Exploring Entanglement Entropy for a Particle on a Torus with constant Metric and constant $U(1)$-Gauge Field

Gerald Kelnhofer; Helmuth Huffel

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Exploring Entanglement Entropy for a Particle on a Torus with constant Metric and constant $U(1)$-Gauge Field

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a charged particle on a torus with a constant U(1) gauge field, ground-state entanglement entropy vanishes except on specific degeneracy submanifolds, and at the fourfold degeneracy it uniquely fixes the metric to the canonical flat…

desk verdict A correct, genuinely new classification of ground-state degeneracies on a torus, paired with entropy formulas that have fixable typos and a headline claim that overstates what the state-dependent computation actually shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11292 v1 pith:KRZSWD5P submitted 2025-06-12 hep-th

Helmuth Huffel , Gerald Kelnhofer This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords entanglemententropytorusU(1)gaugefieldthetatermsgroundstatedegeneracyvonNeumannmetricfixingsingle-particle

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies a single charged particle on a two-torus coupled to a constant $U(1)$ gauge field, with the geometry summarized by a metric parameter $\lambda$ and two gauge angles $\theta_1,\theta_2$. It tries to establish that the ground-state von Neumann entanglement entropy, obtained by tracing out one circle direction, is nonzero only on particular degeneracy submanifolds of the parameter space, and that on those submanifolds the entropy constrains the geometry. Concretely, the twofold regions $R_{24},R_{25},R_{34},R_{35}$, and $R_{01}$ give entropy $-|c_1|\log|c_1|-|c_2|\log|c_2|$; the threefold regions fix $\lambda$ for given $\theta$; and the fourfold region is the single point $\theta_1=\theta_2=-\pi,\lambda=0$, where the metric becomes the canonical flat torus metric. The significance is that entanglement entropy here works as an active constraint, pinning down metric and topological parameters in a cleanly solvable quantum system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced density matrix $\Xi_{\beta\gamma}$ that results from tracing out one coordinate direction of the superposition ground state; its eigenvalues $\mu_\alpha$ determine the von Neumann entropy $\zeta_{\mathrm{vN}}=-\sum_\alpha\mu_\alpha\log\mu_\alpha$. Its rank distinguishes separable ground states (rank one, zero entropy) from entangled degenerate ground states (rank greater than one, nonzero entropy). The matrix is invariant under the shift $\theta\to\theta+2\pi l$, so the entropy is a well-defined function on the parameter space, and it is the structural ingredient that ties nonzero entropy to specific degeneracy regions.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the reduced density matrix for the ground-state sector at the fourfold point $\theta_1=\theta_2=-\pi,\lambda=0$ in a realization that respects the torus periodicity: if the state in that sector is not the generic superposition of the four momentum eigenstates but instead a single factorized momentum state, the two nonzero eigenvalues of $\Xi$ collapse to one and the observed von Neumann entropy is zero instead of the predicted $-\mu_3\log\mu_3-\mu_4\log\mu_4$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonvanishing ground-state entanglement entropy occurs exactly on degeneracy submanifolds of the $(\theta,\lambda)$ parameter space, and the strongest uniqueness appears at fourfold degeneracy: the only fourfold ground-state region is the point $R_{0125}$ with $\theta_1=\theta_2=-\pi$, $\lambda=0$, where the metric becomes the canonical flat 2-torus metric. At that point the ground state is a generic superposition of four momentum eigenstates, and the von Neumann entropy is $\zeta_{\mathrm{vN}}=-\mu_3\log\mu_3-\mu_4\log\mu_4$, with $\mu_3,\mu_4=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm\sqrt{1-4\mu})$ and $\mu$ the absolute determinant of the $2\times 2$ coefficient matrix. On the paper's own terms, this shows that the presence of nonvanishing entanglement entropy is closely tied to fixing the metric: nonzero entropy signals correlations between the particle's momentum degrees of freedom, correlations whose existence and magnitude constrain the geometric and gauge parameters of the model.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that in a degenerate ground-state sector every normalized linear combination of the degenerate momentum eigenstates is an allowed physical state, with the superposition coefficients completely free; if a symmetry, superselection rule, or decoherence selected a product state, the entropy would vanish even in the regions where the paper reports nonzero values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In every nondegenerate ground-state region R1 through R5, the ground state factorizes and the entanglement entropy is identically zero.
Twofold degeneracies split cleanly: regions R12, R13, R14, and R15 have factorized ground states and zero entropy, while regions R24, R25, R34, and R35 have genuine two-level entanglement with entropy $-|c_1|\log|c_1|-|c_2|\log|c_2|$.
Threefold degenerate regions R124, R125, R134, and R135 fix lambda uniquely for a given theta and yield a two-parameter family of entropies, with log 2 at one symmetric coefficient choice and a closed-form arccoth value at the equal-coefficient choice.
The fourfold point R0125, with theta1 = theta2 = -pi and lambda = 0, is the only parameter value where both gauge angles and the metric are uniquely fixed, and there the entropy is nonzero for every non-product choice of coefficients.
Because the entropy is invariant under theta -> theta + 2*pi*l, the result descends to the quotient parameter space and becomes a genuine statement about the inequivalent quantum theories labeled by theta mod 2*pi*Z^2 and det g > 0.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to treat the fourfold point as a candidate phase boundary: the entropy formula at theta1 = theta2 = -pi, lambda = 0 has a discontinuous dependence on parameters, which could be probed as a sharp signature in an analog quantum simulation of the torus Hamiltonian.
One step beyond the paper, the same 'entropy fixes geometry' logic suggests that on higher-genus surfaces or with non-abelian gauge fields, degeneracy submanifolds would pin down a larger set of moduli, turning entanglement entropy into a metric-fixing indicator in more complex settings.
The assumption of freely choosable coefficients in the degenerate subspace is itself testable: if physical state preparation or a superselection rule restricts that subspace to product states, the predicted nonzero entropies in R24, R25, R34, R35, and R0125 would collapse to zero, making the entropy a witness for the availability of the full degenerate sector.
A concrete experimental check could be built from two-mode momentum superpositions on a lattice or photonic platform that realizes the torus momentum states, where single-particle entanglement between the two momentum components should appear exactly when the effective parameters match one of the predicted regions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The usable core of this paper is the classification of ground-state degeneracies for a charged particle on a flat torus with constant metric and constant U(1) field. That classification—twofold regions, threefold lines, and the fourfold point fixing θ1=θ2=−π and λ=0—is rigorous, novel as far as I know, and the lemmas in the appendix support it. The result that three- and fourfold degeneracies constrain the metric parameters is real and worth having.

The entanglement part is where I'd be careful. The reduced density matrix computation is standard single-particle entanglement, but the printed formulas have normalization and logarithm errors. Eq. (62) divides by √2 and still requires Σ|c_j|²=1, so the state is not normalized; Eq. (64) uses −|c_j| log |c_j| instead of −|c_j|² log |c_j|²; Eq. (65) and (73) have similar normalization problems. These are likely typos, but they make the tables untrustworthy as printed.

More substantively, the abstract's claim that nonvanishing entanglement entropy is 'closely tied to fixing the metric' overstates what the computation shows. At the fourfold point, the Hamiltonian is fixed to the canonical metric, but the entropy depends on which coefficients c_α you choose in the degenerate subspace. The paper's own Eq. (79) says ζ_vN=0 exactly when det(c)=0, so the same Hamiltonian admits zero- and nonzero-entropy ground states. Nonvanishing entropy is an existence statement, not a parameter-determined prediction. The same caveat applies to the twofold regions R24 etc., where λ remains continuous and product coefficients give zero entropy. A selection rule—maximum entropy, thermal density matrix in the degenerate subspace, or a perturbation—would be needed to make the metric-fixing claim predictive.

The citation pattern is fine; the references to single-particle entanglement and degeneracy-driven entropy are appropriate, and there is no self-citation inflation. The mathematical classification is the real contribution, and it survives the typos.

Who should read this: anyone working on single-particle entanglement in solvable geometric models, and as a pedagogical benchmark. It deserves a serious referee; the errors are fixable and the classification is sound, but the interpretive claim should be toned down.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a nonrelativistic charged particle on a two-torus with a constant metric and a constant U(1) gauge field, parameterized by θ=(θ1,θ2) and λ. After restricting to L1=L2=q1=q2=1, the authors classify the ground-state degeneracies of the quantum Hamiltonian into nondegenerate, twofold, threefold, and fourfold cases, providing explicit parameter regions for each. They then compute the von Neumann entanglement entropy of the reduced density matrix for ground-state superpositions in the degenerate sectors, reporting nonzero entropy for certain twofold, threefold, and fourfold degeneracy regions. The central claim is that the presence of nonvanishing entanglement entropy is closely tied to fixing the metric, with the fourfold degeneracy point uniquely fixing θ1=θ2=-π and λ=0, where the metric becomes the canonical flat torus metric.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would provide a solvable, exactly tractable example where entanglement entropy constrains geometric and gauge parameters in a single-particle system. The strength of the paper lies in its systematic spectral classification: the lemmas in Section 3 and the explicit parameter regions in Appendices B-D give a complete-looking description of the ground-state degeneracy structure, with no fitting or circular parameter determination. The entropy calculations, however, depend on freely chosen superposition coefficients, so the claimed parameter-determination result is currently an existence statement rather than a parameter-determined prediction. The degeneracy classification itself is a useful contribution that can support a revised version.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, Eq. (64), Table 2] The expression for the von Neumann entropy in Eq. (64), ζvN = −|c1| log |c1| − |c2| log |c2|, is incorrect: from the reduced density matrix in Eq. (63), whose eigenvalues are |c1|^2 and |c2|^2, the correct entropy is ζvN = −|c1|^2 log |c1|^2 − |c2|^2 log |c2|^2. The same error appears in Table 2 and in the discussion following Eq. (64). This is not a purely notational issue, as it changes numerical values and appears in the paper's main quantitative output.
[§4.2-§4.4, Eqs. (62), (65), (73)] The stated normalizations are internally inconsistent. In Eq. (62), the state is written as (c1|−1⟩|0⟩ + c2|0⟩|−1⟩)/√2 together with ∑|c_j|^2=1; this state has norm 1/2, not 1. The same problem occurs in Eq. (65), where the state has norm 1/3, and in Eq. (73), where the state has norm 1/4 under the stated normalization. Because the matrices Ξ and the eigenvalues are derived from these expressions, the reported entropy values do not correspond to the normalized states as written. A single consistent convention must be adopted, either by absorbing the overall factors into the coefficients or by removing the denominators.
[§4.4, §5, Eqs. (47)-(48), (73), (79)] The central claim that nonvanishing entanglement entropy fixes the metric is state-dependent in the degenerate ground-state sector. At the unique fourfold point (θ1=θ2=−π, λ=0), the choice c1=c2=c3=c4=1/2 gives the product state ((|0⟩+|−1⟩)/√2)⊗((|0⟩+|−1⟩)/√2), for which det(c1 c3; c4 c2)=0 and ζvN=0, while the choice c1=c2=1/√2, c3=c4=0 gives a Bell-type state with ζvN=log2. Thus the Hamiltonian parameters (θ,λ) alone do not determine whether the entanglement entropy is nonzero; an additional assumption, such as a maximal-entropy selection rule or a symmetry-respecting perturbation, is needed. The abstract's statement that nonvanishing entropy is 'closely tied to fixing the metric' and the corresponding claims in Section 5 should be qualified to an existence statement or supported by a concrete selection rule; as written, the inference is underdetermined.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (31)] The prefactor in Eq. (31) appears to be inconsistent with Eq. (14): for L1=L2=q1=q2=1, Eq. (14) gives an energy proportional to 1/(2Λ) times the quadratic form, whereas Eq. (31) as printed uses 1/π^2 and omits Λ. The degeneracy comparisons are unaffected because the prefactor is common at fixed λ, but the formula as printed is not the correct specialization of Eq. (14).
[Figures 1-5] The figures consistently use the symbol ℜ for the parameter regions, while the text and appendices use R; please harmonize the notation between the figures and the equations.
[Eqs. (53)-(56)] The normalization conventions for the density matrix and the reduced density matrix should be stated explicitly. Eq. (55) includes a factor (det g)^−1/2, while Eq. (53) does not display such a factor; as written, the trace operation and the eigenvalue equation in Eq. (56) are not fully defined.
[§4.1] The statement that the entanglement entropy vanishes identically in the regions R12, R13, R14, and R15 is correct for the factorized superpositions considered, but it would be helpful to note explicitly that this is a statement about the particular states in Eq. (50) and not about arbitrary states in the degenerate subspace.
[Table 3] Table 3 has a column labelled 'Triplets of Momentum Vectors' but only the entropy expression is shown; consider reformatting the table so that the momentum triplets and the corresponding eigenvalues are presented in separate, clearly labeled columns.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the parameter constraints are derived from exact spectral equalities and inequalities, and the entanglement entropy is a computed output of the degenerate subspace, not an input fitted to produce it.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—the classification of nondegenerate, twofold, threefold, and fourfold degenerate ground states and the associated restrictions on (θ, λ)—are derived directly from the spectrum of the Hamiltonian. Lemmas 1–4 and the theorem in Section 3 establish strict energy orderings by algebraic sign arguments using the explicit eigenvalues of Eq. (14). The fourfold degeneracy region R0125 in Eq. (48) is obtained by solving Ek(0) = Ek(1) = Ek(2) = Ek(5) with the dominance conditions, giving θ1 = θ2 = -π and λ = 0. These constraints do not presuppose any entanglement-entropy result. The entropy computation in Section 4 starts after the degeneracy regions have been fixed and evaluates the von Neumann entropy of arbitrary superpositions, Eqs. (50)–(59). The result depends on the coefficients cα, as explicitly shown in Eqs. (62)–(79), but this is a standard property of entanglement in a degenerate subspace, not a circular step: the entropy is not used to define or constrain those coefficients, and the parameter constraints do not come from demanding nonzero entropy. There are no fitting procedures, no parameter values extracted from the quantities being predicted, and no load-bearing self-citations. The paper's interpretive slogan that nonvanishing entropy is 'closely tied' to fixing the metric is a summary of the model's structure rather than a derivation that assumes its conclusion. The state-dependence of the entropy noted in the skeptical reading is a physical modeling choice—that every normalized superposition in the degenerate sector is an allowed state—but it is an explicit assumption of the calculation, not a concealed circular input. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard single-particle quantum mechanics on a torus, the choice of a special constant metric, and the freedom to choose superposition coefficients in degenerate sectors. No free parameters are fitted to data; λ and θ are model inputs that are constrained by the degeneracy conditions. The only hand-chosen quantities are the state coefficients cα, which are not determined by the Hamiltonian.

free parameters (1)

superposition coefficients cα = arbitrary (normalized)
For each degenerate ground-state sector the state is Ψ=Σ cα ψ_{k(α)} with Σ|cα|^2=1, Section 4, Eqs. (50)-(52). The entropy expression depends on these coefficients; the model does not determine them, so the reported entropies are state-dependent.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Quantum mechanics on T2: Hilbert space L2(T2) with inner product weighted by (det g)^{1/2}; canonical momentum operators are self-adjoint; wavefunctions are periodic.
Section 2, Eqs. (5)-(8). This is the standard quantization of the model, not derived.
domain assumption The flat U(1) connection is a genuine parameter θ, with theories identified modulo θ→θ+2πl; the gauge field can be gauged into quasi-periodic boundary conditions.
Section 2, Eqs. (9)-(11) and (15)-(17). The physical parameter space is taken as θ∈T2 and det g>0.
ad hoc to paper The simplification L1=L2=q1=q2=1 is adopted and the full classification is performed only for this restricted constant metric.
Section 2 states 'we will henceforth limit our analysis to the case where L1=L2=q1=q2=1.' All degeneracy and entropy statements in Sections 3-5 are for this special metric.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Entanglement Entropy for a Particle on a Torus with constant Metric and constant $U(1)$-Gauge Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRZSWD5P

@misc{pith2026250611292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Entanglement Entropy for a Particle on a Torus with constant Metric and constant $U(1)$-Gauge Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRZSWD5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11292}
}

abstract

In this paper, we focus on the entanglement entropy associated with a particle confined to a torus with constant metric and $\theta$-terms related to a constant external $U(1)$-gauge field. Through this investigation, we aim to elucidate the interplay between geometric properties, topological terms, and entanglement entropy. Remarkably, we find that the presence of non-vanishing entanglement entropy is closely tied to fixing the metric. This insight highlights the significant influence of quantum entanglement on our understanding of quantum dynamics in complex spatial configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11292 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** Line ℜ01 is a twofold degenerate ground state region; surfaces ℜ24,ℜ25,ℜ34,ℜ35 are twofold degenerate ground state regions; lines ℜ124,ℜ125,ℜ134,ℜ135 are threefold degenerate ground state regions; point ℜ0125 is a fourfold degenerate ground state region. Complementing the representation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Combined view of the nondegenerate ground state regions ℜ1, ℜ2, ℜ3, , ℜ4, ℜ5; twofold degenerate ground state regions—line ℜ01 and surfaces ℜ24,ℜ25,ℜ34,ℜ35; threefold degenerate ground state regions—lines ℜ124,ℜ125,ℜ134,ℜ135; fourfold degenerate ground state region—point ℜ0125. These scenarios of nondegenerate, two-, three-, and fourfold degenerate ground states provide a complete classification of all possible grou… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Headrick, Lectures on Entanglement Entropy in Field Theory and Holography", 2019 arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08126

M. Headrick, Lectures on Entanglement Entropy in Field Theory and Holography", 2019 arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08126

arXiv 2019
[2]

Casini, M.Huerta, Lectures on entanglement in quantum ﬁeld theory, 2022 arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13310v2

H. Casini, M.Huerta, Lectures on entanglement in quantum ﬁeld theory, 2022 arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13310v2

arXiv 2022
[3]

Azzini, S

S. Azzini, S. Mazzucchi, V. Moretti, D. Pastorello, L. Pavesi, Single- Particle Entanglement, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2020, 3, 2000014

work page 2020
[4]

Calabrese, J.L

P. Calabrese, J.L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum ﬁeld the- ory, J. Stat. Mech. Theory and Experiment, P06002 (2004)

work page 2004
[5]

Calabrese, J.L

P. Calabrese, J.L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal ﬁeld the- ory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504005 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from the anti–de Sitter Space/Conformal Field Theory Corre spondence, Physical Review Letters 96, 181602 (2006)

work page 2006
[7]

Vidal, J

G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, A. Kitaev, Entanglement in quantum critical phenomena , Physical Review Letters 90, 227902 (2003)

work page 2003
[8]

Eisert, M

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, Area laws for the entanglement en- tropy, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 277 (2010) 28

work page 2010

Show all 18 references

[9]

Ares, A.R

F. Ares, A.R. de Queiroz, M.R. Tenser, Entanglement in a Maxwell theory coupled to a non-relativistic particle , J. High Energ. Phys. 2020, 79 (2020)

2020
[10]

Okatev, O.M

V.S. Okatev, O.M. Sotnikov, V.V. Mazurenko, Exploring entanglement in ﬁnite-size quantum systems with degenerate ground state , 2024 arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.00515

2024 arXiv
[11]

A. P. Hines, C. M. Dawson, R. H. McKenzie, G. J. Milburn, Entangle- ment and bifurcations in Jahn-Teller models , Phys. Rev. A 70, 022303 (2004)

2004
[12]

K. G. Wilson, J. Kogut, The Renormalization Group and the ε Expan- sion, Phys. Rep. 12, 75 (1974)

1974
[13]

H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

1973
[14]

D. J. Gross, F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet Behaviour of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

1973
[15]

’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Spontaneous Chiral Symmetry Breaking , NATO Advanced Study Institute Series B, Vol

G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Spontaneous Chiral Symmetry Breaking , NATO Advanced Study Institute Series B, Vol. 59 (1980)

1980
[16]

Mandelstam, Light Cone Superspace and the Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Model , Nucl

S. Mandelstam, Light Cone Superspace and the Ultraviolet Finiteness of the N=4 Model , Nucl. Phys. B213, 149 (1983)

1983
[17]

Nambu, G

Y. Nambu, G. Jona-Lasinio, Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I. , Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961
[18]

Zimmermann, Reduction in the Number of Coupling Parameters , Commun

W. Zimmermann, Reduction in the Number of Coupling Parameters , Commun. Math. Phys. 97, 211 (1985) 29

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Headrick, Lectures on Entanglement Entropy in Field Theory and Holography", 2019 arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08126

M. Headrick, Lectures on Entanglement Entropy in Field Theory and Holography", 2019 arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08126

arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

Casini, M.Huerta, Lectures on entanglement in quantum ﬁeld theory, 2022 arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13310v2

H. Casini, M.Huerta, Lectures on entanglement in quantum ﬁeld theory, 2022 arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13310v2

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Azzini, S

S. Azzini, S. Mazzucchi, V. Moretti, D. Pastorello, L. Pavesi, Single- Particle Entanglement, Adv. Quantum Technol. 2020, 3, 2000014

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Calabrese, J.L

P. Calabrese, J.L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum ﬁeld the- ory, J. Stat. Mech. Theory and Experiment, P06002 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Calabrese, J.L

P. Calabrese, J.L. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and conformal ﬁeld the- ory, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504005 (2009)

work page 2009

[6] [6]

S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from the anti–de Sitter Space/Conformal Field Theory Corre spondence, Physical Review Letters 96, 181602 (2006)

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Vidal, J

G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, A. Kitaev, Entanglement in quantum critical phenomena , Physical Review Letters 90, 227902 (2003)

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Eisert, M

J. Eisert, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, Area laws for the entanglement en- tropy, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 277 (2010) 28

work page 2010