Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The measurement-induced entanglement transition is an ordering transition of an emergent classical spin model; in the infinite-local-dimension replica limit it is bond percolation at $p_c=1/2$.

desk verdict First real analytic handle on the measurement-induced entanglement transition, but the p_c=1/2 claim is tied to a double limit that the paper does not state carefully enough. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04305 v3 pith:7J5C5ETG submitted 2019-08-12 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph

Yimu Bao , Soonwon Choi , Ehud Altman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph
keywords randomunitarycircuitsmeasurement-inducedentanglementtransitionreplicamethodPottsmodelbondpercolationFisherinformationpurificationdynamicsphase
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 gives an analytic theory of the transition between volume-law and area-law entanglement in a one-dimensional chain of qudits evolved by random unitary gates with weak or projective measurements. Its central move is to map the averaged von Neumann entanglement entropy to the free energy cost of a domain wall in a two-dimensional classical spin model whose internal states are permutations of $n$ replicas; the same model, with different boundary conditions, computes the Fisher information carried by the measurement outcomes about the initial state. In the limit of infinite local Hilbert space dimension $q$, followed by the replica limit $n\to 1$, the spin model reduces to the $n!$-state Potts model and then to bond percolation on the square lattice, which fixes the critical measurement probability at $p_c=1/2$. The paper argues that the same transition appears in the purification dynamics of mixed states and that the transition disappears if measurements are allowed in an arbitrary nonlocal basis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the replica spin model: each random unitary gate becomes a classical spin taking values in the permutation group $P_n$ of $n$ replicas, and the averaged $n$-th moment of the density matrix becomes the partition function of a 2D lattice with $P_n\times P_n$ symmetry. Boundary conditions do all the work: a cyclic permutation on part of the top boundary creates a domain wall whose free energy is the entanglement entropy, while a perturbed initial state creates a boundary field whose response is the Fisher information. In the large-$q$ limit the model becomes the $n!$-state standard Potts model on the square lattice, and the replica limit $n\to 1$ makes its partition function identical to bond percolation; Kramers-Wannier duality fixes the percolation threshold at $p=1/2$.

What would settle it

A finite-size scaling study of the von Neumann entanglement transition in Haar-random qudit circuits with $q=3,4,5$, extrapolated to $q\to\infty$, would settle the central claim: if $p_c$ does not approach $1/2$ and the critical exponents do not approach the percolation values $\nu=4/3$ and $\beta=5/36$, the analytic continuation is not describing the transition. A second, more direct check is to test whether the order of limits matters by comparing fixed-$q$ exact simulations with the spin model's $1/q$ expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the entanglement transition in these circuits has a precise statistical-mechanics description: for each integer $n\ge 2$, the $n$-th moment of the replicated density matrix is the partition function of a classical spin model on a 2D lattice, with $n!$ states per site. The average von Neumann entropy is the excess free energy of a domain wall pinned by the top boundary, and the Fisher information is the boundary magnetization induced by a perturbation of the initial state. Taking $q\to\infty$ with the scaled measurement strength held fixed turns the model into the $n!$-state standard Potts model on the square lattice; the $n\to 1$ limit of that model is bond percolation, whose critical threshold $f_c=1/2$ gives $p_c=1/2$. The same framework yields an explicit connection to the purification of mixed-state dynamics and shows that nonlocal measurements break the permutation symmetry of the spin model, eliminating the phase transition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the replica limit $n\to 1$ and the large-local-dimension limit $q\to\infty$ can be taken in that order and still describe finite-$q$ physics; the paper's own qubit numerics give $p_c=0.26\pm 0.02$, far from the $q\to\infty$ value $1/2$, so if the limits do not commute the central quantitative claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the critical measurement strength, entanglement grows linearly with subsystem size; above it, entanglement saturates to area law, so the two dynamical phases are distinguished by the free energy of the emergent domain wall.
  • The Fisher information of measurement outcomes saturates exactly at the transition, providing an order parameter for the phase that does not require postselecting a particular measurement trajectory.
  • The purification transition of an initially mixed state coincides with the entanglement transition: in the area-law phase the state purifies, while in the volume-law phase it retains finite entropy density for exponentially long times.
  • If measurements are made in a nonlocal basis, the emergent spin model loses its ordering symmetry and no transition occurs; the system state becomes maximally mixed and all information about the initial state is transferred to the ancillas.
  • For qubits, the critical point $p_c\simeq 0.26$ differs substantially from the $q\to\infty$ value $1/2$, so the quantitative prediction is a statement about large local dimension rather than about qubit chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave open is that the relevant $1/q$ perturbations at the percolation fixed point may pull finite-$q$ systems into a different universality class; measuring critical exponents for $q=3,4$ would reveal whether percolation is the true attractor or only a limiting description.
  • The Fisher-information formulation suggests a concrete experimental protocol: distinguish two nearby initial states from their measurement-outcome histograms; the number of samples needed should change sharply at the transition, offering an entanglement witness that avoids exponentially costly postselection.
  • The nonlocal-measurement result also implies that the transition is basis-dependent, so a careful choice of quasilocal decoding measurements before the projective step could shift the apparent critical point; this might be used as a practical scrambling benchmark.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a replica statistical-mechanics framework for one-dimensional random unitary circuits with weak or projective measurements. The averaged von Neumann entropy is rewritten as a conditional entropy and then as a free-energy difference in a classical spin model, with the permutation-group degrees of freedom of the replica method; the KL divergence and Fisher information of measurement outcomes are similarly mapped to boundary magnetization. For n=2 the emergent model is an exactly solvable triangular-lattice Ising model. In the large-local-dimension limit q→∞ the model is argued to reduce to an n!-state Potts model on the square lattice, and after the replica limit n→1 to bond percolation with p_c=1/2. Exact numerics for q=2 give p_c=0.26±0.02, and the paper further argues that nonlocal measurements destroy the transition and connects the transition to purification dynamics.

Significance. If the central analytic continuation is valid, the paper provides one of the first controlled analytic treatments of the measurement-induced entanglement transition: it gives an exact n=2 critical line (Eq. 61), a parameter-free prediction p_c=1/2 in the q→∞, n→1 limit, a concrete percolation universality class, and a new experimentally motivated Fisher-information order parameter. The paper does not fit the analytic p_c to numerics, and it makes falsifiable predictions for large q. The exact n=2 mapping and the positivity analysis for n≥3 are substantial technical contributions irrespective of the n→1 continuation. However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on a singular double limit that is not defined as stated, and the percolation identification contains a sign/identification error that must be corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (65)-(69)] The sequential limit used to obtain p_c=1/2 is not well defined. For every fixed integer n>1, Eq. (66) gives p_c^(n)→1 as q→∞, so lim_{n→1} lim_{q→∞} p_c^(n) = 1, not 1/2. The text says it takes 'large q followed by the replica limit n→1', but on that literal reading the result is 1. The claimed value 1/2 can only be recovered by a correlated limit with q^{n-1}=O(1), or by an independent analytic continuation in n at fixed q before q→∞, and neither is provided. The paper's own caveat in the last paragraph of Sec. V.C that the continuation is exact only for q=∞ does not repair the discontinuity at n=1; this is an internal consistency problem, not a finite-q correction.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (67)] The identification of the bond activation probability is inconsistent with the paper's own definition of p. With p=sin^2 α from Eq. (9) and κ=q^{n-1} cot^{2n} α, at n=1 one has f=κ/(1+κ)=cos^2 α=1−p, not f=p. The direction of the phase correspondence is also wrong as stated: weak measurements (small p) give f≈1, i.e., an almost fully activated (percolating) lattice, which is the ferromagnetic/volume-law side; the text's f=p would put small p on the non-percolating side. The critical value f_c=1/2 still gives p_c=1/2 by self-duality, so the main number survives, but Eq. (67) and the surrounding interpretation must be corrected.
  3. [Sec. V.B-V.C and Fig. 7] The analytic continuation from integer n≥2 to n=1 crosses a regime where the Potts model changes character: for n≥3 the n!-state Potts transition is first-order, while the n=1 limit is the continuous percolation transition. No argument is given that replica free energies are analytic in n along this path, and the figure plots Eq. (66) for noninteger n even though Eq. (54) and the Potts reduction are established only for integer n and large q. The p_c=1/2 claim needs a separate justification for the n→1 continuation; the dashed curves in Fig. 7 should not be presented as quantitative predictions without such a justification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.C.2] There is a typo in the paragraph following Eq. (58): 'On the the other hand' should read 'On the other hand'.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the curves for noninteger n and for n=1 are obtained by analytic continuation of Eq. (66) and are not derived from the positivity-guaranteed spin model of Sec. IV.B.
  3. [Sec. V.C, paragraph after Eq. (67)] The phrase 'activation probability f=p' is used again in the text; it should be corrected consistently with the first major comment, and the phase on each side of the percolation threshold should be identified clearly.
  4. [Sec. VI.A] The notation ⟨m_1^↓⟩ is used before its definition is fully explained; a parenthetical reminding the reader that this is the density of down-type spins in the bottom layer would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: p_c=1/2 is derived from an emergent Potts/bond-percolation mapping and cross-checked, not fitted or assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim p_c=1/2 is obtained by an explicit mapping of replicated moments to a classical spin model, followed by the large-q/κ-fixed limit to the n!-state Potts model, the Kramers-Wannier critical coupling, and the Q→1 Fortuin-Kasteleyn bond-percolation limit. None of these steps defines the target in terms of itself: the measurement probability p enters through computed weights (e.g., Eqs. 34, 52, 62), the Potts model is derived from the averaged tensor network, and the critical coupling and percolation threshold are standard external statistical-mechanics results. The exact numerics for q=2 give p_c=0.26±0.02 and are compared with, not used to fit, the analytic prediction. The paper also explicitly limits its analytic continuation to q→∞ and flags 1/q corrections as relevant, so the acknowledged discrepancy with qubit numerics is a stated validity limitation rather than a hidden reuse of the data. The only serious concern in the derivation is the order of limits in Sec. V.C: Eq. (66) gives p_c^{(n)}→1 for fixed n>1 as q→∞, so the literal 'q→∞ then n→1' reading does not by itself select 1/2. That is a correctness or consistency issue, not a circularity, because 1/2 is still obtained from an independent statistical-mechanics calculation rather than from the quantity being predicted. Citations to earlier random-circuit mappings are for the general technique and are not load-bearing claims of uniqueness or fitted parameters.

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

The central derivation rests on the Haar-random unitary ensemble, the replica trick, positivity of emergent spin weights, and exact solutions of known statistical mechanics models. There are no free parameters fitted to data: q and alpha are physical inputs, and the numerical p_c is an output. No new physical entities are postulated. The main non-standard input is the analytic continuation in replica index n and the q-to-infinity order of limits, which the paper itself flags as exact only asymptotically.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Unitary gates are Haar random and the exact Haar average over U(q^2) can be evaluated via Weingarten functions (Eqs. 31 and 48).
    Central to the mapping; used throughout Sec. IV to replace random gates by sums over permutation degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption The replica limit n to 1 of the integer-n quantities recovers the averaged von Neumann entropy and Fisher information (Eqs. 17 and 24).
    Standard replica trick but not rigorously proven; the paper notes in Sec. V.C that the analytic continuation is strictly valid only in the q-to-infinity limit.
  • ad hoc to paper The positivity condition in Eq. (54) guarantees nonnegative Boltzmann weights for n at least 3, and the phase transition point lies within this regime (Sec. IV.B).
    The mapping to a classical spin model with positive weights is valid only in a restricted (q, alpha) range; the large-q limit used for the central claim is inside this range, but finite-q validity is not proven.
  • standard math Kramers-Wannier duality and exact solutions of the triangular-lattice Ising model and Q-state Potts model give the critical couplings (Sec. V).
    External statistical mechanics results used to locate the phase transitions; these are accepted benchmarks.
  • domain assumption The system is a 1D qudit chain with periodic boundary conditions, evolving from a product state, and the thermodynamic limit N,T to infinity is taken for phase transition statements.
    Physical setup defined in Sec. III; needed for the scaling arguments that identify volume-law and area-law phases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7J5C5ETG

@misc{pith2026190804305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of the phase transition in random unitary circuits with measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7J5C5ETG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04305}
}
abstract

We present a theory of the entanglement transition tuned by measurement strength in qudit chains evolved by random unitary circuits and subject to either weak or random projective measurements. The transition can be understood as a nonanalytic change in the amount of information extracted by the measurements about the initial state of the system, quantified by the Fisher information. To compute the von~Neumann entanglement entropy $S$ and the Fisher information $\mathcal{F}$, we apply a replica method based on a sequence of quantities $\tilde{S}^{(n)}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{(n)}$ that depend on the $n$-th moments of density matrices and reduce to $S$ and $\mathcal{F}$ in the limit $n\to 1$. These quantities with $n\ge 2$ are mapped to free energies of a classical spin model with $n!$ internal states in two dimensions with specific boundary conditions. In particular, $\tilde{S}^{(n)}$ is the excess free energy of a domain wall terminating on the top boundary, and $\mathcal{F}^{(n)}$ is related to the magnetization on the bottom boundary. Phase transitions occur as the spin models undergo ordering transitions in the bulk. Taking the limit of large local Hilbert space dimension $q$ followed by the replica limit $n\to 1$, we obtain the critical measurement probability $p_c=1/2$ and identify the transition as a bond percolation in the 2D square lattice in this limit. Finally, we show there is no phase transition if the measurements are allowed in an arbitrary nonlocal basis, thereby highlighting the relation between the phase transition and information scrambling. We establish an explicit connection between the entanglement phase transition and the purification dynamics of a mixed state evolution and discuss implications of our results to experimental observations of the transition and simulability of quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04305 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Random unitary circuit with weak measurements. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Tensor network representation of the purity tr [˜ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Mapping between a RUC with weak measurements and classical Ising model. (a) Tensor network representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. TN representations of the top boundary contractions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Our spin models reduce to the standard Potts models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Exact numerical simulations for the entanglement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Critical measurement probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: presents the exact simulation of hm− 1 i as a function of time T using the transfer matrix method for various measurement strengths α from 0.02 to 0.16. hm− 1 i remains small for a long time and rapidly increases to unity. In the inset, we obtain a collapse of curves …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The different signatures of the entanglement phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Tensor network representation of the diagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Density of spins with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Measurement-induced criticality in random quantum circuits

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In infinite on-site Hilbert space dimension, the measurement-induced entanglement transition maps to 2D percolation, with the universal nth Renyi entropy log-coefficient equal to 1/6 for half-system open boundary conditions.

  2. Measurement-induced entanglement Hamiltonian

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a critical free-fermion chain, after partial projective measurements the entanglement Hamiltonian is a local grand-canonical operator: a measurement-independent inverse temperature times a local chemical potential ...

  3. Free-Fermion Measurement-Induced Volume- to Area-Law Entanglement Transition in the Presence of Fermion Interactions

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    It conjectures that the measurement-induced volume-to-area-law entanglement transition for interacting class-DIII Majorana fermions is identical to the noninteracting transition, with the interaction-induced mass bein...

  4. Measurement-induced phase transition: A case study in the non-integrable model by density-matrix renormalization group calculations

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a 1D Bose-Hubbard quench, increasing the random local measurement rate drives a volume-to-area law entanglement phase transition with critical exponent nu≈2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Quantum computation and quantum information,

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, “Quantum computation and quantum information,” (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Physical Review X 7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    von Keyserlingk, T

    C. von Keyserlingk, T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and S. Sondhi, Physical Review X 8, 021013 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Physical Review X 8, 021014 (2018). 22

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Physical Review X 8, 031057 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Rakovszky, F

    T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. von Keyserlingk, Physical Review X 8, 031058 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

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

    2018

  8. [8]

    Skinner, J

    B. Skinner, J. Ruhman, and A. Nahum, arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05953 (2018)

    arXiv 2018

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Li, X. Chen, and M. Fisher, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08092 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. Choi, Y. Bao, X.-L. Qi, and E. Altman, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.05124 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. Chan, R. M. Nandkishore, M. Pretko, and G. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 99, 224307 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Szyniszewski, A

    M. Szyniszewski, A. Romito, and H. Schomerus, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.05452 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. J. Gullans and D. A. Huse, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05195 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hayden, S

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, X.-L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter, and Z. Yang, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 9 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    X.-L. Qi, Z. Yang, and Y.-Z. You, Journal of High En- ergy Physics 2017, 60 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Vasseur, A

    R. Vasseur, A. C. Potter, Y.-Z. You, and A. W. Ludwig, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07082 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhou and A

    T. Zhou and A. Nahum, Physical Review B 99, 174205 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Hunter-Jones, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12053 (2019)

    N. Hunter-Jones, arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12053 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    O’Donnell and J

    R. O’Donnell and J. Wright, in Proceedings of the forty- seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (ACM, 2015) pp. 529–538

    2015

  12. [20]

    Li and X

    T. Li and X. Wu, IEEE Transactions on Information The- ory 65, 2899 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    A. W. Van der Vaart, Asymptotic statistics, Vol. 3 (Cam- bridge university press, 2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Araki, Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences 11, 809 (1976)

    H. Araki, Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences 11, 809 (1976)

    1976

  15. [23]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 40, 147 (1975)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 40, 147 (1975)

    1975

  16. [24]

    Uhlmann, Communications in Mathematical Physics 54, 21 (1977)

    A. Uhlmann, Communications in Mathematical Physics 54, 21 (1977)

    1977

  17. [25]

    Collins, International Mathematics Research Notices 2003, 953 (2003)

    B. Collins, International Mathematics Research Notices 2003, 953 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    Eggarter, Physical Review B 12, 1933 (1975)

    T. Eggarter, Physical Review B 12, 1933 (1975)

    1975

  19. [27]

    Tanaka and N

    Y. Tanaka and N. Uryˆ u, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 44, 1091 (1978)

    1978

  20. [28]

    Collins and P

    B. Collins and P. ´Sniady, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics 264, 773 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Zinn-Justin, Letters in Mathematical Physics 91, 119 (2010)

    P. Zinn-Justin, Letters in Mathematical Physics 91, 119 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    J. I. Novak, Banach Center Publications 89, 231 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Matsumoto, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.5401 (2013)

    S. Matsumoto, arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.5401 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Novaes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2182 (2014)

    M. Novaes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2182 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. B. Potts, in Mathematical proceedings of the cam- bridge philosophical society , Vol. 48 (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1952) pp. 106–109

    1952

  26. [34]

    Kihara, Y

    T. Kihara, Y. Midzuno, and T. Shizume, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 9, 681 (1954)

    1954

  27. [35]

    R. J. Baxter, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6, L445 (1973)

    1973

  28. [36]

    R. J. Baxter, H. Temperley, and S. E. Ashley, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 358, 535 (1978)

    1978

  29. [37]

    Kasteleyn and C

    P. Kasteleyn and C. Fortuin, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan Supplement 26, 11 (1969)

    1969

  30. [38]

    Wu, Journal of Statistical Physics 18, 115 (1978)

    F. Wu, Journal of Statistical Physics 18, 115 (1978)

    1978

  31. [39]

    J. L. Cardy, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 25, L201 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Kesten, Percolation theory for mathematicians, Vol

    H. Kesten, Percolation theory for mathematicians, Vol. 2 (Springer, 1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    Kesten, Communications in Mathematical Physics 109, 109 (1987)

    H. Kesten, Communications in Mathematical Physics 109, 109 (1987)

    1987

  34. [42]

    Grimmett, in Percolation (Springer, 1999) pp

    G. Grimmett, in Percolation (Springer, 1999) pp. 1–31

    1999

  35. [43]

    Webb, arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02769 (2015)

    Z. Webb, arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02769 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review B 73, 094423 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Schuch, M

    N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Physical review letters 100, 030504 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Schumacher and M

    B. Schumacher and M. D. Westmoreland, Quantum In- formation Processing 1, 5 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Hiai and D

    F. Hiai and D. Petz, Communications in mathematical physics 143, 99 (1991)

    1991

  40. [48]

    Ogawa and H

    T. Ogawa and H. Nagaoka, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 45, 2486 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    Hayashi, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 3413 (2001)

    M. Hayashi, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 34, 3413 (2001)

    2001

  42. [50]

    Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory Of Quantum Statisti- cal Inference: Selected Papers (2005) pp

    H. Nagaoka, in Asymptotic Theory Of Quantum Statisti- cal Inference: Selected Papers (2005) pp. 113–124

    2005

  43. [51]

    Hayden and J

    P. Hayden and J. Preskill, Journal of High Energy Physics 2007, 120 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, et al., Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Neill, P

    C. Neill, P. Roushan, K. Kechedzhi, S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. Smelyanskiy, A. Megrant, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, K. Arya, et al., Science 360, 195 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Harris, Y

    R. Harris, Y. Sato, A. Berkley, M. Reis, F. Altomare, M. Amin, K. Boothby, P. Bunyk, C. Deng, C. Enderud, et al., Science 361, 162 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Brydges, A

    T. Brydges, A. Elben, P. Jurcevic, B. Vermersch, C. Maier, B. P. Lanyon, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Science 364, 260 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Lukin, M

    A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, M. E. Tai, A. M. Kauf- man, S. Choi, V. Khemani, J. L´ eonard, and M. Greiner, Science 364, 256 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    M. H. DeGroot and M. J. Schervish, Probability and statistics (Pearson Education, 2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Boixo, S

    S. Boixo, S. V. Isakov, V. N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, N. Ding, Z. Jiang, M. J. Bremner, J. M. Martinis, and H. Neven, Nature Physics 14, 595 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  53. [61]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  54. [62]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    Nandkishore and D

    R. Nandkishore and D. A. Huse, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 6, 15 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    D. A. Abanin, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and M. Serbyn, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 021001 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. De Luca, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.04638 (2018). 23

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sutherland, Beautiful models: 70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

    B. Sutherland, Beautiful models: 70 years of exactly solved quantum many-body problems (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, letters in mathematical physics 32, 75 (1994)

    1994

  61. [69]

    Cotler, C.-M

    J. Cotler, C.-M. Jian, X.-L. Qi, and F. Wilczek, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018, 93 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Bouland, B

    A. Bouland, B. Fefferman, C. Nirkhe, and U. Vazirani, Nature Physics 15, 159 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    The Geometry and Flow of Quantum Information: From Quantum Gravity to Quantum Technology

    in parallel to ours. This work uses a different replica scheme to map quantum circuits with projective mea- surements to statistical mechanics models, which leads to results consistent with ours. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank William Berdanier, Fernando Brand˜ ao, Xi- angyu Cao, Ign...

  64. [72]

    Jian, Y.-Z

    C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, R. Vasseur, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Phys. Rev. B 101, 104302 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    D. A. Roberts and B. Yoshida, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 121 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Kawashima and N

    N. Kawashima and N. Ito, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 62, 435 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    Houdayer and A

    J. Houdayer and A. K. Hartmann, Physical Review B70, 014418 (2004)

    2004

  68. [76]

    Strutz, Data fitting and uncertainty: A practical in- troduction to weighted least squares and beyond (Vieweg and Teubner, 2010)

    T. Strutz, Data fitting and uncertainty: A practical in- troduction to weighted least squares and beyond (Vieweg and Teubner, 2010). Appendix A: Details of the mapping to classical spin models

    2010

  69. [77]

    cjvzREaZAYNtEFM64RRfk23bZf8=

    Derivation of w(n) d As discussed in the main text, contracting a pair of diagonally neighboring ˆσ and ˆτ tensors leads to a weight w(n) d (σ,τ ) that depends on q and α. Using the TN rep- resentation given in Fig. 12, a simple expression of w(n) d can be written as w(n) d (σ...

  70. [78]

    Here, we derive and explicitly present the three-body weight ¯w(2)(σ1,σ 2,σ 3) in Eq

    Derivation of ¯w(2) In the case of n = 2, we have seen that the purity of a subsystem maps to the partition function of the classical Ising model on triangular lattice. Here, we derive and explicitly present the three-body weight ¯w(2)(σ1,σ 2,σ 3) in Eq. (39) associated with t...

  71. [79]

    Here, we de- rive the two-body Ising coupling Jh and Jd in Eq

    Derivation of Ising couplings Jh and Jd The three-body weight factorizes into pairwise contri- butions in the presence of Ising symmetry. Here, we de- rive the two-body Ising coupling Jh and Jd in Eq. (59). In terms of Jh and Jd, ¯w(2) can be written as ¯w(2)(σ,σ,σ ) =Ce−2Jd−J...

  72. [80]

    Here, we derive a sufficient condition [Eq

    A sufficient condition for nonnegative weights for n≥ 3 In general, the negative weights in the expression of the n-th moment cannot be eliminated for arbitrary q and α by simply integrating out τ variables. Here, we derive a sufficient condition [Eq. (54)] for the weights being n...

  73. [81]

    Com- pared to the derivation ofw(n) d in Appendix A 1, the only modification is the absence of the dephasing channel Nφ applying to ancilla qudits

    Derivation of two-body weight Here, we derive the two-body weight v(n) d in the spin model description of the quantum relative entropy. Com- pared to the derivation ofw(n) d in Appendix A 1, the only modification is the absence of the dephasing channel Nφ applying to ancilla qu...

  74. [82]

    Hence, we obtain a Ising spin model on a triangular lattice with three-body interaction

    Derivation of three-body weight The negative weights in the second moment due to neg- ative Weingarten functions can be eliminated by integrat- ing out τ variables. Hence, we obtain a Ising spin model on a triangular lattice with three-body interaction. The three-body weights ...

  75. [83]

    Algorithm Here, we provide the details of the numerical simu- lations presented in Sec. V. In order to efficiently store exact many-body wave functions for as large as N = 30 qubits, we leverage the fact that a fraction of qudits are disentangled in every time step. More specific...

  76. [84]

    Finite-size scaling Here, we present the details of finite size scaling in Sec. V D. We use the scaling ansatz proposed in Ref. [8]: S(p,L )−S(pc,L ) =g ( (p−pc)N1/ν ) . (F1) The critical measurement probability pc and critical ex- ponent ν are extracted by numerically optimizi...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.