Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 94 references

Theory of Measurement-Altered Criticality

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that Born-averaged correlation moments in weakly monitored 1D quantum liquids decay with universal measurement-induced exponents, including a logarithmic correction, for K<1/2.

desk verdict A genuine advance on Born-averaged measurement effects in Luttinger liquids, with a new log-corrected multifractal scaling; the central O(g^2)-dominance worry is largely answered by the paper itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05289 v1 pith:DNQZ7AY2 submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph

Kabir Khanna , Sara Murciano , Romain Vasseur This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph
keywords measurement-alteredcriticalityTomonaga-LuttingerliquidBorn-averagedcorrelatorsreplicainstantonmultifractalspectrumboundaryconformalfieldtheoryweakmeasurementsphaseslips
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

The paper works out what happens to the universal correlations of a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, a broad class of one-dimensional quantum critical states, when it is monitored by weak local density measurements and one averages over all measurement outcomes by the Born rule instead of post-selecting. For $K<1/2$, where the measurement perturbation is relevant, it finds that the $k$-th moments of density and phase correlators decay as $x^{-2k(1-k)/K}$ for $01/2$. The $\sqrt{\log x}$ factor is the paper's signature claim: a universal fingerprint of the randomness of the measurement record, absent from both clean critical scaling and forced-measurement scaling. The asymptotics are governed by a narrow, low-probability range of phase offsets near $\delta=\pi/2$ where density and phase fluctuations stay of order one, producing a strongly non-Gaussian multifractal spectrum. This would matter because it turns the intrinsic randomness of quantum measurement into concrete, falsifiable predictions for how monitoring reshapes critical matter.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a replica instanton calculation. Integrating out the measurement record yields a replicated boundary action with an inter-replica cosine coupling; a rotation to relative and center-of-mass modes leaves the perturbation acting only on the $Q-1$ relative fields, with the center-of-mass mode free. At the $\gamma\to\infty$ fixed point the relative fields are pinned to minima, and the leading irrelevant perturbations are instantons, or phase slips, which tunnel between minima and form a multi-component Coulomb gas. The central object is the partition function $Z_x(\delta)=\sum_{w\in\mathbb{Z}} x^{-(2/K)(w+\delta/\pi)^2}$, where $\delta\in[0,\pi)$ labels the coarse-grained measurement outcomes; the correlation moments are obtained by averaging fixed-$\delta$ quantities with Born weight proportional to $Z_x(\delta)$ and taking the replica limit. The same function encodes the boundary-condition-changing vertex operators $e^{i(w+\delta/\pi)\theta}$, which is what gives the result its boundary conformal field theory interpretation.

What would settle it

Compute the order-$g^4$ contribution to the phase-slip gas: if any four-slip cluster placed near the correlation points decays more slowly than $x^{-1/(2K)}/\sqrt{\log x}$, the exponents in Eq. (6) would be revised. Equivalently, in a lattice simulation at $K\approx 0.24$ and $\gamma\approx 0.9$, the moments $N_2$ and $N_4$ should decay with the same power law up to the common logarithmic factor; different exponents would falsify the $k>1/2$ prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that at the strong-measurement fixed point of the replicated field theory, the long-distance decay of Born-averaged density and phase correlators is controlled not by typical measurement outcomes but by a low-probability region near $\delta=\pi/2$, where the $w=0$ and $w=-1$ phase-slip sectors are degenerate. Summing the leading neutral pair of phase slips and analytically continuing the replica number $Q\to 1$ gives $N_k(x)$ and $\Theta_k(x)$ scaling as $x^{-2k(1-k)/K}$ for $0<k\le 1/2$ and as $x^{-1/(2K)}/\sqrt{\log x}$ for $k>1/2$, with saddle-point contributions $x^{-4k}$ and $x^{-2k/K}$ that are subleading except for the lowest density moments at the smallest $K$. The paper argues this behavior is peculiar to measurement-induced randomness: the logarithmic factor arises from integrating over a continuum of phase offsets near the degeneracy point, and the $k$-independent exponent for $k>1/2$ is a strongly non-Gaussian multifractal signature that differs from both the clean Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid and the forced post-selected measurement outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the slowest universal decay comes from a single neutral pair of phase slips at order $g^2$, with all higher-order (four-or-more-slip) configurations either fusing into pairs already summed at that order or decaying faster; the supplemental material argues this heuristically but does not prove it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $K<1/2$ and moments $k>1/2$, the Born-averaged density and phase correlators share the same asymptotic decay $x^{-1/(2K)}/\sqrt{\log x}$, so measurements make density and phase fluctuations scale alike at long distances.
  • The $k$-dependence of the exponents is a multifractal spectrum: quadratic in $k$ for $0<k\le 1/2$ and flat for $k>1/2$, meaning the ensemble of post-measurement states has strongly non-Gaussian fluctuations.
  • The multiplicative $(\log x)^{-1/2}$ correction is universal at the strong-measurement fixed point, distinguishing the Born-averaged problem from weak-measurement fixed points that show pure power laws.
  • In the BCFT picture, a relevant measurement drives the doubled theory toward an ensemble of conformally invariant boundary conditions, and averaged observables are computed by weighting boundary correlators with boundary partition functions; this is expected to extend to other 1+1d CFT ground states.
  • Forced measurements post-selected on a charge-density-wave outcome give different exponents, so the Born average is not reproduced by any single favorable outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same rare-region mechanism may show up in other Born-averaged quantities in monitored critical systems, such as higher moments of entanglement or out-of-time-order correlators, as logarithmic corrections of the same type; the paper's BCFT framework provides a template for searching for them.
  • The flatness of the spectrum for $k>1/2$ is a sharp experimental handle: measuring two high moments of the same correlator and finding identical power-law exponents (up to amplitude) would confirm the mechanism, while $k$-dependent exponents would point to a different infrared fixed point.
  • The paper's numerics show that the strong-coupling asymptotics do not yet hold at very weak measurement strength ($\gamma\simeq 0.1$), so a crossover function connecting the weak- and strong-monitoring regimes would be a natural extension; the current results apply once the system has flowed close to the projective fixed point.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a replica instanton theory for weakly monitored Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids with Luttinger parameter K<1/2, where generic weak density measurements are RG-relevant. Averaging over measurement outcomes via the replica trick, the authors derive that Born-averaged moments of connected density and phase correlators decay as C_k(x) ∼ M_k(x)+x^{-Δ(k)}, with M_k(x)=x^{-2k(1-k)/K} for 0<k≤1/2 and M_k(x)=x^{-1/(2K)}/√(log x) for k>1/2 (Eq. (6)). They attribute the leading decay to rare phase offsets near δ=π/2 where the w=0 and w=-1 sectors are degenerate, yielding universal logarithmic corrections and a strongly non-Gaussian multifractal spectrum distinct from clean and forced-measurement scaling. The results are supported by a detailed supplementary derivation and by DMRG calculations for two K values at intermediate-to-strong measurement strength.

Significance. If correct, the results establish a new universal regime for measurement-altered criticality: the Born-averaged ensemble behaves differently from any single post-selected outcome, with the average controlled by atypical low-probability phase offsets. The prediction of a universal (log x)^{-1/2} factor for k>1/2 is crisp and falsifiable. The paper's strengths are its self-contained replica derivation, independent extraction of K from clean ground-state correlations, concrete MPS benchmarks, and public data/code availability. The exponents are not fitted; only non-universal amplitudes and the short-distance shift κ(γ) are adjusted. The proposed BCFT interpretation, while conjectural for general CFTs, is clearly flagged as such and is concretely implemented for the free boson.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Sections II A and III B (Eqs. (24), (55)–(57))] The leading universal decay in Eq. (6) of the main text is obtained exclusively from the single neutral phase-slip pair at O(g^2) of the replicated Coulomb gas. The paper argues that any 2n-slip configuration with n>1 either fuses into an effective pair already summed at O(g^2), or incurs extra powers of x and is subleading. This argument is heuristic: the fused cluster's fugacity is not shown to equal the single-pair fugacity, and in the phase correlator the OPE of several slips with the external vertex operator (Eqs. (55)–(57)) could in principle produce an effective screening charge whose quadratic form is smaller than the optimum already included at O(g^2). Since the exponents in Eq. (6), including the logarithmic correction for k>1/2, are the central claim, this O(g^2) dominance needs to be established by a controlled argument (e.g., a systematic resummation of the 2n-slip sectors or an explicit bound on their contributions). The supplement itself presents the statement as an expectation rather than a proof, so this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Supplementary Section II B (Eqs. (30)–(36))] The analytic continuation from integer replica number Q to Q→1 is performed by applying the multidimensional reciprocal formula and then treating the resulting expression as valid for all Q, including Q<2k. This is the standard replica trick, but the manuscript does not discuss the uniqueness or regularity of this continuation, nor does it check that terms discarded in the Q→1 limit are controlled. Because the final formulas (Eq. (5) and Eqs. (36)–(38)) are the basis of all subsequent scaling results, the authors should at least verify the continuation against independent checks, for example that the leading asymptotics are unchanged under a different admissible UV regularization of the fugacity g(Δw) or that the Q→1 expression is manifestly analytic in a neighborhood of Q=1.
  3. [Main Text Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figs. 2–4] The numerical evidence for Eq. (6) is presented without error bars on the MPS data or on the fitted parameters, and only two values of K are studied. In particular, the distinguishing feature of the k>1/2 regime — the universal (log x)^{-1/2} factor — is not isolated from a pure power-law decay: the fits plotted in Fig. 2(c) and Supplementary Fig. 4 use the form e^{-χ/2}/√χ, but no comparison is shown to a fit without the √χ factor. A quantitative test (e.g., ratio of residuals or a log-likelihood comparison) with uncertainties would be needed to claim numerical support for the log correction. The authors' own statement that the γ=0.1 fits are poor and the accessible window is γ≈0.7–0.9 further underscores the need for a systematic error analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (2)] The notation [⟨n(x)n(0)⟩_m − ⟨n(x)⟩_m⟨n(0)⟩_m]^k is unambiguous, but the following paragraph should clarify that the smooth part of the density is used when this object is compared with Eq. (6); the supplement does this, but the main text should say so explicitly.
  2. [Supplementary Section V B] There is a typo ('Nsampls' instead of 'N_samples'), and the number of measurement trajectories used for each data point in Figs. 2–4 is not stated; this number should be reported to allow the reader to assess sampling noise.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The dotted line for the forced-measurement prediction is not defined; the caption should state whether it is the x^{-4} density correlator or the x^{-1/K} phase correlator predicted in Ref. [41].
  4. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (5)] The phrase 'reminiscent δφ(x) phase degree of freedom' is vague; the supplement's definition of δ as the difference of boundary conditions is much clearer and could be moved to the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the exponents in Eq. (6) follow from the replica Coulomb-gas calculation, with K fixed from clean ground-state correlations and only non-universal amplitudes fitted in the numerics.

full rationale

The central prediction Eq. (6) is obtained by evaluating the analytically continued two-slip partition function and extracting its large-x saddle point, not by fitting the target exponents. The Luttinger parameter K is determined independently from the unmeasured ground-state correlations in Supplementary Section V A before any measurement averaging is performed; the MPS comparison then fits only the non-universal prefactor and the short-distance shift κ(γ), both explicitly stated to be non-universal. The logarithmic correction for k > 1/2 arises from the near-degeneracy of the w = 0 and w = -1 sectors at δ = π/2 inside the theta-function Z_χ, i.e. from a mathematical property of the calculated partition function, not from an imported prior result. The self-citations [59,60] are used only as an aside: "Similar logarithmic terms were also observed for measurement induced entanglement (MIE) [59,60]", so they are not load-bearing. The BCFT generalization is explicitly introduced as a conjecture ("we posit"), and its TLL realization is checked against the replica derivation rather than used to generate the exponents. The heuristic treatment of higher-order 2n-slip configurations in Supplementary Sections II A and III B is an uncontrolled approximation and a correctness risk, but it is not circular: it concerns whether subleading instanton clusters might decay more slowly, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction or a definition that identifies the output with the input. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical derivation starts from the standard TLL action and uses the replica trick, the Fradkin-Moore rotation, and a dilute instanton expansion. K is an input of the model, not fitted in the theory; in the numerics it is extracted from clean ground-state correlations. The only fitted quantities in the numerical comparison are non-universal amplitudes and the short-distance shift κ(γ).

free parameters (2)
  • short-distance shift κ(γ) = fitted per measurement strength γ (e.g., γ=0.7)
    Appears in χ = K^{-1} log x + κ(γ) and absorbs non-universal UV and measurement details. It does not change the universal exponents or the log correction, and is not part of the theoretical prediction.
  • non-universal amplitudes in fits = fitted per curve in Figs. 2-4 of the supplement
    Multiplicative prefactors not predicted by the theory; they do not affect the decay exponents.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Born-averaged correlators can be computed via the replica trick with analytic continuation Q→1 (Supplementary Eqs. (6)-(8) and (33)).
    Assumes the validity of interchanging the replica limit with the path integral and the saddle-point/instanton expansion. Standard in disorder physics but not rigorously controlled here.
  • domain assumption The strongly coupled measurement fixed point is described by a boundary sine-Gordon-type theory, so phase slips are dilute at large γ with fugacity g ~ exp(-√γ).
    Supplementary Section I B; relies on the Kane-Fisher analogy. If the dilute instanton gas assumption failed, the Coulomb gas partition function Eq. (16) would not apply.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher-order phase-slip configurations do not change the leading scaling (O(g^2) dominance).
    Argued after Eq. (24) of the supplement; this is the load-bearing assumption identified as the weakest point of the calculation.
  • domain assumption The measurement-averaged phase correlator keeps the form |<e^{i[θ(x)-θ(0)]}>_m|^{2k} with a real one-point function and vanishing charged operators (U(1) symmetry).
    Used in Supplementary Section V B to map spin correlators to Θ_k; relies on the density measurement preserving U(1) symmetry.
  • standard math The TLL bosonization dictionary and the boundary OPEs (e.g., ∂_x φ ~ y ∂_x^2 θ near the boundary, Eq. (67) of the supplement).
    Standard results from Giamarchi and Cardy, used to connect field-theoretic correlators to lattice spin operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of Measurement-Altered Criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNQZ7AY2

@misc{pith2026260805289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of Measurement-Altered Criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNQZ7AY2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05289}
}
read the original abstract

Local measurements can alter long-range correlations in gapless quantum matter. We propose a theory of weakly-monitored Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids, a broad class of quantum critical states in one dimension. In order to address the intrinsic randomness of the measurement record, we develop a replica instanton calculation to study Born-averaged observables. We find that when measurements are relevant, average correlators of density and phase fluctuations decay at long distances as universal power laws with logarithmic corrections, a feature we argue is peculiar to measurement-induced randomness. We characterize the full multifractal spectrum of moments of correlations functions, revealing broad, strongly non-gaussian fluctuations across the ensemble of post-measurement states. We support these analytic results with matrix-product-state calculations, and provide a general picture of measurement-altered criticality for ground states described by 1+1d conformal field theories. Our results establish that physical measurements alter critical quantum states in a manner that lies beyond both forced measurements and conventional critical scaling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05289 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  2. [2]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B101, 104301 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Nature622, 481 (2023)

    2023

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    J. M. Koh, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Nature Physics19, 1314 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, An- nual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement dynamics in hybrid quantum circuits, inEntanglement in Spin Chains: From Theory to Quantum Technology Applica- tions, edited by A. Bayat, S. Bose, and H. Johannes- son (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022) pp. 211–249

    2022

  4. [12]

    W. W. Ho and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 060601 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ippoliti and W

    M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, Quantum6, 886 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, I. S. Madjarov, X. Xie, R. Finkel- stein, J. P. Covey, J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, A. Kale, H. Pichler, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, S. Choi, and M. Endres, Nature613, 468 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    J. S. Cotler, D. K. Mark, H.-Y. Huang, F. Hern´ andez, J. Choi, A. L. Shaw, M. Endres, and S. Choi, PRX Quan- tum4, 010311 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ippoliti and W

    M. Ippoliti and W. W. Ho, PRX Quantum4, 030322 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lucas, L

    M. Lucas, L. Piroli, J. De Nardis, and A. De Luca, Phys. Rev. A107, 032215 (2023). 6

    2023

  10. [18]

    Chan and A

    A. Chan and A. De Luca, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical57, 405001 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    D. K. Mark, F. Surace, A. Elben, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, G. Refael, M. Endres, and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. X14, 041051 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Shrotriya and W

    H. Shrotriya and W. W. Ho, SciPost Phys.18, 107 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Milekhin and S

    A. Milekhin and S. Murciano, Quantum9, 1888 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    M. B. Hastings and T. Koma, Communications in Math- ematical Physics265, 781 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Cheng, R

    Z. Cheng, R. Wen, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. Vasseur, and A. C. Potter, Phys. Rev. B109, 195128 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Raussendorf, D

    R. Raussendorf, D. E. Browne, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A68, 022312 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    H. J. Briegel, D. E. Browne, W. D¨ ur, R. Raussendorf, and M. Van den Nest, Nature Physics5, 19 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    D. T. Stephen, D.-S. Wang, A. Prakash, T.-C. Wei, and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 010504 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Raussendorf, D.-S

    R. Raussendorf, D.-S. Wang, A. Prakash, T.-C. Wei, and D. T. Stephen, Phys. Rev. A96, 012302 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Devakul and D

    T. Devakul and D. J. Williamson, Phys. Rev. A98, 022332 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Raussendorf, C

    R. Raussendorf, C. Okay, D.-S. Wang, D. T. Stephen, and H. P. Nautrup, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 090501 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    A. K. Daniel, R. N. Alexander, and A. Miyake, Quantum 4, 228 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

    N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Thorngren, A. Vishwanath, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. X14, 021040 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Verresen, N

    R. Verresen, N. Tantivasadakarn, and A. Vishwanath, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03061 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    T.-C. Lu, L. A. Lessa, I. H. Kim, and T. H. Hsieh, PRX Quantum3, 040337 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Iqbal, N

    M. Iqbal, N. Tantivasadakarn, R. Verresen, S. L. Camp- bell, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, J. Jo- hansen, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, J. M. Pino, A. Ransford, M. Rowe, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, M. Foss-Feig, A. Vish- wanath, and H. Dreyer, Nature626, 505 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Foss-Feig, A

    M. Foss-Feig, A. Tikku, T.-C. Lu, K. Mayer, M. Iqbal, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, A. Hankin,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03029 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G.-Y. Zhu, N. Tantivasadakarn, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 200201 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    E. H. Chen, G.-Y. Zhu, R. Verresen, A. Seif, E. B¨ aumer, D. Layden, N. Tantivasadakarn, G. Zhu, S. Sheldon, A. Vishwanath, S. Trebst, and A. Kandala, Nature Physics21, 161 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    J. Cardy,Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  33. [42]

    Tomonaga, Progress of Theoretical Physics5, 544 (1950)

    S.-i. Tomonaga, Progress of Theoretical Physics5, 544 (1950)

    1950

  34. [43]

    J. M. Luttinger, Journal of Mathematical Physics4, 1154 (1963)

    1963

  35. [44]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics14, 2585 (1981)

    1981

  36. [45]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  37. [46]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1220 (1992)

    1992

  38. [48]

    Murciano, P

    S. Murciano, P. Sala, Y. Liu, R. S. K. Mong, and J. Al- icea, Phys. Rev. X13, 041042 (2023)

    2023

  39. [49]

    Z. Yang, D. Mao, and C.-M. Jian, Phys. Rev. B108, 165120 (2023)

    2023

  40. [50]

    J. Y. Lee, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, PRX Quantum4, 030317 (2023)

    2023

  41. [51]

    Ashida, S

    Y. Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094404 (2024)

    2024

  42. [52]

    Weinstein, R

    Z. Weinstein, R. Sajith, E. Altman, and S. J. Garratt, Phys. Rev. B107, 245132 (2023)

    2023

  43. [53]

    X. Sun, H. Yao, and S.-K. Jian, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11337 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Paviglianiti, X

    A. Paviglianiti, X. Turkeshi, M. Schir` o, and A. Silva, Quantum8, 1576 (2024)

    2024

  45. [55]

    Tang and X

    Q. Tang and X. Wen, JHEP09, 168, arXiv:2411.13705 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    arXiv

  46. [56]

    P. Sala, S. Murciano, Y. Liu, and J. Alicea, PRX Quan- tum5, 030307 (2024)

    2024

  47. [58]

    C.-J. Lin, W. Ye, Y. Zou, S. Sang, and T. H. Hsieh, Quantum7, 910 (2023)

    2023

  48. [59]

    Khanna and R

    K. Khanna and R. Vasseur, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 160402 (2026)

    2026

  49. [60]

    Khanna and R

    K. Khanna and R. Vasseur, Universal statistics of measurement-induced entanglement in tomonaga- luttinger liquids (2026), arXiv:2512.13809 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  50. [61]

    R. A. Patil and A. W. W. Ludwig, Shannon entropy of the measurement record at measurement-dominated criticality and rg flow: A c-theorem for effective central charge and a g-theorem for effective boundary entropy (2025), arXiv:2507.07959 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2025

  51. [62]

    Nahum and J

    A. Nahum and J. L. Jacobsen, Bayesian critical points in classical lattice models (2025), arXiv:2504.01264 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [63]

    P¨ utz, S

    M. P¨ utz, S. J. Garratt, H. Nishimori, S. Trebst, and G.- Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 190402 (2026)

    2026

  53. [64]

    Y. Liu, S. Murciano, D. F. Mross, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023293 (2025)

    2025

  54. [65]

    Sarma, N

    A. Sarma, N. Myerson-Jain, Y. Liu, N. Manoj, J. Alicea, R. G. Melko, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 020603 (2026)

    2026

  55. [66]

    S. Naus, Y. Liu, S. Murciano, P. Sala, M. Endres, and J. Alicea, Practical roadmap to measurement-altered criticality in rydberg arrays (2025), arXiv:2506.21963 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Kumar, R

    A. Kumar, R. A. Patil, A. W. W. Ludwig, and R. Vasseur, Universal crossovers in weakly-monitored quantum critical states (2026), arXiv:2608.02716 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2026 arXiv

  57. [68]

    See online supplementary material

  58. [70]

    A. W. Ludwig, Nuclear Physics B330, 639 (1990)

    1990

  59. [71]

    Duplantier and A

    B. Duplantier and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 247 (1991). 7

    1991

  60. [74]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Sci- Post Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  61. [77]

    J. L. Cardy, Nuclear Physics B324, 581 (1989)

    1989

  62. [78]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 161 (1991)

    1991

  63. [79]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. Ludwig, Nuclear Physics B360, 641 (1991)

    1991

  64. [80]

    Oshikawa and I

    M. Oshikawa and I. Affleck, Nuclear Physics B495, 533 (1997)

    1997

  65. [81]

    Jeng and A

    M. Jeng and A. Ludwig, Nuclear Physics B594, 685–712 (2001)

    2001

  66. [82]

    Khanna, S

    K. Khanna, S. Murciano, and R. Vasseur, 10.5281/zen- odo.21791465 (2026). 1 Supplemental Material Theory of Measurement-Altered Criticality Kabir Khanna1,2, Sara Murciano 3, and Romain Vasseur1,2 1Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Geneva, 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet...

    2026 doi

  67. [83]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Oxford University Press, 2003)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  68. [84]

    S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. X13, 021026 (2023)

    2023

  69. [85]

    Murciano, P

    S. Murciano, P. Sala, Y. Liu, R. S. K. Mong, and J. Alicea, Phys. Rev. X13, 041042 (2023)

    2023

  70. [86]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B46, 15233 (1992)

    1992

  71. [87]

    Fradkin and J

    E. Fradkin and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050404 (2006)

    2006

  72. [88]

    B. Hsu, M. Mulligan, E. Fradkin, and E.-A. Kim, Phys. Rev. B79, 115421 (2009)

    2009

  73. [89]

    Oshikawa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1007.3739 (2010)

    M. Oshikawa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1007.3739 (2010)

    2010 arXiv

  74. [90]

    M. P. Zaletel, J. H. Bardarson, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 020402 (2011). 17 FIG. 4:Scaling of measurement-averaged correlator ∑ mpm⟨ ˆSx i0 ˜Sx i0+r⟩2 m,c vs chord lengthd(r)for L= 84,120and measurement strengthsγ= 0.1,0.5,0.9.Green and red markers correspond to gr...

    2011

  75. [91]

    T. Zhou, X. Chen, T. Faulkner, and E. Fradkin, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2016, 093101 (2016)

    2016

  76. [92]

    Bellman and R

    R. Bellman and R. S. Lehman, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society12, 954 (1961)

    1961

  77. [93]

    Cardy, arXiv preprint hep-th/0411189 (2004)

    J. Cardy, arXiv preprint hep-th/0411189 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  78. [94]

    J. L. Cardy, Nuclear Physics B240, 514 (1984)

    1984

  79. [95]

    R. A. Patil and A. W. W. Ludwig, Highly complex novel critical behavior from the intrinsic randomness of quantum mechanical measurements on critical ground states – a controlled renormalization group analysis (2024), arXiv:2409.02107 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [96]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  81. [97]

    Gotta, L

    L. Gotta, L. Mazza, P. Simon, and G. Roux, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013114 (2021)

    2021

  82. [98]

    Chepiga, Phys

    N. Chepiga, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043225 (2022)

    2022

  83. [99]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  84. [100]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  85. [101]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  86. [102]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.