Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Emergence of Generic Entanglement Structure in Doped Matchgate Circuits

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Doping matchgate circuits with an extensive number of non-Gaussian gates restores the generic entanglement structure of random quantum circuits, and under measurements a genuine volume-law phase requires an extensive per-layer doping rate.

desk verdict A clean analytic arc-model result for the Gaussian limit plus a plausible but not yet fully converged monitored phase diagram; the extensive-per-layer-rate claim needs a larger-N scaling check before it is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12526 v1 pith:GEIGJTKI submitted 2025-07-16 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Alessio Paviglianiti , Luca Lumia , Emanuele Tirrito , Alessandro Silva , Mario Collura , Xhek Turkeshi , Guglielmo Lami This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el
keywords matchgatecircuitsnon-Gaussianityfermionicmagicentanglementgrowthmeasurement-inducedphasetransitionKardar-Parisi-ZhanguniversalityCliffordarcmodel
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 how much non-Gaussianity must be injected into free-fermion matchgate circuits before their entanglement dynamics becomes generic. In purely unitary circuits, an intensive doping rate per unit time suffices: once the total number of injected non-Gaussian gates reaches $\mathcal{O}(N)$, entanglement growth crosses from diffusive $\sqrt{t}$ to ballistic $t$ and its fluctuations enter the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang universality class. Under monitoring, the same doping only produces a power-law entangled phase $S \sim N^{\alpha}$, and a genuine volume-law phase requires injecting non-Gaussian gates at an extensive rate, $\mathcal{O}(N)$ per layer. The paper also gives an exact arc-model description of the purely Gaussian limit, explaining the diffusive growth and the logarithmic entanglement phase of monitored free fermions. These results identify non-Gaussianity as a resource whose amount and per-layer injection rate control the emergence of generic entanglement structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the arc model: under Clifford-Gaussian matchgate dynamics, stabilizer generators are represented as arcs pairing $2N$ Majorana points on a line, and each gate randomly permutes arc endpoints. The entanglement entropy across a bipartition equals half the number of arcs crossing the cut, so the Gaussian dynamics reduces to a classical stochastic process. In the unitary case the endpoint distribution evolves by a binomial recursion that converges to a Gaussian with variance $4t$, yielding $S_{N/2}(t) \approx \sqrt{t/\pi}$; in the monitored case the measurement rule glues arcs together, and a nonlinear master equation for the arc-length distribution has a steady-state solution $P(\ell) \sim 1/\ell^2$, which produces $S \sim \log N$. Doping with non-Gaussian gates breaks this free-fermion description, and the paper uses stabilizer-formalism simulations of Clifford circuits to reach system sizes of several hundred qubits.

What would settle it

Simulate monitored doped matchgate dynamics with a genuinely non-Clifford non-Gaussian gate ensemble, such as Haar-random two-qubit gates in place of the non-Gaussian Clifford gates, and check whether a volume-law phase still appears only for an extensive per-layer doping rate of $\mathcal{O}(N)$; if the threshold moves or the power-law phase changes, the Clifford restriction is the reason.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the free-fermion matchgate class of random circuits can be pushed into the generic regime of random quantum circuits by doping with non-Gaussian gates, and that the resource count is controlled by the exponent $\beta$ in the per-layer doping rate $q = \eta / N^{\beta}$. For unitary evolution, ballistic entanglement growth $S(t) \sim t$ and Kardar-Parisi-Zhang fluctuations $\sim t^{1/3}$ are recovered once the total number of injected non-Gaussian gates $N_{\mathrm{NG}} = \eta t$ becomes extensive, $\mathcal{O}(N)$, and the late-time Page curve crosses from the Gaussian-stabilizer curve to the universal stabilizer curve with the deviation decaying exponentially in the doping density. Under measurements, pure Gaussian circuits have no volume law at any $p>0$, showing a logarithmic phase for weak monitoring and an area law above $p_c \approx 0.36$; doping produces a power-law entangled phase $S \sim N^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha$ controlled by the doping rate, and only an extensive per-layer doping rate ($\beta = 0$) restores a true volume law, with critical exponent $\nu \approx 1.3$ matching the Clifford measurement-induced transition universality class.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that drawing every gate from the Clifford group reproduces the entanglement dynamics of fully random gates, a statistical equivalence known as a 3-design; under postselected monitored dynamics that equivalence is not guaranteed to hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An intensive doping rate (a fixed fraction of gates per layer) is enough to restore generic unitary entanglement dynamics, but not enough under monitoring.
  • The minimal non-Gaussian resource for a stable volume-law phase in monitored circuits is an extensive rate of $\mathcal{O}(N)$ non-Gaussian gates per layer.
  • Between area law and volume law, monitored doped matchgate circuits host a power-law entangled phase $S \sim N^{\alpha}$ with continuously tunable $\alpha$.
  • The purely Gaussian monitored transition is captured analytically by the arc model, yielding logarithmic entanglement for weak measurements and a transition at $p_c \approx 0.36$.
  • Once extensive doping is present, the monitored critical behavior belongs to the Clifford measurement-induced transition universality class, with $\nu \approx 1.3$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Clifford 3-design assumption survives postselection, the $\mathcal{O}(N)$-per-layer threshold should be unchanged for Haar-random non-Gaussian gates, making it a genuine resource bound rather than a Clifford-sampling artifact.
  • The continuously tunable exponent $\alpha$ in the power-law phase suggests a one-parameter family of states that an effective field theory might describe; the paper explicitly leaves an analytic framework for the doped dynamics open.
  • The exact arc model may admit a generalized stochastic description in which non-Gaussian gates act as additional moves, yielding a testable prediction for how $\alpha$ depends on the doping density.
  • The exponential decay of the Page-curve deviation with doping density implies that only a few $\mathcal{O}(N)$ non-Gaussian gates already produce near-generic late-time entanglement, relevant for fermionic linear-optics experiments with limited magic resources.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies random matchgate (fermionic Gaussian) Clifford circuits doped with non-Gaussian Clifford gates, both without and with projective measurements. In the unitary case, it claims that injecting an extensive total number of non-Gaussian gates restores ballistic entanglement growth S(t) ~ t and KPZ-type fluctuations delta S ~ t^{1/3}, and that the late-time Page curve crosses over from the Gaussian-stabilizer curve to the generic stabilizer curve. In the monitored case, it reports a measurement-induced transition between an area-law phase and a power-law phase S ~ N^alpha with alpha controlled by the doping exponent beta, with a genuine volume-law phase only when the doping rate is extensive per unit time (beta=0). The paper provides an analytical arc-model description for the Gaussian unitary and monitored dynamics, including a master equation for the arc-length distribution. All doped numerical results are obtained from stabilizer-circuit simulations of Clifford gates for systems up to a few hundred qubits.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a sharp resource threshold: a total of O(N) non-Gaussian gates restores generic unitary entanglement dynamics, while an extensive per-layer injection rate is needed to stabilize a volume-law phase under monitoring. This would quantify the minimal non-Gaussianity needed to escape integrable fermionic behavior and would connect the fermionic magic resource theory to entanglement phase diagrams. The analytic arc-model derivations for the Gaussian case are clean and self-contained, and the exact Page-curve formula for Gaussian stabilizer states is a useful contribution. The numerical program is ambitious and the qualitative distinction between intensive and extensive doping is falsifiable. However, the monitored phase diagram rests on finite-size fits over a narrow range of N, and the Clifford restriction leaves open the question of whether the results apply to generic non-Gaussian (Haar) circuits.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4(b) and inset; 'Doped monitored dynamics'] The central monitored claim—that volume-law entanglement requires an extensive per-layer doping rate (beta=0)—is supported only by fitting S_N/2 versus N for N=64-512 at p=0.01. For beta>0, q=eta/N^beta tends to zero as N grows, so the thermodynamic limit is not taken at fixed coupling; over the measurement correlation time tau ~ 1/p, the expected number of non-Gaussian gates per bond is tau q(N) -> 0. The exponent alpha(beta) in the inset is extracted without a convergence check (no alpha(beta,N) versus 1/N, no scaling collapse for beta>0) and without reported uncertainties. If alpha drifts with N, the distinction between alpha=1 and alpha<1 phases is not established. Please provide a systematic finite-size analysis for each beta, including the fitted functional form, the treatment of logarithmic corrections, and error bars.
  2. [Setup and footnote [92]] The numerical evidence is entirely restricted to Clifford gates, and the justification for transferring conclusions to generic (Haar) non-Gaussian circuits relies on the unitary 3-design property. That property controls averages of few-replica observables over the ensemble; it does not automatically control phase boundaries and critical exponents of postselected monitored dynamics, which are properties of individual trajectories. The abstract and conclusions state results for 'generic entanglement structure' rather than for the Clifford ensemble. Please either add small-N exact comparisons with non-Clifford non-Gaussian gates (e.g., matchgates combined with T-like or other non-Clifford gates) to test universality, or explicitly delimit the claims to the Clifford ensemble.
  3. [End Matter, 'Master equation for the monitored Clifford Gaussian dynamics'] The single-arc master equation closes the dynamics with an ad hoc rule assigning probability 1/2 to resetting the arc length to zero and probability 1/2 to composing two arc lengths. The text itself acknowledges that this description does not capture the CPLC log^2 N contribution and that RG/field-theoretic corrections exist. Without a quantitative estimate of the closure error, the analytic predictions for the Gaussian monitored phase (in particular pc|CG ~ 0.36 and the log-law coefficient) should be presented as an approximate analytical model rather than as an exact derivation. Please state the expected range of validity or provide a controlled justification for the closure.
  4. [Fig. 2(a) and 'Unitary dynamics and Page Curve'] The claims of ballistic growth S ~ t and KPZ-like fluctuations delta S ~ t^{1/3} are central, but the evidence is a visual comparison at a single system size N=600, with no exponent fit, error bars, or finite-size collapse. Please provide quantitative local-exponent fits and, ideally, a collapse in the variable that encodes the crossover at N_NG ~ N (e.g., t/N), or at least report the statistical uncertainty of the extracted exponents.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4(a) caption] The caption says the crossing identifies 'a MIPT between a region with a super-logarithmic entanglement growth'; the sentence is incomplete and should end with 'and an area-law region.'
  2. [Reference/footnote [84]] The footnote about magic states and Clifford universality appears as a numbered entry in the reference list; it should be formatted as a footnote or integrated into the text.
  3. [Reproducibility] No data or code availability statement is provided; for a Letter whose central claims depend on stabilizer simulations, please add a statement on data/code availability and report the number of trajectories used in each figure.
  4. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption states 'Data obtained by averaging over 500 quantum trajectories' but does not specify the number of realizations for the other panels; please make the averaging consistent and explicit across all figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: control parameters are physical inputs, the analytic arc model and numerics generate the claimed outputs, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's control parameters (η, β, p, and the gate probability q = η/N^β) are model inputs, not fitted quantities; the claimed outputs (ballistic growth, KPZ fluctuations, the exponent α(β), p_c, and ν) are extracted from simulations and from an analytic arc-model master equation. The master-equation derivation in the End Matter explicitly states its closure approximation (single-arc distribution with mean-field two-arc merging) and solves it without inserting the logarithmic law; the log scaling follows from the derived P(ℓ) ∼ 1/ℓ² tail. The unitary diffusive result S(t) ≈ √(t/π) is derived from the binomial endpoint distribution, not assumed. The crossover statements involving N_NG ∼ N refer to the chosen scalings, but they are validated by the observed time dependence rather than being definitional predictions. Self-citations such as [22] and [65] are used for background or for comparative identification of the Clifford MIPT universality class, not as premises from which the central claims are deduced. The Clifford restriction is an explicit modeling assumption supported by external 3-design theorems; whether it faithfully represents Haar non-Gaussian dynamics under monitored postselected trajectories is a validity concern, not circularity. The finite-size issue that q(N) → 0 for β > 0 is a convergence risk for the reported α(β), but no equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free model parameters are fitted to force the central claims; eta, beta, and p are physical control parameters. The main modeling assumption is the single-arc closure in the monitored master equation, and the Clifford restriction is a domain assumption. Extracted exponents alpha, p_c, and nu are outputs, not inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • Measurement composition split in single-arc master equation = 1/2 composite, 1/2 local
    Chosen by hand in End Matter Eq. (S8) to close the single-arc distribution; not derived from the full multi-arc dynamics and acknowledged to miss subleading log^2 N corrections.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Clifford group forms a unitary 3-design for Haar, and Clifford-Gaussian forms a 3-design for the Gaussian group, so entanglement dynamics are representative of generic circuits.
    Invoked in Setup and footnote [92] to justify restricting all gates to Clifford gates; monitored trajectory distributions may require more than 3-design.
  • standard math Entanglement entropy of a Clifford-Gaussian state equals half the number of arcs crossing the bipartition.
    Used throughout the arc-model analysis; exact for stabilizer Gaussian states under the Majorana pairing representation.
  • domain assumption For N >> sqrt(t) >> 1, the two endpoints of an arc are independently distributed.
    Used in End Matter derivation of S_N/2(t) = sqrt(t/pi); justified by Gaussian approximation of binomial endpoint motion.
  • ad hoc to paper The monitored arc dynamics can be closed at the single-arc level with a measurement resetting length to 0 with probability 1/2 and composing lengths with probability 1/2.
    This closure is the central approximation of the master equation (Eq. S8); the authors note it misses the log^2 N correction expected from CPLC models.
  • domain assumption A scaling collapse of the form S_N/2(p) = a(p_c) log N + F[(p-p_c)N^{1/nu}] applies near the transition.
    Standard MIPT finite-size scaling hypothesis used to extract p_c and nu; assumed without derivation for doped circuits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of Generic Entanglement Structure in Doped Matchgate Circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEIGJTKI

@misc{pith2026250712526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of Generic Entanglement Structure in Doped Matchgate Circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEIGJTKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12526}
}
abstract

Free fermionic Gaussian, a.k.a. matchgate, random circuits exhibit atypical behavior compared to generic interacting systems. They produce anomalously slow entanglement growth, characterized by diffusive scaling $S(t) \sim \sqrt{t}$, and evolve into volume-law entangled states at late times, $S \sim N$, which are highly unstable to measurements. Here, we investigate how doping such circuits with non-Gaussian resources (gates) restores entanglement structures of typical dynamics. We demonstrate that ballistic entanglement growth $S(t) \sim t$ is recovered after injecting an extensive total amount of non-Gaussian gates, also restoring Kardar-Parisi-Zhang fluctuations. When the evolution is perturbed with measurements, we uncover a measurement-induced phase transition between an area-law and a power-law entangled phase, $S \sim N^\alpha$, with $\alpha$ controlled by the doping. A genuine volume-law entangled phase is recovered only when non-Gaussian gates are injected at an extensive rate. Our findings bridge the dynamics of free and interacting fermionic systems, identifying non-Gaussianity as a key resource driving the emergence of non-integrable behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the monitored circuits studied in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Evolution of the half-chain entanglement entropy SN/2 (top) and its fluctuations δSN/2 (bottom). We consider unitary dynamics (p = 0) and different rates of non-Gaussianity injection by varying η while fixing β = 1. Data for N = 600 averaged over 3000 random realizations. At late times, the injection of non-Gaussianity restores linear growth SN/2(t) ∼ t and KPZ-like fluctuations δSN/2 ∼ t 1/3 , characteristic of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Entanglement transition in Gaussian Clifford cir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Stationary entanglement for a monitored cir￾cuit with sub-extensive doping of non-Gaussian resources at η = 1, β = 0.5, as a function of the measurement rate. The crossing point pc ≈ 0.21 identifies a MIPT between a region with a super-logarithmic entanglement grow…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fermionic entropy: an efficiently measurable strong monotone for non-Gaussianity

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fermionic entropy is proven to be a strong, efficiently measurable monotone for fermionic non-Gaussianity, yielding a Theta(n) doping lower bound for matchgate-based approximate state designs.

  2. Quantum Complexity and Chaos in Many-Qudit Doped Clifford Circuits

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For odd-prime qudit doped Clifford circuits, magic saturates at a universal value above a doping rate q_c(d), while OTOC-based chaos requires about twice that rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Randomquantumcircuits,Annu.Rev.Condens.Matter Phys. 14, 335–379 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement dynam- ics in hybrid quantum circuits, in Entanglement in Spin Chains (Springer International Publishing, 2022) p. 211–249. 6

    2022

  3. [3]

    Li, J.-X

    H.-Z. Li, J.-X. Zhong, and X.-J. Yu, Measurement- induced entanglement phase transition in free fermion systems, J. Phys. Condens. Matter37, 273002

  4. [4]

    O. Lunt, J. Richter, and A. Pal, Quantum simulation using noisy unitary circuits and measurements, inEn- tanglement in Spin Chains(Springer International Pub- lishing, 2022) p. 251–284

    2022

  5. [5]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Emergent statistical mechanics of entanglement in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174205 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Entanglement membrane in chaotic many-body systems, Phys. Rev. X10, 031066 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Sierant, M

    P. Sierant, M. Schirò, M. Lewenstein, and X. Turkeshi, Entanglement growth and minimal membranes in (d+1) random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 230403 (2023)

    2023

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    G. M. Sommers, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. J. Gullans, and D. A. Huse, Zero-temperature entanglement membranes in quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B110, 064311 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    H. Ha, D. A. Huse, and G. M. Sommers, Roughening transition in quantum circuits (2025), arXiv:2506.11187 [quant-ph]

    2025

  3. [11]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Measurement- driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    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. X11, 011030 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, Quan- tum error correction in scrambling dynamics and measurement-inducedphasetransition,Phys.Rev.Lett. 125, 030505 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical purification phase transition induced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. X10, 041020 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Scalable probes of measurement-induced criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 070606 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    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. B101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measure- ments, Phys. Rev. B101, 104301 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    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. B101, 060301 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Turkeshi, Measurement-induced criticality as a data- structure transition, Phys

    X. Turkeshi, Measurement-induced criticality as a data- structure transition, Phys. Rev. B106, 144313 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Sierant, M

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

    2022

  15. [23]

    Sierant and X

    P. Sierant and X. Turkeshi, Entanglement and absorb- ing state transitions in (d+1)-dimensional stabilizer cir- cuits, Acta Phys. Pol. A144, 474–485 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    G. Lami, A. Santini, and M. Collura, Continuously monitored quantum systems beyond lindblad dynamics, New Journal of Physics26, 023041 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Zabalo, M

    A. Zabalo, M. J. Gullans, J. H. Wilson, R. Vasseur, A. W. W. Ludwig, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and J. H. Pixley, Operator scaling dimensions and multifrac- tality at measurement-induced transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 050602 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V. Khemani, Learnability transitions in monitored quantum dynamics via eavesdropper’s classi- cal shadows, PRX Quantum5, 020304 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    U.Agrawal, J.Lopez-Piqueres, R.Vasseur, S.Gopalakr- ishnan, and A. C. Potter, Observing quantum measure- ment collapse as a learnability phase transition, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041012 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    L. G. Valiant, Quantum computers that can be sim- ulated classically in polynomial time, in Proc. Annu. ACM Symp. Theory Comput.(Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2001) p. 114–123

    2001

  21. [29]

    B. M. Terhal and D. P. DiVincenzo, Classical simulation of noninteracting-fermion quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032325 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Jozsa and A

    R. Jozsa and A. Miyake, Matchgates and classical simu- lation of quantum circuits, Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 464, 3089–3106 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Mocherla, L

    A. Mocherla, L. Lao, and D. E. Browne, Extending Matchgate Simulation Methods to Universal Quantum Circuits (2024), arXiv:2302.02654 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, 2nd ed

    E. Fradkin, Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Szabo and N

    A. Szabo and N. Ostlund,Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory, Dover Books on Chemistry (Dover Publications, 1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    McArdle, S

    S. McArdle, S. Endo, A. Aspuru-Guzik, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, Quantum computational chemistry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015003 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic lin- ear optics (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0404180 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 [quant-ph]

    E. Knill, Fermionic linear optics and matchgates (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0108033 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Oszmaniec, N

    M. Oszmaniec, N. Dangniam, M. E. Morales, and Z. Zimborás, Fermion Sampling: A Robust Quantum ComputationalAdvantageSchemeUsingFermionicLin- ear Optics and Magic Input States, PRX Quantum3, 020328 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Dias and R

    B. Dias and R. Koenig, Classical simulation of non- gaussian fermionic circuits, Quantum8, 1350 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Reardon-Smith, M

    O. Reardon-Smith, M. Oszmaniec, and K. Korzekwa, Improved simulation of quantum circuits dominated by free fermionic operations, Quantum8, 1549 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    J.SuraceandL.Tagliacozzo,FermionicGaussianstates: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

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

    2024

  34. [42]

    Roósz, R

    G. Roósz, R. Juhász, and F. Iglói, Nonequilibrium dy- namicsoftheisingchaininafluctuatingtransversefield, Phys. Rev. B93, 134305 (2016). 7

    2016

  35. [43]

    Swann, D

    T. Swann, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Spacetime pic- tureforentanglementgenerationinnoisyfermionchains (2023), arXiv:2302.12212 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2023

  36. [45]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. D. Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Phys. 7, 024 (2019)

    2019

  37. [46]

    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

  38. [47]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schiró, Measurement-induced entanglement transi- tions in the quantum ising chain: From infinite to zero clicks, Phys. Rev. B103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    Turkeshi, M

    X. Turkeshi, M. Dalmonte, R. Fazio, and M. Schirò, En- tanglement transitions from stochastic resetting of non- hermitian quasiparticles, Phys. Rev. B 105, L241114 (2022)

    2022

  40. [49]

    Müller, S

    T. Müller, S. Diehl, and M. Buchhold, Measurement- induced dark state phase transitions in long-ranged fermion systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010605 (2022)

    2022

  41. [50]

    Paviglianiti and A

    A. Paviglianiti and A. Silva, Multipartite entanglement in the measurement-induced phase transition of the quantum ising chain, Phys. Rev. B108, 184302 (2023)

    2023

  42. [51]

    Buchhold, Y

    M. Buchhold, Y. Minoguchi, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Effective theory for the measurement-induced phase transition of dirac fermions, Phys. Rev. X11, 041004 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    Coppola, E

    M. Coppola, E. Tirrito, D. Karevski, and M. Collura, Growth of entanglement entropy under local projective measurements, Phys. Rev. B105, 094303 (2022)

    2022

  44. [53]

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

    2023

  45. [54]

    H. Lóio, A. De Luca, J. De Nardis, and X. Turkeshi, Pu- rification timescales in monitored fermions, Phys. Rev. B 108, L020306 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    Tiutiakina, H

    A. Tiutiakina, H. Lóio, G. Giachetti, J. D. Nardis, and A. D. Luca, Field theory for monitored Brownian SYK clusters, Quantum 9, 1794 (2025)

    2025

  47. [56]

    Chahine and M

    K. Chahine and M. Buchhold, Entanglement phases, localization, and multifractality of monitored free fermions in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B110, 054313 (2024)

    2024

  48. [57]

    Poboiko, P

    I. Poboiko, P. Pöpperl, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mir- lin, Measurement-induced transitions for interacting fermions, Phys. Rev. B111, 024204 (2025)

    2025

  49. [58]

    Poboiko, P

    I. Poboiko, P. Pöpperl, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Theory of free fermions under random projective mea- surements, Phys. Rev. X13, 041046 (2023)

    2023

  50. [59]

    Poboiko, I

    I. Poboiko, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Measurement-induced phase transition for free fermions above one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 110403 (2024)

    2024

  51. [60]

    B. Xing, X. Turkeshi, M. Schiró, R. Fazio, and D. Po- letti, Interactions and integrability in weakly moni- tored hamiltonian systems, Phys. Rev. B109, L060302 (2024)

    2024

  52. [61]

    Fidkowski, J

    L. Fidkowski, J. Haah, and M. B. Hastings, How Dy- namical Quantum Memories Forget, Quantum 5, 382 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    Marian and T

    P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Relative entropy is an exact measure of non-Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012322 (2013)

    2013

  54. [63]

    L. Lami, B. Regula, X. Wang, R. Nichols, A. Winter, and G. Adesso, Gaussian quantum resource theories, Phys. Rev. A98, 022335 (2018)

    2018

  55. [64]

    Hebenstreit, R

    M. Hebenstreit, R. Jozsa, B. Kraus, S. Strelchuk, and M. Yoganathan, All pure fermionic non-gaussian states are magic states for matchgate computations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 080503 (2019)

    2019

  56. [65]

    Lumia, E

    L. Lumia, E. Tirrito, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, Measurement-induced transitions beyond gaussianity: A single particle description, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023176 (2024)

    2024

  57. [66]

    Lyu and K

    X. Lyu and K. Bu, Fermionic gaussian testing and non-gaussian measures via convolution (2024), arXiv:2409.08180 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Morral-Yepes, M

    R. Morral-Yepes, M. Langer, A. Gammon-Smith, B.Kraus,andF.Pollmann,Disentanglingstrategiesand entanglement transitions in unitary circuit games with matchgates (2025), arXiv:2507.05055 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Sierant, P

    P. Sierant, P. Stornati, and X. Turkeshi, Fermionic magic resources of quantum many-body systems (2025), arXiv:2506.00116 [quant-ph]

    2025

  60. [69]

    A. A. Mele and Y. Herasymenko, Efficient learning of quantum states prepared with few fermionic non- gaussian gates, PRX Quantum6, 010319 (2025)

    2025

  61. [70]

    Chitambar and G

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

    2019

  62. [71]

    Zhou, Z.-C.Yang, A

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

    2020

  63. [72]

    Leone, S

    L. Leone, S. F. E. Oliviero, Y. Zhou, and A. Hamma, Quantum Chaos is Quantum, Quantum5, 453 (2021)

    2021

  64. [73]

    S. F. Oliviero, L. Leone, and A. Hamma, Transitions in entanglement complexity in random quantum circuits by measurements, Phys. Lett. A418, 127721 (2021)

    2021

  65. [74]

    Magni and X

    B. Magni and X. Turkeshi, Quantum complexity and chaos in many-qudit doped clifford circuits (2025), arXiv:2506.02127 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Bejan, C

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

    2024

  67. [76]

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

    2024

  68. [77]

    Liu and B

    Z. Liu and B. K. Clark, Classical simulability of clif- ford+t circuits with clifford-augmented matrix product states (2024), arXiv:2412.17209 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [78]

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

    2024

  70. [79]

    Szombathy, A

    D. Szombathy, A. Valli, C. P. Moca, J. Asbóth, L. Farkas, T. Rakovszky, and G. Zaránd, Spectral prop- erties versus magic generation int-doped random clif- ford circuits (2025), arXiv:2412.15912 [quant-ph]

    2025

  71. [80]

    Szombathy, A

    D. Szombathy, A. Valli, C. P. Moca, L. Farkas, and G. Zaránd, Independent stabilizer rényi entropy and entanglement fluctuations in random unitary circuits (2025), arXiv:2501.11489 [quant-ph]

    2025

  72. [81]

    Niroula, C

    P. Niroula, C. D. White, Q. Wang, S. Johri, D. Zhu, C. Monroe, C. Noel, and M. J. Gullans, Phase transition 8 in magic with random quantum circuits, Nature Phys. 20, 1786–1792 (2024)

    2024

  73. [82]

    Turkeshi, Coherent errors make magic, Nature Phys

    X. Turkeshi, Coherent errors make magic, Nature Phys. 20, 1696–1697 (2024)

    2024

  74. [83]

    F. B. Trigueros and J. A. M. Guzmán, Nonstabilizerness and error resilience in noisy quantum circuits (2025), arXiv:2506.18976 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [84]

    magic states

    This closely parallels the role of non-stabilizer “magic states” or gates in promoting Clifford circuits to full quantum universality

  76. [85]

    Hamma, R

    A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Bipartite en- tanglement and entropic boundary law in lattice spin systems, Phys. Rev. A71, 022315 (2005)

    2005

  77. [86]

    Hamma, R

    A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Ground state entanglement and geometric entropy in the kitaev model, Phys. Lett. A337, 22–28 (2005)

    2005

  78. [87]

    Webb, The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design (2016), arXiv:1510.02769 [quant-ph]

    Z. Webb, The clifford group forms a unitary 3-design (2016), arXiv:1510.02769 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys

    H. Zhu, Multiqubit clifford groups are unitary 3-designs, Phys. Rev. A96, 062336 (2017)

    2017

  80. [89]

    A. A. Mele, Introduction to haar measure tools in quan- tum information: A beginner’s tutorial, Quantum 8, 1340 (2024)

    2024

  81. [90]

    K. Wan, W. J. Huggins, J. Lee, and R. Babbush, Match- gate shadows for fermionic quantum simulation, Com- mun. Math. Phys.404, 629–700 (2023)

    2023

  82. [91]

    Braccia, N

    P. Braccia, N. L. Diaz, M. Larocca, M. Cerezo, and D. García-Martín, Optimal haar random fermionic lin- ear optics circuits (2025), arXiv:2505.24212 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Similarly, the setClifford-Gaussian forms a 3-design for GN [90, 91]

    The Clifford groupCN forms a unitary 3-design [87, 88] for the Haar ensemble [89], meaning that random uni- taries sampled from these sets give rise to equal expecta- tion values of observables acting on at most three repli- cas of the system. Similarly, the setClifford-Gaussi...

  84. [93]

    Among the |C2| = 11520 gates, Clifford matchgates are only |CG 2| = 192

  85. [94]

    G. m. H. Roosz, R. Juhász, and F. Iglói, Nonequilibrium dynamics of the ising chain in a fluctuating transverse field, Phys. Rev. B93, 134305 (2016)

    2016

  86. [95]

    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

  87. [96]

    M.Kardar, G.Parisi,andY.-C.Zhang,Dynamicscaling of growing interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 889 (1986)

    1986

  88. [97]

    D. N. Page, Average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1291 (1993)

    1993

  89. [98]

    S. K. Foong and S. Kanno, Proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1148 (1994)

    1994

  90. [99]

    Sánchez-Ruiz, Simple proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys

    J. Sánchez-Ruiz, Simple proof of page’s conjecture on the average entropy of a subsystem, Phys. Rev. E52, 5653 (1995)

    1995

  91. [100]

    Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys

    S. Sen, Average entropy of a quantum subsystem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1 (1996)

    1996

  92. [101]

    Dahlsten and M

    O. Dahlsten and M. B. Plenio, Exact entanglement probability distribution of bi-partite randomised stabi- lizer states (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0511119 [quant-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, A. M. Somoza, and M. Ortuño, Loop models with crossings, Phys. Rev. B87, 184204 (2013)

    2013

  94. [103]

    S. Sang, Y. Li, T. Zhou, X. Chen, T. H. Hsieh, and M. P. Fisher, Entanglement negativity at measurement- induced criticality, PRX Quantum2, 030313 (2021)

    2021

  95. [104]

    Merritt and L

    J. Merritt and L. Fidkowski, Entanglement transitions with free fermions, Phys. Rev. B107, 064303 (2023)

    2023

  96. [105]

    Klocke and M

    K. Klocke and M. Buchhold, Majorana loop models for measurement-only quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X13, 041028 (2023). 9 End Matter Exact solution of the unitary case –We derive explicitly the probability distributionPt(x|x0)of an arc endpoint under unitary Clifford Gaussian ev...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.