Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Topology and Spectrum in Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Monitored Majorana circuits obey a bulk-edge correspondence in gapped phases.

desk verdict A numerically convincing extension of bulk-edge correspondence to monitored Majorana circuits via Lyapunov analysis and a twisted-boundary parity invariant, with two rigor gaps that a revision should close. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11097 v4 pith:HTX4W7JJ submitted 2024-12-15 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Hisanori Oshima , Ken Mochizuki , Ryusuke Hamazaki , Yohei Fuji This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords measurement-inducedphasetransitionsMajoranazeromodesLyapunovspectrumbulk-edgecorrespondencemonitoredquantumcircuitsfermionparityinvariantentanglementphases
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 argues that topological order can be defined for monitored quantum dynamics, not only for ground states of static Hamiltonians. In a (1+1)-dimensional monitored Majorana circuit, it identifies the topological area-law phase by the presence of edge-localized Majorana zero modes inside an open bulk Lyapunov gap, and the trivial area-law phase by their absence. It constructs a fermion-parity invariant $\chi_T(s)$ that takes different values in the two gapped phases and dynamically marks the critical phase. The critical phase is shown to be gapless in the Lyapunov spectrum. If correct, this extends the bulk-edge correspondence to a class of driven, measurement-determined systems.

What carries the argument

Lyapunov analysis of the random matrix product $K_T(s)$ governing the evolution of Majorana operators: the spectrum of the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{eff},T}(s) = -\frac{i}{2T}\ln[K_T(s)K_T^\dagger(s)]$ converges to the Lyapunov spectrum, whose lowest non-negative exponent serves as the bulk gap. The corresponding Lyapunov vectors form an orthogonal matrix $O_T(s)$ that diagonalizes the effective Hamiltonian. The topological invariant is built from determinant products $\det[O_T^{\mathrm{PBC}}(s)]$ and $\det[O_T^{\mathrm{APBC}}(s)]$, with the antiperiodic boundary condition defined by twisting only the boundary measurement outcomes relative to the periodic trajectory; this is a fermion-parity difference generalizing the static Majorana-chain construction.

What would settle it

Look at the lowest Lyapunov exponent under open boundary conditions at parameters inside the claimed topological area-law phase: if it remains finite as the system size grows, or if the corresponding mode's squared weight at the edges does not approach 1, then the edge zero mode does not exist and the bulk-edge correspondence claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that monitored Majorana circuits in gapped phases satisfy a bulk-edge correspondence. The paper defines an effective Hamiltonian from the long-time Lyapunov analysis of the random matrix product that evolves Majorana operators, and shows that in the topological area-law phase the lowest Lyapunov exponent under open boundaries vanishes and the corresponding mode is localized at the edges, while in the trivial area-law phase it stays finite and delocalized. A bulk topological invariant is obtained by multiplying the fermion parities of the ground states of the effective Hamiltonian under periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions, where the antiperiodic circuit is defined by flipping the boundary measurement outcomes of the periodic trajectory; this invariant is $\chi_T(s) = P_{\mathrm{PBC}}(s) P_{\mathrm{APBC}}(s)$, converging to $\pm 1$ in the two gapped phases. In the critical sub-volume-law phase the bulk Lyapunov gap closes, and the same invariant characterizes the phase dynamically through its slow relaxation at times $T = O(L)$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the random matrix product built from a monitored circuit has a well-defined Lyapunov spectrum that is independent of the particular measurement-outcome sequence; the paper provides numerical support but no proof in the Born-rule setting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the topological area-law phase, open-boundary monitored circuits host edge-localized Majorana zero modes inside the bulk Lyapunov gap.
  • In the trivial area-law phase, no such edge modes appear, so the two gapped phases are distinguished by both the Lyapunov spectrum and the parity invariant.
  • The critical phase has a gapless Lyapunov spectrum, and the invariant fails to converge on the $O(L)$ timescale, giving a dynamical signature of the two transition points.
  • The framework extends the bulk-edge correspondence to monitored dynamics and suggests how to define topological invariants for symmetry-protected monitored phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Lyapunov edge-mode diagnostic should work for other monitored free-fermion circuits, but the twisted-boundary outcome prescription may need modification when measurements have more than two outcomes.
  • Because evaluating the antiperiodic trajectory requires postselecting on the periodic outcome sequence, direct large-scale measurement of $\chi_T$ is exponentially costly; a cheaper experimental proxy might be the slow relaxation of parity fluctuations near the critical phase.
  • If the assumption that Oseledec's theorem applies to Born-rule trajectories is eventually proven, the Lyapunov spectrum could serve as a rigorous classification tool for measurement-induced topological phases rather than a numerical diagnostic.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes a Lyapunov-analysis framework for monitored Majorana circuits and uses it to claim a bulk-edge correspondence in the gapped measurement-induced phases: the topological area-law phase is distinguished by edge-localized Majorana zero modes within the bulk Lyapunov gap, the trivial area-law phase has no such modes, and a fermion-parity invariant χ_T(s) = P_T^PBC(s) P_T^APBC(s), built from QR-based Lyapunov vectors, takes χ = -1 (+1) in the topological (trivial) phase. The antiperiodic boundary condition is defined by twisting only the boundary measurement outcomes relative to a PBC trajectory, with the unitary boundary term J' = -J. The critical sub-volume-law phase is claimed to be gapless in the Lyapunov spectrum and is dynamically characterized by χ evaluated at T = O(L). The paper is transparent about its main assumptions: applicability of Oseledec's theorem to Born-rule-generated outcome sequences is flagged as mathematically nontrivial (main text after Eq. (4); Supp. Sec. I.B), and the critical-phase scaling is stated to be inconclusive at available sizes (Supp. Sec. III).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a substantive step: it extends bulk-edge correspondence, a cornerstone of equilibrium topology, to monitored dynamics and supplies a concrete invariant (the PBC/APBC parity product with twisted boundary measurement outcomes) that sharply separates the two area-law phases. The paper has notable strengths: the APBC construction is a new idea; the Lyapunov-gap criterion gives falsifiable predictions (edge-mode localization, χ = ±1, gapless critical spectrum); code and data are shared (Ref. [91]); and no free parameters are fitted to the target result, since the model parameters are scanned. The authors are also unusually explicit about which steps are numerically checked rather than proved. The main weakness is that the convergence of the QR-based determinant to the Pfaffian parity, on which the invariant rests, is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Topological invariant and bulk-edge correspondence, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The statement that χ_T(s) 'approximates and converges to Q_T(s) for T → ∞' is the linchpin of the phase discrimination, but it is not demonstrated. For finite T, Õ_T(s) is not orthogonal, and det[Õ_T(s)] depends on the QR convention and on the random initial matrix W_0 used in the QR iteration; convergence of the Lyapunov exponents (Supp. Fig. S1) does not by itself establish that sign(det[Õ_T]) stabilizes to the Kitaev parity for both PBC and APBC. The trajectory-averaged χ_T in Figs. 2(e) and 3(d) shows that the sign is stable across outcomes, but it does not test equality with Q_T(s) = sgn(Pf[H_eff,T^PBC] Pf[H_eff,T^APBC]) or invariance under re-initialization of W_0. I ask for (i) a direct comparison of sign(det[Õ_T(s)]) with Q_T(s) for small L and T, where Pf[H_eff,T(s)] is computable; (ii) a check that the sign is unchanged under different random W_0 and QR conventions; and (iii) both checks in each gapped phase and boundary condition.
  2. [Model and Lyapunov analysis, after Eq. (4); Supp. Sec. I.B] The entire Lyapunov construction rests on Oseledec's theorem for products K_T(s) whose factors depend on the Born-rule-generated outcome sequence s. The authors correctly flag the Born-rule complication as mathematically nontrivial and cite Refs. [66,67], but the supporting numerics in Supp. Fig. S1 are a single trajectory at one parameter set (L=4, J=0.5, μ_o=0.5) compared with a 100-trajectory average. Since the edge-mode and invariant claims are conditional on this convergence, and since convergence could in principle fail in some phases, I request additional single-trajectory-versus-ensemble convergence checks in all three phases and under OBC, PBC, and APBC, or a more prominent statement that the bulk-edge conclusions are conditional on this numerically checked assumption.
  3. [Critical gapless phase with additional unitary; Supp. Sec. III] The abstract and summary state that the critical phase has 'a bulk gapless spectrum in the critical phase,' but the evidence is the decay of z1 with L in the window 0.4 ≲ μ_o ≲ 0.6 (Fig. 3 and Fig. S3), with scaling close to 1/L, which the authors themselves describe as inconclusive ('we cannot conclude the true scaling form especially inside the critical phase'). A 1/L decay of the lowest Lyapunov exponent is consistent with gaplessness, but the claim as stated is stronger than the data. Either the claim should be softened to 'consistent with a gapless phase' or a more conclusive scaling analysis should be provided, for example with subleading corrections or an independent probe such as the (ln L)^2 entanglement scaling already used to identify the phase.
  4. [Topological invariant and bulk-edge correspondence, APBC definition] The APBC is defined by flipping only the boundary outcomes s_{2L,t} relative to a PBC trajectory, so the APBC circuit is not sampled from the APBC Born rule (the postselection overhead is acknowledged). This is a legitimate construction, but the paper gives no argument, beyond the numerical sharpness of Fig. 2(e), that this particular twist is the correct monitored analogue of antiperiodic boundary conditions. Because χ_∞ = -1/+1 in the two gapped phases is the central quantitative claim, I ask for a robustness check of the invariant under alternative twists (for example, flipping a different boundary degree of freedom, or using only the unitary twist J' = -J without flipping outcomes) and a brief justification of why the flipped-outcome twist tracks the parity sector in which the APBC gap closes at the transition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supp. Sec. I.B, stationarity criterion] The stopping criterion 'less than √10 × 10^{-3}' is unexplained; the factor √10 appears to be a typo, and the criterion should be stated plainly.
  2. [Paragraph after Eq. (8)] The sentence 'P_T^PBC(s) = 1 is satisfied in the whole parameter region' reads like an exact identity, although the following sentence explains it numerically via the finite-size splitting z1 ~ 1/L; please rephrase as a numerical observation for the finite systems studied.
  3. [Fig. 2(e) caption] The caption states 'after a sufficiently long time,' but the temporal-averaging and stopping criteria are given only in the supplement; please state the criterion in the caption or in the main text.
  4. [Sentence following Eq. (8)] Minor grammar: 'we will also call χT (s) as the topological invariant' should read 'we will also call χT(s) the topological invariant.'
  5. [Abstract] The abstract promises 'a general framework' for monitored quantum systems, while the demonstration is for free-fermion Gaussian states; the outlook acknowledges this, but the abstract should qualify the claim, for example as a framework demonstrated on free-fermion monitored systems with a proposed route to interacting systems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parity invariant is a construction from Lyapunov data, not a fitted input, and the phase diagram is benchmarked by independent entanglement diagnostics.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The Lyapunov spectrum is computed from the random matrix product K_T(s) in Eq. (4) via standard QR-based Oseledec analysis; the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) is defined from that product, and the edge modes are read off from the corresponding Lyapunov vectors. The topological invariant in Eqs. (7)-(8) is a parity product det[eO_T^{PBC}] det[eO_T^{APBC}], constructed to approximate Kitaev's Pfaffian formula Q_T(s); it contains no parameter fitted to the target value chi = -1 versus +1. The APBC is deliberately defined relative to the PBC with flipped boundary outcomes, but this is a stated construction, not an extraction from the data being predicted. Phase boundaries are independently benchmarked by topological entanglement entropy and bipartite mutual information in Supplemental Sec. II, following Refs. [34,41,42]. The convergence of det[eO_T] to Q_T is asserted and numerically supported, and the applicability of Oseledec's theorem under the Born rule is flagged as a mathematically nontrivial assumption; these are correctness or rigor risks, not circularity. Self-citations [57,60] appear only as background for Lyapunov analysis and are not load-bearing; the load-bearing external input is Oseledec's theorem [63-65]. No step reduces a prediction to its own input by definition or by fitted parameter, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; mu_o and J are scanned model parameters. The central assumptions are the Oseledec/Born-rule convergence and the APBC construction. The APBC twist is an invented construct without an independent falsifiable handle.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Oseledec's theorem applies to the Born-rule random matrix product K_T(s), giving a trajectory-independent Lyapunov spectrum.
    Invoked after Eq. (4); the paper notes this is mathematically nontrivial for monitored systems and relies on Refs. [66,67] plus numerical convergence checks (Supplement Fig. S1).
  • standard math Gaussian states remain Gaussian under the unitary evolution and weak measurements used in the circuit.
    Used throughout the Model and Lyapunov analysis section; follows from bilinearity in Majoranas, a standard result for fermionic Gaussian states.
  • ad hoc to paper The APBC circuit defined by flipping only boundary measurement outcomes s_{2L,t} relative to the PBC is the correct monitored analogue of antiperiodic boundary conditions.
    Introduced in the Topological invariant section; required to define chi_T. Its physical uniqueness is not established.
  • domain assumption The non-orthogonal matrix eO_T(s) converges to the orthogonal matrix of Lyapunov vectors, so det[eO_T(s)] converges to the fermion parity.
    Stated in the Topological invariant section without proof beyond the general Lyapunov convergence assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Antiperiodic boundary condition with twisted measurement outcomes (APBC)
    purpose: Define a monitored analogue of antiperiodic boundary conditions so the fermion parity can serve as a topological invariant.
    The APBC is defined relative to a PBC trajectory by flipping boundary outcomes s_{2L,t}; there is no independent physical prediction from this construct beyond the parity switch it is designed to produce.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topology and Spectrum in Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTX4W7JJ

@misc{pith2026241211097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topology and Spectrum in Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTX4W7JJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11097}
}
read the original abstract

Competition among repetitive measurements of noncommuting observables and unitary dynamics can give rise to a wide variety of entanglement phases. Here, we propose a general framework based on Lyapunov analysis to characterize topological properties in monitored quantum systems through their spectrum and many-body topological invariants. We illustrate this framework by analyzing (1+1)-dimensional monitored circuits for Majorana fermions, which are known to exhibit topological and trivial area-law entangled phases as well as a critical phase with sub-volume-law entanglement. Through the Lyapunov analysis, we identify the presence (absence) of edge-localized zero modes inside the bulk gap in the topological (trivial) phase and a bulk gapless spectrum in the critical phase. Furthermore, by suitably exploiting the fermion parity with twisted measurement outcomes at the boundary, we construct a topological invariant that distinguishes the two area-law phases and dynamically characterizes the critical phase. Our framework thus provides a general route to extend the notion of bulk-edge correspondence to monitored quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Monitored quantum circuit for Majorana [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Non-negative single-particle Lyapunov spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Non-negative single-particle Lyapunov spectrum for the monitored circuit with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Symmetry and Topology of Monitored Quantum Dynamics

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Monitored free fermions are classified into the tenfold symmetry/topology table, with bulk-boundary correspondence appearing as Lyapunov zero modes and chiral edge modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [90]

    Xiao and K

    Z. Xiao and K. Kawabata, Topology of monitored quan- tum dynamics (2024), arXiv:2412.06133 [cond-mat.stat- mech]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [42]

    H. Pan, H. Shapourian, and C.-M. Jian, Topologi- cal modes in monitored quantum dynamics (2024), arXiv:2411.04191 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [91]

    Oshima, K

    H. Oshima, K. Mochizuki, R. Hamazaki, and Y. Fuji, Codes and data available for publication in Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15369377 (2025)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15369377 2025

  4. [1]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  5. [2]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Local unitary trans- formation, long-range quantum entanglement, wave func- tion renormalization, and topological order, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  6. [3]

    Gu and X.-G

    Z.-C. Gu and X.-G. Wen, Tensor-entanglement-filtering renormalization approach and symmetry-protected topo- logical order, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155131 (2009)

    2009

  7. [4]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one di- mension, Phys. Rev. B 81, 064439 (2010)

    2010

  8. [5]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Classification of gapped symmetric phases in one-dimensional spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 83, 035107 (2011)

    2011

Show all 105 references
  1. [6]

    Fidkowski and A

    L. Fidkowski and A. Kitaev, Topological phases of 6 fermions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 83, 075103 (2011)

    2011

  2. [7]

    Lu and A

    Y.-M. Lu and A. Vishwanath, Theory and classifica- tion of interacting integer topological phases in two di- mensions: A Chern-Simons approach, Phys. Rev. B 86, 125119 (2012)

    2012

  3. [8]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013)

    2013

  4. [9]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  5. [10]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  6. [11]

    Senthil, Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases of Quantum Matter, Ann

    T. Senthil, Symmetry-Protected Topological Phases of Quantum Matter, Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 299 (2015)

    2015

  7. [12]

    Witten, Fermion path integrals and topological phases, Rev

    E. Witten, Fermion path integrals and topological phases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035001 (2016)

    2016

  8. [13]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Y. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Classification of topological quantum matter with sym- metries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035005 (2016)

    2016

  9. [14]

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

    2018

  10. [15]

    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

  11. [16]

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

    2019

  12. [17]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, Entan- glement transition from variable-strength weak measure- ments, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064204 (2019)

    2019

  13. [18]

    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

  14. [19]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Measurement-induced criticality in random quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  15. [20]

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

    2020

  16. [21]

    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

  17. [22]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical Purification Phase Transition Induced by Quantum Measurements, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041020 (2020)

    2020

  18. [23]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Scalable Probes of Measurement-Induced Criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 070606 (2020)

    2020

  19. [24]

    A. C. Potter and R. Vasseur, Entanglement Dynamics in Hybrid Quantum Circuits, in Entanglement in Spin Chains: From Theory to Quantum Technology Applications, edited by A. Bayat, S. Bose, and H. Johannesson (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022) pp. 211–249

    2022

  20. [25]

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

    2023

  21. [26]

    Lavasani, Y

    A. Lavasani, Y. Alavirad, and M. Barkeshli, Measurement-induced topological entanglement transi- tions in symmetric random quantum circuits, Nat. Phys. 17, 342 (2021)

    2021

  22. [27]

    Lavasani, Y

    A. Lavasani, Y. Alavirad, and M. Barkeshli, Topological Order and Criticality in (2 + 1)D Monitored Random Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 235701 (2021)

    2021

  23. [28]

    Klocke and M

    K. Klocke and M. Buchhold, Topological order and en- tanglement dynamics in the measurement-only XZZX quantum code, Phys. Rev. B 106, 104307 (2022)

    2022

  24. [29]

    Lavasani, Z.-X

    A. Lavasani, Z.-X. Luo, and S. Vijay, Monitored quantum dynamics and the Kitaev spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115135 (2023)

    2023

  25. [30]

    Sriram, T

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

    2023

  26. [31]

    G.-Y. Zhu, N. Tantivasadakarn, and S. Trebst, Struc- tured volume-law entanglement in an interacting, moni- tored majorana spin liquid, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L042063 (2024)

    2024

  27. [32]

    Morral-Yepes, F

    R. Morral-Yepes, F. Pollmann, and I. Lovas, Detect- ing and stabilizing measurement-induced symmetry- protected topological phases in generalized cluster mod- els, Phys. Rev. B 108, 224304 (2023)

    2023

  28. [33]

    Kuno and I

    Y. Kuno and I. Ichinose, Production of lattice gauge Higgs topological states in a measurement-only quantum circuit, Phys. Rev. B 107, 224305 (2023)

    2023

  29. [34]

    Nehra, A

    R. Nehra, A. Romito, and D. Meidan, Controlling measurement-induced phase transitions with tunable de- tector coupling, Quantum 9, 1697 (2025)

    2025

  30. [35]

    Kelson-Packer and A

    C. Kelson-Packer and A. Miyake, Phase transitions in (2 + 1)D subsystem-symmetric monitored quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B 111, 075109 (2025)

    2025

  31. [36]

    Klocke, D

    K. Klocke, D. Simm, G.-Y. Zhu, S. Trebst, and M. Buch- hold, Entanglement dynamics in monitored kitaev cir- cuits: loop models, symmetry classification, and quan- tum lifshitz scaling (2024), arXiv:2409.02171 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [37]

    Nahum and B

    A. Nahum and B. Skinner, Entanglement and dynamics of diffusion-annihilation processes with Majorana defects, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023288 (2020)

    2020

  33. [38]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Symmetry enriched phases of quantum circuits, Ann. Phys. 435, 168618 (2021), special issue on Philip W. Anderson

    2021

  34. [39]

    C.-M. Jian, H. Shapourian, B. Bauer, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Measurement-induced entanglement transitions in quantum circuits of non-interacting fermions: Born-rule versus forced measurements (2023), arXiv:2302.09094 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [40]

    Klocke and M

    K. Klocke and M. Buchhold, Majorana Loop Models for Measurement-Only Quantum Circuits, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041028 (2023)

    2023

  36. [41]

    Kells, D

    G. Kells, D. Meidan, and A. Romito, Topological tran- sitions in weakly monitored free fermions, SciPost Phys. 14, 031 (2023)

    2023

  37. [43]

    Lang and H

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

    2020

  38. [44]

    Sang and T

    S. Sang and T. H. Hsieh, Measurement-protected quan- tum phases, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023200 (2021)

    2021

  39. [45]

    Ippoliti, M

    M. Ippoliti, M. J. Gullans, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and V. Khemani, Entanglement Phase Transi- tions in Measurement-Only Dynamics, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011030 (2021). 7

    2021

  40. [46]

    Under the Jordan-Wigner transformation, the measure- ments of the parities for neighboring Majorana fermions on an odd bond iγ2j−1γ2j and an even bond iγ2jγ2j+1 are mapped to measurements of Zj and XjXj+1, respec- tively

  41. [47]

    R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Majo- rana zero modes in superconductor–semiconductor het- erostructures, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 52 (2018)

    2018

  42. [48]

    Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf

    S. Bravyi, Lagrangian representation for fermionic linear optics, Quantum Inf. Comput. 5, 216–238 (2005)

    2005

  43. [49]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir´ o, Measurement-induced entanglement transi- tions in the quantum Ising chain: From infinite to zero clicks, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  44. [50]

    Surace and L

    J. Surace and L. Tagliacozzo, Fermionic Gaussian states: an introduction to numerical approaches, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 54 (2022)

    2022

  45. [51]

    Fidkowski, J

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

    2021

  46. [52]

    Piccitto, A

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

    2022

  47. [53]

    M. Fava, L. Piroli, T. Swann, D. Bernard, and A. Nahum, Nonlinear Sigma Models for Monitored Dynamics of Free Fermions, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041045 (2023)

    2023

  48. [54]

    Ravindranath and X

    V. Ravindranath and X. Chen, Robust Oscillations and Edge Modes in Nonunitary Floquet Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 230402 (2023)

    2023

  49. [55]

    [92–95], for details of the Gaussian-state simulation and addi- tional numerical data

    See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [92–95], for details of the Gaussian-state simulation and addi- tional numerical data

  50. [56]

    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

  51. [57]

    Mochizuki and R

    K. Mochizuki and R. Hamazaki, Absorption to fluctuat- ing bunching states in nonunitary boson dynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013004 (2024)

    2024

  52. [58]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. Aziz, A. Chakraborty, A. W. W. Ludwig, S. Gopalakrishnan, J. H. Pixley, and R. Vasseur, Bound- ary transfer matrix spectrum of measurement-induced transitions, Phys. Rev. B 109, 014303 (2024)

    2024

  53. [59]

    A. D. Luca, C. Liu, A. Nahum, and T. Zhou, Universality classes for purification in nonunitary quantum processes (2024), arXiv:2312.17744 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Mochizuki and R

    K. Mochizuki and R. Hamazaki, Measurement-induced spectral transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 010410 (2025)

    2025

  55. [61]

    V. B. Bulchandani, S. L. Sondhi, and J. T. Chalker, Random-Matrix Models of Monitored Quantum Circuits, J. Stat. Phys. 191, 55 (2024)

    2024

  56. [62]

    Z. Xiao, T. Ohtsuki, and K. Kawabata, Universal stochastic equations of monitored quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 140401 (2025)

    2025

  57. [63]

    Crisanti, G

    A. Crisanti, G. Paladin, and A. Vulpiani, Products of Random Matrices in Statistical Shysics, Vol. 104 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993)

    1993

  58. [64]

    S. V. Ershov and A. B. Potapov, On the concept of sta- tionary Lyapunov basis, Physica D 118, 167 (1998)

    1998

  59. [65]

    Ginelli, H

    F. Ginelli, H. Chat´ e, R. Livi, and A. Politi, Covariant Lyapunov vectors, J. Phys. A 46, 254005 (2013)

    2013

  60. [66]

    Benoist, M

    T. Benoist, M. Fraas, Y. Pautrat, and C. Pellegrini, Invariant measure for quantum trajectories, Probability Theory and Related Fields 174, 307 (2019)

    2019

  61. [67]

    Benoist, M

    T. Benoist, M. Fraas, Y. Pautrat, and C. Pellegrini, In- variant Measure for Stochastic Schr¨ odinger Equations, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e22, 347 (2021)

    2021

  62. [68]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-Uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  63. [69]

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

    2024

  64. [70]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Random-matrix theory of Majorana fermions and topological superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1037 (2015)

    2015

  65. [71]

    Kawabata, R

    K. Kawabata, R. Kobayashi, N. Wu, and H. Katsura, Exact zero modes in twisted Kitaev chains, Phys. Rev. B 95, 195140 (2017)

    2017

  66. [72]

    F. Venn, J. Behrends, and B. B´ eri, Coherent-error thresh- old for surface codes from majorana delocalization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060603 (2023)

    2023

  67. [73]

    Behrends, F

    J. Behrends, F. Venn, and B. B´ eri, Surface codes, quan- tum circuits, and entanglement phases, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013137 (2024)

    2024

  68. [74]

    C. Noel, P. Niroula, D. Zhu, A. Risinger, L. Egan, D. Biswas, M. Cetina, A. V. Gorshkov, M. J. Gullans, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Measurement-induced quan- tum phases realized in a trapped-ion quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 18, 760 (2022)

    2022

  69. [75]

    G. Q. AI and Collaborators, Measurement-induced en- tanglement and teleportation on a noisy quantum pro- cessor, Nature 622, 481 (2023)

    2023

  70. [76]

    Agrawal, J

    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

  71. [77]

    Kamakari, J

    H. Kamakari, J. Sun, Y. Li, J. J. Thio, T. P. Gujarati, M. P. A. Fisher, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Exper- imental demonstration of scalable cross-entropy bench- marking to detect measurement-induced phase transi- tions on a superconducting quantum processor, Phys. Rev. Lett...

    2025

  72. [78]

    Barratt, U

    F. Barratt, U. Agrawal, A. C. Potter, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur, Transitions in the learnability of global charges from local measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 200602 (2022)

    2022

  73. [79]

    Dehghani, A

    H. Dehghani, A. Lavasani, M. Hafezi, and M. J. Gullans, Neural-network decoders for measurement induced phase transitions, Nature Communications 14, 2918 (2023)

    2023

  74. [80]

    S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Measure- ments conspire nonlocally to restructure critical quantum states, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021026 (2023)

    2023

  75. [81]

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

    2024

  76. [82]

    Iadecola, S

    T. Iadecola, S. Ganeshan, J. H. Pixley, and J. H. Wilson, Measurement and feedback driven entanglement transi- tion in the probabilistic control of chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 060403 (2023)

    2023

  77. [83]

    Buchhold, T

    M. Buchhold, T. M¨ uller, and S. Diehl, Revealing measurement-induced phase transitions by pre-selection (2022), arXiv:2208.10506 [cond-mat.dis-nn]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Yamamoto and R

    K. Yamamoto and R. Hamazaki, Measurement-induced crossover of quantum jump statistics in postselection-free many-body dynamics (2025), arXiv:2503.02418 [cond- mat.stat-mech]. 8

    2025 arXiv

  79. [85]

    J. M. Koh, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Measurement-induced entanglement phase transition on a superconducting quantum processor with mid-circuit readout, Nature Physics 19, 1314 (2023)

    2023

  80. [86]

    S. Sang, Y. Li, T. Zhou, X. Chen, T. H. Hsieh, and M. P. Fisher, Entanglement Negativity at Measurement- Induced Criticality, PRX Quantum 2, 030313 (2021)

    2021

  81. [87]

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

    2022

  82. [88]

    L´ oio, A

    H. L´ oio, A. De Luca, J. De Nardis, and X. Turkeshi, Purification timescales in monitored fermions, Phys. Rev. B 108, L020306 (2023)

    2023

  83. [89]

    Merritt and L

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

    2023

  84. [92]

    Fromholz, G

    P. Fromholz, G. Magnifico, V. Vitale, T. Mendes-Santos, and M. Dalmonte, Entanglement topological invariants for one-dimensional topological superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 101, 085136 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal field theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504005 (2009)

    2009

  86. [94]

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

    2020

  87. [95]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. S´ en´ echal, Conformal Field Theory (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997). 1 Supplemental Material: Topology and Spectrum in Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions I. NUMERICAL DET AILS In this section, we provide a brief overview of the numeric...

    1997

  88. [97]

    Unitary dynamics The Kitaev chain Hamiltonian considered in the main text is given by ˆHkitaev = iJ 2L−1X ℓ=1 γlγl+1 + iJ ′γ2Lγ1 (S3) = −J L−1X j=1 (c† jcj+1 + c† jc† j+1 + h.c.) − J ′(c† Lc1 + c† Lc† 1 + h.c.) + J LX j=1 (2c† jcj − 1). (S4) The single-particle Hamiltonians fo...

  89. [98]

    The measurements considered in the main text are given by the Kraus operators ˆKe/o j (s) ∝ e ˆΘe/o j (s) up to the normalization factor

    Non-unitary evolution caused by measurements We now consider the non-unitary dynamics caused by measurements. The measurements considered in the main text are given by the Kraus operators ˆKe/o j (s) ∝ e ˆΘe/o j (s) up to the normalization factor. Here, the Hermitian operators...

  90. [99]

    Born probability We next provide a way to compute the Born probabilities based on the correlation matrix when the weak measure- ments are applied. The Kraus operators corresponding to the weak measurements of the Majorana pairs on jth odd and even bonds are written by ˆKo j (s...

  91. [100]

    Apply the circuit operators fMt(st) in one time step to Wt−1(s) as W′ t(s) = fMt(st)Wt−1(s)

  92. [101]

    Apply QR decomposition to W′ t(s) as W′ t(s) = Qt(s)Rt(s), and set Wt(s) = Qt(s)

  93. [102]

    6bZHkPzyfp9G6DM8e2EUMraHXHU=

    Store the diagonal elements {(Rt(s))jj } of Rt(s). We note that Qt(s) used here are not related to Q used in the Sec. I A 2. Then, the snapshot Lyapunov spectrum at time t = T is given by ez2j−1,T (s) = 1 T TX t=1 ln(Rt(s))jj , (S27) which converges to the non-negative Lyapuno...

  94. [103]

    = sin(πx1/L) sin(πx2/L) sin2[π(x1 − x2)/2L] , (S39) η′ 2 = (w′ 2 − ¯w′ 2)(w′ 3 − ¯w′ 3) (w′ 2 − w′ 3)( ¯w′ 2 − ¯w′

  95. [104]

    = sin(πx2/L) sin(πx3/L) sin2[π(x2 − x3)/2L] , (S40) η′ 3 = (w′ 1 − ¯w′ 1)(w′ 3 − ¯w′ 3) (w′ 1 − w′ 3)( ¯w′ 1 − ¯w′

  96. [105]

    60yHuR8lwHfjE3AnRW1gzQzWeLI=

    = sin(πx1/L) sin(πx3/L) sin2[π(x1 − x3)/2L] . (S41) For the partition of the system into four segments of the equal lengthL/4, the cross ratios become η′ 1 = η′ 2 = 2/( √ 2−1) and η′ 3 = 1. Since they are independent of the system size L, the topological entanglement entropy o...

  97. [128]

    60yHuR8lwHfjE3AnRW1gzQzWeLI=

    Importantly, z1 takes a finite value for µo > 0.5, while it vanishes for µo ≤ 0.5. Vanishing of z1 under the OBC in the topological area-law phase implies the many-body Lyapunov gap closing for ˆHeff,T (s), which is reminiscent of the appearance of Majorana zero modes for the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.