Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The entanglement Hamiltonian of monitored free fermions undergoes an ergodic-to-localized spectral transition at the same critical measurement rate as the entanglement-entropy transition, and short-range spectral statistics detect it sharpl

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 20:24 UTC pith:U3PAMIAS

load-bearing objection The RMT entanglement-Hamiltonian diagnostic is a genuine step forward, but the 2D critical exponent ν≈0.86 is not yet established because the 2D scaling ansatz omits corrections that the paper's own 3D analysis requires. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08584 v1 pith:U3PAMIAS submitted 2025-09-10 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nn

Spectral Transitions of the Entanglement Hamiltonian in Monitored Free Fermions

Karim Chahine , Michael Buchhold This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords monitored free fermionsmeasurement-induced phase transitionentanglement Hamiltonianrandom matrix theorylevel statisticsKullback-Leibler divergencequantum Lifshitz fixed pointspectral form factor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that the entanglement Hamiltonian—the effective single-particle Hamiltonian obtained from a subsystem's reduced density matrix—carries sharp spectral signatures of the measurement-induced phase transition in monitored free fermions. In two dimensions, the adjacent gap ratio and the Kullback–Leibler divergence of consecutive eigenstates switch from Wigner–Dyson (ergodic) to Poisson (localized) statistics at the same critical measurement rate γ_c ≈ 5.16 that entanglement entropy marks as the transition into the area-law phase, and finite-size scaling yields a correlation-length exponent ν ≈ 0.86, close to critical percolation in d+1 = 3 dimensions. The same analysis works in three dimensions and correctly finds no finite-rate transition in one dimension. Along the way the paper identifies three nontrivial fixed points—a Gaussian Page law at infinitesimal monitoring, a Fermi-liquid fixed point at intermediate monitoring with logarithmic entanglement growth, and a quantum Lifshitz fixed point at the transition—structure that current field-theoretic descriptions have not predicted. If the paper is right, the entanglement Hamiltonian gives a practical random-matrix toolkit for diagnosing metallic, localized, and possibly multifractal regimes in monitored quantum dynamics.

Core claim

Defining the entanglement Hamiltonian H_A through ρ_A = Z_A^{-1} exp(−H_A), the paper analyzes the eigenvalue and eigenstate statistics of H_A for Gaussian monitored states on a checkerboard subsystem. Weak monitoring yields GUE level statistics and extended entanglement modes (⟨r̃⟩ ≈ 0.60, KL1 = O(1)); strong monitoring yields Poisson statistics and localized modes (⟨r̃⟩ ≈ 0.39, KL1 ∝ L). Both observables cross at γ_c ≈ 5.16 in D = 2, and a weighted one-parameter finite-size collapse gives γ_c = 5.16 ± 0.03 and ν = 0.86 ± 0.03. The spectral form factor and its Thouless time corroborate the transition, while the KL2 variant shows a crossing at an intermediate rate γ* < γ_c, which the authors

What carries the argument

The central object is the entanglement Hamiltonian H_A, defined by ρ_A = Z_A^{-1} exp(−H_A) for a subsystem A; because the monitored state remains Gaussian, H_A is a free-fermion Hamiltonian whose single-particle spectrum {ε_α} and eigenfunctions {ψ_α} can be computed from the subsystem correlation matrix. The paper treats H_A as a random matrix: the average adjacent gap ratio ⟨r̃⟩ and the Kullback–Leibler divergences KL1 and KL2 compare consecutive-level statistics and eigenfunction overlap, while the spectral form factor probes long-range correlations through the Thouless time. A checkerboard subsystem geometry samples all single-particle states evenly and suppresses boundary-dominated spe

Load-bearing premise

The 2D critical parameters rest on the assumption that the data collapse onto a single scaling function of (γ−γ_c)L^{1/ν} with no additional finite-size correction terms; the paper's own 3D analysis shows a conventional collapse fails there and needs an added correction A δγ, so if comparable corrections are present in 2D the extracted ν ≈ 0.86 could shift.

What would settle it

Repeat the 2D finite-size analysis at L = 64 and L = 80, fitting ⟨r̃⟩ and KL1 with the correction-augmented ansatz F(δγ L^{1/ν}(1 + A δγ)) used for 3D; if including A moves γ_c outside the quoted error bars or changes ν substantially from 0.86, the claimed sharp transition and percolation-like exponent are finite-size artifacts of the one-parameter collapse.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In D = 3 the same spectral toolkit locates the transition at γ_c ≈ 11.4, with KL1 giving ν ≈ 0.77, showing that the diagnostic transfers beyond two dimensions.
  • In D = 1 there is no transition at finite measurement rate: the crossing point drifts toward γ = 0 as L grows, consistent with the nonlinear-sigma-model prediction that number-conserving monitored free fermions localize immediately in one dimension.
  • The 2D exponent ν ≈ 0.86 is close to critical percolation in 3D and conflicts with earlier numerical and NLσM-based estimates ν > 1, so the transition's universality class is not captured by current field-theoretic approaches.
  • KL2 shows a crossing at an intermediate rate γ* with γ_Fl < γ* < γ_c, suggesting a possible non-ergodic extended or multifractal regime that short-range probes would miss; the paper leaves this as an open question.
  • Because the method only requires Gaussianity of the state, it extends directly to Z2-symmetric Majorana circuits and other monitored free-fermion settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If ν ≈ 0.86 holds at larger sizes, the 2D transition may belong to the same universality class as three-dimensional percolation; one test is measuring the fractal dimension of critical entanglement eigenstates and comparing it with the percolation value.
  • Inference: The checkerboard-subsystem geometry that removes boundary-dominated spectral tails could be adopted in other entanglement-Hamiltonian studies, including disordered free-fermion systems, to sharpen level-statistics collapses.
  • Inference: The Fermi-liquid fixed point's logarithmic growth with the same prefactor in space and time hints at an emergent Lorentz invariance at γ_Fl; unequal-time density correlations at this rate would test whether that is a true dynamical symmetry or an entanglement-only feature.
  • Inference: The KL2 crossing below γ_c, if confirmed by larger systems, predicts an intermediate multifractal phase whose eigenstates occupy a vanishing fraction of the subsystem; a direct box-counting multifractal analysis of |ψ_α(i)|^2 at those rates would settle it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies monitored free fermions on hypercubic lattices in D=1,2,3, using the entanglement Hamiltonian of a subsystem as a diagnostic. The authors identify four fixed points from entanglement scaling: a Gaussian Page-law fixed point at γ→0+, a Fermi-liquid fixed point at moderate monitoring with logarithmic entanglement growth and emergent space-time invariance, a quantum Lifshitz fixed point at the measurement-induced transition, and a conventional area-law fixed point at strong monitoring. They then apply random-matrix-theory diagnostics—the adjacent gap ratio ⟨r̃⟩, Kullback-Leibler divergences KL1 and KL2, and the spectral form factor—to the entanglement spectrum. For D=2, they report a sharp ergodic-to-non-ergodic spectral transition at γc≈5.16 with correlation-length exponent ν≈0.86, close to 3D percolation, and corroborate this with long-range probes. They report an analogous transition in D=3, with less consistent exponents, and the absence of a transition in D=1. The paper also reports a possible non-ergodic extended regime at intermediate monitoring strengths, though it states the evidence is inconclusive.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim holds, the paper offers a useful new diagnostic for measurement-induced phase transitions in free-fermion systems, via the entanglement Hamiltonian's spectral statistics, and provides a concrete numerical connection to quantum Lifshitz and Fermi-liquid scaling that goes beyond current field-theoretic treatments. The strength of the paper is that several independent observables (⟨r̃⟩, KL1, SFF, and to some extent KL2) agree on the existence and approximate location of the spectral transition in D=2, and the null result in D=1 and extension to D=3 add internal consistency. The use of external RMT benchmarks (Wigner-Dyson, Poisson) anchors the interpretation in established physics rather than in a self-referential criterion. However, the paper's headline quantitative result—precise values of γc and ν supporting a percolation-type exponent—rests on a finite-size scaling analysis whose pure one-parameter ansatz is not tested against corrections to scaling, despite the paper's own D=3 analysis requiring such corrections. The statistical uncertainty estimates are also asserted rather than derived. These issues are fixable but currently leave the most load

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eq. (26)] The central D=2 claim—γc≈5.16 and ν≈0.86 close to 3D percolation—relies on the pure scaling ansatz F(γ,L)=F((γ−γc)L^{1/ν}) with no correction-to-scaling terms. However, Section IV.B and Eq. (27) show that the same observables in D=3 cannot be collapsed with the analogous A=0 ansatz and require the nonlinear correction (1+Aδγ). The paper does not test whether a similar correction is needed in D=2. If an analogous correction is present, the extracted ν is an effective exponent and the apparent agreement with ν≈0.87 may be a fitting artifact. This is load-bearing for the abstract's claim of 'precise estimates of the critical point and correlation length exponent' and for the percolation interpretation. The authors should either perform a corrected scaling collapse in D=2 (e.g., with an analogous A term) or demonstrate that such corrections do not affect ν within their error bars.
  2. [Section IV.A, cost-function analysis] The quoted error bars, e.g. γc=5.19±0.03 and ν=0.88±0.03, are estimated from contours at χ*+4 of a cost function F_cost, but the statistical interpretation of this contour as a confidence region is asserted, not derived. The data entering the collapse are correlated across γ and L (the same trajectories and spectra contribute to nearby points), so the residuals are not independent chi-squared variables. The paper should specify the exact definition of F_cost, how the spline and degrees of freedom are handled, and justify or replace the χ*+4 contour. Alternatively, the errors can be rephrased as sensitivity ranges of the collapse rather than confidence intervals.
  3. [Eq. (11) and fixed-point classification] The abstract and Section II.B state that the entanglement at the fixed points follows 'exact analytical scaling forms' and that the analytical dependence contains no free parameters at points (i), (ii), and (iv), while point (iii) involves a single fitting parameter. Equation (11), however, contains three parameters: the amplitude a, offset b, and λ, with values a≈−1, b≈0.3, and λ=1 reported numerically. It is unclear which of these are fitted, which are fixed, and how stable the identification of 'quantum Lifshitz scaling' is to variations in a and b. This should be clarified, and the claim of 'exact' scaling forms should be adjusted to state which parameters are free.
  4. [Section IV.B, Eq. (28)] In D=3, the correlation-length exponents extracted from ⟨r̃⟩ and KL1 differ drastically: ν=0.99±0.13 versus ν=0.77±0.02. The paper attributes this to finite-size effects in ⟨r̃⟩, noting its slow convergence to the Poisson limit. This is plausible, but it also means that the two observables do not independently confirm each other in D=3. The paper should provide additional evidence for this attribution (e.g., a larger-L study of ⟨r̃⟩, or an analysis of the collapse residual as a function of L) rather than relying on a post-hoc explanation, since the D=3 section is used to support the method's generality.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A / Fig. 2(d)] The caption of Fig. 2(d) says ratios are computed 'over the full ensemble of eigenvalues, i.e. bunched up across trajectories,' but Section III.C states that ⟨r̃⟩ is first averaged over levels of a single spectrum and then over trajectories. The text and figure caption should be reconciled.
  2. [Section IV.A, Fig. 6] The threshold ε=0.05 in the definition of the Thouless time is introduced without discussion of its dependence on system size or unfolding details. A sentence justifying the choice and its robustness would strengthen the SFF analysis.
  3. [Section II.B, Fig. 1] The text uses 'fixed points' in the RG sense, but Fig. 1 shows data at specific finite γ values. The distinction between fixed points and fixed-point scaling forms should be stated more carefully, especially since some readers may interpret the finite-size data as evidence of exact scale invariance rather than a scaling regime.
  4. [Appendix A, Fig. 10(a)] The extraction of c(γ) via a linear fit in 1/L is described briefly; reporting the fit range and residuals would help assess the claim that the crossing at γ_Fl is sharp.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: central claims rest on independent numerical data and external RMT/scaling benchmarks; minor self-citations are not load-bearing, and one consistency check reuses fitted parameters without rising to definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (1) simulate monitored free fermions with exact Gaussian-state updates; (2) compute the entanglement entropy and the entanglement Hamiltonian spectrum directly from the correlation matrix; (3) compare spectral statistics to external, parameter-free benchmarks (GUE/Wigner-Dyson versus Poisson) and entanglement scaling to known analytical forms (Page law, Fermi-liquid log law, Lifshitz J(u)); (4) extract gamma_c and nu via an explicitly stated one-parameter scaling ansatz, F(gamma,L)=F((gamma-gamma_c)L^{1/nu}). No step defines a target quantity in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The Lifshitz and Fermi-liquid fixed-point identifications are fits -- lambda, a, b, and s0 are fitted parameters, as the text acknowledges ('lambda a free parameter. Numerically we find lambda=1') -- but they are presented as matching forms, not as first-principles predictions of those parameters. The SFF/Thouless-time collapse in Sec. IV.A uses the short-range-fitted values gamma_c=5.16 and nu=0.86, making it a self-consistency check rather than an independent confirmation; this weakens the word 'corroborate' but does not make the central derivation circular. Self-citations (Refs. 45 and 46) are used for prior observations that are either independently reproduced here or belong to a different model, so no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely through self-citation. The discrepancy with nu ~ 1.3 from other studies is explicitly acknowledged, further indicating that the result is not shielded by definition. Overall, the core claims are not circular; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and an overclaimed consistency check.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

13 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard RMT benchmarks, the free-fermion structure of rho_A, the checkerboard geometry assumption, and the fitted Lifshitz and scaling forms. No new physical entities (particles, mediators, forces) are introduced; the only speculative entity is a possible intermediate multifractal phase that the paper itself leaves unresolved.

free parameters (13)
  • gamma_Fl (Fermi-liquid fixed point rate) = 2.15
    Position of the metallic fixed point; inferred from prefactor crossing in Appendix A and previous work Ref. 45.
  • gamma_c (2D critical rate) = 5.16 +/- 0.03 (combined)
    From cost-function scaling collapse of <r> and KL1 (Eq. 26).
  • nu (2D correlation length exponent) = 0.86 +/- 0.03 (combined)
    Weighted average of <r> and KL1 collapses (Eq. 26).
  • lambda (Lifshitz scaling parameter) = 1
    Free parameter in Eq. 11 fixed by fitting the entropy at gamma_c.
  • a (Lifshitz amplitude) = approx -1
    Fitted amplitude in Eq. 11.
  • b (Lifshitz offset) = approx 0.3
    Fitted offset in Eq. 11.
  • s0 (Fermi-liquid offset) = not reported
    Offset in Eq. 9; matched to entropy data.
  • gamma_c (3D critical rate) = 11.5 +/- 0.2
    From <r> and KL1 in 3D (Eq. 28).
  • nu (3D, from <r>) = 0.99 +/- 0.13
    Inconsistent with KL1 value; attributed to slow convergence to the Poisson limit.
  • nu (3D, from KL1) = 0.77 +/- 0.02
    Claimed more reliable of the two 3D estimates.
  • A (3D scaling correction) = +/- 0.02
    Correction in Eq. 27 required for a 3D collapse.
  • eta (SFF Gaussian filter width) = 0.5
    Fraction of states kept in spectral form factor (Eq. 24); hand-chosen.
  • epsilon (Thouless-time threshold) = 0.05
    Tolerance in |log K - log K_GUE| defining tau_Th; hand-chosen.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The reduced density matrix of a Gaussian state is Gaussian, so H_A is quadratic (Eq. 12, Sec. III.A).
    Standard Wick's theorem result, cited as Ref. 88.
  • domain assumption The discrete-time update with Gaussian noise and QR normalization faithfully implements the continuous-measurement limit (Sec. II.A).
    No dt convergence check or stationarity diagnostic is reported.
  • domain assumption The checkerboard subsystem geometry is representative of the entanglement spectrum physics (Sec. III.B).
    Asserted, with only checkerboard data shown for the transition.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantum Lifshitz scaling form (Eq. 11) describes the critical entropies of monitored free fermions.
    Borrowed from QLM literature; parameters are fitted, no derivation from the model.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2D finite-size scaling ansatz F(gamma,L)=F((gamma-gamma_c)L^(1/nu)) is valid without correction terms (Sec. IV.A).
    3D data requires the correction A*delta_gamma (Eq. 27); analogous corrections in 2D are not examined.
  • domain assumption GUE/Poisson random matrix ensembles are the correct null models for the ergodic/localized entanglement spectrum (Sec. III.B/C).
    Core interpretive premise of the RMT analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Possible non-ergodic extended (multifractal) regime at intermediate coupling no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the KL2 crossing at gamma* with gamma_Fl < gamma* < gamma_c; not established.
    The paper states the data do not conclusively confirm or rule out such a regime (Section IV.A), so it is a speculative phase label rather than a verified entity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18565 in / 20221 out tokens · 192077 ms · 2026-08-04T20:24:54.288888+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We numerically investigate measurement-induced phase transitions in monitored free fermions through the spectral and eigenstate properties of the entanglement Hamiltonian. By analyzing entanglement scaling, we identify three non-trivial fixed points, for which the entanglement follows exact analytical scaling forms: chaotic unitary dynamics at infinitesimal monitoring, characterized by a Gaussian Page law; a Fermi-liquid fixed point at moderate monitoring, defining a metallic phase with logarithmic entanglement growth and emergent space-time invariance; and a quantum Lifshitz fixed point marking the measurement-induced phase transition into a localized area-law phase. Adopting a random-matrix perspective on the entanglement Hamiltonian, we show that short-range spectral correlations, such as the adjacent gap ratio $\langle \tilde r\rangle$ and the Kullback-Leibler divergence $KL_1$, sharply detect an ergodic to non-ergodic phase transition at the quantum Lifshitz fixed point, and yield precise estimates of the critical point and correlation length exponent. Long-range probes, including the spectral form factor and the associated Thouless time, corroborate this picture, while the variant $KL_2$ uncovers signatures of a possible non-ergodic extended (multifractal) regime at intermediate monitoring strengths. Together, these results establish the entanglement Hamiltonian as a powerful framework for diagnosing metallic, localized, and multifractal regimes in monitored quantum dynamics, and highlight unexpected scaling structures, Fermi-liquid and Lifshitz criticality, that lie beyond current field-theoretic approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08584 by Karim Chahine, Michael Buchhold.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fixed points and entanglement properties of monitored free fermions. The phase diagram of monitored free fermions in 1D displays a repulsive, volume-law entanglement fixed point for γ → 0 + and an attractive, area-law fixed point for γ → +∞. Correspondingly, the entanglement entropy displays an area law at asymptotic scales for any γ > 0 41,70. For D ≥ 2 the phase diagram is enriched by a repulsive critica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Subsystem entanglement Hamiltonian. (a) Definition of the entanglement Hamiltonian HA from the subsystem density matrix ρA on some region A. HA gives access to the entanglement spectrum {ϵα} and a set of unambiguous single-particle wave func￾tions {ψ A α (ℓ)}, which in turn can be used to compute entanglement entropies, spectral statistics and spectral and wave function correla￾tions. (b) and (c) show the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Short-range spectral correlations of monitored fermions. Average gap ratio (a) and Kullback–Leibler divergence KL1 (b) for a two-dimensional system as a function of the lin￾ear system size L for weak (blue) and strong (red) measurement rates, corresponding to the ergodic and non-ergodic phases, respec￾tively. (a) In the large-L limit, ⟨r˜⟩ converges to the predictions of the Wigner–Dyson and Poisson distri… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral transition in the entanglement Hamilto￾nian in two dimensions. (a) Average gap ratio ⟨r˜⟩ for system sizes L ∈ [16, 40] as a function of γ, showing a sharp crossing and converg￾ing to the ergodic (localized) limits at weak (strong) monitoring. (b) KL1 for L ∈ [12, 28] as a function of γ, likewise displaying a sharp crossing. (c,d) Finite-size scaling collapse of ⟨r˜⟩ and KL1 using the optimal crit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Long-range Kullback-Leibler divergence. (a) KL2 as a function of γ for system sizes L ∈ [12, 26], confirming the weak- and strong-measurement limits. (b) Zoom on the crossing at γ∗ < γc . B. Spectral transition in three dimensions We extend the entanglement Hamiltonian analysis to mon￾itored free fermions in D = 3 dimensions, both to confirm the robustness of the method and to explore possible universal co… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Entanglement Hamiltonian analysis in 1D. (a) ⟨r˜⟩ as a function of γ and increasing L ∈ [100, 1600]. (b) KL1 and KL2 (inset) as a function of γ and increasing L ∈ [100, 800]. Both ⟨r˜⟩ and KL1 show a drift of the crossing point with increasing L, while the KL2 displays no crossings at all, consistent with the absence of a critical point for finite γ. ically drift toward γ = 0 with increasing system size, c… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two fixed points of monitored fermions in 2D. (a) Pref￾actor c(γ) of the half-system entanglement entropy S (A = L×L/2) = c(γ)L ln L + b(γ)L as a function of the measurement rate γ in the log-law phase. A sharp crossing point reveals the Fermi liquid fixed point. The value of the prefactor is consistent with c(γFl) = 1/3, agreeing with the subsystem scaling and entanglement dynamics data. (b) The mutual i… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Arrow of Time as an indicator of Measurement-Induced Phase Transitions

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The arrow of time exhibits nonanalytic behavior at the critical point of measurement-induced phase transitions, with an identified critical exponent, in an exactly solved model of random quantum circuits with non-proj...

  2. Absence of measurement- and unraveling-induced entanglement transitions in continuously monitored one-dimensional free fermions

    quant-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Replica Keldysh analysis shows monitored 1D free fermions exhibit area-law entanglement beyond an exponentially large scale ln(l_φ,*) ~ J/[γ cos(φ)], with no genuine measurement- or unraveling-induced entanglement tra...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Skinner , author J

    author author B. Skinner , author J. Ruhman , \ and\ author A. Nahum ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031009 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 9 ,\ pages 031009 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031009 2019

  2. [2]

    Li , author X

    author author Y. Li , author X. Chen , \ and\ author M. P. A. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.205136 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 205136 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.205136 2018

  3. [3]

    Li , author X

    author author Y. Li , author X. Chen , \ and\ author M. P. A. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.134306 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 134306 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.134306 2019

  4. [4]

    author author M. J. \ Gullans \ and\ author D. A. \ Huse ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041020 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 10 ,\ pages 041020 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.041020 2020

  5. [5]

    Choi , author Y

    author author S. Choi , author Y. Bao , author X.-L. \ Qi , \ and\ author E. Altman ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.030505 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 030505 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.030505 2020

  6. [6]

    \ Jian , author Y.-Z

    author author C.-M. \ Jian , author Y.-Z. \ You , author R. Vasseur , \ and\ author A. W. W. \ Ludwig ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.104302 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 104302 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.104302 2020

  7. [7]

    Fan , author S

    author author R. Fan , author S. Vijay , author A. Vishwanath , \ and\ author Y.-Z. \ You ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.174309 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 174309 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.174309 2021

  8. [8]

    Li \ and\ author M

    author author Y. Li \ and\ author M. P. A. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.104306 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 104306 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.104306 2021

  9. [9]

    Nahum , author S

    author author A. Nahum , author S. Roy , author B. Skinner , \ and\ author J. Ruhman ,\ 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010352 journal journal PRX Quantum \ volume 2 ,\ pages 010352 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.010352 2021

  10. [10]

    \ Jian , author C

    author author S.-K. \ Jian , author C. Liu , author X. Chen , author B. Swingle , \ and\ author P. Zhang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.140601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 127 ,\ pages 140601 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.140601 2021

  11. [11]

    Bao , author S

    author author Y. Bao , author S. Choi , \ and\ author E. Altman ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2021.168618 journal journal Annals of Physics \ ,\ pages 168618 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Turkeshi , author A

    author author X. Turkeshi , author A. Biella , author R. Fazio , author M. Dalmonte , \ and\ author M. Schir\'o ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.224210 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 224210 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.224210 2021

  13. [13]

    author author D. A. \ Ivanov , author T. Y. \ Ivanova , author S. F. \ Caballero-Benitez , \ and\ author I. B. \ Mekhov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.010603 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 124 ,\ pages 010603 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.010603 2020

  14. [14]

    Buonaiuto , author F

    author author G. Buonaiuto , author F. Carollo , author B. Olmos , \ and\ author I. Lesanovsky ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.133601 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 127 ,\ pages 133601 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.133601 2021

  15. [15]

    Zabalo , author M

    author author A. Zabalo , author M. J. \ Gullans , author J. H. \ Wilson , author S. Gopalakrishnan , author D. A. \ Huse , \ and\ author J. H. \ Pixley ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.060301 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 101 ,\ pages 060301 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.060301 2020

  16. [16]

    Zabalo , author M

    author author A. Zabalo , author M. J. \ Gullans , author J. H. \ Wilson , author R. Vasseur , author A. W. W. \ Ludwig , author S. Gopalakrishnan , author D. A. \ Huse , \ and\ author J. H. \ Pixley ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.050602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 050602 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.050602 2022

  17. [17]

    Ippoliti , author T

    author author M. Ippoliti , author T. Rakovszky , \ and\ author V. Khemani ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011045 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 12 ,\ pages 011045 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.011045 2022

  18. [18]

    author author M. P. \ Fisher , author V. Khemani , author A. Nahum , \ and\ author S. Vijay ,\ 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031720-030658 journal journal Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 335 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031720-030658 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-...

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031720-030658 2023

  19. [19]

    Szyniszewski , author A

    author author M. Szyniszewski , author A. Romito , \ and\ author H. Schomerus ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.210602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 210602 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.210602 2020

  20. [20]

    Szyniszewski , author A

    author author M. Szyniszewski , author A. Romito , \ and\ author H. Schomerus ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.064204 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 064204 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.064204 2019

  21. [21]

    Iadecola , author S

    author author T. Iadecola , author S. Ganeshan , author J. H. \ Pixley , \ and\ author J. H. \ Wilson ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.060403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 131 ,\ pages 060403 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.060403 2023

  22. [22]

    Iadecola , author J

    author author T. Iadecola , author J. H. \ Wilson , \ and\ author J. Pixley ,\ 10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.010351 journal journal PRX Quantum \ volume 6 ,\ pages 010351 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.6.010351 2025

  23. [23]

    Agrawal , author A

    author author U. Agrawal , author A. Zabalo , author K. Chen , author J. H. \ Wilson , author A. C. \ Potter , author J. H. \ Pixley , author S. Gopalakrishnan , \ and\ author R. Vasseur ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.12.041002 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 12 ,\ pages 041002 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.041002 2022

  24. [24]

    Turkeshi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.144313 journal journal Phys

    author author X. Turkeshi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.144313 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 144313 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.144313 2022

  25. [25]

    P\"opperl , author I

    author author P. P\"opperl , author I. V. \ Gornyi , \ and\ author Y. Gefen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.174203 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 174203 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.174203 2023

  26. [26]

    Carollo \ and\ author V

    author author F. Carollo \ and\ author V. Alba ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L220304 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages L220304 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.l220304 2022

  27. [27]

    Sriram , author T

    author author A. Sriram , author T. Rakovszky , author V. Khemani , \ and\ author M. Ippoliti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.094304 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 094304 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.094304 2023

  28. [28]

    Chakraborty , author K

    author author A. Chakraborty , author K. Chen , author A. Zabalo , author J. H. \ Wilson , \ and\ author J. H. \ Pixley ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.110.045135 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 045135 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.045135 2024

  29. [29]

    \ Zhu , author N

    author author G.-Y. \ Zhu , author N. Tantivasadakarn , author A. Vishwanath , author S. Trebst , \ and\ author R. Verresen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.200201 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 131 ,\ pages 200201 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.200201 2023

  30. [30]

    \ Zhu , author N

    author author G.-Y. \ Zhu , author N. Tantivasadakarn , \ and\ author S. Trebst ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.L042063 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 6 ,\ pages L042063 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.l042063 2024

  31. [31]

    Ippoliti , author M

    author author M. Ippoliti , author M. J. \ Gullans , author S. Gopalakrishnan , author D. A. \ Huse , \ and\ author V. Khemani ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.011030 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 11 ,\ pages 011030 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.011030 2021

  32. [32]

    Klocke \ and\ author M

    author author K. Klocke \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.106.104307 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 106 ,\ pages 104307 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.106.104307 2022

  33. [33]

    Klocke \ and\ author M

    author author K. Klocke \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041028 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 13 ,\ pages 041028 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041028 2023

  34. [34]

    Lavasani , author Z.-X

    author author A. Lavasani , author Z.-X. \ Luo , \ and\ author S. Vijay ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.115135 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 115135 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.115135 2023

  35. [35]

    Morral-Yepes , author F

    author author R. Morral-Yepes , author F. Pollmann , \ and\ author I. Lovas ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.224304 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 224304 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.224304 2023

  36. [36]

    Lira-Solanilla , author X

    author author A. Lira-Solanilla , author X. Turkeshi , \ and\ author S. Pappalardi ,\ 10.1103/fl34-h1p1 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 135 ,\ pages 080401 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/fl34-h1p1 2025

  37. [37]

    Cao , author A

    author author X. Cao , author A. Tilloy , \ and\ author A. D. \ Luca ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.2.024 journal journal SciPost Phys. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 24 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.7.2.024 2019

  38. [38]

    Alberton , author M

    author author O. Alberton , author M. Buchhold , \ and\ author S. Diehl ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.170602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 126 ,\ pages 170602 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.170602 2021

  39. [39]

    Bernard , author T

    author author D. Bernard , author T. Jin , \ and\ author O. Shpielberg ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/121/60006 journal journal Europhysics Letters \ volume 121 ,\ pages 60006 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/121/60006 2018

  40. [40]

    Buchhold , author Y

    author author M. Buchhold , author Y. Minoguchi , author A. Altland , \ and\ author S. Diehl ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.041004 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 11 ,\ pages 041004 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.041004 2021

  41. [41]

    Poboiko , author P

    author author I. Poboiko , author P. P\"opperl , author I. V. \ Gornyi , \ and\ author A. D. \ Mirlin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041046 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 13 ,\ pages 041046 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041046 2023

  42. [42]

    Poboiko , author I

    author author I. Poboiko , author I. V. \ Gornyi , \ and\ author A. D. \ Mirlin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.110403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 132 ,\ pages 110403 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.110403 2024

  43. [43]

    Fava , author L

    author author M. Fava , author L. Piroli , author T. Swann , author D. Bernard , \ and\ author A. Nahum ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041045 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 13 ,\ pages 041045 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041045 2023

  44. [44]

    Fava , author L

    author author M. Fava , author L. Piroli , author D. Bernard , \ and\ author A. Nahum ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043246 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 6 ,\ pages 043246 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043246 2024

  45. [45]

    Chahine \ and\ author M

    author author K. Chahine \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.110.054313 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 054313 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.054313 2024

  46. [46]

    Klocke , author D

    author author K. Klocke , author D. Simm , author G.-Y. \ Zhu , author S. Trebst , \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.224301 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 111 ,\ pages 224301 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.224301 2025

  47. [47]

    Ladewig , author S

    author author B. Ladewig , author S. Diehl , \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 033001 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033001 2022

  48. [48]

    Minato , author K

    author author T. Minato , author K. Sugimoto , author T. Kuwahara , \ and\ author K. Saito ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.010603 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 010603 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.010603 2022

  49. [49]

    Szyniszewski , author O

    author author M. Szyniszewski , author O. Lunt , \ and\ author A. Pal ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.165126 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 165126 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.165126 2023

  50. [50]

    Kells , author D

    author author G. Kells , author D. Meidan , \ and\ author A. Romito ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhys.14.3.031 journal journal SciPost Phys. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 031 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.14.3.031 2023

  51. [51]

    Jin \ and\ author D

    author author T. Jin \ and\ author D. G. \ Martin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.110.L060202 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages L060202 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.l060202 2024

  52. [52]

    Poboiko , author I

    author author I. Poboiko , author I. V. \ Gornyi , \ and\ author A. D. \ Mirlin ,\ 10.48550/arXiv.2507.11312 \ ( year 2025 ),\ 10.48550/arXiv.2507.11312 ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11312 arXiv:2507.11312 [quant-ph] NoStop

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.11312 2025

  53. [53]

    Poboiko , author P

    author author I. Poboiko , author P. P\"opperl , author I. V. \ Gornyi , \ and\ author A. D. \ Mirlin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.111.024204 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 111 ,\ pages 024204 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.024204 2025

  54. [54]

    Poboiko , author M

    author author I. Poboiko , author M. Szyniszewski , author C. J. \ Turner , author I. V. \ Gornyi , author A. D. \ Mirlin , \ and\ author A. Pal ,\ 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12903 journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ( year 2025 ),\ 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12903 NoStop

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12903 2025

  55. [55]

    author author E. V. H. \ Doggen , author Y. Gefen , author I. V. \ Gornyi , author A. D. \ Mirlin , \ and\ author D. G. \ Polyakov ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023146 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 4 ,\ pages 023146 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.023146 2022

  56. [56]

    Tsitsishvili , author D

    author author M. Tsitsishvili , author D. Poletti , author M. Dalmonte , \ and\ author G. Chiriacò ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.7.1.011 journal journal SciPost Phys. Core \ volume 7 ,\ pages 011 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscore.7.1.011 2024

  57. [57]

    Turkeshi , author M

    author author X. Turkeshi , author M. Dalmonte , author R. Fazio , \ and\ author M. Schir\`o ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L241114 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 105 ,\ pages L241114 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.l241114 2022

  58. [58]

    Piccitto , author A

    author author G. Piccitto , author A. Russomanno , \ and\ author D. Rossini ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.064305 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 105 ,\ pages 064305 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.064305 2022

  59. [59]

    M\"uller , author S

    author author T. M\"uller , author S. Diehl , \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.010605 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 010605 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.010605 2022

  60. [60]

    Oshima \ and\ author Y

    author author H. Oshima \ and\ author Y. Fuji ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.014308 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 014308 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.014308 2023

  61. [61]

    Paviglianiti \ and\ author A

    author author A. Paviglianiti \ and\ author A. Silva ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.108.184302 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 108 ,\ pages 184302 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.184302 2023

  62. [62]

    Minoguchi , author P

    author author Y. Minoguchi , author P. Rabl , \ and\ author M. Buchhold ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.1.009 journal journal SciPost Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 009 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.12.1.009 2022

  63. [63]

    Tirrito , author A

    author author E. Tirrito , author A. Santini , author R. Fazio , \ and\ author M. Collura ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.3.096 journal journal SciPost Phys. \ volume 15 ,\ pages 096 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.3.096 2023

  64. [64]

    Xing , author X

    author author B. Xing , author X. Turkeshi , author M. Schir\'o , author R. Fazio , \ and\ author D. Poletti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.L060302 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 109 ,\ pages L060302 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.l060302 2024

  65. [65]

    Turkeshi \ and\ author M

    author author X. Turkeshi \ and\ author M. Schir\'o ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.L020403 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 107 ,\ pages L020403 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.l020403 2023

  66. [66]

    Fuji \ and\ author Y

    author author Y. Fuji \ and\ author Y. Ashida ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.102.054302 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 102 ,\ pages 054302 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.054302 2020

  67. [67]

    Altland , author M

    author author A. Altland , author M. Buchhold , author S. Diehl , \ and\ author T. Micklitz ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022066 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 4 ,\ pages L022066 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.l022066 2022

  68. [68]

    Turkeshi , author L

    author author X. Turkeshi , author L. Piroli , \ and\ author M. Schir\`o ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.144306 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 109 ,\ pages 144306 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.144306 2024

  69. [69]

    Yang , author Y

    author author Q. Yang , author Y. Zuo , \ and\ author D. E. \ Liu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033174 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 5 ,\ pages 033174 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.033174 2023

  70. [70]

    Fan , author C

    author author B. Fan , author C. Yin , \ and\ author A. M. \ Garc \' a-Garc \' a ,\ 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18468 \ ( year 2025 ),\ 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18468 ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18468 arXiv:2508.18468 [quant-ph] NoStop

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18468 2025

  71. [71]

    author author T. A. \ Brody , author J. Flores , author J. B. \ French , author P. A. \ Mello , author A. Pandey , \ and\ author S. S. M. \ Wong ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.53.385 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 53 ,\ pages 385 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.53.385 1981

  72. [72]

    Metha ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3258-4.50001-X title Random Matrices and the Statistical Theory of Energy Levels \ ( publisher Academic Press ,\ year 1967 ) NoStop

    author author M. Metha ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-3258-4.50001-X title Random Matrices and the Statistical Theory of Energy Levels \ ( publisher Academic Press ,\ year 1967 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3258-4.50001-x 1967

  73. [73]

    Malakar , author M

    author author M. Malakar , author M. Brenes , author D. Segal , \ and\ author A. Silva ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.110.134316 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 110 ,\ pages 134316 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.110.134316 2024

  74. [74]

    Zerba \ and\ author A

    author author C. Zerba \ and\ author A. Silva ,\ 10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.6.3.051 journal journal SciPost Phys. Core \ volume 6 ,\ pages 051 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscore.6.3.051 2023

  75. [75]

    Nahum \ and\ author B

    author author A. Nahum \ and\ author B. Skinner ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023288 journal journal Phys. Rev. Research \ volume 2 ,\ pages 023288 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.023288 2020

  76. [76]

    Merritt \ and\ author L

    author author J. Merritt \ and\ author L. Fidkowski ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.064303 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 107 ,\ pages 064303 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.064303 2023

  77. [77]

    Sang \ and\ author T

    author author S. Sang \ and\ author T. H. \ Hsieh ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023200 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 023200 ( year 2021a ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.023200

  78. [78]

    Sang , author Y

    author author S. Sang , author Y. Li , author T. Zhou , author X. Chen , author T. H. \ Hsieh , \ and\ author M. P. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.030313 journal journal PRX Quantum \ volume 2 ,\ pages 030313 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.030313 2021

  79. [79]

    author author D. F. \ Walls \ and\ author G. J. \ Milburn ,\ 10.1007/978-3-540-28574-8 title Quantum Optics \ ( publisher Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg ,\ year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-28574-8 2008

  80. [80]

    author author H. M. \ Wiseman \ and\ author G. J. \ Milburn ,\ 10.1017/CBO9780511813948 title Quantum Measurement and Control \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813948 2009

Showing first 80 references.