Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper establishes that alternating imaginary-time evolution with projective measurements produces mixed-state phase transitions with critical exponents that do not match any known equilibrium universality class.

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

2026-08-03 23:42 UTC pith:BWNGQ2ZP

load-bearing objection The QMC method and the transitions look credible, but the new-universality-class claim is not yet supported. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.04402 v4 pith:BWNGQ2ZP submitted 2025-11-06 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

Mixed-State Phase Transitions in Measurement-Dressed Imaginary-Time Evolution

Yi-Ming Ding , Zenan Liu , Xu Tian , Zhe Wang , Yanzhang Zhu , Zheng Yan This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph
keywords measurement-dressed imaginary-time evolutionmixed-state phase transitionsuniversality classquantum Monte Carlotransverse-field Ising modeldimerized Heisenberg modeldecoherencefinite-size scaling
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 introduces measurement-dressed imaginary-time evolution (MDITE): starting from a maximally mixed state, each layer randomly measures some qubits in the computational basis and then applies imaginary-time evolution under a many-body Hamiltonian. The competition between low-energy filtering and decoherence drives the stationary state through a phase transition as the measurement rate, the imaginary-time step, or a Hamiltonian coupling is tuned. In the 1D transverse-field Ising chain, the ordered mixed state appears above a critical measurement probability and the magnetization obeys a finite-size scaling with the exponent ratio beta/nu around 0.40; in the 2D dimerized Heisenberg model, the same mechanism yields beta/nu around 0.90. The authors argue that these are new universality classes for open quantum systems, distinct from standard Ising or O(3) criticality, and support this with an unbiased quantum Monte Carlo method built from a diagrammatic representation.

Core claim

The central claim is that the stationary mixed state of the MDITE protocol undergoes a genuine phase transition controlled by how often projective measurements interrupt imaginary-time filtering. For the 1D TFIM with a transverse field above its critical value, a high measurement rate suppresses transverse-field coherence and drives the state into a mixed ferromagnetic phase; for the 2D CDHM, measurements drive the state into a z-axis staggered Ising-type ordered phase. Binder-ratio crossings locate the critical points, and data collapse of the magnetization gives stable values beta/nu approximately 0.40 in 1D and 0.90 in 2D. The authors assert that the ratio beta/nu is universal while the i

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized partition function summed over all measurement ensembles, where each ensemble is weighted by the measurement probability p and the number of measured qubits, and the quantum Monte Carlo sampling uses merge-split updates to connect replicas at measurement-induced interfaces. This diagrammatic representation, together with standard cluster updates, lets the simulations grow large clusters when measurements are frequent, giving an intuitive picture of measurement-enhanced order. The Binder ratio serves as the symmetry-breaking diagnostic, and finite-size scaling of the absolute magnetization extracts the critical exponents.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that data collapse on chains up to L=192 and 2D lattices up to L=48 already shows the asymptotic scaling, and that a single ratio beta/nu with path-dependent individual exponents defines one universality class; without a renormalization-group or correction-to-scaling analysis, the extracted exponents could be drifting effective values.

What would settle it

Perform the same MDITE quantum Monte Carlo simulation at the reported critical points on larger systems and fit with explicit corrections to scaling; if beta/nu shifts beyond error bars from about 0.40 in 1D or about 0.90 in 2D, or if the collapse requires an L-dependent exponent, the new-universality-class claim fails. Independently, extracting beta/nu from a different estimator, such as the Binder-ratio crossing or the correlation-length ratio, and finding inconsistent values would also falsify the single-class assertion.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the measurement rate is a practical control knob that orders a decohered mixed state along a Z2-type axis, detectable with ordinary magnetization rather than information-theoretic probes.
  • A stable beta/nu across p-, tau-, and coupling-driven transitions implies a continuous critical surface in the parameter space rather than isolated critical points.
  • The new quantum Monte Carlo method extends mixed-state phase transition studies to large systems and higher dimensions for any sign-problem-free Hamiltonian, including those relevant to spontaneous symmetry breaking and topological order.
  • The loss of conformal symmetry at finite protocol parameters signals that finite-protocol MDITE criticality cannot be captured by an equilibrium conformal field theory, giving a concrete nonequilibrium target for further analysis.
  • The transition should be observable on quantum hardware such as Rydberg arrays, superconducting qubits, or trapped ions, where both imaginary-time evolution and projective measurement are available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit: the path dependence of nu and beta with a fixed beta/nu suggests the critical manifold may be a line of fixed points where only one scaling combination is stable; a direct renormalization-group treatment of the MDITE channel would test whether this weak-universality picture survives beyond the finite-size scaling analysis.
  • Because the 2D transition breaks only the discrete Z2 symmetry while the continuous symmetry remains unbroken, testing dephasing channels aligned with different spin axes would separate the effect of basis alignment and could reveal qualitatively different critical behavior.
  • The same diagrammatic construction could be used to compute entanglement negativity or other mixed-state correlations at the reported critical points, providing independent scaling dimensions that would either reinforce or undercut the claim that beta/nu alone defines the new universality class.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces measurement-dressed imaginary-time evolution (MDITE), in which a maximally mixed state is repeatedly evolved with e^{-τH} and interspersed with probabilistic computational-basis measurements. A diagrammatic representation maps the protocol to a partition function over an extended ensemble, enabling an SSE-type QMC method. For the 1D transverse-field Ising model and the 2D columnar dimerized Heisenberg model, the authors report stationary-state transitions as p, τ, or a Hamiltonian parameter is varied, with spontaneous Z2-like order at large p and a disordered phase at small p. Finite-size scaling of ⟨|m|⟩ gives Binder-ratio crossings and data collapses with exponents in Tables I-VI. The paper claims a new, nonstandard universality class characterized by a universal β/ν (≈0.40 in 1D, ≈0.90 in 2D), even though individual ν and β vary with the tuning path. The abstract also claims a continuous-limit Choi-Jamiolkowski equilibrium description with conformal criticality and a violation of the conformal cross-ratio form at finite protocol parameters, but this analysis does not appear in the body.

Significance. If correct, the results establish a scalable and sign-problem-free QMC approach to mixed-state criticality from the competition between imaginary-time filtering and projective measurements, and they identify a potentially new universality class in open quantum systems. The numerical evidence for the existence of the transitions is credible: exact L=10 checks, clean Binder-ratio crossings, and stability of fitted parameters with increasing Lmin. The methodological contribution — the diagrammatic representation and the merge-split QMC algorithm — is valuable and extendable. However, the headline 'new universality class' rests on the nonstandard claim that β/ν is universal while ν and β are path-dependent; the paper supplies no RG or correction-to-scaling support for this concept. In addition, the abstract advertises a Choi-Jamiolkowski/conformal analysis that is missing from the manuscript. These issues must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV E; Sec. V C; Eq. (8); Tables I–VI] The claimed 'new universality class' rests on β/ν being universal while ν and β are path-dependent. This is non-standard RG behavior. Tables I–VI show ν≈1.07–1.19 and β≈0.42–0.48 in 1D, and ν≈0.71–0.80 and β≈0.65–0.72 in 2D, with a constant ratio. The collapse uses only L=112–192 (1D) and L=24–48 (2D), with no correction-to-scaling terms; Ref. [84] is cited for the concept, but no fixed-point analysis is given. The extracted β/ν may be an effective exponent. Add an RG/correction-to-scaling test, or a joint fit with common β/ν; otherwise soften the claim.
  2. [Abstract vs. main text] The abstract states that in the continuous limit the Choi–Jamiolkowski mapping gives a tractable equilibrium description with conformal criticality, and that at finite protocol parameters the four-point correlator violates the conformal cross-ratio form. The main text (Sections I–VI, Appendices A–D) contains no Choi–Jamiolkowski mapping, no continuous-limit derivation, no four-point correlator, and no cross-ratio analysis. This advertised result is missing. Either add the analysis or remove the claim from the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table IV caption] The caption says (τ,g)=(3.5,1), but the corresponding text (Sec. V C, Fig. 9(a)) uses (τ,g)=(1,3.5); the caption appears to swap the values.
  2. [Sec. IV E; Sec. V C] The text describes the mechanism as operating for 'short imaginary-time steps (τh≪1)' and (τg≪1), but the main examples have τh=1.8 and τg=3.5. Clarify the parameter regime in which the argument applies.
  3. [Table I] The Lmin=160 row reports β/ν = 0.397(96); the error bar appears to be a typo (likely 0.397(8) or similar). Check all tables for typographical errors.
  4. [Figs. 5 and 8; Tables I–VI] Stationary-state convergence is demonstrated only at a single parameter point per model. Reporting autocorrelation times or independent-sample error bars for the FSS fits would strengthen the numerical claims.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typos: 'characterstics' (Introduction), 'themeasurement-dressed' (Introduction), 'stimulation' for 'simulation' in Appendix B, and the q1/q2 labels in Fig. 4 are not defined in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

New-universality-class conclusion imports its defining premise from the authors' own Ref. [84].

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV E, paragraph supporting the 'single universality class when p>0' claim (just after the discussion of the unified mechanism).]
    "In the nonequilibrium universality class considered here, the ratio β/ν remains universal, whereas the individual critical exponents β and ν can depend on the path along which the critical point is approached. Consequently, different parameter trajectories may exhibit distinct values of β and ν, while their ratio β/ν, which governs the leading finite-size scaling of the magnetization, remains the same [84]."

    The paper's central 'new universality class' claim depends on the premise that β/ν is universal even while ν and β vary with the path. That premise is not derived in this paper; it is imported solely from Ref. [84], authored by current coauthors (Zhe Wang and Zheng Yan). Without this imported premise, Tables I–VI would show only path-dependent effective exponents, and the data collapse alone could not establish a unique universality class. Thus the classification step reduces to a load-bearing self-citation rather than to an independent output of the simulations.

full rationale

The MDITE protocol, diagrammatic representation, and QMC algorithm are self-contained: the critical points pc, τc, hc/gc and the exponents ν, β are outputs of Binder crossings and finite-size data collapse, not inputs to the construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation-level reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction) is present. The single significant circularity concern is the load-bearing use of Ref. [84] to justify the unusual universality-class criterion (fixed β/ν with path-dependent ν and β), which is what converts the numerical effective exponents into the paper's headline 'new universality classes.' Because that key premise comes from the authors' own prior work and is not independently re-derived here, the central classification claim is partially circular, though the underlying numerical transition phenomenology retains independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

18 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mostly on fitted critical exponents and on the correctness of the QMC algorithm. No new particles or mediators are introduced. The most fragile input is the nonstandard universality assumption (beta/nu only), which is an ad hoc interpretational step rather than a derived theorem.

free parameters (18)
  • p_c (1D TFIM, p-driven) = 0.667
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing and data collapse at (tau,h)=(1,1.8), Table I.
  • nu (1D TFIM, p-driven) = 1.08
    Fitted from data collapse of <|m|> at (tau,h)=(1,1.8), Table I.
  • beta (1D TFIM, p-driven) = 0.43
    Fitted from data collapse of <|m|> at (tau,h)=(1,1.8), Table I.
  • tau_c (1D TFIM, tau-driven) = 0.265
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing at (h,p)=(2.5,0.5), Table II.
  • nu (1D TFIM, tau-driven) = 1.19
    Fitted from data collapse at (h,p)=(2.5,0.5), Table II.
  • beta (1D TFIM, tau-driven) = 0.48
    Fitted from data collapse at (h,p)=(2.5,0.5), Table II.
  • h_c (1D TFIM, h-driven) = 1.84
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing at (tau,p)=(1.2,0.8), Table III.
  • nu (1D TFIM, h-driven) = 1.18
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,p)=(1.2,0.8), Table III.
  • beta (1D TFIM, h-driven) = 0.46
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,p)=(1.2,0.8), Table III.
  • p_c (2D CDHM, p-driven) = 0.354
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing at (tau,g)=(1,3.5), Table IV.
  • nu (2D CDHM, p-driven) = 0.714
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,g)=(1,3.5), Table IV.
  • beta (2D CDHM, p-driven) = 0.650
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,g)=(1,3.5), Table IV.
  • tau_c (2D CDHM, tau-driven) = 0.468
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing at (g,p)=(3,0.1), Table V.
  • nu (2D CDHM, tau-driven) = 0.80
    Fitted from data collapse at (g,p)=(3,0.1), Table V.
  • beta (2D CDHM, tau-driven) = 0.72
    Fitted from data collapse at (g,p)=(3,0.1), Table V.
  • g_c (2D CDHM, g-driven) = 2.806
    Fitted from Binder-ratio crossing at (tau,p)=(2,0.3), Table VI.
  • nu (2D CDHM, g-driven) = 0.74
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,p)=(2,0.3), Table VI.
  • beta (2D CDHM, g-driven) = 0.65
    Fitted from data collapse at (tau,p)=(2,0.3), Table VI.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Projective measurement channel M_p is a probabilistic dephasing in the computational basis, applied before each ITE step (Eq. 1).
    Defines the model; if a different ordering or channel were used, results would differ, but this is the paper's stated protocol.
  • domain assumption The SSE cluster-update plus merge-split procedure in Appendix B satisfies detailed balance and samples Eq. (6) without bias.
    The algorithm's correctness is asserted ('unbiased and efficient') and validated only for L=10 exact; no formal proof or released code is provided.
  • domain assumption A stationary state rho_nd exists and is reached at nd=2L/tau for all studied parameters.
    Shown numerically for selected parameters (Figs. 5 and 8); not proven for the whole phase diagram.
  • standard math Finite-size scaling hypothesis <m> ~ L^{-beta/nu} f(g L^{1/nu}) applies (Sec. IV E).
    Standard scaling assumption, but unproved in this non-equilibrium setting where the state is a normalized non-unitary fixed point.
  • ad hoc to paper A universality class can be identified by the ratio beta/nu even when nu and beta vary with the tuning path.
    Used in Sec. IV E to unite p-, tau-, and h-driven transitions into one class; relies on Ref. [84] with no RG derivation in this paper.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed-State Phase Transitions in Measurement-Dressed Imaginary-Time Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWNGQ2ZP

@misc{pith2026251104402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed-State Phase Transitions in Measurement-Dressed Imaginary-Time Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWNGQ2ZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04402}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Motivated by the ubiquity of decoherence in quantum hardware and the growing role of imaginary-time evolution (ITE) in quantum algorithms, we investigate how many-body correlations generated by imaginary-time filtering are modified by local decoherence. We introduce measurement-dressed imaginary-time evolution (MDITE), which alternates ITE with projective-measurement channels, producing a competition between low-energy filtering and local dephasing. By developing a new efficient quantum Monte Carlo method, we uncover MDITE mixed-state transitions with spontaneous-symmetry-breaking signatures in the driving of 1D transverse-field Ising and 2D columnar dimerized Heisenberg Hamiltonians in the resulting density matrices. In the continuous limit, the Choi-Jamiolkowski mapping yields a tractable equilibrium description with conformal criticality that qualitatively captures the phase transitions. At finite protocol parameters, however, the four-point correlator violates the conformal cross-ratio form and the critical exponents deviate from their continuous-limit values, signaling the loss of conformal symmetry and richer nonequilibrium criticality. Our results establish MDITE as a controlled setting for exploring mixed-state phases and critical phenomena driven by the interplay between imaginary-time filtering and decoherence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04402 by Xu Tian, Yanzhang Zhu, Yi-Ming Ding, Zenan Liu, Zheng Yan, Zhe Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the MDITE at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representations of the MDITE under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. When setting ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. For ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Square lattice of the 2D CDHM, where the red thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. When setting ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. For ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The diagram for cluster update in the TFIM model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The measurement-averaged state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The measurement-averaged state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Finite size extrapolation of off-diagonal spin-spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Noisy Monitored Quantum Circuits

    quant-ph 2025-12 accept novelty 2.0

    A review showing that in noisy monitored quantum circuits, any noise enforces area-law entanglement with characteristic q^{-1/3} scaling and noise-correlation-dependent information-protection timescales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics1, 69 (1970)

    1970

  2. [2]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D24, 1516 (1981)

    1981

  3. [3]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D26, 1862 (1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    J. P. Paz and W. H. Zurek, inCoherent atomic matter waves, edited by R. Kaiser, C. Westbrook, and F. David (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001) pp. 533–614

    2001

  5. [5]

    W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  6. [6]

    Schlosshauer, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Cai and T

    Z. Cai and T. Barthel, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 150403 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Z. Cai, U. Schollw¨ ock, and L. Pollet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 260403 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Z. Yan, L. Pollet, J. Lou, X. Wang, Y. Chen, and Z. Cai, Phys. Rev. B97, 035148 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), quan- tum decoherence

    M. Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), quan- tum decoherence

    2019

  11. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  13. [13]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A71, 022316 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation,

    D. Gottesman, “An introduction to quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computation,” (2009), arXiv:0904.2557 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    B. M. Terhal, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 307 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

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

    2018

  17. [17]

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

    2019

  18. [18]

    Sang and T

    S. Sang and T. H. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023200 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 050602 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

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

    2023

  22. [22]

    Turkeshi, R

    X. Turkeshi, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014315 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir´ o, Phys. Rev. B103, 224210 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Lu and T

    T.-C. Lu and T. Grover, PRX Quantum2, 040319 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Roy, B. Skinner, and J. Ruhman, PRX Quantum2, 010352 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Sharma, X

    S. Sharma, X. Turkeshi, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, SciPost Phys. Core5, 023 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 210602 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Tirrito, A

    E. Tirrito, A. Santini, R. Fazio, and M. Collura, SciPost Phys.15, 096 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

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

    2023

  30. [30]

    G. E. Fux, E. Tirrito, M. Dalmonte, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L042030 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Liu, M.-R

    S. Liu, M.-R. Li, S.-X. Zhang, S.-K. Jian, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. B110, 064323 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Tsitsishvili, D

    M. Tsitsishvili, D. Poletti, M. Dalmonte, and G. Chiriac` o, SciPost Phys. Core7, 011 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Y.-Q. Chen, S. Liu, and S.-X. Zhang, Quantum9, 1783 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

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

    2023

  36. [36]

    H. M. Wiseman, Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 205 (1996)

    1996

  37. [37]

    M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 101 (1998)

    1998

  38. [38]

    A. J. Daley, Advances in Physics63, 77–149 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

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

    2023

  40. [40]

    Nahum and B

    A. Nahum and B. Skinner, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023288 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

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

    2023

  42. [42]

    Moharramipour, L

    A. Moharramipour, L. A. Lessa, C. Wang, T. H. Hsieh, and S. Sahu, PRX Quantum5, 040336 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Passarelli, X

    G. Passarelli, X. Turkeshi, A. Russomanno, P. Lucig- nano, M. Schir` o, and R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 163401 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    K. Su, N. Myerson-Jain, C. Wang, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 200402 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Tantivasadakarn, R

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

    2024

  46. [46]

    R. Fan, Y. Bao, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Decoherence-induced self-dual criticality in topological states of matter,

    Q. Wang, R. Vasseur, S. Trebst, A. W. W. Ludwig, and G.-Y. Zhu, “Decoherence-induced self-dual criticality in topological states of matter,” (2025), arXiv:2502.14034 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Y. Guo, K. Ding, and S. Yang, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 118001 (2025). 16

    2025

  49. [49]

    Guo and S

    Y. Guo and S. Yang, Phys. Rev. B111, L201108 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    Guo, J.-H

    Y. Guo, J.-H. Zhang, H.-R. Zhang, S. Yang, and Z. Bi, Phys. Rev. X15, 021060 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Motta, C

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. K. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, and G. K.-L. Chan, Nature Physics16, 205 (2020)

    2020

  52. [52]

    McArdle, T

    S. McArdle, T. Jones, S. Endo, Y. Li, S. C. Benjamin, and X. Yuan, npj Quantum Information5, 75 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    X. Yuan, S. Endo, Q. Zhao, Y. Li, and S. C. Benjamin, Quantum3, 191 (2019)

    2019

  54. [54]

    Benedetti, M

    M. Benedetti, M. Fiorentini, and M. Lubasch, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033083 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Kondappan, M

    M. Kondappan, M. Chaudhary, E. O. Ilo-Okeke, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. A107, 042616 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Y. Mao, M. Chaudhary, M. Kondappan, J. Shi, E. O. Ilo-Okeke, V. Ivannikov, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 110602 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Ding, Y.-C

    Y.-M. Ding, Y.-C. Wang, S.-X. Zhang, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 034031 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Nishi, T

    H. Nishi, T. Kosugi, and Y.-i. Matsushita, npj Quan- tum Information7, 85 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    C. Cao, Z. An, S.-Y. Hou, D. L. Zhou, and B. Zeng, Communications Physics5, 57 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Zhang and S

    S.-X. Zhang and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B109, 134309 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    A. W. Sandvik, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General25, 3667 (1992)

    1992

  62. [62]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B59, R14157 (1999)

    1999

  63. [63]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/1297/1/135/11407753/135 1 online.pdf

    2010

  64. [65]

    Stochastic series expansion methods,

    A. W. Sandvik, “Stochastic series expansion methods,” (2019), arXiv:1909.10591 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [66]

    Z. Yan, Y. Wu, C. Liu, O. F. Sylju ˚ asen, J. Lou, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. B99, 165135 (2019)

    2019

  66. [67]

    Yan, Phys

    Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B105, 184432 (2022)

    2022

  67. [68]

    S.-J. Ran, E. Tirrito, C. Peng, X. Chen, L. Taglia- cozzo, G. Su, and M. Lewenstein,Tensor Network Contractions: Methods and Applications to Quantum Many-Body Systems(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020)

    2020

  68. [69]

    Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    P. Pfeuty, Annals of Physics57, 79 (1970)

    1970

  69. [70]

    H. W. J. Bl¨ ote and Y. Deng, Phys. Rev. E66, 066110 (2002)

    2002

  70. [71]

    Huang, L

    C.-J. Huang, L. Liu, Y. Jiang, and Y. Deng, Phys. Rev. B102, 094101 (2020)

    2020

  71. [72]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. E68, 056701 (2003)

    2003

  72. [73]

    Z. Zhou, C. Liu, Z. Yan, Y. Chen, and X.-F. Zhang, npj Quantum Materials7, 60 (2022)

    2022

  73. [74]

    Z. Yan, Z. Zhou, Y.-H. Zhou, Y.-C. Wang, X. Qiu, Z. Y. Meng, and X.-F. Zhang, npj Quantum Information9, 89 (2023)

    2023

  74. [75]

    Buchhold, Y

    M. Buchhold, Y. Minoguchi, A. Altland, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. X11, 041004 (2021)

    2021

  75. [76]

    Privman, inFinite Size Scaling and Numerical Simu- lation of Statistical Systems(World Scientific, 1990) pp

    V. Privman, inFinite Size Scaling and Numerical Simu- lation of Statistical Systems(World Scientific, 1990) pp. 1–98

    1990

  76. [77]

    Misra and E

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys.18, 756 (1977)

    1977

  77. [78]

    W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A41, 2295 (1990)

    1990

  78. [79]

    Koshino and A

    K. Koshino and A. Shimizu, Physics Reports412, 191 (2005)

    2005

  79. [80]

    M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 1516 (1972)

    1972

  80. [81]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.