Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Measurement Induced Asymmetric Entanglement in a Deconfined Quantum Critical Ground State

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weak measurement of a deconfined quantum critical ground state can produce asymmetric entanglement restructuring that, the author argues, turns the continuous phase boundary into a weak first-order transition in the thermodynamic limit.

desk verdict A plausible VUMPS study of weak-measurement effects on a 1D DQCP analog with a genuinely novel asymmetry, but the weak-first-order claim is not backed by the scaling data. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.05436 v2 pith:AV6R7AXS submitted 2026-03-05 quant-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

K. G. S. H. Gunawardana This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords weakmeasurementdeconfinedquantumcriticalpointentanglemententropycorrelationlengthmatrixproductstatesphasetransitionvalencebondsolidpost-measurementstate
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

The paper asks how weak measurements reshape the ground state of a one-dimensional spin-1/2 chain that stands in for a deconfined quantum critical point (DQCP). Coupling the chain to an ancilla and measuring the ancilla projects the system into post-measurement states; for one class of coupling (Z-type), the measurement outcome with all ancillas found down produces asymmetric entanglement: the bipartite entanglement entropy grows when the exchange K is below the critical value and shrinks when K is above it. The correlation length develops a gap at the critical coupling, and that gap grows with the MPS bond dimension, which the author reads as evidence for a weak first-order phase boundary in the thermodynamic limit. If true, weak measurement is not just a probe but an active transformer of a deconfined critical state.

What carries the argument

The key object is the one-dimensional spin-1/2 chain with nearest-neighbour exchanges Jx, Jz and next-nearest-neighbour exchange K (Eq. 1), whose ground state has been argued to mimic a deconfined quantum critical point in the thermodynamic limit. The measurement machinery is a set of local Kraus operators built from the unitary couplings U^{σx⊗σx} and U^{σz⊗σx} between each chain site and an ancilla spin; after projective measurement of the ancilla, the effective operators X and Z act on the chain. In the weak-measurement limit α≪1, the diagonal Z operators dominate the response, and the parameter α controls the measurement strength λ while u controls the Born-rule probabilities. The calcul

What would settle it

Compute Δξ for larger bond dimensions (χ>192) at fixed α and u; if Δξ stops growing and saturates to a finite value, the claimed weak first-order boundary in the thermodynamic limit would be refuted. Additionally, a direct calculation of the overlap or energy crossing between the zFM and VBS post-measurement states could reveal whether a true coexistence region (hysteresis) exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under weak measurement of the Z-type, the post-measurement state (↓↓) shows anomalous entanglement restructuring: for K<K_c the bipartite von Neumann entropy S increases with measurement strength α, while for K>K_c it slightly decreases. The correlation length ξ behaves likewise, rising sharply on the ferromagnetic side and dropping on the valence-bond-solid side, producing a gap Δξ at the pseudo-critical coupling. Δξ grows monotonically with the MPS bond dimension χ, and the author argues this developing gap signals a weak first-order phase boundary in the thermodynamic limit, in contrast to the continuous transition of the unmeasured ground state.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the one-dimensional spin chain (Eq. 1) as a faithful analog of a deconfined quantum critical point is inherited from earlier work and is not independently established here; if the analogy fails, the DQCP interpretation of the results falls away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The continuous DQCP-type transition of the unmeasured ground state becomes a weak first-order boundary under Z-type weak measurement, at least in the (↓↓) trajectory.
  • X-type weak measurements leave the critical features intact (effective central charge c≈1), so different measurement couplings probe different facets of the same critical state.
  • The measurement-induced gap in correlation length grows with bond dimension, giving a finite-size scaling signature that could be used to diagnose weak first-order transitions.
  • The probability of the most entangled trajectory (↓↓) is highest at small u, so the effect is accessible in experiments that postselect the dominant ancilla outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The asymmetric entanglement response may be a generic feature of measuring a symmetry-breaking order parameter on one side of a critical point; a testable prediction is that the sign and magnitude of ΔS track the direction of the local order parameter.
  • The growing Δξ with χ is consistent with the coexistence of zFM and VBS order in the post-measurement state; one could look for a crossing of the two order parameters in the thermodynamic limit.
  • The protocol is not limited to DQCP analogues; the same ancilla-coupling construction could be applied to other 1D critical chains, where the asymmetry would be diagnostic of the order-parameter structure.
  • The role of u in determining measurement probability suggests that experiments should tune u to balance postselection rate against measurement strength; an optimal u exists for observing the effect.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the effect of projective measurements on the ground state of a one-dimensional spin-1/2 chain with nearest-neighbor Jx, Jz and next-nearest-neighbor K (Eq. 1), a model previously proposed as a 1D analog of a deconfined quantum critical point (DQCP). The ground state is represented as a uniform MPS and coupled to ancilla spins via unitary gates U^{σx⊗fσx} and U^{σz⊗fσx}; after projective measurement of the ancilla, the post-measurement states are analyzed. At α=0 the measurement operators become unitary and exact outcome probabilities are given. For small α (weak measurement), the authors report that the (↓↓) outcome under Z-type measurement strongly increases the bipartite entanglement entropy and correlation length for K<K_c, but weakly decreases them for K>K_c, producing a growing gap Δξ at K_c as MPS bond dimension χ increases. They argue this asymmetry signals a weak first-order phase boundary in the thermodynamic limit.

Significance. If the central extrapolation were established, this would be a useful addition to the small literature on measurement-altered quantum criticality: it would show that weak measurements can restructure a candidate DQCP ground state asymmetrically across the transition and potentially turn a continuous transition into a weak first-order one. The paper has strengths: the measurement protocol is explicit, the α=0 probabilities (P_↓↓=cos^4 u etc.) follow analytically from the unitary gates, and VUMPS is a standard, appropriate method. The numerical observation of asymmetric S and ξ is likely robust. However, the leap from finite-χ trends to a thermodynamic weak first-order transition is not supported by the data as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.B, Fig. 3a and inset] The central claim rests on the growth of Δξ with χ in the inset of Fig. 3a, but no χ→∞ extrapolation is given. At finite bond dimension a continuous transition can mimic first-order behavior; indeed the Appendix states that the α=0 MPS ground state itself 'gives a first order phase transition at finite MPS bond dimension χ' before becoming continuous. A growing Δξ(χ) is also what one expects from two correlation-length peaks that are diverging and shifted by finite-χ effects. To support the weak-first-order conclusion the authors need to show that Δξ(χ) extrapolates to a nonzero value (or that two pseudo-critical couplings K_c^<(χ), K_c^>(χ) approach distinct limits), and include a control analysis for α=0 where the transition is known to be continuous. Without this, the 'weak first order phase boundary in the thermodynamic limit' is an assertion, not an inference from the data.
  2. [§III.B, Fig. 6] The coexistence of zFM order inside the VBS phase at α=0.04 is presented as evidence for first-order behavior. VUMPS is variational and can get stuck in a local minimum; a nonzero order parameter on the wrong side of the transition can be a branch-sticking artifact rather than thermodynamic coexistence. The paper should compare energies of the zFM and VBS branches, perform independent initializations, and/or show that the coexisting region persists under extrapolation. At present the coexistence claim is not established.
  3. [§III.A–III.B] The numerical evidence lacks stated convergence criteria and error estimates. Quantities such as ξ≈400 in Fig. 3a and S in Fig. 3b,c are quoted without gradients/sweep tolerances or χ series beyond a few values. Since the conclusion is a scaling trend, the paper should report, at minimum, the VUMPS convergence criterion, the number of points in the χ series, and some estimate of the uncertainty in Δξ. This is not a demand for rigor for its own sake: the claimed χ-trend is the entire basis for the thermodynamic extrapolation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: 'alcilla' (abstract/Sec. II), 'valance' (throughout), 'ctitical' (Sec. II.A), 'another evidence' (Sec. III.B).
  2. [§II.C] The parameters u and α are said to be 'represented in unit of π'—please state this in the definitions of Eqs. (10)-(11), and clarify whether u=1/10 means 0.1π or 0.1 rad. Also, the symbols X and Z in Eqs. (12)-(15) are 2×2 matrices; state explicitly the basis in which they are written.
  3. [Fig. 2a] Color references in the text appear mismatched: 'solid brown line' for Z-type and 'solid red line' for X-type, but the caption/legend may assign colors differently. Check all color references.
  4. [§III.B, Fig. 6] The text cites α=0.04 while the figure legend appears to show α=0.001–0.004. Please reconcile. If 0.04 is intended, show the corresponding data.
  5. [Appendix A] The statement that the MPS ground state 'gives a first order phase transition at finite MPS bond dimension χ' could be misread as contradicting the main-text claim of a continuous transition; rephrase it as a known finite-χ artifact and cite Ref. [23] here.
  6. [§III.B] The claim that X-type measurements preserve c_eff≈1 is not accompanied by a plot or fit; either show the S(χ) vs ln ξ(χ) data or state it as a qualitative check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measurement parameters are external, observables are computed from VUMPS, and the weak-first-order claim is an under-supported interpretation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The post-measurement states are defined by Kraus operators (Eqs. 12–15) obtained from the unitary couplings (Eqs. 10–11); the measurement parameters u and α are external control parameters, not fitted to the target quantities. The Born probabilities are derived analytically at α=0 and then numerically checked, not used as the prediction. The central observables S, ξ, and order parameters are computed with VUMPS from the variational MPS and are independent outputs. The paper's claim that the Δξ growth signals a weak first-order transition is an interpretive step that may need more scaling analysis (the Appendix itself notes that the α=0 MPS data look first-order at finite χ before becoming continuous in the χ→∞ limit following Ref. [23]), but that is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is load-bearing. The DQCP analogy is inherited from external prior works (Refs. [22,23]), not from the present author's own results, and the main asymmetry result does not depend on that analogy. Hence score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not introduce new entities. Free parameters are limited to fitted exponents used in supporting evidence for the continuous transition at α=0. The main weaknesses are the inherited DQCP analogy and the implicit convergence assumptions of VUMPS.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective central charge c_eff = ≈1
    Fitted from the slope of S(χ) vs ln ξ(χ) in Fig. 2b inset. Used to support the DQCP nature of the ground state at α=0, but not central to the weak-measurement claim.
  • Order parameter exponent β = ≈0.21 (β_M ≈ 0.207, β_VBS ≈ 0.210-0.219)
    Fitted from power-law scaling of order parameters vs |K-K_c(χ)| in Fig. 5. Used to show continuous transition behavior at α=0, but not the focus of the main result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ground state of Hamiltonian (1) shows analogous phase transition to DQCP with a continuous zFM-VBS transition in the thermodynamic limit.
    Inherited from Refs. [22,23], not established in this paper (Sec. II.A). The entire interpretation rests on this analogy.
  • domain assumption VUMPS with finite bond dimension χ provides a controlled approximation to the thermodynamic limit, and scaling with χ can extrapolate to χ→∞.
    Standard for MPS methods but an assumption about convergence. Used to interpret Δξ(χ) growth as evidence for weak first-order behavior.
  • standard math The measurement operators (Eqs. 12-15) satisfy the POVM completeness condition Eq. (7).
    Checkable algebra; satisfies completeness for both X and Z types, as shown in Sec. II.C.
  • domain assumption The Born-rule probabilities at α=0 remain a good approximation for α<0.01.
    Stated in Sec. III.B as 'numerically verified' but no data shown. This underpins the discussion of experimental observability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement Induced Asymmetric Entanglement in a Deconfined Quantum Critical Ground State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AV6R7AXS

@misc{pith2026260305436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement Induced Asymmetric Entanglement in a Deconfined Quantum Critical Ground State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AV6R7AXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.05436}
}
abstract

In this work, we numerically study the effect of weak measurement on deconfined quantum critical point(DQCP). Particularly, we consider the ground state of an one-dimensional spin $1/2$ system with next-nearest-neighbour exchange interactions($K$), which shows analogues phase transition to DQCP in the thermodynamic limit. This system is in the ferromagnetic phase below the critical exchange interaction $K_c$ and in the valance bond solid phase above $K_c$. The weak measurement is carried out by coupling a secondary ancilla system to the critical system via unitary interactions and later measuring the ancilla spins projectively. We numerically calculate entanglement entropy,correlation length, and order parameters of leading post-measurement states using uniform matrix product state representation of the quantum many-body state in the thermodynamic limit. We report asymmetric restructuring of entanglement of the post measurement states across the phase boundary under weak measurements. Especially, the trajectory $\left(\downarrow \downarrow\right)$ describing a uniform measurement outcome given the all ancilla spins initiated in the same $\left(\downarrow \right)$ state, shows anomalous entanglement when increasing the strength of weak measurement. The bipartite entanglement entropy strongly increases when $K<K_c$ whereas it weakly decreases when $K>K_c$. We argue with numerical evidences that observed asymmetry in entanglement would lead to a weak first order phase boundary in the thermodynamic limit. We also discuss important aspects in experimental observation of measurement induced effects linked to the strength of weak measurement and probability of post-measurement states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.05436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The lower panels depict ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a.) Numerically calculated order parameters as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a. Correlation length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Shift of entanglement entropy ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerically calculated order parameters as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Order parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Science303, 1490 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1091806

    doi:10.1126/science.1091806 2004

  2. [2]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum criticality beyond the landau- ginzburg-wilson paradigm, Phys. Rev. B70, 144407 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Levin and T

    M. Levin and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical- ity and n´ eel order via dimer disorder, Phys. Rev. B70, 220403 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Competing orders, non- linear sigma models, and topological terms in quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B74, 064405 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Poilblanc, A

    D. Poilblanc, A. L¨ auchli, M. Mambrini, and F. Mila, Spinon deconfinement in doped frustrated quantum an- tiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B73, 100403 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. M. Somoza, Emergent so(5) symmetry at the n´ eel to valence-bond-solid transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 267203 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum crit- icality with two length scales, Science352, 213 (2016), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aad5007

    doi:10.1126/science.aad5007 2016

  8. [8]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: Symme- tries and dualities, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Q. Qin, Y.-Y. He, Y.-Z. You, Z.-Y. Lu, A. Sen, A. W. Sandvik, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Duality between the deconfined quantum-critical point and the bosonic topo- logical transition, Phys. Rev. X7, 031052 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Ma, G.-Y

    N. Ma, G.-Y. Sun, Y.-Z. You, C. Xu, A. Vishwanath, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Dynamical signature of fractionalization at a deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B98, 174421 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review (2023), arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el]

    T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review (2023), arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Su and M

    L. Su and M. Zeng, Gapless symmetry-protected topo- logical phases and generalized deconfined critical points from gauging a finite subgroup, Phys. Rev. B109, 245108 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    R. K. Kaul and A. W. Sandvik, Lattice model for the SU(n) n´ eel to valence-bond solid quantum phase transi- tion at largen, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 137201 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Pujari, K

    S. Pujari, K. Damle, and F. Alet, N´ eel-state to valence- bond-solid transition on the honeycomb lattice: Evidence for deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 087203 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Qi and Z.-C

    Y. Qi and Z.-C. Gu, Continuous phase transition from n´ eel state toZ2 spin-liquid state on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B89, 235122 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Wang, Z.-C

    L. Wang, Z.-C. Gu, F. Verstraete, and X.-G. Wen, Tensor-product state approach to spin- 1 2 squareJ 1−J2 antiferromagnetic heisenberg model: Evidence for de- confined quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. B94, 075143 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Pimenov and M

    D. Pimenov and M. Punk, Deconfined quantum critical- ity in su(3) antiferromagnets on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B95, 184427 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Spectral signatures of fractional- ization in the frustrated heisenberg model on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 100405 (2018). 10

    2018

  11. [19]

    C.-M. Jian, A. Thomson, A. Rasmussen, Z. Bi, and C. Xu, Deconfined quantum critical point on the trian- gular lattice, Phys. Rev. B97, 195115 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Zhang, Y.-C

    X.-F. Zhang, Y.-C. He, S. Eggert, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Continuous easy-plane deconfined phase transition on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 115702 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Sig- natures of a deconfined phase transition on the shastry- sutherland lattice: Applications to quantum critical srcu2(bo3)2, Phys. Rev. X9, 041037 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Jiang and O

    S. Jiang and O. Motrunich, Ising ferromagnet to valence bond solid transition in a one-dimensional spin chain: Analogies to deconfined quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B99, 075103 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Roberts, S

    B. Roberts, S. Jiang, and O. I. Motrunich, Deconfined quantum critical point in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 99, 165143 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Mudry, A

    C. Mudry, A. Furusaki, T. Morimoto, and T. Hikihara, Quantum phase transitions beyond landau-ginzburg the- ory in one-dimensional space revisited, Phys. Rev. B99, 205153 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Huang and S

    R.-Z. Huang and S. Yin, Kibble-zurek mechanism for a one-dimensional incarnation of a deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023175 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    B. Zhao, J. Takahashi, and A. W. Sandvik, Multicritical deconfined quantum criticality and lifshitz point of a he- lical valence-bond phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257204 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Shackleton, A

    L. Shackleton, A. Thomson, and S. Sachdev, Decon- fined criticality and a gapless𭟋 2 spin liquid in the square-lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B104, 045110 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Yang and J.-B

    S. Yang and J.-B. Xu, Quantum entanglement and crit- icality in a one-dimensional deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. E104, 064121 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Roberts, S

    B. Roberts, S. Jiang, and O. I. Motrunich, One- dimensional model for deconfined criticality with𭟋 3 ×𭟋 3 symmetry, Phys. Rev. B103, 155143 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Xi and R

    N. Xi and R. Yu, Dynamical signatures of the one- dimensional deconfined quantum critical point, Chinese Physics B31, 057501 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    C.-X. Li, S. Yang, J.-B. Xu, and H.-Q. Lin, Exploring dynamical quantum phase transitions in a spin model with deconfined critical point via the quantum steering ellipsoid, Phys. Rev. B107, 085130 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Z. H. Liu, W. Jiang, B.-B. Chen, J. Rong, M. Cheng, K. Sun, Z. Y. Meng, and F. F. Assaad, Fermion disorder operator at gross-neveu and deconfined quantum critical- ities, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 266501 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. Y. Lee, J. Ramette, M. A. Metlitski, V. Vuleti´ c, W. W. Ho, and S. Choi, Landau-forbidden quantum criticality in rydberg quantum simulators, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 083601 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    N. Xi, H. Chen, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Plaquette valence bond solid to antiferromagnet transition and deconfined quantum critical point of the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B107, L220408 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Levin, Exactly solvable model for a deconfined quantum critical point in 1d, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 026801 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Romen, S

    A. Romen, S. Birnkammer, and M. Knap, Deconfined quantum criticality in the long-range, anisotropic Heisen- berg chain, SciPost Phys. Core7, 008 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    D.-X. Liu, Z. Xiong, Y. Xu, and X.-F. Zhang, Deconfined quantum phase transition on the kagome lattice: Distinct velocities of spinon and string excitations, Phys. Rev. B 109, L140404 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Wang, W.-L

    Y.-N. Wang, W.-L. You, W.-Y. Zhang, S.-P. Kou, and G. Sun, Deconfined quantum criticality of frustrated hard-core dipolar bosons, Phys. Rev. B111, 054436 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Y. Cui, R. Yu, and W. Yu, Deconfined quantum critical point: A review of progress, Chinese Physics Letters42 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Y. Cui, L. Liu, H. Lin, K.-H. Wu, W. Hong, X. Liu, C. Li, Z. Hu, N. Xi, S. Li, R. Yu, A. W. Sandvik, and W. Yu, Proximate deconfined quantum critical point in srcu¡sub¿2¡/sub¿¡b¿(¡/b¿bo¡sub¿3¡/sub¿¡b¿)¡/b¿¡sub¿2¡/sub¿, Science380, 1179 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/1...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    J. Guo, P. Wang, C. Huang, B.-B. Chen, W. Hong, S. Cai, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Y. Zhou, S. Li, Q. Wu, Z. Y. Meng, and L. Sun, Deconfined quantum critical point lost in pressurized srcu2(bo3)2, Communications Physics8, 2399 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quan- tum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

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

    2018

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    X. Cao, A. Tilloy, and A. D. Luca, Entanglement in a fermion chain under continuous monitoring, SciPost Phys.7, 024 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Fuji and Y

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

    2020

  39. [47]

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

    2020

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    A. G. Moghaddam, K. P¨ oyh¨ onen, and T. Ojanen, Expo- nential shortcut to measurement-induced entanglement phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 020401 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    S. Sang, Z. Li, T. H. Hsieh, and B. Yoshida, Ultrafast entanglement dynamics in monitored quantum circuits, PRX Quantum4, 040332 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

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

    2023

  45. [53]

    Cecile, H

    G. Cecile, H. L´ oio, and J. De Nardis, Measurement- induced phase transitions by matrix product states scal- ing, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033220 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Poboiko, P

    I. Poboiko, P. P¨ opperl, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Measurement-induced transitions for interacting fermions, Phys. Rev. B111, 024204 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    C.-J. Lin, W. Ye, Y. Zou, S. Sang, and T. H. Hsieh, Probing sign structure using measurement-induced en- tanglement, Quantum7, 910 (2023). 11

    2023

  48. [56]

    Cheng, R

    Z. Cheng, R. Wen, S. Gopalakrishnan, R. Vasseur, and A. C. Potter, Universal structure of measurement- induced information in many-body ground states, Phys. Rev. B109, 195128 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Zhang and S

    Y. Zhang and S. Gopalakrishnan, Nonlocal growth of quantum conditional mutual information under decoher- ence, Phys. Rev. A110, 032426 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Paviglianiti, X

    A. Paviglianiti, X. Turkeshi, M. Schir` o, and A. Silva, Enhanced Entanglement in the Measurement-Altered Quantum Ising Chain, Quantum8, 1576 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    S. J. Avakian, T. Pereg-Barnea, and W. Witczak- Krempa, Long-range multipartite entanglement near measurement-induced transitions, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023135 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    S. J. Garratt, Z. Weinstein, and E. Altman, Measure- ments conspire nonlocally to restructure critical quantum states, Phys. Rev. X13, 021026 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Ashida, S

    Y. Ashida, S. Furukawa, and M. Oshikawa, System- environment entanglement phase transitions, Phys. Rev. B110, 094404 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Tang and X

    Q. Tang and X. Wen, A critical state under weak mea- surement is not critical (2024), arXiv:2411.13705 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Z. Yang, D. Mao, and C.-M. Jian, Entanglement in a one-dimensional critical state after measurements, Phys. Rev. B108, 165120 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Weinstein, R

    Z. Weinstein, R. Sajith, E. Altman, and S. J. Garratt, Nonlocality and entanglement in measured critical quan- tum ising chains, Phys. Rev. B107, 245132 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Murciano, P

    S. Murciano, P. Sala, Y. Liu, R. S. K. Mong, and J. Alicea, Measurement-altered ising quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. X13, 041042 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    P. Sala, S. Murciano, Y. Liu, and J. Alicea, Quantum criticality under imperfect teleportation, PRX Quantum 5, 030307 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    J. Y. Lee, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, Quantum criticality under decoherence or weak measurement, PRX Quantum 4, 030317 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Anders, D

    J. Anders, D. K. L. Oi, E. Kashefi, D. E. Browne, and E. Andersson, Ancilla-driven universal quantum compu- tation, Phys. Rev. A82, 020301 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    T. J. Proctor, E. Andersson, and V. Kendon, Universal quantum computation by the unitary control of ancilla qubits and using a fixed ancilla-register interaction, Phys. Rev. A88, 042330 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V. Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, M. T. Fishman, F. Verstraete, and J. Haegeman, Variational optimization algorithms for uniform matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B97, 045145 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Zauner-Stauber, L

    V. Zauner-Stauber, L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, I. P. McCulloch, and F. Verstraete, Topological nature of spinons and holons: Elementary excitations from matrix product states with conserved symmetries, Phys. Rev. B 97, 235155 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    Vanderstraeten, J

    L. Vanderstraeten, J. Haegeman, and F. Verstraete, Tangent-space methods for uniform matrix product states, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes 10.21468/scipost- physlectnotes.7 (2019)

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    A. A. Gangat, Weak first-order phase transitions in the frustrated square latticeJ 1 −J 2 classical ising model, Phys. Rev. B109, 104419 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.