement that 'more T gates ... are needed to prepare the state' interprets SRE growth as a gate count; since the SRE is not a direct count of T gates, please rephrase to say that the state requires more non-Clifford resources or cite a bound connecting the two.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central linear-in-L and no-transition claims are direct numerical observations benchmarked externally, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the steady-state stabilizer Rényi entropy is linear in L and shows no measurement-induced transition—is presented as a numerical finding, not as a derived prediction. The monitored dynamics is fully specified by the quantum-state-diffusion equations (4)–(6), and the SRE is computed from the independent definition in Eq. (3). The generalized Lorentzian fit in Eq. (7) is explicitly introduced as an empirical interpolation, with the authors stating 'We could not identify the physical origin of why the fitting function reproduces the data so well.' The linear-in-L conclusion is drawn from the scaling of the fitted parameters in Fig. 4 and then independently corroborated by direct linear fits of M2 versus L at fixed gamma in Figs. 5–6. Thus the claim is not forced by construction: AL is not defined in terms of the target linear-in-L statement, and the shape parameters bL and gamma0,L are separately checked to saturate. External benchmarks—the random-phase and Haar random state values and the ln(N_L) quantum-chaos prediction—anchor the SYK saturation result, so the reasoning is not self-referential. Self-citations in the reference list are background or technical references and are not load-bearing for the no-transition conclusion. The acknowledged caveats about the unexplained Lorentzian form, the limited L=14 SYK sampling, and possible logarithmic corrections are extrapolation and finite-size concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central conclusion depends on four fitted parameters per model and on the unproven Lorentzian ansatz, plus standard background assumptions about SRE and the QSD protocol.

free parameters (4)
  • AL: Lorentzian amplitude = model- and L-dependent, ~1.5 to 8.5 for L=4 to 14
    Fit parameter in Eq. (7) for M2 vs gamma; its linear-in-L scaling is the main support for the paper's central claim.
  • bL: Lorentzian exponent = ~1.0 to 1.8 depending on model and L
    Fit parameter in Eq. (7); authors infer it saturates with L.
  • gamma0,L: Lorentzian width = ~0.05 to 0.5 depending on model and L
    Fit parameter in Eq. (7); authors infer it saturates with L.
  • m: slope of M2 vs L = varies with gamma; tends to ln(2) as gamma->0 for SYK and XXZ
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 6, used to support linear-in-L scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SRE as defined in Eq. (3) is a valid measure of nonstabilizerness for pure states.
    Property taken from Refs. [16,17]; the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Dynamics is restricted to the zero-total-z-magnetization subspace, which is invariant under both the unitary and monitored evolution.
    Introduced in Sec. II and used throughout; all numerical results are within this subspace.
  • domain assumption The QSD unraveling of Eqs. (4)-(5) is an experimentally realizable continuous-measurement protocol whose average reproduces the Lindblad equation (6).
    Stated in Sec. IV with references; the SRE is nonlinear and is computed per trajectory.
  • ad hoc to paper The steady-state SRE as a function of gamma is described by the generalized Lorentzian Eq. (7).
    The authors state they cannot identify the physical origin of this fit; it is a load-bearing modeling choice for the central claim.
  • domain assumption The SYK spin representation Eq. (2) with Gaussian-distributed couplings and L^{-3/2} prefactor is the standard spin version of the SYK model.
    Standard model definition from Refs. [108,109]; used for exact diagonalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonstabilizerness in the unitary and monitored quantum dynamics of XXZ-staggered and SYK models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWMOTSDE

@misc{pith2026250201431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonstabilizerness in the unitary and monitored quantum dynamics of XXZ-staggered and SYK models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWMOTSDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01431}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the quantum-state-diffusion dynamics of the XXZ-staggered spin chain, also focusing on its noninteracting XX-staggered limit, and of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) model. We describe the process through quantum trajectories and evaluate the nonstabilizerness (also known as ``magic'') along the trajectories, quantified through the stabilizer R\'enyi entropy (SRE). In the absence of measurements, we find that the SYK model is the only one in which the time-averaged SRE saturates the random state bound and has a scaling with the system size that is well described by the theoretical prediction for quantum chaotic systems. In the presence of measurements, we numerically find that the steady-state SRE versus the coupling strength to the environment is well fitted by a generalized Lorentzian function. The scaling of the fitting parameters with the system size suggests that the steady-state} SRE linearly increases with the system size in all the considered cases, and displays no measurement-induced quantum transition, as confirmed by the curves of the steady-state SRE versus the system size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a,b) The SRE [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The time-averaged SRE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The monitored-dynamics steady-state SRE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Parameters of the fit with Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The steady-state SRE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Magic phase transitions in monitored gaussian fermions

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Measurement-induced transitions in monitored free-fermion systems appear in the subleading logarithmic corrections to stabilizer Renyi entropies, not in the leading extensive magic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [131]

    Collura, J

    M. Collura, J. D. Nardis, V. Alba, and G. Lami, The quantum magic of fermionic Gaussian states (2024), arXiv:2412.05367 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [129]

    Tirrito, L

    E. Tirrito, L. Lumia, A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, A. Silva, X. Turkeshi, and M. Collura, Magic phase transitions in monitored gaussian fermions (2025), arXiv:2507.07179 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011)

    2011

  4. [2]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys. 16, 013009 (2014)

    2014

  5. [3]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Application of a resource theory for magic states to fault-tolerant quantum com- puting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  6. [4]

    Bravyi and D

    S. Bravyi and D. Gosset, Improved classical simulation of quantum circuits dominated by clifford gates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 250501 (2016)

    2016

  7. [5]

    Bravyi, G

    S. Bravyi, G. Smith, and J. A. Smolin, Trading classical and quantum computational resources, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021043 (2016)

    2016

  8. [6]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gos- set, and M. Howard, Simulation of quantum circuits by low-rank stabilizer decompositions, Quantum 3, 181 (2019)

    2019

Show all 136 references
  1. [7]

    Heinrich and D

    M. Heinrich and D. Gross, Robustness of Magic and Symmetries of the Stabiliser Polytope, Quantum 3, 132 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Quantifying the magic of quantum channels, New J. Phys. 21, 103002 (2019)

    2019

  3. [9]

    X. Wang, M. M. Wilde, and Y. Su, Efficiently com- putable bounds for magic state distillation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 090505 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Heimendahl, F

    A. Heimendahl, F. Montealegre-Mora, F. Vallentin, and D. Gross, Stabilizer extent is not multiplicative, Quan- tum 5, 400 (2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Jiang and X

    J. Jiang and X. Wang, Lower bound for the t count via unitary stabilizer nullity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034052 (2023)

    2023

  6. [12]

    Haug and M

    T. Haug and M. Kim, Scalable measures of magic resource for quantum computers, PRX Quantum 4, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  7. [13]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Random quantum circuits, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  8. [14]

    Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys

    D. Gottesman, Theory of fault-tolerant quantum com- putation, Phys. Rev. A 57, 127 (1998)

    1998

  9. [15]

    Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, in 22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (1998) pp

    D. Gottesman, The Heisenberg representation of quan- tum computers, in 22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (1998) pp. 32– 43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006

    1998 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer r´ enyi entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050402 (2022)

    2022

  11. [17]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Magic-state resource theory for the ground state of the transverse- field ising model, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042426 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Inf

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 5, 216 (2005)

    2005

  13. [19]

    Howard, J

    M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’for quantum compu- tation, Nature 510, 351 (2014)

    2014

  14. [20]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Quantum resource theories, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  15. [21]

    J. R. Seddon and E. T. Campbell, Quantifying magic for multi-qubit operations, Proc. Roy. Soc. A (London) 475, 20190251 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Zhou, Z.-C

    S. Zhou, Z.-C. Yang, A. Hamma, and C. Chamon, Single T gate in a Clifford circuit drives transition to universal entanglement spectrum statistics, SciPost Phys. 9, 087 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    Liu and A

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, Many-body quantum magic, PRX Quantum 3, 020333 (2022)

    2022

  18. [24]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Nonsta- bilizerness determining the hardness of direct fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 107, 022429 (2023)

    2023

  19. [25]

    Rattacaso, L

    D. Rattacaso, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy dynamics after a quan- tum quench, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042407 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    Odavi´ c, T

    J. Odavi´ c, T. Haug, G. Torre, A. Hamma, F. Franchini, and S. M. Giampaolo, Complexity of frustration: A new source of non-local non-stabilizerness, SciPost Phys. 4, 131 (2023)

    2023

  21. [27]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, G. Esposito, and A. Hamma, Phase transition in stabilizer entropy and efficient purity estimation, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032403 (2024)

    2024

  22. [28]

    Tirrito, P

    E. Tirrito, P. S. Tarabunga, G. Lami, T. Chanda, L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, M. Dalmonte, M. Collura, and A. Hamma, Quantifying nonstabilizerness through entanglement spectrum flatness, Phys. Rev. A 109, L040401 (2024)

    2024

  23. [29]

    Paviglianiti, G

    A. Paviglianiti, G. Lami, M. Collura, and A. Silva, Esti- mating non-stabilizerness dynamics without simulating it (2024), arXiv:2405.06054 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Dowling, P

    N. Dowling, P. Kos, and X. Turkeshi, Magic resources of the heisenberg picture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 050401 (2025)

    2025

  25. [31]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Dymarsky, and P. Sierant, Pauli spec- trum and nonstabilizerness of typical quantum many- body states, Phys. Rev. B 111, 054301 (2025)

    2025

  26. [32]

    Turkeshi, E

    X. Turkeshi, E. Tirrito, and P. Sierant, Magic spreading in random quantum circuits, Nat. Commun. 16, 2575 (2025)

    2025

  27. [33]

    Passarelli, R

    G. Passarelli, R. Fazio, and P. Lucignano, Nonstabiliz- erness of permutationally invariant systems, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022436 (2024)

    2024

  28. [34]

    Passarelli, P

    G. Passarelli, P. Lucignano, D. Rossini, and A. Rus- somanno, Chaos and magic in the dissipative quantum kicked top, Quantum 9, 1653 (2025)

    2025

  29. [35]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition in magic with random quantum circuits, Nat. Phys. 20, 1786 (2024)

    2024

  30. [36]

    M. Frau, P. S. Tarabunga, M. Collura, M. Dalmonte, and E. Tirrito, Nonstabilizerness versus entanglement in matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B110, 045101 (2024)

    2024

  31. [37]

    Odavi´ c, M

    J. Odavi´ c, M. Viscardi, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer entropy in non-integrable quantum evolutions (2025), 10 arXiv:2412.10228 [quant-ph]

    2025

  32. [38]

    Passarelli, A

    G. Passarelli, A. Russomanno, and P. Lucignano, Non- stabilizerness of a Boundary Time Crystal, Phys. Rev. A 111, 062417 (2025)

    2025

  33. [39]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, The quantum-jump ap- proach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  34. [40]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many- body open quantum systems (2024), arXiv:2409.10300 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems, Adv. Phys. 63, 77 (2014)

    2014

  36. [42]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum Zeno ef- fect and the many-body entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B 98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  37. [43]

    A. Chan, R. M. Nandkishore, M. Pretko, and G. Smith, Unitary-projective entanglement dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 99, 224307 (2019)

    2019

  38. [44]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  39. [45]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, En- tanglement transition from variable-strength weak mea- surements, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064204 (2019)

    2019

  40. [46]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement dynamics in hybrid quantum circuits, in Quantum Science and Technology (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  41. [47]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Symmetry enriched phases of quantum circuits, Ann. Phys. 435, 168618 (2021)

    2021

  42. [48]

    Nahum and B

    A. Nahum and B. Skinner, Entanglement and dynam- ics of diffusion-annihilation processes with Majorana de- fects, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023288 (2020)

    2020

  43. [49]

    X. Chen, Y. Li, M. P. A. Fisher, and A. Lucas, Emergent conformal symmetry in nonunitary random dynamics of free fermions, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033017 (2020)

    2020

  44. [50]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Measurement- driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  45. [51]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Measurement-induced criticality in random quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  46. [52]

    Y. Li, R. Vasseur, M. P. A. Fisher, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Statistical mechanics model for Clifford random tensor networks and monitored quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174307 (2024)

    2024

  47. [53]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, Univer- sality of entanglement transitions from stroboscopic to continuous measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 210602 (2020)

    2020

  48. [54]

    Turkeshi, R

    X. Turkeshi, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, Measurement- induced criticality in (2 + 1)-dimensional hybrid quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014315 (2020)

    2020

  49. [55]

    O. Lunt, M. Szyniszewski, and A. Pal, Measurement- induced criticality and entanglement clusters: A study of one-dimensional and two-dimensional Clifford cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B 104, 155111 (2021)

    2021

  50. [56]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Schir` o, M. Lewenstein, and X. Turkeshi, Measurement-induced phase transitions in ( d + 1)- dimensional stabilizer circuits, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214316 (2022)

    2022

  51. [57]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Roy, B. Skinner, and J. Ruhman, Mea- surement and entanglement phase transitions in all-to- all quantum circuits, on quantum trees, and in Landau- Ginsburg theory, PRX Quantum 2, 010352 (2021)

    2021

  52. [58]

    Zabalo, M

    A. Zabalo, M. J. Gullans, J. H. Wilson, S. Gopalakrish- nan, D. A. Huse, and J. H. Pixley, Critical properties of the measurement-induced transition in random quan- tum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 060301 (2020)

    2020

  53. [59]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Universal behavior be- yond multifractality of wave functions at measurement- induced phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 130605 (2022)

    2022

  54. [60]

    Chiriac` o, M

    G. Chiriac` o, M. Tsitsishvili, D. Poletti, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, Diagrammatic method for many-body non-Markovian dynamics: Memory effects and entan- glement transitions, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075151 (2023)

    2023

  55. [61]

    Klocke and M

    K. Klocke and M. Buchhold, Majorana loop models for measurement-only quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041028 (2023)

    2023

  56. [62]

    Lira-Solanilla, X

    A. Lira-Solanilla, X. Turkeshi, and S. Pappalardi, Mul- tipartite entanglement structure of monitored quantum circuits (2024), arXiv:2412.16062 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [63]

    M. Fava, L. Piroli, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Moni- tored fermions with conserved u(1) charge, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043246 (2024)

    2024

  58. [64]

    Chahine and M

    K. Chahine and M. Buchhold, Entanglement phases, localization, and multifractality of monitored free fermions in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054313 (2024)

    2024

  59. [65]

    Delmonte, Z

    A. Delmonte, Z. Li, G. Passarelli, E. Y. Song, D. Bar- berena, A. M. Rey, and R. Fazio, Measurement-induced phase transitions in monitored infinite-range interacting systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023082 (2025)

    2025

  60. [66]

    Karevski, M

    D. Karevski, M. Coppola, E. Tirrito, and M. Col- lura, Measurments-induced quantum phase transitions (2024), arXiv:2412.06440 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Passarelli, X

    G. Passarelli, X. Turkeshi, A. Russomanno, P. Lucig- nano, M. Schir` o, and R. Fazio, Many-body dynamics in monitored atomic gases without postselection barrier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 163401 (2024)

    2024

  62. [68]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Phys. 7, 24 (2019)

    2019

  63. [69]

    Buchhold, Y

    M. Buchhold, Y. Minoguchi, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Effective theory for the measurement-induced phase transition of Dirac fermions, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041004 (2021)

    2021

  64. [70]

    C.-M. Jian, B. Bauer, A. Keselman, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Criticality and entanglement in nonunitary quantum circuits and tensor networks of noninteracting fermions, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134206 (2022)

    2022

  65. [71]

    Coppola, E

    M. Coppola, E. Tirrito, D. Karevski, and M. Collura, Growth of entanglement entropy under local projective measurements, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094303 (2022)

    2022

  66. [72]

    M. Fava, L. Piroli, T. Swann, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Nonlinear sigma models for monitored dy- namics of free fermions, Phys. Rev. X13, 041045 (2023)

    2023

  67. [73]

    Poboiko, P

    I. Poboiko, P. P¨ opperl, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Theory of free fermions under random projective mea- surements, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041046 (2023)

    2023

  68. [74]

    C.-M. Jian, H. Shapourian, B. Bauer, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Measurement-induced entanglement transi- tions in quantum circuits of non-interacting fermions: Born-rule versus forced measurements (2023), preprint at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09094, arXiv:2302.09094. 11

    2023 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Merritt and L

    J. Merritt and L. Fidkowski, Entanglement transitions with free fermions, Phys. Rev. B 107, 064303 (2023)

    2023

  70. [76]

    Alberton, M

    O. Alberton, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Entanglement transition in a monitored free-fermion chain: From ex- tended criticality to area law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 170602 (2021)

    2021

  71. [77]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir` o, Measurement-induced entanglement transi- tions in the quantum ising chain: From infinite to zero clicks, Phys. Rev. B , 224210 (2021)

    2021

  72. [78]

    Szyniszewski, O

    M. Szyniszewski, O. Lunt, and A. Pal, Disordered mon- itored free fermions, Phys. Rev. B 108, 165126 (2023)

    2023

  73. [79]

    Turkeshi, M

    X. Turkeshi, M. Dalmonte, R. Fazio, and M. Schir` o, En- tanglement transitions from stochastic resetting of non- hermitian quasiparticles, Phys. Rev. B 105, L241114 (2021)

    2021

  74. [80]

    Piccitto, A

    G. Piccitto, A. Russomanno, and D. Rossini, Entangle- ment transitions in the quantum Ising chain: A com- parison between different unravelings of the same Lind- bladian, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064305 (2022)

    2022

  75. [81]

    Piccitto, A

    G. Piccitto, A. Russomanno, and D. Rossini, Erratum: Entanglement transitions in the quantum Ising chain: A comparison between different unravelings of the same Lindbladian, Phys. Rev. B 106, 219901(E) (2022)

    2022

  76. [82]

    Tirrito, A

    E. Tirrito, A. Santini, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, Full counting statistics as probe of measurement-induced transitions in the quantum Ising chain, SciPost Phys. 15, 096 (2023)

    2023

  77. [83]

    Paviglianiti and A

    A. Paviglianiti and A. Silva, Multipartite entanglement in the measurement-induced phase transition of the quantum ising chain, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184302 (2023)

    2023

  78. [84]

    Lang and H

    N. Lang and H. P. B¨ uchler, Entanglement transition in the projective transverse field Ising model, Phys. Rev. B 102, 094204 (2020)

    2020

  79. [85]

    Minato, K

    T. Minato, K. Sugimoto, T. Kuwahara, and K. Saito, Fate of measurement-induced phase transition in long- range interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 010603 (2022)

    2022

  80. [86]

    Zerba and A

    C. Zerba and A. Silva, Measurement phase transitions in the no-click limit as quantum phase transitions of a non- hermitean vacuum, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 051 (2023)

    2023

  81. [87]

    Paviglianiti, X

    A. Paviglianiti, X. Turkeshi, M. Schir` o, and A. Silva, Enhanced entanglement in the measurement-altered quantum ising chain, Quantum 8, 1576 (2024)

    2024

  82. [88]

    Chatterjee and R

    P. Chatterjee and R. Modak, Measurement-induced phase transition in periodically driven free-fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. B 112, 024304 (2025)

    2025

  83. [89]

    Piccitto, D

    G. Piccitto, D. Rossini, and A. Russomanno, The im- pact of different unravelings in a monitored system of free fermions, Eur. Phys. J. B 97, 90 (2024)

    2024

  84. [90]

    Le Gal, X

    Y. Le Gal, X. Turkeshi, and M. Schir` o, Entanglement dynamics in monitored systems and the role of quantum jumps, PRX Quantum 5, 030329 (2024)

    2024

  85. [91]

    Russomanno, G

    A. Russomanno, G. Piccitto, and D. Rossini, Entan- glement transitions and quantum bifurcations under continuous long-range monitoring, Phys. Rev. B 108, 104313 (2023)

    2023

  86. [92]

    Lunt and A

    O. Lunt and A. Pal, Measurement-induced entangle- ment transitions in many-body localized systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043072 (2020)

    2020

  87. [93]

    Rossini and E

    D. Rossini and E. Vicari, Measurement-induced dynam- ics of many-body systems at quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035119 (2020)

    2020

  88. [94]

    Tang and W

    Q. Tang and W. Zhu, Measurement-induced phase transition: A case study in the nonintegrable model by density-matrix renormalization group calculations, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013022 (2020)

    2020

  89. [95]

    Fuji and Y

    Y. Fuji and Y. Ashida, Measurement-induced quantum criticality under continuous monitoring, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054302 (2020)

    2020

  90. [96]

    Sierant, G

    P. Sierant, G. Chiriac` o, F. M. Surace, S. Sharma, X. Turkeshi, M. Dalmonte, R. Fazio, and G. Pagano, Dissipative Floquet dynamics: from steady state to measurement induced criticality in trapped-ion chains, Quantum 6, 638 (2022)

    2022

  91. [97]

    E. V. H. Doggen, Y. Gefen, I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mir- lin, and D. G. Polyakov, Generalized quantum measure- ments with matrix product states: Entanglement phase transition and clusterization, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023146 (2022)

    2022

  92. [98]

    Altland, M

    A. Altland, M. Buchhold, S. Diehl, and T. Micklitz, Dy- namics of measured many-body quantum chaotic sys- tems, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L022066 (2022)

    2022

  93. [99]

    Z. Li, A. Delmonte, X. Turkeshi, and R. Fazio, Mon- itored long-range interacting systems: spin-wave the- ory for quantum trajectories, Nat. Commun. 16, 4329 (2025)

    2025

  94. [100]

    Ippoliti, M

    M. Ippoliti, M. J. Gullans, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and V. Khemani, Entanglement phase transi- tions in measurement-only dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011030 (2021)

    2021

  95. [101]

    Sriram, T

    A. Sriram, T. Rakovszky, V. Khemani, and M. Ippoliti, Topology, criticality, and dynamically generated qubits in a stochastic measurement-only kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 094304 (2023)

    2023

  96. [102]

    Piccitto, A

    G. Piccitto, A. Russomanno, and D. Rossini, Entan- glement dynamics with string measurement operators, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 078 (2023)

    2023

  97. [103]

    A. C. C. de Albornoz, D. C. Rose, and A. Pal, En- tanglement transition and heterogeneity in long-range quadratic Lindbladians, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214204 (2024)

    2024

  98. [104]

    Bejan, C

    M. Bejan, C. McLauchlan, and B. B´ eri, Dynamical magic transitions in monitored clifford+ t circuits, PRX Quantum 5, 030332 (2024)

    2024

  99. [105]

    G. E. Fux, E. Tirrito, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Entanglement – nonstabilizerness separation in hybrid quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042030 (2024)

    2024

  100. [106]

    P. S. Tarabunga and E. Tirrito, Magic transition in measurement-only circuits (2024), arXiv:2407.15939 [quant-ph]

    2024

  101. [107]

    B. Xing, X. Turkeshi, M. Schir´ o, R. Fazio, and D. Po- letti, Interactions and integrability in weakly moni- tored Hamiltonian systems, Phys. Rev. B 109, L060302 (2024)

    2024

  102. [108]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Gapless spin-fluid ground state in a random quantum heisenberg magnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993)

    1993

  103. [109]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Entanglement in strongly correlated quan- tum matter, in Proceedings of KITP, University of Cal- ifornia, Santa Barbara (2015)

    2015

  104. [110]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Remarks on the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016)

    2016

  105. [111]

    D. A. Roberts, D. Stanford, and A. Streicher, Operator growth in the SYK model, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018, 122

    2018

  106. [112]

    Fu and S

    W. Fu and S. Sachdev, Numerical study of fermion and boson models with infinite-range random interactions, 12 Phys. Rev. B 94, 035135 (2016)

    2016

  107. [113]

    Huang and Y

    Y. Huang and Y. Gu, Eigenstate entanglement in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. D 100, 041901 (2019)

    2019

  108. [114]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum Chaos is Quantum, Quantum 5, 453 (2021)

    2021

  109. [115]

    Tirrito, X

    E. Tirrito, X. Turkeshi, and P. Sierant, Anticoncentra- tion and magic spreading under ergodic quantum dy- namics (2024), arXiv:2412.10229 [quant-ph]

    2024

  110. [116]

    Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2017)

    F. Franchini, An Introduction to Integrable Techniques for One-Dimensional Quantum Systems (Springer In- ternational Publishing, 2017)

    2017

  111. [117]

    G. B. Mbeng, A. Russomanno, and G. E. Santoro, The quantum Ising chain for beginners, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 82 (2024)

    2024

  112. [118]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble mod- els of an antiferromagnetic chain, Ann. Phys. 16, 407 (1961)

    1961

  113. [119]

    Ladewig, S

    B. Ladewig, S. Diehl, and M. Buchhold, Monitored open fermion dynamics: Exploring the interplay of mea- surement, decoherence, and free Hamiltonian evolution, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033001 (2022)

    2022

  114. [120]

    Fidkowski, J

    L. Fidkowski, J. Haah, and M. B. Hastings, How dynam- ical quantum memories forget, Quantum 5, 382 (2021)

    2021

  115. [121]

    C. Liu, X. Chen, and L. Balents, Quantum entangle- ment of the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245126 (2018)

    2018

  116. [122]

    J. T. Edwards and D. J. Thouless, Numerical studies of localization in disordered systems, J. Phys. C 5, 807 (1972)

    1972

  117. [123]

    Sidje, Expokit: A software package for computing matrix exponentials, ACM Trans

    R. Sidje, Expokit: A software package for computing matrix exponentials, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 24, 130 (1998)

    1998

  118. [124]

    Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Notices of the AMS 54, 592 (2007)

    F. Mezzadri, How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups, Notices of the AMS 54, 592 (2007)

    2007

  119. [125]

    Turkeshi and P

    X. Turkeshi and P. Sierant, Hilbert space delocalization under random unitary circuits, Entropy 26, 471 (2024)

    2024

  120. [126]

    (5) – introduced in [68] – is ac- tually equivalent to a slighlty different unraveling than Eq

    The Trotterization Eq. (5) – introduced in [68] – is ac- tually equivalent to a slighlty different unraveling than Eq. (5), given by |ψt+δt⟩ = |ψt⟩ −i ˆHδt |ψt⟩ + LX l=1 h δξl(t) ˆσz l − ⟨σz l ⟩t + 1 2 δξ 2 l (t) − γδt ˆσz l − ⟨σz l ⟩t 2 i |ψt⟩ + O(γ2δt2) . (A7) The two unrave...

  121. [127]

    Gisin and I

    N. Gisin and I. C. Percival, The quantum-state diffu- sion model applied to open systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 25, 5677 (1992)

    1992

  122. [128]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum noise (Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  123. [130]

    Wang, Z.-C

    C. Wang, Z.-C. Yang, T. Zhou, and X. Chen, Magic transition in monitored free fermion dynamics (2025), arXiv:2507.10688 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Lami and M

    G. Lami and M. Collura, Nonstabilizerness via perfect Pauli sampling of matrix product states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 180401 (2023)

    2023

  125. [133]

    S. F. E. Oliviero, L. Leone, A. Hamma, and S. Lloyd, Measuring magic on a quantum processor, npj Quantum Information 8, 148 (2022)

    2022

  126. [134]

    Bera and M

    S. Bera and M. Schir` o, Non-stabilizerness of Sachdev- Ye-Kitaev model (2025), arXiv:2502.01582 [quant-ph]

    2025

  127. [135]

    Jasser, J

    B. Jasser, J. Odavic, and A. Hamma, Stabilizer Entropy and entanglement complexity in the Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev model (2025), arXiv:2502.03093 [quant-ph]

    2025

  128. [136]

    Y.-M. Ding, Z. Wang, and Z. Yan, Evaluating many- body stabilizer R´ enyi entropy by sampling reduced Pauli strings: singularities, volume law, and nonlocal magic (2025), arXiv:2501.12146 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.