Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Quantum Fisher Information Reveals UV-IR Mixing in the Strange Metal

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The zero-temperature quantum Fisher information of the strange metal is a constant set by the pseudogap scale and the conformal dimension, revealing UV-IR mixing.

desk verdict A clean derivation of a QFI saturation scale for the strange metal, but the T=0 result extrapolates the normal-state conformal model below Tc and the 'independent evidence' for local quantum criticality is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14413 v2 pith:SGCBSJRQ submitted 2024-12-18 cond-mat.str-el hep-thquant-ph

David Ba{l}ut , Xuefei Guo , Niels de Vries , Dipanjan Chaudhuri , Barry Bradlyn , Peter Abbamonte , Philip W. Phillips This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elhep-thquant-ph
keywords quantumFisherinformationstrangemetalcupratespseudogapUV-IRmixinglocalcriticalitymultipartiteentanglementspectralweighttransfer
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 argues that the multipartite entanglement of the strange metal in optimally doped Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O_{8+x}$ is tied to a high-energy scale and not only to low-energy physics. Using the experimentally inferred conformally invariant charge susceptibility, the authors compute the quantum Fisher information (QFI), a witness of multipartite entanglement whose size bounds how many particles are entangled. A Fermi liquid gives a small QFI that saturates at low temperature with the $a + $bT^{2}$$ phase-space behavior expected from the standard theory of metals, whereas the strange-metal QFI grows as the temperature falls and extrapolates at $T=0$ to a constant of the form $\omega_g^{2\$\Delta$}$, with $\$\Delta$ \approx 0.05$ the conformal dimension and $\omega_g \approx 200$ meV the ultraviolet cutoff identified with the pseudogap. Because that constant depends on both infrared and ultraviolet data, the paper concludes that the strange metal exhibits UV-IR mixing, a phenomenon linked to spectral weight transfer in doped Mott insulators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum Fisher information written as an integral of the dissipative density-density response, $F_Q(T)/N = (4\hbar/\pi)\int_0^\infty d\omega\, \tanh(\hbar\omega/2k_BT)\,\chi''(\omega,T)$, which converts an entanglement witness into a direct functional of measured susceptibility. The second piece is the conformal dynamic susceptibility of Eq. (1), a ratio of Gamma functions with conformal dimension $\Delta\approx 0.05$, matched at the ultraviolet cutoff $\omega_g\approx 200$ meV to a featureless, roughly temperature-independent spectrum that obeys the $f$-sum rule. In the low-temperature limit, the large-argument asymptotic form of the Gamma functions cancels the $\sinh$ factor in the integral and reduces the QFI to $\Lambda + \tilde{C}\int_0^{\hbar\omega_g/2\pi k_BT} x^{2\Delta-1} dx$, which is the step that produces the $\omega_g^{2\Delta}$ saturation. The Fermi-liquid contrast uses the free-electron polarizability within the random phase approximation and shows a QFI that tracks the $a+bT^2$ scattering phase space and stays small at low temperature.

What would settle it

Measure the density-density response of a cuprate in the normal state down to low temperature, for example with superconductivity suppressed by a magnetic field, and compute the QFI directly from the data; if the zero-temperature limit does not saturate or does not scale as $\omega_g^{2\Delta}$ with $\Delta\approx 0.05$, the central prediction fails. Alternatively, if tuning the pseudogap by doping leaves $\Delta$ fixed, the claim predicts $F_Q(T=0)\propto (\omega_g)^{2\Delta}$, so a QFI independent of $\omega_g$ would falsify the UV-IR mixing conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-temperature limit of the quantum Fisher information in the strange metal is the nonzero constant $\omega_g^{2\Delta}$, where $\omega_g$ is the ultraviolet cutoff of the conformal charge response, on the order of the pseudogap, and $\Delta = 0.05$ is the conformal dimension extracted from experiment. The paper obtains this by placing the experimentally inferred conformal susceptibility, $\chi''(\omega,T) = B(q)T^{2\Delta-1}\operatorname{Im}[\Gamma(\Delta - i\hbar\omega/2\pi k_BT)/\Gamma(1-\Delta - i\hbar\omega/2\pi k_BT)]$ for $\omega < \omega_g$, into the exact relation $F_Q(T)/N = (4\hbar/\pi)\int_0^\infty d\omega\, \tanh(\hbar\omega/2k_BT)\,\chi''(\omega,T)$. A low-temperature asymptotic analysis of the Gamma functions cancels the exponentials and leaves an algebraic integral cut off at $\omega_g$, giving $F_Q \to \Lambda + \tilde{C}(\hbar\omega_g/4\pi k_B)^{2\Delta}$. Since this constant involves both the conformal dimension $\Delta$, an infrared object, and the ultraviolet scale $\omega_g$, the authors read it as UV-IR mixing in the entanglement spectrum, consistent with dynamical spectral weight transfer in a doped Mott insulator. They also note that the saturation is consistent with the quantum-critical scaling $f_Q \sim T^{-\Delta_Q/z}$ only for $z = \infty$, which they take as independent evidence for local quantum criticality.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the experimentally inferred conformal susceptibility, with $\Delta = 0.05$ and $\omega_g \approx 200$ meV, continues to describe the density response all the way to $T=0$, even though the normal state of BSCCO ends at $T_c \approx 90$ K and the continuation above $\omega_g$ is only approximately temperature independent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $F_Q(T\to 0) \sim \omega_g^{2\Delta}$, then multipartite entanglement in the strange metal does not vanish in the zero-temperature limit; it is fixed by the pseudogap scale.
  • The Fermi-liquid QFI remains small and follows $a+bT^2$, so the temperature dependence of the QFI separates ordinary metallic behavior from strange-metal behavior without committing to a specific microscopic model.
  • The zero-temperature saturation is compatible with the scaling $f_Q\sim T^{-\Delta_Q/z}$ only when $z=\infty$, providing an independent consistency check on local quantum criticality.
  • Since the constant involves the conformal dimension $\Delta$, any low-energy effective theory of the Hubbard model that simply discards the upper Hubbard band will omit this part of the entanglement.
  • The approximately temperature-independent response above $\omega_g$ contributes an additive background, so the precise value of the zero-temperature constant depends on how the conformal form is matched onto the ultraviolet continuum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension follows from Eq. (11): if the pseudogap scale is shifted by doping or pressure while $\Delta$ stays fixed, the zero-temperature QFI should move as $(\omega_g)^{2\Delta}$; the paper does not compute this, but it is a direct corollary of the saturation formula.
  • Applying the same susceptibility-to-QFI construction to the spin response of heavy-fermion strange metals could show whether UV-IR mixing is generic to strange metals or special to doped Mott insulators; the paper explicitly leaves that question open.
  • Because $\Delta = 0.05$ is small, the exponent $2\Delta$ makes $\omega_g^{2\Delta}$ weakly dependent on the cutoff, so a clean experimental test may require a large change in $\omega_g$ or a study of the full temperature dependence rather than a single endpoint.
  • If the saturation constant is borne out, the quantum Fisher information becomes a practical, data-based diagnostic of 'Mottness' in correlated materials, since the constant carries the spectral-weight-transfer physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the quantum Fisher information (QFI) for the density response of a Fermi liquid (Lindhard/RPA) and of optimally doped BSCCO using the experimentally inferred conformal dynamic susceptibility of Ref. [4]. For the Fermi liquid the authors find a small, saturating QFI consistent with a + bT^2 phase-space behavior. For the strange metal they derive, in the low-temperature limit, a saturating form F_Q(0) = Λ + C̃ ω_g^{2Δ}, where ω_g ≈ 200 meV is the UV cutoff and Δ = 0.05 is the conformal dimension, and interpret the result as UV-IR mixing and as support for local quantum criticality with z = ∞. The paper contrasts the two cases and discusses implications for low-energy Hubbard-model reductions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a concrete, experimentally motivated connection between a multipartite entanglement witness and the pseudogap/Mott scale in a strange metal, a statement with direct implications for any low-energy effective theory of the cuprates. The analytical reduction of the QFI integral to a power of the UV cutoff is transparent and the Fermi-liquid contrast is a useful sanity check. However, the strongest interpretive claims—T = 0 saturation and independent evidence for z = ∞—depend on assumptions that are not empirically tested, and the quantitative confirmation of the claimed ω_g^{2Δ} dependence is weaker than presented because parameter uncertainties are not propagated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (7) and Fig. 3] The zero-temperature statement is obtained by extending the normal-state conformal susceptibility Eq. (1) to T = 0, even though the text states that below T_c ≈ 90 K the conformally invariant model becomes inapplicable. The constant F_Q(0) = Λ + C̃ω_g^{2Δ} in Eq. (11) is therefore a property of the analytically continued model, not of the measured normal state, and the saturation below T_c is not directly tested by the data in Fig. 3. Please present the T = 0 result explicitly as a model-based prediction under the stated assumption, and discuss whether the superconducting gap or a field-restored normal state would modify the ω_g^{2Δ} dependence.
  2. [Section 5 and Introduction] The claim that the QFI result provides independent evidence for LQC (z = ∞) is not supported. The input susceptibility Eq. (1) is already the AdS2 × R2/local-quantum-critical form, so the QFI calculation inherits the z = ∞ assumption rather than testing it. Moreover, saturation of f_Q at T = 0 is not a discriminating signature, since the RPA/Fermi-liquid curve in Fig. 1b also saturates. Please remove or substantially weaken this claim and state instead that the result is consistent with, but not evidence for, z = ∞.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (8)-(11)] As printed, the derivation of Eq. (11) is algebraically inconsistent. Eq. (8) should contain sinh(πx) rather than sinh x, together with an explicit 1/π prefactor; with sinh x alone, the factor e^{-πx} from Eq. (10) does not cancel and the integral is not T-independent. In addition, the argument of ω_g in Eq. (11), (ℏω_g/4πk_B)^{2Δ}, is inconsistent with the upper limit of the integral and the definition x = ℏω/2πk_BT, which combine to give (ℏω_g/2πk_B)^{2Δ}. Please correct the prefactors, since Eq. (11) is the central quantitative result.
  4. [Fig. 2b and Section 4] The fit in Fig. 2b fixes Δ to the input value 0.05 and does not propagate the uncertainties on Δ, ω_g, and B(q) from Ref. [4]; the comparison in Fig. 3 is shown without error bars. Because the predicted dependence is ω_g^{2Δ} with an exponent of only 0.1, the variation of F_Q with ω_g is weak, and the fit with fixed Δ does not independently confirm Eq. (11). Please quantify the sensitivity of the claimed UV-IR dependence to the experimentally inferred parameter uncertainties, or state clearly that the fit is an illustrative consistency check.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The left-hand side f_Q(T) should carry the wavevector q, since Eq. (3) contains χ''(q,ω,T) and the Fermi-liquid results are evaluated at a specific q. The figures for the strange metal should also state the q value or explain how the weak momentum dependence of B(q) is handled.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'ω = 150eV ≲ ω_g'; the energy unit should be meV, not eV.
  3. [Abstract] There is a stray comma in 'Using, the experimentally inferred conformal dynamic susceptibility'; this should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 2b] The fitted intercept c ≈ −20.2 is unphysical if interpreted as the ω_g → 0 limit of F_Q; the caption notes that the background Λ was not included, but the negative offset should be explicitly identified as a purely numerical fit parameter rather than a physical QFI contribution.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips, including 'the the QFI' in Section 3, 'Contrastly' in Section 5, and 'perameters' in the Fig. 2 caption; these should be fixed in a revision.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The zero-temperature QFI constant ω_g^{2Δ} is algebraically inherited from the fitted conformal susceptibility Eq. (1); the claimed independent evidence for local quantum criticality reduces to a self-citation chain.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (7)-(11) and Fig. 2b caption]
    "FQ ≈ Λ + T^{2Δ}e^{2Δ} cos Δ/2 ∫_0^{ℏω_g/2πk_BT} x^{2Δ−1}dx = Λ + C̃ (ℏω_g/4πk_B)^{2Δ}, in which the temperature dependence vanishes to leading order. ... Fit of the ω_g dependence (measured in eV) of the QFI to a functional form fQ = c + aω_g^{2Δ} for Δ = 0.05 and T = 100K. ... The fit is consistent with the prediction of Eq. (11)."

    Eq. (11) is obtained by substituting Eq. (7), built from Eq. (1), into Eq. (3). The parameters Δ and ω_g are input parameters of the experimentally fitted conformal susceptibility, not outputs of the QFI calculation. The 'prediction' that the zero-temperature QFI scales as ω_g^{2Δ} is therefore an algebraic restatement of the input susceptibility, and the UV-IR mixing conclusion is inherited from the fitted UV cutoff and conformal dimension. Fig. 2b confirms this by fitting f_Q = c + aω_g^{2Δ} with Δ fixed to 0.05, so the agreement is a consistency check of the input form, not an independent test.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 1, penultimate paragraph; recapitulated in Section 5]
    "Using Eq. (1), we compute FQ directly. We find that the zero-temperature limit of FQ scales as ω_g^{2Δ} and hence is dictated by both UV and IR physics. Coupled with the fact that FQ ∝ T^{−Δ_Q/z} for critical systems [20], our findings are consistent as T→0 only if z = ∞. Hence, the QFI provides independent evidence for LQC."

    Eq. (1) is introduced as 'consistent with local quantum critical AdS_2 × R^2 conformal matter' and is taken from Ref. [4], whose author list overlaps substantially with the present paper. The QFI is computed from this already-LQC susceptibility, so concluding that the low-temperature constancy 'is consistent ... only if z = ∞' reads the assumed conformal structure back out of the calculation. The cited generic scaling relation [20] only supplies the mapping from the assumed conformal dimension to z; it does not provide independent experimental data. Thus the 'independent evidence for LQC' claim reduces to a self-citation chain rather than an external test.

full rationale

The Fermi-liquid/RPA portion of the paper is self-contained and provides an independent contrast: the Lindhard susceptibility is computed from first principles and the QFI is evaluated without fitted strange-metal parameters. However, the central strange-metal claim is not independent. The zero-temperature QFI constant ω_g^{2Δ} is derived by integrating the conformal susceptibility Eq. (1), whose parameters Δ = 0.05 and ω_g ≈ 200 meV were fit to BSCCO data in Ref. [4] by an overlapping set of authors. Consequently, the 'prediction' of Eq. (11) is forced by the input form, and Fig. 2b is a consistency check rather than a falsifiable prediction. The paper's own Fig. 3 note states that 'experimentally, superconductivity onsets below T≈90K, below which the conformally-invariant model becomes inapplicable,' so the T → 0 saturation is an extrapolation of the model through a regime where the normal-state susceptibility was not measured; this further underscores that the UV-IR mixing result is inherited from the assumed conformal continuation. The conclusion that the QFI gives 'independent evidence for LQC' is therefore circular in the specific sense that the input susceptibility already encodes LQC and z = ∞. Overall, the derivation is a valid mathematical consequence of the stated input, but the paper's framing as an independent discovery of UV-IR mixing and local quantum criticality is not supported by the chain of reasoning.

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

The central result inherits its two key parameters, Delta and omega_g, from a prior experimental fit by the same group (Ref [4]); the QFI transform is standard, so the new content is a derived consequence rather than an independent measurement. No new entities are postulated; the charge 2e boson discussion is speculative and imported from earlier work (Ref [28]).

free parameters (4)
  • conformal dimension Delta = 0.05
    Fit to BSCCO density response in Ref [4]; enters the QFI saturation exponent omega_g^{2Delta} through Eq (11).
  • UV cutoff omega_g = approx 200 meV
    Determined from the onset of the temperature-independent spectrum in MEELS data (Ref [4]); sets the QFI constant scale.
  • overall amplitude B(q) = Set by continuity of chi'' at omega_g (arbitrary units)
    Normalization of Eq (1); affects QFI magnitude but not the omega_g^{2Delta} scaling.
  • background Lambda = Not specified; fit constant c approx -20.2 in Fig 2b
    Accounts for temperature-independent contribution above omega_g; not independently determined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The conformal dynamic susceptibility Eq (1) with Delta = 0.05 and cutoff omega_g = 200 meV accurately describes the BSCCO density response, with a temperature-independent spectrum above omega_g.
    Taken from the experimental fit of Ref [4] by overlapping authors; the entire QFI calculation is built on this input.
  • standard math The QFI formula fQ = (4 hbar / pi) integral d omega tanh(hbar omega / 2 k_B T) chi''(omega) is valid for density perturbations and normalized per particle.
    Standard result from Hauke et al. [20]; stated but not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Stirling's approximation Gamma(z) = e^{-z} z^{z-1/2} applies in the low-temperature / large-x limit used for Eq (10).
    Used to derive the T to 0 constant in Eq (11).
  • ad hoc to paper The normal-state conformal form remains valid down to T = 0 despite superconductivity below T_c = 90 K.
    The paper extrapolates the model below the experimental normal-state range; no justification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Fisher Information Reveals UV-IR Mixing in the Strange Metal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGCBSJRQ

@misc{pith2026241214413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Fisher Information Reveals UV-IR Mixing in the Strange Metal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGCBSJRQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14413}
}
abstract

The density-density response in optimally doped Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+x}$ has recently been shown to exhibit conformal symmetry. Using, the experimentally inferred conformal dynamic susceptibility, we compute the resultant quantum Fisher information (QFI), a witness to multi-partite entanglement. For a Fermi liquid, we find that the QFI grows quadratically as the temperature increases, consistent then with the phase space available for scattering in the standard theory of metals. By contrast, the QFI in a strange metal increases as a power law at as the temperature decreases, but ultimately extrapolates to a constant at $T=0$. The constant is of the form, $\omega_g^{2\Delta}$, where $\Delta$ is the conformal dimension and $\omega_g$ is the UV cutoff which is on the order of the pseudogap. As this constant {depends on both UV and IR properties}, it illustrates that multipartite entanglement in a strange metal exhibits UV-IR mixing, a benchmark feature of doped Mott insulators as exemplified by dynamical spectral weight transfer. We conclude with a discussion of the implication of our results for low-energy reductions of the Hubbard model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RPA response. a) Dynamic RPA susceptibility for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. QFI for the strange metal. a) QFI computed from Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the low-frequency contribution to the QFI determined from the experimental data (triangles) with the prediction from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Geometric bound on structure factor

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2024-12 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    The fourth-order term of the static structure factor of band insulators obeys a geometric lower bound, saturated by 'harmonic bands' such as Landau levels.

  2. Strain-tunable charge localization coupled to complex magnetic orders in EuAl$_4$

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    X-ray diffraction reveals that charge localization in EuAl4 is enhanced by magnetic ordering and can be reversibly tuned by applying uniaxial pressure along different crystal axes.

  3. The foot, the fan, and the cuprate phase diagram: Fermi-volume-changing quantum phase transitions

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper attributes the cuprate 'foot' to a disordered spin-density-wave transition and the 'fan' to a disorder-tuned FL-to-FL* Fermi-volume-changing transition described by a two-dimensional Yukawa-SYK model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    X. Guo, J. Chen, F. Hoveyda-Marashi, S. L. Bettler, D. Chaudhuri, C. S. Kengle, J. A. Schneeloch, R. Zhang, G. Gu, T.-C. Chiang, A. M. Tsvelik, T. Faulkner, P. W. Phillips, and P. Abbamonte, Conformally invariant charge fluctuations in a strange metal (2024), arXiv:2411.11164 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Zaanen, SciPost Phys

    J. Zaanen, SciPost Phys. 6, 061 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Faulkner, H

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, J. McGreevy, and D. Vegh, Phys. Rev. D 83, 125002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Faulkner, G

    T. Faulkner, G. T. Horowitz, and M. M. Roberts, JHEP 04, 051

    work page

  5. [5]

    Mitrano, A

    M. Mitrano, A. A. Husain, S. Vig, A. Kogar, M. S. Rak, S. I. Rubeck, J. Schmalian, B. Uchoa, J. Schneeloch, R. Zhong, G. D. Gu, and P. Abbamonte, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 5392

    work page

  6. [6]

    M. C. Aronson, M. B. Maple, P. de Sa, A. M. Tsvelik, and R. Osborn, Europhys. Lett. 40, 245 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    C. M. Varma, P. B. Littlewood, S. Schmitt-Rink, E. Abrahams, and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1996 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    Legros, S

    A. Legros, S. Benhabib, W. Tabis, F. Lalibert ´e, M. Dion, M. Lizaire, B. Vignolle, D. Vignolles, H. Ra ffy, Z. Z. Li, P. Auban-Senzier, N. Doiron-Leyraud, P. Fournier, D. Colson, L. Taillefer, and C. Proust, Nature Physics15, 142 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 57, 95 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 666 (1993)

    1993

  3. [11]

    Y . Guo, Y . Jia, X. Li, and L. Huang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 145303 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    T ´oth, Phys

    G. T ´oth, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz ´e, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012). 8 Model Data 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 5 10 15 T (K) FQ (a.u.) Figure 3: Comparison of the low-frequency contribution to the QFI determi...

    2012

  7. [15]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, A. M. Samarakoon, B. Lake, S. E. Nagler, G. E. Granroth, S. Okamoto, G. Alvarez, and D. A. Tennant, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224434 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Menon, N

    V . Menon, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, A. O. Scheie, D. A. Tennant, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B107, 054422 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    R. A. Fisher, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 22, 700–725 (1925)

    1925

  10. [18]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    Provost and G

    J. Provost and G. Vallee, Communications in Mathematical Physics 76, 289 (1980)

    1980

  12. [20]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 12, 778

  13. [21]

    Eskes, M

    H. Eskes, M. B. J. Meinders, and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1035 (1991)

    1991

  14. [22]

    Phillips, Rev

    P. Phillips, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1719 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Bałut, B

    D. Bałut, B. Bradlyn, and P. Abbamonte, Quantum entanglement and quantum geometry measured with inelastic X-ray scattering, 2409.15583

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Ste ffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen, Quantum fisher information in a strange metal (2024), arXiv:2403.12779 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1971)

    1971

  18. [26]

    Phillips, Advanced Solid State Physics , 2nd ed

    P. Phillips, Advanced Solid State Physics , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    P. W. Phillips, N. E. Hussey, and P. Abbamonte, Science 377, eabh4273 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    R. G. Leigh, P. Phillips, and T.-P. Choy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 046404 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    T.-P. Choy, R. G. Leigh, and P. Phillips, Phys. Rev. B 77, 104524 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015002 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Y . Fang, M. Mahankali, Y . Wang, L. Chen, H. Hu, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, arXiv e-printsarXiv:2402.18552 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bogdan Mihaila, arXiv 1111.5337, (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y . Wang, Y . Fang, F. Xie, and Q. Si, arXiv e-printsarXiv:2502.13958 (2025) . 10

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.