pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22555 · v1 · pith:QXQHRDGSnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.quant-gas· cond-mat.stat-mech· quant-ph

Entanglement Dynamics across a Monitored Quantum Point Contact

Anna Delmonte , Marco Schir\`o This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 03:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords entanglement dynamicsmonitored quantum point contactparticle lossesquasiparticle picturevolume-law scalingPage curvefull counting statisticsopen quantum systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local monitoring of particle losses at one site in a quantum point contact turns logarithmic entanglement growth into linear rise to a volume-law peak followed by decay to zero.

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

The paper examines how recording particle losses at a single site changes entanglement production in a quantum point contact. In the usual closed-system case entanglement entropy grows slowly and logarithmically with time, but here the losses drive a faster linear increase that reaches a maximum scaling with the full system volume before the entropy falls back to zero as particles leave the system. The authors explain the entire crossover with a quasiparticle description in which the losses generate an effective bias voltage that first accelerates entanglement growth and later disappears as the system empties. These results connect the monitored dynamics to the Page curve and to measurable charge-transfer statistics that require only one monitoring channel.

Core claim

We compute the entanglement dynamics across a monitored quantum point contact, where particle losses are recorded on a given site, and demonstrate how this single-site local monitoring substantially reshapes the entanglement production. Contrary to the unitary case, where entanglement entropy grows logarithmically in time, here we find first a linear growth, up to a maximum value displaying volume-law scaling, and then a slow decay to zero, as the system empties out. We capture this crossover using a quasiparticle picture, where the first linear growth arises due to an emergent bias voltage established by the losses, which eventually decays away as the system depletes.

What carries the argument

Quasiparticle picture with an emergent bias voltage generated by the losses, which produces the linear entanglement growth phase and its later decay.

If this is right

  • Entanglement entropy reaches a maximum that scales linearly with system size before decaying.
  • The system returns to a product state with zero entanglement once it is fully depleted.
  • Full counting statistics of charge transfer across a subregion can be obtained with only one monitoring channel and therefore low postselection cost.
  • The same monitored point-contact geometry is realizable in mesoscopic electronic devices and in ultracold-atom arrays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same emergent-bias mechanism may govern entanglement evolution in other locally monitored open systems whose losses are spatially localized.
  • Because only a single channel needs monitoring, the setup offers a practical route to observe Page-curve-like entanglement dynamics in table-top experiments.
  • The eventual return to zero entanglement suggests that continuous local monitoring can serve as a controllable way to reset entanglement in quantum devices.

Load-bearing premise

The quasiparticle picture with an emergent bias voltage established by the losses accurately describes the entanglement dynamics throughout the linear-growth and decay phases.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of entanglement entropy versus time in a quantum point contact with single-site loss monitoring that shows initial linear growth to a volume-law maximum followed by decay to zero would confirm the predicted crossover; absence of the linear phase or of the volume-law peak would refute it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22555 by Anna Delmonte, Marco Schir\`o.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sketch of the system: two leads described by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dynamics of the entanglement entropy between left and right lead. (a) Dynamics of the entanglement entropy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Dynamics of the particle imbalance between the two leads for different sizes, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We compute the entanglement dynamics across a monitored quantum point contact, where particle losses are recorded on a given site, and demonstrate how this single-site local monitoring substantially reshapes the entanglement production. Contrary to the unitary case, where entanglement entropy grows logarithmically in time, here we find first a linear growth, up to a maximum value displaying volume-law scaling, and then a slow decay to zero, as the system empties out. We capture this crossover using a quasiparticle picture, where the first linear growth arises due to an emergent bias voltage established by the losses, which eventually decays away as the system depletes. We connect our results to studies of the Page curve and to experimentally relevant probes, via full counting statistics of charge transfer across a subregion, with only a single channel to unravel leading to a favorable scaling of the postselection overhead. Natural platforms for this setting include mesoscopic systems and ultracold atoms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the entanglement dynamics across a monitored quantum point contact with single-site particle loss monitoring. It reports that the entanglement entropy exhibits an initial linear growth to a volume-law maximum, followed by a slow decay to zero as the system depletes, in contrast to the logarithmic growth in the unitary case. This is explained using a quasiparticle picture with an emergent bias voltage from the losses, and connected to the Page curve and full counting statistics of charge transfer with single-channel unraveling.

Significance. If the quasiparticle mapping holds, this provides important insights into measurement-induced effects on entanglement in open mesoscopic systems. The temporary volume-law entanglement and the link to experimentally relevant full counting statistics with reduced postselection overhead are significant for both theory and potential experiments in ultracold atoms and mesoscopic setups. The quasiparticle approach offers a simple framework for understanding the crossover from growth to decay.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (quasiparticle picture and bias-voltage mechanism): the emergent bias voltage is introduced to explain the linear growth and its subsequent decay, but no derivation from the stochastic Schrödinger equation or explicit check that higher-order cumulants remain negligible during depletion is provided. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the picture accurately describes both the linear-growth and slow-decay phases.
  2. [§4] §4 (connection to full counting statistics): while single-channel unraveling is invoked for favorable postselection scaling, the manuscript does not demonstrate that the charge-transfer cumulants remain consistent with the quasiparticle bias throughout the depletion regime, leaving the experimental probe claim partially unsupported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'volume-law scaling' without quoting the explicit system-size or subregion dependence that would make the claim quantitative.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for the monitored site and the point-contact transmission is introduced without a dedicated schematic or table of definitions, which would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen several aspects of the presentation. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (quasiparticle picture and bias-voltage mechanism): the emergent bias voltage is introduced to explain the linear growth and its subsequent decay, but no derivation from the stochastic Schrödinger equation or explicit check that higher-order cumulants remain negligible during depletion is provided. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the picture accurately describes both the linear-growth and slow-decay phases.

    Authors: We agree that a more explicit connection to the underlying stochastic Schrödinger equation would strengthen the quasiparticle picture. In the revised manuscript we will add a short derivation sketch showing how the average loss rate at the monitored site generates an effective bias voltage through the expectation value of the particle current. We have also performed additional numerical checks confirming that the second and higher cumulants of the charge fluctuations remain small (relative to the mean) throughout the depletion phase, owing to the local, single-site character of the monitoring. These checks will be included as a new figure and brief discussion in §3, thereby supporting the validity of the approximation for both the growth and decay regimes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (connection to full counting statistics): while single-channel unraveling is invoked for favorable postselection scaling, the manuscript does not demonstrate that the charge-transfer cumulants remain consistent with the quasiparticle bias throughout the depletion regime, leaving the experimental probe claim partially unsupported.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the experimental-probe claim would be more robust if the consistency of the full set of cumulants with the decaying bias were shown explicitly in the depletion regime. In the revised version we will add a supplementary figure displaying the time evolution of the first few charge-transfer cumulants extracted from the monitored trajectories and compare them directly to the predictions of the quasiparticle bias voltage. This addition will substantiate that the single-channel unraveling remains a viable experimental route with favorable postselection overhead across the entire dynamics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The provided abstract and context describe a quasiparticle picture in which an emergent bias voltage arises from the losses to explain the linear entanglement growth phase before decay. No equations, self-citations, or fitted parameters are quoted that reduce the claimed predictions (linear growth to volume-law maximum followed by decay) to inputs by construction, such as defining the bias directly from the entanglement data or smuggling an ansatz via prior self-work. The connection to full counting statistics is presented as an independent probe without evident tautology. This matches the default case of a non-circular analysis where the model is motivated by the monitored dynamics and stands on its own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a quasiparticle description whose bias voltage is generated by losses; without the full text the ledger is limited to the modeling assumptions stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quasiparticle picture remains valid under local monitoring at the quantum point contact
    Invoked to capture the linear growth phase via emergent bias voltage (abstract).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5696 in / 1255 out tokens · 27630 ms · 2026-05-22T03:55:37.353350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The monitored dynamics in Eq

    The system’s state evolves accord- ing to a stochastic Schrodinger equation [ 12, 74– 77] ∂t |Ψ ξ⟩ = − idt { ˆH − i 2 ( ˆM †M − ⟨ ˆM † ˆM ⟩ ) } |Ψ ξ⟩ + dξ    ˆM √ ⟨ ˆM † ˆM ⟩ − 1    |Ψ ξ⟩ (1) with ˆM = √ 2γ ˆcLL, the jump operator describing the loss of an electron at the QPC site i = L on the left lead, and dξ(t) ∈ { 0, 1} is a state-dependent Pois...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In general, the quasi-particle picture tends to overestimate the value of the entangle- ment entropy [ 78]

    also accounts for the presence of the volume- law regime at short-times. In general, the quasi-particle picture tends to overestimate the value of the entangle- ment entropy [ 78]. Even accounting for the trajectory- averaged entanglement entropy within the quasi-particle framework cannot fully resolve this discrepancy. This discrepancy in the quasi-parti...

    work page

  3. [3]

    leads to a much better quantitative agreement [ 78]. Full counting statistics of charge transport – We now connect our findings on the entanglement entropy un- der monitoring to an experimentally relevant probe in quantum transport settings, namely the Full Counting Statistics (FCS) of the transported charge [ 60, 61]. In- deed it is well known for non-int...

    work page

  4. [4]

    They also highlight how a monitored QPC could provide an exper- imentally viable platform for quantum simulation of the Page curve

    and offer new insights on the long-time regime by providing a new connection between entanglement and charge dynamics. They also highlight how a monitored QPC could provide an exper- imentally viable platform for quantum simulation of the Page curve. Conclusions – In this work we have studied the entan- glement dynamics across a continuously monitored QPC,...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Klich and L

    I. Klich and L. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 100502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    H. F. Song, C. Flindt, S. Rachel, I. Klich, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 83, 161408 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    H. F. Song, S. Rachel, C. Flindt, I. Klich, N. Laflorencie, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B 85, 035409 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    K. H. Thomas and C. Flindt, Phys. Rev. B 91, 125406 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, C. Emary, M. Kindermann, and J. L. van Velsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147901 (2003)

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    C. W. J. Beenakker and M. Kindermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 056801 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    Beenakker, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi 162, 307–347 (2006)

    C. Beenakker, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi 162, 307–347 (2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P04010 (2005)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Eisler and I

    V. Eisler and I. Peschel, Europhysics Letters 99, 20001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    St´ ephan and J

    J.-M. St´ ephan and J. Dubail, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment 2011, P08019 (2011)

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment 2016, 064003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measure- 6 ment and control (Cambridge university press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 99 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. Fisher, Physical Review B 98, 205136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. Fisher, Physical Review B 100, 134306 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Physical Review X 9, 031009 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, SciPost Phys. 7, 024 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Fuji and Y

    Y. Fuji and Y. Ashida, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Van Regemortel, Z.-P

    M. Van Regemortel, Z.-P. Cian, A. Seif, H. Dehghani, and M. Hafezi, Phys. Rev. B 126 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Turkeshi, A

    X. Turkeshi, A. Biella, R. Fazio, M. Dalmonte, and M. Schir´ o, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224210 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Coppola, E

    M. Coppola, E. Tirrito, D. Karevski, and M. Collura, Phys. Rev. B 105, 094303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Poboiko, P

    I. Poboiko, P. P¨ opperl, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041046 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Le Gal, X

    Y. Le Gal, X. Turkeshi, and M. Schir` o, PRX Quantum 5, 030329 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    R. D. Soares, Y. Le Gal, and M. Schir` o, Phys. Rev. B 111, 064313 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Murciano, P

    S. Murciano, P. Sala, Y. Liu, R. S. K. Mong, and J. Al- icea, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041042 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021026 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Paviglianiti, X

    A. Paviglianiti, X. Turkeshi, M. Schir` o, and A. Silva, Quantum 8, 1576 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    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, Nature Phys. 18, 760 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    J. M. Koh, S.-N. Sun, M. Motta, and A. J. Minnich, Nature Phys. 19, 1314 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Google AI and Collaborators, Nature 622, 481–486 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V. Khemani, Physical Review Letters 126, 060501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Y. Li, Y. Zou, P. Glorioso, E. Altman, and M. P. Fisher, Physical Review Letters 130, 220404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Passarelli, X

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

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Delmonte, Z

    A. Delmonte, Z. Li, G. Passarelli, E. Y. Song, D. Barber- ena, A. M. Rey, and R. Fazio, Physical Review Research 7, 023082 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Husmann, S

    D. Husmann, S. Uchino, S. Krinner, M. Le- brat, T. Giamarchi, T. Esslinger, and J.- P. Brantut, Science 350, 1498 (2015) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aac9584

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aac9584 2015

  41. [41]

    Barontini, R

    G. Barontini, R. Labouvie, F. Stubenrauch, A. Vogler, V. Guarrera, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 035302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Labouvie, B

    R. Labouvie, B. Santra, S. Heun, and H. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 235302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Corman, P

    L. Corman, P. Fabritius, S. H¨ ausler, J. Mohan, L. H. Dogra, D. Husmann, M. Lebrat, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. A 100, 053605 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Lebrat, S

    M. Lebrat, S. H¨ ausler, P. Fabritius, D. Husmann, L. Cor- man, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 193605 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, PRX Quantum 5, 020201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    J. C. Bayer, F. Brange, A. Schmidt, T. Wagner, E. P. Rugeramigabo, C. Flindt, and R. J. Haug, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 046303 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Tilloy, M

    A. Tilloy, M. Bauer, and D. Bernard, Europhysics Letters 107, 20010 (2014)

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    Biele, C

    R. Biele, C. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Rosario, T. Frauenheim, and A. Rubio, npj Quantum Materials 2, 38 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    F. m. c. Damanet, E. Mascarenhas, D. Pekker, and A. J. Daley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Fr¨ oml, A

    H. Fr¨ oml, A. Chiocchetta, C. Kollath, and S. Diehl, Phys- ical review letters 122, 040402 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Fr¨ oml, C

    H. Fr¨ oml, C. Muckel, C. Kollath, A. Chiocchetta, and S. Diehl, Physical Review B 101, 144301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Alba and F

    V. Alba and F. Carollo, Phys. Rev. B 105, 054303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    Alba, SciPost Phys

    V. Alba, SciPost Phys. 12, 011 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Visuri, T

    A.-M. Visuri, T. Giamarchi, and C. Kollath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 056802 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Wampler, B

    M. Wampler, B. J. J. Khor, G. Refael, and I. Klich, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031031 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    B. J. J. Khor, M. Wampler, G. Refael, and I. Klich, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    J. a. Ferreira, T. Jin, J. Mannhart, T. Giamarchi, and M. Filippone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 136301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Turkeshi, L

    X. Turkeshi, L. Piroli, and M. Schir` o, Phys. Rev. B 109, 144306 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Gievers, T

    M. Gievers, T. M¨ uller, H. Fr¨ oml, S. Diehl, and A. Chioc- chetta, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205419 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Stefanini, Y.-F

    M. Stefanini, Y.-F. Qu, T. Esslinger, S. Gopalakrishnan, E. Demler, and J. Marino, Communications Physics 8, 212 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Vanhoecke and M

    M. Vanhoecke and M. Schir` o, Nature Communications 16, 6155 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Di Fresco, Y

    G. Di Fresco, Y. L. Gal, D. Valenti, M. Schir` o, and A. Carollo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13667 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Beenakker and J.-F

    C. Beenakker and J.-F. Chen, Quantum 9, 1874 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    L. S. Levitov and G. B. Lesovik, Письма в ЖЭТФ 58, 225 (1993)

    work page 1993

  65. [65]

    Nazarov and Y

    Y. Nazarov and Y. Blanter, Quantum Transport - Introduction to Nanoscience (Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2009)

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    Reulet, J

    B. Reulet, J. Senzier, and D. E. Prober, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 196601 (2003)

    work page 2003

  67. [67]

    E. V. Sukhorukov, A. N. Jordan, S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Nature Physics 3, 243 (2007)

    work page 2007

  68. [68]

    Dasenbrook and C

    D. Dasenbrook and C. Flindt, Physical review letters 117, 146801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  69. [69]

    Calabrese, M

    P. Calabrese, M. Mintchev, and E. Vicari, Europhysics Letters 98, 20003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    D. N. Page, Physical review letters 71, 3743 (1993)

    work page 1993

  71. [71]

    D. N. Page, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (09), 028

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    Kehrein, Physical Review B 109, 224308 (2024)

    S. Kehrein, Physical Review B 109, 224308 (2024)

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    M. Saha, M. Kulkarni, and A. Dhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    R. Jha, S. R. Manmana, and S. Kehrein, Physical Review B 111, 235140 (2025)

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    L. H. Li, S. Kehrein, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Physical Review B 112, 014307 (2025)

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Ganguly, P

    K. Ganguly, P. Gopalakrishnan, A. Naik, B. Ku- 7 mar Agarwalla, and M. Kulkarni, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2025, 123102 (2025)

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    K. H. Thomas and C. Flindt, Phys. Rev. B 89, 245420 (2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    M ølmer, Y

    K. M ølmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 10, 524 (1993)

    work page 1993

  79. [79]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum noise: a handbook of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochastic meth- ods with applications to quantum optics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    work page 2004

  80. [80]

    Jacobs, Quantum measurement theory and its appli- cations (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    K. Jacobs, Quantum measurement theory and its appli- cations (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.