Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

An infinitesimal amount of noise in a monitored quantum circuit eliminates the volume-law entanglement phase and enforces a universal q^{-1/3} area-law scaling, while the timescale for information protection depends on whether noise is temp

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:51 UTC pith:L2SD3VBZ

load-bearing objection Useful review, but the universality claim outruns the derivation: the q^{-1/3} scaling is worked out for reset noise, and channel-independence is asserted, not shown. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18783 v2 pith:L2SD3VBZ submitted 2025-12-21 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Noisy Monitored Quantum Circuits

Shuo Liu , Shao-Kai Jian , Shi-Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords noisy monitored quantum circuitsmeasurement-induced phase transitionentanglement negativityKardar-Parisi-Zhang scalingstatistical-mechanics mappinginformation protectionnoise-induced phase transitionreplica trick
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that noisy monitored quantum circuits—random unitary circuits with measurements and environmental noise—are governed by a classical statistical model in one higher dimension, where noise acts as a symmetry-breaking field and measurements as random potentials. From this mapping, it shows that any infinitesimal noise rate q eliminates the volume-law phase entirely, forcing an area law with universal q^{-1/3} entanglement scaling. It further claims distinct information-protection timescales: q^{-1/2} for temporally uncorrelated noise and q^{-2/3} for correlated noise, the latter tied to Kardar-Parisi-Zhang domain-wall fluctuations. If correct, these results unify a broad set of phenomena—entanglement transitions, coding transitions, and classical simulability transitions—under a single statistical-mechanics framework.

Core claim

A unified statistical-model description of noisy monitored quantum circuits yields universal scaling laws: the steady-state bipartite entanglement (mutual information and logarithmic negativity) obeys IA:B ~ EN ~ q^{-1/3} for any nonzero noise rate q; temporally uncorrelated bulk noise gives an information-protection timescale ~ q^{-1/2}, while temporally correlated bulk noise gives ~ q^{-2/3}, consistent with KPZ wandering exponent 2/3; and at a marginal noise scaling q = p/L, noise-induced entanglement and coding transitions emerge at the same critical point. The central claim is that quantum noise reshapes the dominant permutation-spin configuration of the associated classical model, repl

What carries the argument

The central object is the replica statistical-mechanics mapping: after averaging over Haar-random gates, permutation spins live on a triangular lattice; quantum noise lowers the weight of non-identity configurations, acting as a symmetry-breaking field, while projective measurements remove bonds and act as a random Gaussian potential. The load-bearing mechanism is the noise-determined domain wall between identity and cyclic-permutation regions, which undergoes Kardar-Parisi-Zhang fluctuations with wandering exponent 2/3; the q^{-1/3} entanglement scaling follows from the free-energy cost of KPZ fluctuations of a domain wall of characteristic length scale ~q^{-1}.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the large-d replica calculation gives the correct effective statistical model, in which projective measurements make the noise-defined domain wall fluctuate with the KPZ wandering exponent 2/3; if this domain-wall picture fails (for instance, at finite d or if the replica limits do not commute), the predicted q^{-1/3} and q^{-2/3} laws have no derivation.

What would settle it

Direct numerical simulation of a qubit (d=2) brick-wall circuit at small noise rates q with system sizes large enough to see clean scaling: if IA:B(q) deviates from q^{-1/3} (for example, a different exponent or a logarithmic correction) while the volume-law phase is already killed, the central scaling claim is refuted. Likewise, extracting the wandering exponent of the domain wall in the effective statistical model and finding χ ≠ 2/3 would falsify the KPZ mechanism.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Even arbitrarily small noise destroys the measurement-induced volume-law phase, so conventional MIPTs cannot survive in decohering circuits.
  • The universal q^{-1/3} law gives a concrete, quantitative prediction for entanglement in noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices.
  • Distinguishing uncorrelated versus correlated noise is observable through the information-retention timescale, q^{-1/2} versus q^{-2/3}.
  • At noise probability q = p/L, noise-induced entanglement and coding transitions share a critical point, connecting to practical error-correction thresholds.
  • The Hayden-Preskill-style mapping links information-loss timescales to black-hole evaporation and decoding, suggesting operational probes of information dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same statistical-model framework likely predicts analogous q^{-1/3} scaling for other non-classical resources, such as magic, in noisy monitored circuits—a testable extension of the paper's claims.
  • If the KPZ wandering exponent controls the domain wall, changing the noise disorder geometry (e.g., spatially correlated or quasiperiodic noise) could produce different exponents, a prediction the framework implies but the paper does not explore.
  • The claimed absence of a volume-law phase for any q>0 suggests a general no-go statement—local noise always enforces area law in monitored circuits—which could be probed with other noise channels like amplitude damping.
  • The Hayden-Preskill analogy suggests a concrete experimental decoder: collecting the noise qudits (the environment) after a time ~q^{-1/2} should suffice to recover Alice's message; a small-scale trapped-ion or superconducting experiment could test this.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review surveys recent work on noisy monitored quantum circuits, in which random unitary brick-wall circuits are subjected to projective measurements and local quantum noise with probability q. It develops the replica/statistical-model mapping and uses it to organize the field: any infinitesimal noise rate q removes the volume-law phase and produces area-law entanglement with IA:B ~ q^{-1/3} for both temporally uncorrelated and temporally correlated bulk noise (Tables I–II), while information-protection timescales are q^{-1/2} (uncorrelated) and q^{-2/3} (correlated); boundary-localized noise gives L^{1/3} entanglement and O(L^{2/3}) protection. The review also covers noise-induced entanglement, coding, and complexity transitions, and discusses applications to variational algorithms, classical simulation, mixed-state phases, and quantum error mitigation/correction. The central quantitative claims are the q^{-1/3} law and the distinct information-protection exponents, presented as consequences of KPZ-type domain-wall fluctuations in the statistical model.

Significance. If the reported scaling laws hold, the review provides a useful and timely synthesis: it connects entanglement in noisy monitored circuits to KPZ fluctuations, links information protection to the Hayden–Preskill protocol, and presents the exponents in compact tables. The paper is a review rather than an original derivation, but it is valuable for its concise presentation of the replica mapping and its explicit numerical cross-checks (Fig. 3 fits b ≈ −0.350/−0.349 against −1/3; Fig. 6 data collapse). Strengths include the candid admission of the finite-d limitation in the boundary-noise coding transition (§VI.B) and the broad, well-referenced survey of applications. The main caveat is that channel-independence is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the analytic route to the central exponents is not clearly marked as a large-d replica argument whose finite-d validity rests on numerics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (20)–(21)] The text states that the mapping is illustrated using the reset channel 'though the resulting structure is independent of the specific choice of local noise channel.' This is a load-bearing universality claim: the abstract and §IV.A present q^{-1/3} as a universal scaling in the noise probability q, and Table I makes no channel restriction. Only the reset channel is actually mapped (Eqs. (20)–(21)); no derivation or citation is given for depolarizing, amplitude-damping, or other channels. Different channels have different replica-space actions, so the effective domain-wall length Leff ~ q^{-1} and the KPZ free-energy argument are not obviously channel-independent. Please either supply a derivation for at least one other channel or cite the original computations and state explicitly that channel independence is an expectation inferred from the reset-channel calculation, not a proven gener
  2. [§IV.A, Eqs. (22)–(24)] The derivation of q^{-1/3} is a heuristic 'random Gaussian potential' argument that relies on two nontrivial assumptions: (i) the large-d replica limit and Weingarten expansion describe the d=2 physics relevant to Fig. 3, and (ii) the n→1 and k→0 limits in Eq. (19) can be interchanged with the disorder average. The text presents these steps as if they were straightforward. Because the review's central claim is the universal exponent, the authors should add an explicit statement of the derivation's status: the analytic route is a large-d statistical-mechanics argument, and its finite-d validity is confirmed by the numerical data shown in Fig. 3 rather than by a controlled analytical calculation. This is especially important in light of the admitted mismatch in §VI.B.
  3. [§VI.B] The paper admits that the large-d analytical model 'does not qualitatively match numerical results obtained at finite d' for the boundary-noise coding transition. Since the q^{-1/3} and q^{-2/3} exponents in §IV–V are derived with the same large-d replica machinery, the reader needs to know whether this finite-d failure is specific to the boundary-noise setup (where entropic contributions become important) or whether it also affects the bulk-noise scaling. The text discusses the former but should explicitly state that the bulk q^{-1/3} result has direct numerical support at d=2 (Fig. 3), so the mismatch is a known boundary-specific effect rather than a general invalidation of the replica approach in the bulk.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (11)–(12)] The notation |σ| is used for the minimal number of transpositions of a permutation, but this is not defined. A one-sentence definition would help readers unfamiliar with permutation-group statistics.
  2. [§III.C, Eq. (20)] The reset-channel weight is written d^{r−|τ|}; for consistency with Eq. (12), specify the convention for |τ| (distance to the identity permutation) and the channel normalization.
  3. [Fig. 6] The inset quotes fitted exponents b = −0.350 and −0.349. Please include fit ranges or error bars so the reader can assess the quality of the agreement with −1/3.
  4. [§VI.A] The constant s0 is introduced as 'a constant' in the free energy s0L. It would be clearer to identify it as the domain-wall free-energy density and to note that it is not fixed by the statistical model but is a non-universal input from microscopic data.
  5. [Table II] The row 'Subsystem (LA < L/2) without noise' mixes two different protocols (initial-state and steady-state encoding). Consider splitting the row or explaining the protocol in the caption.
  6. [General] The review would benefit from a brief note that several analytical claims are sketches of published derivations (Refs. [119,120,124,125]) and that the original papers should be consulted for details; this would set the right expectation for the level of rigor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation chain: the scaling results are applications of established KPZ/directed-polymer scalings with independent numerical checks, not redefinitions of the inputs.

full rationale

The central claims — q^{-1/3} entanglement scaling, q^{-1/2} and q^{-2/3} information-protection timescales — are presented as consequences of a statistical-model mapping: noise sets an effective domain-wall scale L_eff ~ q^{-1} (Sec. IV.A), and projective measurements induce KPZ/DPRE fluctuations whose free-energy correction for length L scales as L^{1/3}, yielding q^{-1/3}; the timescale arguments combine this scale with either Hayden–Preskill light-cone counting (q t^2 ~ 1) or vertical domain-wall wandering (q^{-1})^{2/3}. No equation is defined in terms of the target observable, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the numerical fits in Figs. 3 and 6 are comparisons to, not definitions of, the predicted exponents. The paper explicitly concedes a finite-d failure of the large-d model for the boundary-noise coding transition (Sec. VI.B), which lowers confidence in that derivation but is the opposite of circularity. The load-bearing results are drawn largely from the authors' prior papers [119,120,124,125], but those are cited with reproduced numerical support, and the KPZ exponent itself is standard directed-polymer physics; a review citing and reproducing the authors' earlier work does not constitute a circular derivation. The unsupported assertion of channel-independence in Sec. III.C is a scope/rigor gap, not a self-referential reduction. Therefore no circular step satisfying the quoted-reduction requirement is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the permutation spins, reference qudits, and noise channels are frameworks from prior literature. One free constant (s0) enters the analytical phase-boundary argument, and the central derivations rely on replica-trick and KPZ domain-wall assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • s0 (domain-wall free-energy density)
    Introduced in Sec. VI A as the constant free-energy density of the domain-wall spin configuration; the location of the noise-induced transition is set by comparing p to s0 L/T, but s0 is never computed from microscopics.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Replica trick and Weingarten large-d expansion produce a ferromagnetic permutation-spin model with positive weights after integrating out τ spins.
    Sec. III A, Eqs (10)-(14): the mapping underpins all scaling claims; relies on large-d asymptotic expansion and cancellation of negative Möbius contributions.
  • standard math Replica limits n→1 and k→0 can be taken smoothly and commute with the Haar average.
    Sec. III B, Eqs (15)-(19): this is a standard but unproved replica assumption; if invalid, free-energy differences do not give von Neumann entropy.
  • domain assumption Quantum noise acts as a permutation-symmetry-breaking field that favors the identity spin.
    Sec. III C, Eq (21): derived for a reset channel; stated to be independent of channel choice but not shown for general channels.
  • domain assumption Projective measurements act as a random attractive Gaussian potential inducing KPZ domain-wall wandering with χ=2/3 in 1+1D.
    Sec. IV A and IV B, Fig. 4: this is the key modeling step connecting measurements to the q^{-1/3} and q^{-2/3} scaling; it is asserted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Large-d statistical-model predictions continue to describe finite-d (d=2) numerical data for bulk noise.
    Sec. VI B admits the analytical large-d picture does not qualitatively match finite-d numerics for boundary-noise coding transition; for bulk q^{-1/3}, numerical support exists but the regime of validity is not delineated.
  • domain assumption Noise probability q = p/L^α is a sensible scaling ansatz for phase transitions.
    Sec. VI introduces this; α=0 recovers constant noise, α=1 boundary noise. It is a modeling choice that defines when transitions exist.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33691 in / 12542 out tokens · 128077 ms · 2026-08-03T14:51:22.494244+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Noisy monitored quantum circuits have emerged as a versatile and unifying framework connecting quantum many-body physics, quantum information, and quantum computation. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of recent advances in understanding the dynamics of such circuits, with an emphasis on their entanglement structure, information-protection capabilities, and noise-induced phase transitions. A central theme is the mapping to classical statistical models, which reveals how quantum noise reshapes dominant spin configurations. This framework elucidates universal scaling behaviors, including the characteristic $q^{-1/3}$ entanglement scaling with noise probability $q$ and distinct timescales for information protection. We further highlight a broad range of constructions and applications inspired by noisy monitored circuits, spanning variational quantum algorithms, classical simulation methods, mixed-state phases of matter, and emerging approaches to quantum error mitigation and quantum error correction. These developments collectively establish noisy monitored circuits as a powerful platform for probing and controlling quantum dynamics in realistic, decohering environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18783 by Shao-Kai Jian, Shi-Xin Zhang, Shuo Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Light-Cone Structure of Propagation of Entanglement

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Existence of an effective light-cone for entanglement propagation in bipartite systems with localized couplings, yielding a hard lower bound on transport time under ideal conditions.

  2. Light-Cone Structure of Propagation of Entanglement

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Establishes existence of effective light-cone for entanglement propagation in bipartite systems with localized couplings, yielding lower bound on transport time under ideal conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

258 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vi- jay, Random quantum circuits, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Chandran and C

    A. Chandran and C. R. Laumann, Semiclassical limit for the many-body localization transition, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024301 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Quantum entanglement growth under random unitary dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Operator spreading in random unitary circuits, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Rakovszky, F

    T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyserlingk, Diffusive hydrodynamics of out-of-time-ordered correla- tors with charge conservation, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031058 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. c. v. Prosen, Exact spectral form factor in a minimal model of many-body quantum chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 264101 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. L. Sondhi, Operator hydrodynamics, otocs, and entanglement growth in systems without conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021013 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Opera- tor spreading and the emergence of dissipative hydrody- namics under unitary evolution with conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031057 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Zhou and A

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

    2019

  10. [10]

    Gopalakrishnan and A

    S. Gopalakrishnan and A. Lamacraft, Unitary circuits of finite depth and infinite width from quantum channels, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064309 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Bertini, P

    B. Bertini, P. Kos, and T. c. v. Prosen, Exact correla- tion functions for dual-unitary lattice models in 1 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210601 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Entanglement membrane in chaotic many-body systems, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031066 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    P. Kos, B. Bertini, and T. c. v. Prosen, Correlations in perturbed dual-unitary circuits: Efficient path-integral formula, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011022 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Foligno, T

    A. Foligno, T. Zhou, and B. Bertini, Temporal entan- glement in chaotic quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041008 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Liu, H.-K

    S. Liu, H.-K. Zhang, S. Yin, and S.-X. Zhang, Sym- metry restoration and quantum mpemba effect in sym- metric random circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 140405 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Turkeshi, P

    X. Turkeshi, P. Calabrese, and A. De Luca, Quantum mpemba effect in random circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 040403 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Foligno, P

    A. Foligno, P. Calabrese, and B. Bertini, Nonequilib- rium dynamics of charged dual-unitary circuits, PRX Quantum 6, 010324 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    Y.-Q. Chen, S. Liu, and S.-X. Zhang, Subsystem Infor- mation Capacity in Random Circuits and Hamiltonian Dynamics, Quantum 9, 1783 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    F. Ares, S. Murciano, P. Calabrese, and L. Piroli, En- tanglement asymmetry dynamics in random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033135 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    H.-Z. Li, C. H. Lee, S. Liu, S.-X. Zhang, and J.-X. Zhong, Quantum mpemba effect in long-ranged u(1)- symmetric random circuits, arXiv:2512.06775 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Zhang, Z.-X

    C.-Y. Zhang, Z.-X. Li, and S.-X. Zhang, Entangle- ment growth from entangled states: A unified per- spective on entanglement generation and transport, arXiv:2510.08344 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Z. Li, H. Zheng, J. Liu, L. Jiang, and Z.-W. Liu, De- signs from local random quantum circuits with SU(d) symmetry, PRX Quantum 5, 040349 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Z. Li, H. Zheng, and Z.-W. Liu, Efficient quantum pseudorandomness under conservation laws, arXiv:2411.04893 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Schuster, J

    T. Schuster, J. Haferkamp, and H.-Y. Huang, Ran- dom unitaries in extremely low depth, Science 389, 92 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Schuster, F

    T. Schuster, F. Ma, A. Lombardi, F. Brandao, and H.- Y. Huang, Strong random unitaries and fast scrambling, arXiv:2509.26310 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    L. Cui, T. Schuster, F. Brandao, and H.-Y. Huang, Uni- tary designs in nearly optimal depth, arXiv:2507.06216 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Foxman, N

    B. Foxman, N. Parham, F. Vasconcelos, and H. Yuen, Random unitaries in constant (quantum) time, arXiv:2508.11487 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    L. Mao, L. Cui, T. Schuster, and H.-Y. Huang, Ran- dom unitaries that conserve energy, arXiv:2510.08448 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Z. Li, H. Zheng, Y. Wang, L. Jiang, Z.-W. Liu, and J. Liu, SU(d)-symmetric random unitaries: quantum scrambling, error correction, and machine learning, npj Quantum Information 11, 158 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. Vijay, Y. Gu, and Y. Bao, Designs from magic-augmented clifford circuits, arXiv:2507.02828 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Arute, K

    F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S. ...

    2019

  32. [32]

    M.-C. Chen, R. Li, L. Gan, X. Zhu, G. Yang, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Quantum-teleportation-inspired al- gorithm for sampling large random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 080502 (2020)

    2020

  33. [33]

    Wu, W.-S

    Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.-H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zh...

    2021

  34. [34]

    Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, L. Hong, H.-L. Huang, Y.- H. Huo, L. Li, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, C. Lin, J. Lin, H. Qian, D. Qiao, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, L. Wang, S. Wang, D. Wu, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, K. Yan, W. Yang, Y. Yang, Y. Ye, J. Yin, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha,...

    2022

  35. [35]

    Morvan, B

    A. Morvan, B. Villalonga, X. Mi, S. MandrÃă, A. Bengtsson, P. V. Klimov, Z. Chen, S. Hong, C. Er- ickson, I. K. Drozdov, J. Chau, G. Laun, R. Movas- sagh, A. Asfaw, L. T. A. N. BrandÃčo, R. Peralta, D. Abanin, R. Acharya, R. Allen, T. I. Andersen, K. An- derson, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, J. Atalaya, J. C. Bardin, A. Bilmes, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J...

    2024

  36. [36]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The random- ized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Cerezo, A

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Variational quantum algo- rithms, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 625 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Bharti, A

    K. Bharti, A. Cervera-Lierta, T. H. Kyaw, T. Haug, S. Alperin-Lea, A. Anand, M. Degroote, H. Heimonen, J. S. Kottmann, T. Menke, W.-K. Mok, S. Sim, L.- C. Kwek, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Noisy intermediate- scale quantum algorithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015004 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

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

    2019

  44. [44]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical purification phase transition induced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041020 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

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

    2020

  46. [46]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measure- ments, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104301 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    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. [49]

    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

  50. [50]

    Iaconis, A

    J. Iaconis, A. Lucas, and X. Chen, Measurement- induced phase transitions in quantum automaton cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224311 (2020)

    2020

  51. [51]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Scalable probes of measurement-induced criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 20 070606 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V. Khemani, Postselection-free entan- glement dynamics via spacetime duality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 060501 (2021)

    2021

  53. [53]

    Lu and T

    T.-C. Lu and T. Grover, Spacetime duality between lo- calization transitions and measurement-induced transi- tions, PRX Quantum 2, 040319 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    R. Fan, S. Vijay, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-Z. You, Self- organized error correction in random unitary circuits with measurement, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174309 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Li and M

    Y. Li and M. P. A. Fisher, Statistical mechanics of quan- tum error correcting codes, Phys. Rev. B 103, 104306 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Ippoliti, T

    M. Ippoliti, T. Rakovszky, and V. Khemani, Frac- tal, logarithmic, and volume-law entangled nonthermal steady states via spacetime duality, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011045 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Z.-C. Yang, Y. Li, M. P. A. Fisher, and X. Chen, En- tanglement phase transitions in random stabilizer tensor networks, Phys. Rev. B 105, 104306 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    H. Liu, T. Zhou, and X. Chen, Measurement-induced entanglement transition in a two-dimensional shallow circuit, Phys. Rev. B 106, 144311 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Zhang and G.-M

    Q. Zhang and G.-M. Zhang, Noise-induced entangle- ment transition in one-dimensional random quantum circuits, Chinese Physics Letters 39, 050302 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Han and X

    Y. Han and X. Chen, Entanglement dynamics in U(1) symmetric hybrid quantum automaton circuits, Quan- tum 7, 1200 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    S. J. Garratt and E. Altman, Probing postmeasurement entanglement without postselection, PRX Quantum 5, 030311 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    A. A. Akhtar, H.-Y. Hu, and Y.-Z. You, Measurement- induced criticality is tomographically optimal, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094209 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    W. Wang, S. Liu, J. Li, S.-X. Zhang, and S. Yin, Driven critical dynamics in measurement-induced phase transi- tions, arXiv:2411.06648 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    G. M. Sommers, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. J. Gullans, and D. A. Huse, Zero-temperature entanglement membranes in quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064311 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    S. P. Kelly and J. Marino, Entanglement transitions in- duced by quantum-data collection, Phys. Rev. A 111, L010402 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    S. P. Kelly and J. Marino, Generalizing measurement- induced phase transitions to information exchange sym- metry breaking, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012425 (2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    W. Wang, S. Liu, J. Li, S.-X. Zhang, and S. Yin, Relax- ation critical dynamics in measurement-induced phase transitions, arXiv:2502.13408 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Khanna, A

    K. Khanna, A. Kumar, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Random quantum circuits with time-reversal symmetry, arXiv:2501.13161 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Xu and Y.-X

    G. Xu and Y.-X. Zhang, Multipartite greenberger- horne-zeilinger entanglement in monitored random clif- ford circuits, arXiv:2407.03206 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Li and Z.-X

    Z. Li and Z.-X. Luo, Exact, A verage, and Broken Sym- metries in a Simple Adaptive Monitored Circuit, Quan- tum 9, 1771 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Tang, H.-Y

    H. Tang, H.-Y. Wang, Z. Wang, and X.-L. Qi, Mea- surement induced scrambling and emergent symmetries in random circuits, arXiv:2506.18121 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    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

  74. [74]

    S.-K. Jian, C. Liu, X. Chen, B. Swingle, and P. Zhang, Measurement-induced phase transition in the monitored sachdev-ye-kitaev model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 140601 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    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. B 103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  76. [76]

    Sierant, G

    P. Sierant, G. Chiriacò, 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

  77. [77]

    Weinstein, R

    Z. Weinstein, R. Sajith, E. Altman, and S. J. Gar- ratt, Nonlocality and entanglement in measured critical quantum ising chains, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245132 (2023)

    2023

  78. [78]

    Fuji and Y

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

    2020

  79. [79]

    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

  80. [80]

    Q. Tang, X. Chen, and W. Zhu, Quantum criticality in the nonunitary dynamics of (2 + 1)-dimensional free fermions, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174303 (2021)

    2021

Showing first 80 references.