Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Unifying Charge-Learnability Transitions in U(1)-Symmetric Quantum Circuits through Informational Power of Local Measurement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak and projective measurements learn a conserved charge at the same local information rate

desk verdict A well-scoped extension with an honest conjecture; the numerics are thinner than the abstract implies, but the cross-entropy diagnostic and exact-MI benchmark earn it a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17886 v1 pith:OQ4PNCIE submitted 2026-07-20 quant-ph

Yi-Fan Gong , Dan-Bo Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581P4568Q12 PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.Mn89.70.Cf
keywords chargelearnabilitymonitoredquantumcircuitsweakmeasurementsinformationalpowerU(1)symmetryposteriorentropymutualinformationcross
topics The Measurement Problem
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 asks whether a machine decoding the measurement record of a U(1)-symmetric quantum circuit can learn a globally conserved charge when measurements are weak and probabilistic, rather than the idealized projective case. It claims that the transition from failure to success is organized by a single local quantity, the informational power I_loc = q·I_read(η), so different combinations of measurement probability q and measurement strength η lead to equivalent learning when they supply the same local information per measured site. It also introduces a label-sensitive diagnostic, the cross-entropy variance, to separate genuinely informative decoders from confidently wrong ones, and uses an exact record–label mutual information to establish a decoder-independent benchmark for this learnability limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'informational power of a local measurement,' defined as I_loc(q,η)=q·I_read(η), where I_read(η)=1−h2((1−η)²/[2(1+η²)]) is the mutual information between a single weak-measurement outcome and the local charge eigenvalue, maximized over input ensembles. This one number replaces the two-parameter (q,η) description of the measurement protocol and is claimed to be the organizing variable of the phase boundary. It is tested by comparing Binder-ratio crossings and cross-entropy variance peaks along constant-I_loc curves; the record–label mutual information I(Y;M) supplies the intrinsic ceiling.

What would settle it

One concrete test: compute the finite-size Binder crossings for two protocols with identical I_loc but with one using high-q/low-η (e.g., q=0.8, η=0.314) and the other low-q/high-η (q=0.2, η=1); if their crossing points differ by more than the finite-size scatter, the single-parameter organization fails. A sharper falsifier for the I(Y;M) benchmark: evaluate Eq. (27) for L=6 and L=8 with exact propagation; if the Binder crossings of I(Y;M) do not converge to a constant I_loc value or if the variance peaks do not align with the crossings, the claimed decoder-independent scale of ~0.16 is an art

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a monitored circuit with conserved charge, the finite-size learnability boundary—the crossover from a record too weak to infer the label to one that is sufficient—is approximately organized by the local informational power I_loc(q,η) = q·I_read(η), where I_read(η) is the single-readout informational power of a weak measurement of strength η. Projective measurements (η=1) and weak measurements with the same I_loc are claimed to yield similar decoding behavior, so the transition is controlled by one combined scale rather than by measurement probability and strength separately. The paper further shows that cross-entropy variance, unlike posterior-entropy Binder ratios, correctly identifies

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single-site, single-readout quantity (I_loc) controls the phase boundary, so that two protocols with the same I_loc produce statistically equivalent records for charge inference; the authors themselves note in Sec. V that space–time correlations within the measurement record remain essential, so this reduction is an assumption without an analytic derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, all local monitoring protocols—probabilistic projective, deterministic weak, probabilistic weak—can be placed on a single phase diagram parameterized by I_loc, simplifying the search for circuits that can or cannot reveal a conserved charge.
  • Decoder benchmarking gains a quantitative rule of thumb: a decoder that is confidently wrong (antibiased) will be mis-located by label-blind diagnostics, so cross-entropy variance should be the default finite-size transition probe whenever decoder fidelity is in question.
  • The exact record–label mutual information gives an intrinsic threshold that decoder performance cannot surpass, so discrepancies between a decoder's transition point and the I(Y;M) boundary directly measure extraction efficiency rather than record content.
  • The reported collapse of projective and weak data onto one curve of accuracy versus I(Y;M) suggests that the measurement record's total charge information—not its detailed readout history—is the controlling resource for learning.
  • Experiments that can tune mid-circuit readout strength can test the constant-I_loc predictions directly by comparing transition points at matched I_loc, without needing to vary both q and η independently.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proposed one-parameter organization likely extends to other conserved quantities (e.g., Z2 or free-fermion charges) where a similar single-site informational power can be defined; if the mechanism is generic, a family of 'learnability phase diagrams' indexed by I_loc would emerge.
  • Because I_loc is purely local, the framework implicitly assumes that cross-site, cross-time correlations within the record do not independently shift the boundary. One testable extension: vary the circuit's scrambling rate while holding I_loc fixed; any shift in the boundary would expose a correlation-dependent correction.
  • The exact mutual-information benchmark, being decoder-independent, suggests a natural operational meaning for 'learnability': a label is learnable from a record family exactly when I(Y;M) exceeds the Fano floor for target accuracy, independent of the classical decoder used.
  • The paper treats spatial structure coarsely through a one-dimensional resource; one could extend the decoder to higher dimensions or nonlocal measurement patterns to probe whether I_loc remains the controlling variable or whether geometry enters the effective scale.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies charge-learnability transitions in U(1)-symmetric monitored random circuits when the local measurements are probabilistic weak measurements, i.e., a measurement probability q and a measurement strength η are independently tunable. For a single readout, the authors correctly derive the binary asymmetric channel, its error probability ϵ(η), and the single-readout informational power I_read(η)=1−h2(ϵ(η)). They then define a local informational power I_loc(q,η)=q I_read(η) and conjecture that the finite-size learnability phase boundary is organized by contours of constant I_loc, thereby unifying probabilistic projective, deterministic weak, and probabilistic weak measurements. They introduce a label-sensitive cross-entropy diagnostic to distinguish unbiased, biased, and antibiased SEP decoders, and they compute an exact record–label mutual information I_true=I(Y;M) as a decoder-independent benchmark, comparing decoder accuracy to the Fano bound. The central numerical evidence consists of finite-size Binder crossings and variance peaks for L=6,8,10, with the exact mutual-information calculation performed only up to L=8.

Significance. If the constant-I_loc organizing principle holds, the paper would provide a genuinely useful single-quantity description of charge learnability across very different monitoring protocols, with potential experimental relevance for comparing projective and weak readouts. The exact record–label mutual information calculation is a valuable decoder-independent benchmark, and the cross-entropy variance diagnostic is a sensible methodological contribution for detecting mismatched decoders. The paper is also commendable for explicitly stating in Sec. V that the organizing criterion is conjectural and that space-time correlations remain essential. However, the central claim is supported only by finite-size numerics without scaling collapse, error bars, or an independent test of the I_loc hypothesis against the exact record–label information, so the significance currently rests on an unverified equivalence between a single-site readout quantity and the global statistics of the full measurement record.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Sec. III.A, Eq. (21)] The central claim that the transition boundary follows constant I_loc=q I_read(η) is posited rather than derived. The numerical test in Sec. III.A only follows the single contour I_loc≃0.20, using Binder crossings for L=6,8,10 with no error bars, no finite-size extrapolation, and no scaling collapse; the crossing locations are selected visually. This is insufficient to establish that I_loc, rather than some other combination of q and η, organizes the boundary, especially because Sec. V concedes that space-time correlations within the record remain essential. The authors should test the constant-I_loc prediction along at least one additional contour and, more decisively, compare exact I_true values at fixed I_loc for different (q,η) pairs. If I_true differs at fixed I_loc, the proposed one-parameter organization is not correct.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24) and Fig. 7] The exact record–label mutual information is computed only for L=6,8 with 10^4 trajectories, and the claimed collapse of SEP accuracy versus I_true is not quantified. No measure of residual η dependence at fixed I_true is given, so the statement that 'q and η primarily tune the information carried by the record' is not distinguished from a simple empirical correlation. The authors should quantify, for example, the spread of accuracy values at fixed I_true across different (q,η) points and system sizes, and provide error bars or confidence intervals for the Binder crossings of B_I used to place the I_loc≃0.16 boundary in Fig. 4.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Figs. 5 and 6] The selection of the decoder-dependent transition scales I_loc≃0.17, 0.20, 0.25, and the decoder-independent scale I_loc≃0.16 appears to be made from the same finite-size data later used to draw the phase diagram in Fig. 4. This creates an in-sample fitting risk: the constant-I_loc curves are not predicted from independent data. A stronger test would be to fix I_loc, compute the predicted transition point on a new (q,η) cut that was not used to select the scale, and show that the Binder crossing or variance peak lands at the predicted location within quantified uncertainty. Without such an out-of-sample test, the agreement in Figs. 2 and 3 is anecdotal rather than a validation of the organizing principle.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The notation T=2L is stated as 'total circuit depth' but the following sentence equates it to 12, 16, and 20 alternating brickwork unitary layers for L=6,8,10. Clarify whether T denotes the number of unitary layers or the number of half-layers, and make the counting of 'layers' consistent with the figures.
  2. [Sec. II.B, around Eq. (21)] The projective matching condition is written as q_s = q I_read(η). The subscript s on q_s is used only once; define it explicitly as the measurement probability in a projective protocol, or replace it with a clearer symbol such as q_proj.
  3. [Figures 2–7] All finite-size diagnostics are plotted without error bars, and the vertical dashed lines marking transitions are described as 'selected' without a quantitative criterion. Adding error bars from trajectory subsampling and a defined crossing-extraction rule (e.g., linear interpolation between adjacent sizes) would make the comparisons reproducible.
  4. [Fig. 4 and text after Eq. (29)] The text uses 'mutual infor(Iloc = 0:16)' with apparent typographical corruption; also the figure legend uses unicode subscripts inconsistently with the body text. These should be cleaned to avoid confusion about which curve is which.
  5. [Sec. V] The concluding paragraph appropriately labels the criterion as conjectural. However, the abstract and Sec. I state the organizing principle without this caveat. Moderating the abstract language or explicitly adding 'finite-size evidence suggests' would better match the actual level of support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: I_loc is independently defined and constant-I_loc predictions are tested against unconstrained Binder crossings.

full rationale

The paper defines I_loc(q,η)=qI_read(η) in closed form from the single-readout binary symmetric channel (Eqs. 18–21), independent of the learnability transition. The constant value I_loc≈0.20 is imported from the projective-limit transition (q≈0.20), but the weak-measurement predictions η0=I_read^{-1}(I_loc/q) are nontrivial functional tests along fixed-q cuts; the Binder crossings are not forced by the definition. The exact record–label mutual information I_true is computed from first principles by full basis-state propagation and compared against the Fano bound, providing an independent benchmark. Section V explicitly states that the criterion 'remains conjectural and is supported mainly by finite-size numerics,' which is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. No self-citation is load-bearing, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The central claim is thereby a testable hypothesis, not a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproved local-power additivity hypothesis, a finite-size numerical convention, and the inherited SEP model; no new physical entities are introduced. The exact-MI calculation provides a benchmark but does not derive the phase boundary.

free parameters (4)
  • Reference line I_loc for unbiased decoder = ≈0.20
    Chosen from the projective-limit Binder crossing near q≈0.20 (Fig. 3a), then used to predict η0 on weak-measurement cuts; value is empirical, not derived.
  • Biased-decoder boundary I_loc = ≈0.17
    Read off Binder/Var(C) crossings in Figs. 5–6 and used as the biased boundary in Fig. 4.
  • Antibiased-decoder boundary I_loc = ≈0.25
    Read off cross-entropy variance peaks in Fig. 5c and Fig. 6d; used as the antibiased boundary in Fig. 4.
  • Decoder-independent (mutual-information) boundary I_loc = ≈0.16
    Inferred from Binder crossings and variance peaks of exact trajectory information i_true at L=6,8 (Sec. IV); no analytic derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SEP transfer matrix and decoder update rules faithfully model charge dynamics under Haar-averaged U(1)-conserving gates.
    Eqs. (3) and (7)–(9) inherit the symmetric-exclusion-process model from Ref. [30]; the paper uses it without deriving it for the weak-measurement case.
  • domain assumption Weak-measurement likelihood weights R(η;m) in Eq. (4) correctly describe record probabilities when inserted into the coarse-grained SEP decoder.
    Built from the POVM M±, exact for single-qubit readout, but used as a multiplicative update inside the classical SEP model.
  • ad hoc to paper The full space-time record's information about the label is controlled by the single-site product I_loc=q I_read(η) up to a threshold.
    Central conjecture stated in Sec. II.B and Sec. V; no derivation from the circuit dynamics, only finite-size numerical support.
  • domain assumption Finite-size Binder-ratio crossings at L=6,8,10 with depth T=2L locate the transition without extrapolation.
    Used throughout Sec. III to assign q0, η0, and I_loc values; no thermodynamic-limit extrapolation or uncertainty quantification is provided.
  • standard math Fano inequality and standard information-theoretic formulas apply to this binary classification problem.
    Eq. (28)–(29) and the Fig. 7 Fano bound are textbook information theory (Refs. [43,44]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Charge-Learnability Transitions in U(1)-Symmetric Quantum Circuits through Informational Power of Local Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQ4PNCIE

@misc{pith2026260717886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Charge-Learnability Transitions in U(1)-Symmetric Quantum Circuits through Informational Power of Local Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQ4PNCIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17886}
}
read the original abstract

Charge-learnability transitions in monitored symmetric quantum circuits reveal how local measurement records acquire sufficient information to infer a conserved charge. Here we extend charge learnability to probabilistic weak measurements, for which the measurement probability and measurement strength are independently tunable. We find that the learnability phase boundary is organized by the informational power of local measurement. We further introduce cross entropy as a label-sensitive diagnostic that distinguishes unbiased, biased, and antibiased decoder variants. Finally, the exact record--label mutual information provides a decoder-independent benchmark for the information fundamentally available for charge inference. Our results establish informational power of local measurement as a unifying principle for charge learnability under general monitoring protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of charge learnability in a monitored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Finite-size diagnostics for the unbiased decoder at measurement probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Decoder-independent and decoder-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Finite-size decoder diagnostics in the projective limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Finite-size decoder diagnostics for deterministic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Projective–weak comparison using the exact record– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum zeno effect and the many-body entanglement transition, Phys. Rev. B98, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Measurement- driven entanglement transition in hybrid quantum cir- cuits, Phys. Rev. B100, 134306 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

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

    2019

  4. [4]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, Measurement- induced phase transitions in the dynamics of entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. X9, 031009 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements, Phys. Rev. B101, 104301 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    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. B101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

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

    2020

  8. [8]

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

    2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, Dynamical purifica- tion phase transition induced by quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. X10, 041020 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Roy, B. Skinner, and J. Ruhman, Mea- surement and entanglement phase transitions in all-to- all quantum circuits, on quantum trees, and in landau- ginsburg theory, PRX Quantum2, 010352 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, A. W. W. Ludwig, and M. P. A. Fisher, Conformal invariance and quantum nonlocality in critical hybrid circuits, Phys. Rev. B104, 104305 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ippoliti, M

    M. Ippoliti, M. J. Gullans, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, and V. Khemani, Entanglement phase transitions in measurement-only dynamics, Phys. Rev. X11, 011030 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    R. Fan, S. Vijay, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-Z. You, Self- organized error correction in random unitary circuits with measurement, Phys. Rev. B103, 174309 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    S. Sang, Y. Li, T. Zhou, X. Chen, T. H. Hsieh, and M. P. A. Fisher, Entanglement negativity at measurement-induced criticality, PRX Quantum2, 030313 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Turkeshi, R

    X. Turkeshi, R. Fazio, and M. Dalmonte, Measurement- induced criticality in (2+1)-dimensional hybrid quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B102, 014315 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Lunt and A

    O. Lunt and A. Pal, Measurement-induced entanglement transitions in many-body localized systems, Phys. Rev. Research2, 043072 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Alberton, M

    O. Alberton, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Entanglement transition in a monitored free-fermion chain: From ex- tended criticality to area law, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 170602 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Block, Y

    M. Block, Y. Bao, S. Choi, E. Altman, and N. Y. Yao, Measurement-induced transition in long-range in- teracting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010604 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Minato, K

    T. Minato, K. Sugimoto, T. Kuwahara, and K. Saito, Fate of measurement-induced phase transition in long- range interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010603 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    M. V. Regemortel, Z.-P. Cian, A. Seif, H. Dehghani, and M. Hafezi, Entanglement entropy scaling transition under competing monitoring protocols, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 123604 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Operator spreading and the emergence of dissipative hydrodynam- ics under unitary evolution with conservation laws, Phys. Rev. X8, 031057 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Rakovszky, F

    T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W. von Keyserlingk, Diffusive hydrodynamics of out-of-time-ordered correla- tors with charge conservation, Phys. Rev. X8, 031058 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Agrawal, A

    U. Agrawal, A. Zabalo, K. Chen, J. H. Wilson, A. C. Potter, J. H. Pixley, S. Gopalakrishnan, and R. Vasseur, Entanglement and charge-sharpening transitions inU(1)- symmetric monitored quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X12, 041002 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Barratt, U

    F. Barratt, U. Agrawal, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. A. Huse, R. Vasseur, and A. C. Potter, Field theory of charge sharpening in symmetric monitored quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 120604 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Oshima and Y

    H. Oshima and Y. Fuji, Charge fluctuation and charge- resolved entanglement in a monitored quantum circuit withU(1) symmetry, Phys. Rev. B107, 014308 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Y. Bao, S. Choi, and E. Altman, Symmetry enriched phases of quantum circuits, Annals of Physics435, 168618 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Lavasani, Y

    A. Lavasani, Y. Alavirad, and M. Barkeshli, 10 Measurement-induced topological entanglement transi- tions in symmetric random quantum circuits, Nature Physics17, 342 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Han and X

    Y. Han and X. Chen, Measurement-induced criticality in Z2-symmetric quantum automaton circuits, Phys. Rev. B105, 064306 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    Ippoliti and V

    M. Ippoliti and V. Khemani, Learnability transitions in monitored quantum dynamics via eavesdropper’s classi- cal shadows, PRX Quantum5, 020304 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    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. X14, 041012 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Singh, R

    H. Singh, R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter, and S. Gopalakr- ishnan, Mixed-state learnability transitions in monitored noisy quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. B113, 054305 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    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, Nat. Phys.19, 1314 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    J. C. Hokeet al., Measurement-induced entanglement and teleportation on a noisy quantum processor, Nature 622, 481 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, Entan- glement transition from variable-strength weak measure- ments, Phys. Rev. B100, 064204 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, Univer- sality of entanglement transitions from stroboscopic to continuous measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 210602 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Fuji and Y

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

    2020

  32. [40]

    K. Aziz, A. Chakraborty, and J. H. Pixley, Critical prop- erties of weak measurement induced phase transitions in random quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. B110, 064301 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Mochizuki and R

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

    2025

  34. [42]

    Dall’Arno, G

    M. Dall’Arno, G. M. D’Ariano, and M. F. Sacchi, Infor- mational power of quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A 83, 062304 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas,Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    R. M. Fano,Transmission of Information: A Statisti- cal Theory of Communications(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961)

    1961

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.