Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Detection of 2D SPT phases under decoherence

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a partial-symmetry order parameter built from the canonical purification of a decohered two-dimensional state detects the mixed-state symmetry-protected topological (SPT) invariants jointly protected by a strong and…

desk verdict A new bulk order parameter for decohered SPTs with an honest caveat that limits its current reach to fixed-point states. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00127 v1 pith:HPSRAPTA submitted 2025-06-30 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Naren Manjunath , Alex Turzillo , Chong Wang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords mixed-stateSPTpartialsymmetryorderparameterdecoherenceCZXmodelcanonicalpurificationweakrandomizedmeasurementstopologicalinvariants
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 tries to establish that symmetry-protected topological (SPT) order in two-dimensional mixed states can be detected by a bulk order parameter built from partial rotations acting on the square root of the density matrix. For a symmetry group $G = E \times A$, with $E$ a strong symmetry and $A$ a weak one, the proposed quantity $J_{g,h,M}$ extracts the SPT invariants jointly protected by $E$ and $A$, while invariants protected only by the weak symmetry drop out. This matters because existing theory classifies mixed-state SPT phases in (2+1) dimensions but lacks bulk order parameters to measure them; an experimentally measurable order parameter turns a classification into a diagnostic.

What carries the argument

The central object is $J_{g,h,M} = \arg \mathrm{Tr}[U^D_{gh} C^D_M \sqrt{\rho} C^{\dagger D}_M U^{\dagger D}_h \sqrt{\rho}]$, a partial-rotation order parameter acting on the canonical purification $|\sqrt{\rho}\rangle\rangle$. It generalizes the pure-state partial symmetry order parameter of prior work by inserting $\sqrt{\rho}$ on both sides, which makes it sensitive to the doubled-space structure. The argument reduces the mixed-state computation to products $I_{gh,M} I^*_{h,M}$ of pure-state invariants, with the constraint that $g$ be a strong symmetry; $h$ can be any element, and varying $h$ exposes the joint invariants.

What would settle it

Construct a two-dimensional mixed state that is two-way connected to the trivial state by symmetric finite-depth channels but whose canonical purification is long-range entangled; in such a state $J_{g,h,M}$ would either be ill-defined or return a non-trivial phase, disproving the claim that it detects the channel-connectivity invariant. Alternatively, simulate the CZX model under dephasing on a small lattice and check whether the measured $J$ obeys $(-1)^{g_b n_b + h_a g_b n_{ab}}$ for all $g,h$; a mismatch for some $h$ would falsify the reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phase of $\mathrm{Tr}[U^D_{gh} C^D_M \sqrt{\rho} C^{\dagger D}_M U^{\dagger D}_h \sqrt{\rho}]$ is a bulk order parameter for mixed-state SPT invariants. In the exactly solvable two-layer CZX model with $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry, after dephasing one $\mathbb{Z}_2$ factor into a weak symmetry, the order parameter evaluates to $I^{\mathrm{pure}}_{gh,2} I^{\mathrm{pure}*}_{h,2} = (-1)^{g_b n_b + h_a g_b n_{ab}}$. This detects the invariant $n_b$ of the strong symmetry and the jointly protected invariant $n_{ab}$, while $n_a$, the invariant of the weakened symmetry, cancels and is declared not a well-defined mixed-state SPT invariant. The result matches the expected classification $H^3(E \times A, U(1))/H^3(A, U(1))$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a mixed state with SPT order defined through symmetric finite-depth channels always has a canonical purification $|\sqrt{\rho}\rangle\rangle$ that is short-range entangled and carries the same topological invariant; the paper states this equivalence has not been established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SPT invariants jointly protected by strong and weak symmetries can be measured directly from the bulk of a decohered state, without access to the boundary.
  • Invariants protected only by the weak symmetry are not measurable by this probe and are not well-defined mixed-state SPT invariants, consistent with the quotient classification.
  • The order parameter is in principle measurable on quantum simulators via randomized measurements (classical shadows), with overhead exponential in the boundary of the region $D$ rather than the system size.
  • The construction extends to general finite Abelian groups $G = E \times A$, with the same reduction to products of pure-state invariants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the conjecture on canonical purification holds, $J_{g,h,M}$ would be the first bulk order parameter for any 2D mixed-state SPT, and one could use it to probe decoherence-driven transitions between SPT and trivial states by watching the phase of $J$.
  • The same strategy may extend to intrinsic topological order in mixed states, since the paper notes the order parameter simulates lens-space partition functions; a doubled-space version could yield effective partition functions for mixed-state topological phases.
  • The exponential suppression found for weak $g$ at $q \neq 1/2$ suggests a diagnosable signature of strong-to-weak symmetry breaking or of the loss of a well-defined invariant, which could be tested in state-preparation experiments.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a bulk order parameter J_{g,h,M} for two-dimensional mixed-state symmetry-protected topological (SPT) phases with symmetry G = E x A, where E is a strong symmetry and A is a weak symmetry. The construction generalizes the pure-state partial-rotation order parameter of the companion paper [21] to mixed states via the canonical purification |sqrt(rho)>>. The paper evaluates J exactly for a bilayer CZX-type model at the maximally decohered point q = 1/2, obtaining J_{g,h,M} = (-1)^{g_b n_b + h_a g_b n_{ab}}, and concludes that the index n_a of the weak subgroup is no longer well defined while n_b and n_{ab} remain detectable. It then sketches the extension to general G = E x A and discusses Hadamard-test and randomized-measurement protocols. The fixed-point calculation is explicit and internally consistent, but the interpretation of J as a mixed-state SPT invariant depends on an open conjecture connecting channel-connectivity SPT phases to canonical purifications.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a genuinely useful advance: it provides the first explicit bulk order parameter for two-dimensional mixed-state SPT order at exactly solvable fixed points, and the proposed measurement protocols are practical for small systems. The calculation is transparent, involves no fitted parameters, and the paper is unusually honest about its limitations. However, the stress-test concern is real and load-bearing. The paper's central claim that J detects the mixed-state SPT invariant is established only through Eq. (14), which identifies J with a pure-state partial-rotation invariant of the canonical purification |sqrt(rho)>>. The exact equivalence between the channel-connectivity definition of mixed-state SPT and the canonical-purification definition is explicitly conceded not to have been established. As a result, the paper currently demonstrates a fixed-point diagnostic for a class of states whose canonical purification is short-range entangled, rather than a proven bulk invariant for the entire channel-connectivity phase.

major comments (3)
  1. [Mixed state order parameter] The central claim that J_{g,h,M} measures the mixed-state SPT invariant depends on the unproved equivalence between the channel-connectivity definition of mixed-state SPT phases and the canonical-purification definition. The manuscript states this explicitly: 'the exact equivalence between the definitions of SPT through channel connectivity and canonical purification has not been established. A priori, the canonical purification can fail to give the right invariant if |sqrt(rho)>> is not short-range entangled.' Since J is defined through sqrt(rho), a valid channel-connectivity SPT state whose canonical purification is not short-range entangled could in principle give a J that does not correspond to the channel SPT invariant. The fixed-point CZX calculation at q=1/2, where sqrt(rho) is proportional to rho, does not resolve this gap. Because this issue is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, it needs to be either proved under stated assumptions or clearly separated as a conjecture on which the order parameter's topological interpretation rests.
  2. [Mixed state CZX calculation, Eq. (16)] The step from the third to the fourth line of Eq. (16) uses the lemma, imported from Ref. [21], that the amplitudes <g,M alpha| U^D_g C^D_M |alpha> are independent of alpha for group-cohomology models. This is stated, not proved here, and the paper does not establish how the lemma behaves under the weak/strong symmetry structure or under symmetric finite-depth channels. For general q, the calculation in Appendix B is performed only for the Renyi-2 proxy J^(2) defined in Eq. (B4), and the paper does not show that J^(2) equals J_{g,h,M} away from q=1/2 or that the Renyi-2 proxy is itself a well-defined topological invariant. This leaves the order parameter's validity outside the special fixed point q=1/2 as an assumption rather than a result.
  3. [Discussion] The Discussion explicitly leaves open whether J_{g,h,M} is robust under low-depth circuits of local symmetric channels, which is precisely the notion of deformation that defines mixed-state SPT phases. For J to be a bulk order parameter rather than a fixed-point diagnostic, invariance under such deformations is necessary. The paper provides no deformation-stability calculation or numerical check for the mixed-state setting, and the pure-state evidence cited from Ref. [21] does not automatically transfer because the symmetry conditions (strong versus weak) and the action of channels are different. I recommend that the authors either supply such a check for a one-parameter family of states or substantially temper the claim that J detects the mixed-state SPT invariant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, after Eq. (B5)] The text after Eq. (B5) says 'one of the conditions alpha_{a,p} = alpha_{b,p} or alpha'_{a,p} = alpha'_{b,p} is violated'; from Eq. (B1) the relevant conditions should be alpha_{a,p} = beta_{a,p} and alpha'_{a,p} = beta'_{a,p}, comparing a-layer variables between the two copies rather than comparing a- and b-layer variables.
  2. [Measurement protocols] The stated sample complexity 'r ~ O(2c|D|/epsilon)' appears to intend an exponential dependence 2^{c|D|}/epsilon; as written, '2c|D|' is dimensionally inconsistent and confusing.
  3. [Eq. (16)] The delta factor delta(g_a = 0) is introduced only in the final line of Eq. (16); for clarity, the paper should state explicitly that for q=1/2 the trace vanishes identically when g_a is nonzero, so that J is undefined in that case, and only then present the nonzero result for strong g.
  4. [Pure state SPT calculation, Eq. (6)] The definition I_g := I_{g,4} I_{g,2} I_{e,4} includes I_{e,4}, which is later found to be 1 for all cases considered; the manuscript should either explain why this factor is needed in general or omit it to avoid suggesting it carries nontrivial information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixed-state order parameter is evaluated directly, and its reduction to pure-state partial-rotation invariants is a derived consequence, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter and then rename it a prediction. The order parameter J_{g,h,M} is defined explicitly in Eq. (13), and its reduction to pure-state invariants, J_{g,h,M} = I^pure_{gh,M} I^{pure*}_{h,M}, is obtained by a direct trace calculation in Eq. (16) for the CZX fixed point. The quantities n_a, n_b, n_ab are inputs of the model Hamiltonian, not outputs tuned to match J. The claim that the weak-symmetry-only invariant n_a is not detected follows from the constraint δ(g_a = 0), which emerges from the calculation, and the cancellation of the h = 0 terms, rather than being imposed by hand. The main reliance on the authors' prior pure-state result [21] is legitimate supporting material: the relevant pure-state property for the CZX example is re-derived in this paper (Eqs. (8)-(11) and Appendix A), and the general group-cohomology statement is parameter-free and does not assume the mixed-state conclusion. The paper also explicitly flags a genuine open limitation rather than concealing it: 'the exact equivalence between the definitions of SPT through channel connectivity and canonical purification has not been established. A priori, the canonical purification can fail to give the right invariant if |sqrt(rho)>> is not short-range entangled.' This is a correctness risk that could invalidate the physical interpretation of J, but it is not a circular step: J's value is not defined to be the channel-connectivity invariant, and the paper does not claim the equivalence has been proven. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forcing the result is present. The derivation is self-contained for the fixed-point models it analyzes.

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

No free parameters are fitted. The central calculation depends on the quoted axioms, chiefly the pure-state amplitude lemma from the authors' companion paper and the conjectural purification-channel equivalence. No new particles, forces, or conserved charges are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bosonic SPT phases with finite internal symmetry G are classified by H^{d+1}(G, U(1)), and mixed-state SPTs with strong E and weak A by H^{d+1}(G, U(1)) / H^{d+1}(A, U(1)).
    Used as the target classification for J; sourced from Refs [4-6,8-10,23].
  • standard math For group cohomology fixed-point states, the partial-rotation amplitude <g,M alpha| U^D_g C^D_M |alpha> is independent of the configuration alpha.
    Imported from Ref [21] and used in Eq. (16) to factor the mixed-state trace; not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Canonical purification |sqrt(rho)>> of a valid mixed-state SPT is short-range entangled and yields the same invariant as the channel-connectivity definition.
    The paper states this equivalence is not established and offers it as a conjecture; J is defined through sqrt(rho), so the invariant interpretation depends on it.
  • domain assumption The C4 rotation symmetry C_M commutes locally with the symmetry operators U_g in the CZX fixed-point model.
    Required for the partial rotation order parameter; the model is constructed so that this holds (Ref [21], Sec. on pure state SPT calculation).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of 2D SPT phases under decoherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPSRAPTA

@misc{pith2026250700127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of 2D SPT phases under decoherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPSRAPTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00127}
}
abstract

We propose a bulk order parameter for extracting symmetry-protected topological (SPT) invariants of quantum many-body mixed states on a two dimensional lattice using partial symmetries. The procedure builds on the partial symmetry order parameter recently developed by some of the authors to study SPT phases of pure states and adapts them to the decohered setting. For a symmetry $G = E \times A$ where $E$ is a strong symmetry and $A$ is a weak symmetry, we show that the partial symmetry order parameter detects SPT invariants jointly protected by $E$ and $A$. We demonstrate this explicitly using a class of mixed states obtained from CZX-type models with $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry and subjecting them to noise that weakens one of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetries. We also comment on the practical detection of SPT invariants in quantum simulators through randomized measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Notations for the two-layer CZX model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Notation for (a) pairwise cancellation of contributions from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, M

    D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, M. M. Wolf, M. Sanz, F. Ver- straete, and J. I. Cirac, String order and symmetries in quantum spin lattices, Physical Review Letters 100, 10.1103/physrevlett.100.167202 (2008)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.167202 2008

  2. [1]

    Coser and D

    A. Coser and D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, Classification of phases for mixed states via fast dissipative evolu- tion, Quantum 3, 174 (2019)

    2019

  3. [2]

    partition functions

    We define the operators Xs,l,j, which takes |αs,l,j⟩ → |αs,l,j + 1⟩, and CZ s,l,j1,j2 which takes |{αs,l,j}⟩ → (−1)αs,l,j1 αs,l,j2 |{αs,l,j}⟩. This is a controlled-Z operator acting on a single layer l. Let Xs,l = ⊗jXs,l,j and CZ s,l = ⊗jCZ s,l,j,j+1. Now the single-site symmetry action corresponding to ω in Eq. (1) can be implemented as follows (below we...

    work page

  4. [3]

    de Groot, A

    C. de Groot, A. Turzillo, and N. Schuch, Symmetry protected topological order in open quantum sys- tems, Quantum 6, 856 (2022)

    2022

  5. [4]

    Buˇ ca and T

    B. Buˇ ca and T. Prosen, A note on symmetry re- ductions of the lindblad equation: transport in con- strained open spin chains, New Journal of Physics 14, 073007 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    Ma, J.-H

    R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Topological Phases with Average Symmetries: The Decohered, the Disordered, and the Intrinsic (2025), arXiv:2305.16399 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Average symmetry-protected topological phases, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031016 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    H. Xue, J. Y. Lee, and Y. Bao, Tensor network for- mulation of symmetry protected topological phases in mixed states, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.17069 (2024), arXiv:2403.17069 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Ma and A

    R. Ma and A. Turzillo, Symmetry-protected topo- logical phases of mixed states in the doubled space, PRX Quantum 6, 010348 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    L. A. Lessa, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Mixed- State Quantum Anomaly and Multipartite Entan- glement, Physical Review X 15, 011069 (2025), arXiv:2401.17357 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, and C. Xu, Symmetry pro- tected topological phases under decoherence, Quan- tum 9, 1607 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Xu and C.-M

    Y. Xu and C.-M. Jian, Average-exact mixed anoma- lies and compatible phases, Phys. Rev. B 111, 125128 (2025), arXiv:2406.07417 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    and local purification [13]. New mixed state order parameters, including generalized string order parameters [3], strange correlators [8, 14] and sep- arability measures [15], have elucidated the effects of decoherence on topological phases in one and two space dimensions [15–...

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Wang and L

    Z. Wang and L. Li, Anomaly in open quantum sys- tems and its implications on mixed-state quantum phases, PRX Quantum 6, 010347 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    S. Lu, P. Zhu, and Y.-M. Lu, Bilayer construc- tion for mixed state phenomena with strong, 7 weak symmetries and symmetry breakings (2024), arXiv:2411.07174 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Guo, J.-H

    Y. Guo, J.-H. Zhang, H.-R. Zhang, S. Yang, and Z. Bi, Locally purified density operators for symmetry-protected topological phases in mixed states, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021060 (2025)

    2025

  9. [16]

    Zhang, Y

    J.-H. Zhang, Y. Qi, and Z. Bi, Fidelity Strange Cor- relators for Average Symmetry-Protected Topologi- cal Phases, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2210.17485 (2022), arXiv:2210.17485 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022

  10. [17]

    Chen and T

    Y.-H. Chen and T. Grover, Symmetry-enforced many-body separability transitions, PRX Quantum 5, 030310 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    K. Su, N. Myerson-Jain, and C. Xu, Conformal field theories generated by chern insulators under deco- herence or measurement, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035146 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Guo and Y

    Y. Guo and Y. Ashida, Two-dimensional symmetry- protected topological phases and transitions in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B109, 195420 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    T. G. Kiely and C. Xu, Phase transition of topological index driven by dephasing (2025), arXiv:2506.04102 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Tantivasadakarn, Dimensional reduction and topological invariants of symmetry-protected topo- logical phases, Physical Review B 96, 10.1103/phys- revb.96.195101 (2017)

    N. Tantivasadakarn, Dimensional reduction and topological invariants of symmetry-protected topo- logical phases, Physical Review B 96, 10.1103/phys- revb.96.195101 (2017)

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Turzillo, N

    A. Turzillo, N. Manjunath, and J. Garre-Rubio, Detection of 2d spt order with partial symmetries (2025), arXiv:2503.04510 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Two- dimensional symmetry-protected topological or- ders and their protected gapless edge excitations, Physical Review B 84, 10.1103/physrevb.84.235141 (2011)

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Sym- metry protected topological orders and the group cohomology of their symmetry group, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155114 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Shiozaki, H

    K. Shiozaki, H. Shapourian, and S. Ryu, Many- body topological invariants in fermionic symmetry- protected topological phases: Cases of point group symmetries, Physical Review B 95, 10.1103/phys- revb.95.205139 (2017), arXiv:1609.05970 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zhang, N

    Y. Zhang, N. Manjunath, R. Kobayashi, and M. Barkeshli, Complete crystalline topological in- variants from partial rotations in (2+ 1) d invertible fermionic states and hofstadter’s butterfly, Physical Review Letters 131, 176501 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Kobayashi, Y

    R. Kobayashi, Y. Zhang, N. Manjunath, and M. Barkeshli, Crystalline invariants of fractional chern insulators (2024), arXiv:2405.17431 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kobayashi, T

    R. Kobayashi, T. Wang, T. Soejima, R. S. K. Mong, and S. Ryu, Extracting higher central charge from a single wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 016602 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    de Wild Propitius, Topological interactions in broken gauge theories (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9511195 [hep-th]

    M. de Wild Propitius, Topological interactions in broken gauge theories (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9511195 [hep-th]

    1995 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, and C. Xu, Symmetry pro- tected topological phases under decoherence (2023), arXiv:2210.16323 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2023

  25. [33]

    L. A. Lessa, R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Strong-to-Weak Spontaneous Symme- try Breaking in Mixed Quantum States, PRX Quan- tum 6, 010344 (2025), arXiv:2405.03639 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P. Sala, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Oshikawa, and Y. You, Spontaneous strong symmetry breaking in open systems: Purification perspective, Phys. Rev. B 110, 155150 (2024), arXiv:2405.02402 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Z. Liu, L. Chen, Y. Zhang, S. Zhou, and P. Zhang, Diagnosing Strong-to-Weak Symmetry Breaking via Wightman Correlators, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.09327 (2024), arXiv:2410.09327 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Weinstein, Efficient Detection of Strong-To-Weak Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking via the R´ enyi-1 Correlator, Phys

    Z. Weinstein, Efficient Detection of Strong-To-Weak Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking via the R´ enyi-1 Correlator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 150405 (2025), arXiv:2410.23512 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Elben, B

    A. Elben, B. Vermersch, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Statistical correlations between locally randomized measurements: A toolbox for probing entanglement in many-body quantum states, Phys. Rev. A 99, 052323 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Elben, J

    A. Elben, J. Yu, G. Zhu, M. Hafezi, F. Poll- mann, P. Zoller, and B. Vermersch, Many- body topological invariants from randomized measurements in synthetic quantum mat- ter, Science Advances 6, eaaz3666 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aaz3666

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Z.-P. Cian, H. Dehghani, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, G. Zhu, M. Barkeshli, P. Zoller, and M. Hafezi, Many-body chern number from statistical correla- tions of randomized measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 050501 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Elben, S

    A. Elben, S. T. Flammia, H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, J. Preskill, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, The ran- domized measurement toolbox, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 9 (2023). 8 FIG. 2: Notation for (a) pairwise cancellation of contributions from CZ gates in the bulk (the case where e is ...

    2023

  34. [42]

    We wish to show that the value ofIg,2 does not depend on the choice of rotation center

    Pure state CZX calculation Here we wish to evaluate Ig,2 for the bilayer CZX state, allowing the rotation region D to be an arbitrarily large square region with either vertex- or plaquette-centered rotations. We wish to show that the value ofIg,2 does not depend on the choice ...

  35. [43]

    Choosing q = 1/2 results in the mixed state ρ = O p X αa,p |αa,p⟩⟨αa,p|

    Sensitivity of Tr(ρU D g C D M ) to rotation center Consider a single layer of the CZX model with decoherence as defined in the main text. Choosing q = 1/2 results in the mixed state ρ = O p X αa,p |αa,p⟩⟨αa,p| . (A7) This mixed state has a single weak Z2 symmetry with generat...

  36. [44]

    Mixed state calculation Let us instead consider the order parameter Jg,h,M defined in Eq. (B4). We use Eq. (16) from the main text: Jg,h,2 = arg X αa,αb,β′ b ⟨UghCD 2 αa, β′ b|U D ghC D 2 |αa, αb⟩(⟨UghCD 2 αa, β′ b|U D h C D 2 |αa, αb⟩)† (A9) Each term in the above sum is nonz...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.