Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 58 references

A projector quantum Monte Carlo algorithm in a bubble basis computes the universal corner logarithmic term in (2+1)d Rényi entanglement entropy at both Ising and Gaussian critical points, yielding s=0.020(1) and s=0.025(1).

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 ↗

Bubble-basis projector QMC extracts the universal corner log-coefficient of Rényi entanglement entropy at (2+1)d Ising and Gaussian quantum critical points as 0.020(1) and 0.025(1), the latter matching the analytic value 0.02567.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Genuine algorithmic advance in QMC entanglement entropy, with a strong Gaussian benchmark; the main caveat is the FSS identification of the tricritical point, which is addressable but not fatal. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2512.00382 v3 pith:ATSVWNYR submitted 2025-11-29 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Precise computation of universal corner entanglement entropy at 2+1 dimension: From Ising to Gaussian quantum critical points

Ben Lee-Yeung Ngai , Justin Tim-Lok Chau , Junchen Rong , Meng Cheng , Yuan Da Liao , Zi Yang Meng This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords universal corner entropyRényi entanglement entropyprojector quantum Monte Carlobubble basisincremental SWAPtricritical IsingGaussian fixed pointtransverse-field Ising model
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.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the subleading logarithmic corner term in entanglement entropy can be computed precisely at interacting (2+1)d quantum critical points, not just in free theories. It introduces a basis of 'bubble' states for projector QMC that lowers the cost of incremental swap sampling from O(m^2) to O(mP), and combines it with a subtracted-corner scheme that removes the area-law term during sampling. Applied to a transverse-field Ising model with a four-spin coupling, the method traces a line of Ising critical points to a Gaussian tricritical point. At the Gaussian point the measured corner coefficient s=0.025(1) matches the analytic value 0.02567; along the Ising line it converges to s=0.020(1). If correct, this supplies a benchmark separating universal entanglement data for two distinct (2+1)d universality classes and connects solvable free-theory results to strongly coupled critical points.

Core claim

The central claim is that the universal corner term in the second Rényi entropy—the coefficient s in S_2 = a L - s ln L + c for an entanglement region with four 90-degree corners—is now numerically accessible at strongly interacting (2+1)d quantum critical points. The authors construct a square-lattice transverse-field Ising model with a four-body K term, whose phase diagram contains an Ising transition line terminating at a Gaussian (tricritical Ising) point, followed by a first-order line. Using their bubble-basis projector QMC with the incremental swap estimator and subtracted-corner-entropy technique, they extract s=0.025(1) at the Gaussian point, in quantitative agreement with the free-

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the bubble-basis projector QMC update combined with an incremental SWAP estimator and subtracted corner entropy. A bubble state is a superposition in which each bubble is a connected cluster of sites with common spin orientation; operators H_J, H_h, and H_K act on bubble states without branching, and the overlap of two bubble states equals 2^{N_B}, where N_B counts link-bubbles. This makes the weight-ratio update cost O(P) per slice (P the average number of sites in the relevant link-bubbles) rather than O(m), so the full EE computation runs at O(mP) instead of O(m^2) in the sigma^z basis. That efficiency, together with computing S_s = S_{A1,2} - S_{A2,2} directly in

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaussian classification of the tricritical point at K_c=16.02(6) is unaffected by the logarithmic corrections from the marginally irrelevant phi^6 operator at the system sizes studied; if those corrections are sizeable for L up to 64, the Gaussian labeling and hence the benchmark value s=0.025(1) would be compromised.

What would settle it

Perform the finite-size scaling collapse at K_c=16.02 including explicit logarithmic corrections, or push the subtracted-corner simulation to L>64 and check whether s continues to converge to 0.025(1) rather than drifting; a drift would show the Gaussian identification or the extrapolation was not yet asymptotic.

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

If this is right

  • The universal corner coefficient for the (2+1)d Ising universality class is pinned at s=0.020(1), a sharper benchmark than previous estimates.
  • The Gaussian fixed-point value s=0.02567 is reproduced numerically, validating both the algorithm and the identification of the tricritical point.
  • The bubble-basis incremental-swap complexity O(mP) makes larger systems and more difficult entanglement observables accessible at interacting quantum critical points.
  • The vanishing s on the first-order line confirms the expected product-state behavior and provides a clean diagnostic for first-order transitions.
  • The same pipeline can be applied to other corner configurations, higher Rényi orders, or the von Neumann entropy at the same critical points.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The demonstrated ability to resolve 0.020 from 0.025 at the 0.001 level suggests corner-entropy coefficients could serve as a practical probe of universality class in numerical studies where critical exponents are ambiguous.
  • Editorial inference: The bubble-basis update may generalize beyond spin models to path-integral or fermionic QMC settings, where exponential observables such as Rényi negativity or free-energy differences suffer from the same variance problem.
  • Editorial inference: A direct check of the Gaussian classification at K_c by including logarithmic corrections in the finite-size scaling collapse would determine whether s=0.025(1) is truly the free-theory value or a close finite-size accident.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a 'bubble basis' projector quantum Monte Carlo method combined with the incremental SWAP algorithm and the subtracted-corner-entanglement-entropy technique to extract the universal corner logarithm in the second Rényi entropy of (2+1)d quantum critical points. The model is a square-lattice transverse-field Ising model with an additional four-spin interaction; tuning this interaction traces an Ising critical line to a tricritical point and then a first-order line. The authors report that at the tricritical point, identified as the Gaussian fixed point at K_c=16.02(6) and h_c=67.57(4), the corner coefficient is s=0.025(1), matching the analytic free-scalar value s=0.02567; along the Ising critical line they obtain s=0.020(1), and on the first-order line s=0.000(1). The algorithmic claim is that the bubble-basis formulation reduces the cost of incremental SWAP EE computations from O(m^2) to O(mP), where P is a state-dependent parameter scaling as a power of L.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is a substantial methodological and numerical advance: it would be the first QMC computation that reproduces an exact free-theory corner-entropy coefficient and then moves continuously to an interacting (2+1)d critical point within one framework, with precision sufficient to distinguish the Gaussian coefficient from the Ising coefficient at the 0.005 level. The free-theory benchmark calculation in Sec. III A is clearly described and reproducible, and the algorithmic complexity analysis is a genuine contribution. The paper is also careful to benchmark the bubble-basis PQMC against known TFIM critical exponents in the Supplemental Material. The main risk is not internal inconsistency of the algorithm but the identification and finite-size control of the Gaussian fixed point, on which the benchmark relies.

major comments (2)
  1. [II A / II B, Fig. 2(d-f)] The identification K_c=16.02(6) and h_c=67.57(4) as the Gaussian fixed point is obtained from Binder-cumulant crossings and a pure power-law finite-size collapse with ν=1/2. In Sec. II A you explicitly state that φ^6 is marginally irrelevant at the upper critical dimension and yields logarithmic finite-size corrections. Those corrections are absent from the scaling ansatz used in Fig. 2(e). If they are non-negligible for L≤64, the crossing location h_c can drift with L and the effective ν from a power-law fit can be biased, so the EE simulation at 'K_c' may not be exactly at the Gaussian fixed point. Because the benchmark s=0.025(1) is the central anchor, please (i) repeat the Binder analysis with a log-corrected scaling form or otherwise bound the size of the log corrections for these sizes, and (ii) demonstrate that the extracted s is stable when h is varied within the quoted uncertain
  2. [II C, Fig. 1(b)-(h)] The extrapolation protocol for extracting s is not defined in a falsifiable way. The text says the process is stopped 'once the two smallest values of 1/L_min converge' and the final slope is the average of the last two points. This introduces a model-selection step with no stated criterion; the claimed 0.001-level differences between s=0.020(1) and s=0.025(1) are precisely the quantity affected by the chosen L_min window. Please report the full s versus 1/L_min table for each K, state an explicit convergence rule, and provide an estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to the fitting window (e.g., bootstrap over windows or fits with explicit 1/L corrections). Without this, the quoted error bars are likely underestimated and the sharp separation of universal values is not fully established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The main figure is captioned 'FIG. 1' but the text repeatedly refers to 'Fig. I (a)', 'Fig. I (b)', etc. The numbering should be made consistent.
  2. [Throughout] Several typos: 'simulaition' in Sec. II, 'trail wavefunctions' in Sec. III B, 'Renyi' without accents, and 'convergeds' in Sec. II C. Please proofread.
  3. [Eq. (6) and Fig. 1] The variable s is defined as the coefficient for four 90-degree corners, but the text sometimes says 'universal corner log-coefficient' without specifying the number of corners. State explicitly in each place that the quoted values are for four 90-degree corners.
  4. [Sec. III B] The notation P is introduced as 'a slice-independent parameter' but later shown to depend on the phase and on L. Please clarify that P is the statistical average number of sites in the relevant link-bubbles, not an independent algorithmic parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: QMC corner-entropy extraction is an independent measurement benchmarked against an external analytic value.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (1) define the subtracted corner entropy S_s = S_A1 - S_A2 via Eqs. (4)-(6), with A1 smooth and A2 containing four 90-degree corners; (2) measure S_s in the bubble-basis PQMC; (3) locate the continuous transitions by Binder-cumulant FSS; (4) compare the slope at K_c with the analytic Gaussian value s=0.02567 from Refs. [4,22]. None of these steps is circular. Equation (6) is the definition of the extracted coefficient, not an input to its numerical value: the QMC slope is obtained by fitting S_s versus ln L, while the analytic value is used only for comparison (the paper explicitly states 'Here we put the analytic value of s=0.02567 by hand in the figure'). The Gaussian fixed-point identification via Binder collapse with ν=1/2 is a standard way to locate h_c, but the entanglement entropy is a different observable and is not used to select h_c; the match with the external Casini-Huerta result is therefore a genuine benchmark. The acknowledged φ^6 logarithmic-correction caveat (Sec. II A) and the possibility of FSS drift are correctness/accuracy risks, not circular reductions. The algorithmic self-citations [1,3] concern prior incremental-SWAP and subtracted-corner methods; the present paper re-derives the relevant update weights in Eqs. (20)-(22) and validates the combined algorithm against an external analytic result, so these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Overall, no claim reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entity is postulated. The central claim rests on field-theoretic identifications (Gaussian/tricritical), a standard analytic EE result, and the algorithmic construction of the bubble basis, which is described but not formally proven sign-problem-free. The fitted parameters K_c, h_c, and ν are determined from the same simulations that are later used to extract s, introducing mild selection/circularity risk.

free parameters (6)
  • K_c (tricritical point) = 16.02(6)
    Determined from Binder cumulant/FSS; used to define the Gaussian fixed point for EE simulation.
  • h_c(K) = e.g., 23.9(5) at K=5, 67.57(4) at K=16.02, 633 at K=160, 1260 at K=320
    Critical transverse fields from Binder crossings/FSS; EE is computed at these h_c values.
  • ν (correlation length exponent) = 0.63(5) (Ising), 0.52(5) (Gaussian)
    Fitted in FSS data collapse to classify universality classes.
  • Projection length m = 8L^3
    Hand-set parameter for PQMC ground-state projection; claimed sufficient but no convergence study shown.
  • 1/L_min extrapolation cutoff = stopped when last two points converge
    Ad hoc stopping rule for extracting the asymptotic corner coefficient.
  • Incremental step n (incremental SWAP) = not stated
    Number of increments in Eq. (25) is not reported; essential for reproducing error bars.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The (2+1)d tricritical Ising fixed point at upper critical dimension is described by the Gaussian (free scalar) field theory with marginally irrelevant φ^6.
    Invoked in Sec. II A and SM Sec. I to justify that K_c is a free-theory point whose corner term is known; if this identification fails, the benchmark is not the Gaussian value.
  • standard math The universal corner log-coefficient of a free massless scalar on a lattice is s=0.02567 for four 90° corners.
    From Refs [4,22], reproduced in Sec. III A; used as the benchmark.
  • domain assumption Equal boundary lengths of A1 and A2 cancel the area-law term exactly in S_s = S_A1 - S_A2 for all L.
    Used to derive Eq. (6); if subleading terms beyond the constant γ depend on shape with 1/L corrections, they are absorbed into the O(1/L) term.
  • ad hoc to paper The K-term Hamiltonian realizes the φ^4 coupling map (λ4 sign change across K_c).
    Based on RG analysis in SM Sec. I; the mapping from lattice couplings to m^2, λ4 is not derived rigorously.
  • domain assumption Bubble-basis PQMC weights are non-negative for the augmented TFIM.
    Required for sign-problem-free sampling; claimed 'straightforward to verify' in Sec. III B, but not proven in the text.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise computation of universal corner entanglement entropy at 2+1 dimension: From Ising to Gaussian quantum critical points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATSVWNYR

@misc{pith2026251200382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise computation of universal corner entanglement entropy at 2+1 dimension: From Ising to Gaussian quantum critical points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATSVWNYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00382}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Computing the subleading logarithmic term in the entanglement entropy (EE) of (2+1)d quantum many-body systems remains a significant challenge, despite its central role in revealing universal information about quantum states and quantum critical points (QCPs). Building on recent algorithmic advances that enable the stable calculation of EE as an exponential observable~\cite{zhouIncremental2024,zhangIntegral2024,liaoExtracting2024}, we develop a {\it bubble basis} projector quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm to precisely and efficiently compute the universal corner of EE at QCPs in a (2+1)d square-lattice transverse-field Ising model augmented with a four-body interaction. Turning on this interaction allows us to trace an Ising critical line, reaching the tricritical point, and then a line of first-order phase transition. In (2+1)d, the tricritical point is described by the Gaussian theory, where a theoretical calculation of the corner logarithmic term in the 2nd R\'enyi entropy term is available~\cite{UniversalCasini2007}. Our QMC results are in quantitative agreement with this theoretical value, providing a highly nontrivial benchmark of the algorithm. Furthermore, we also study the R\'enyi EE at the Ising critical line and on the first-order transition line, obtaining results consistent with theoretical expectations. These findings establish the long-sought connection between the universal values of an exactly solvable limit and those of a strongly correlated regime at (2+1)d.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00382 by Ben Lee-Yeung Ngai, Junchen Rong, Justin Tim-Lok Chau, Meng Cheng, Yuan Da Liao, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ). We employ the bubble basis PQMC method to compute the EE of the TFIM, enhanced further by the subtracted corner en￾tanglement entropy (SCEE) technique [3, 14, 17]. The SCEE technique is specifically designed to isolate the universal log￾coefficients originating from sharp corners on the entangle￾ment boundary during one QMC simulation. This is achieved by calculating the difference between the EEs of tw… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    X. Zhou, Z. Y . Meng, Y . Qi, and Y . D. Liao, Incremental SW AP operator for entanglement entropy: Application for exponential observables in quantum Monte Carlo simulation, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165106 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Pan, B.-B. Chen, K. Sun, and Z. Y . Meng, Integral algorithm of exponential observables for interacting fermions in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. B109, 205147 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Y . D. Liao, M. Song, J. Zhao, and Z. Y . Meng, Extracting uni- versal corner entanglement entropy during the quantum Monte Carlo simulation, Phys. Rev. B110, 235111 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, Universal terms for the entanglement entropy in 2+1 dimensions, Nuclear Physics B764, 183 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can Quantum- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  6. [6]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  7. [7]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  8. [8]

    Vedral, Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems, Nature453, 1004 (2008)

    V . Vedral, Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems, Nature453, 1004 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V . Vedral, Entanglement in many-body systems, Reviews of modern physics80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    S. V . Isakov, M. B. Hastings, and R. G. Melko, Topological entanglement entropy of a Bose–Hubbard spin liquid, Nature Physics7, 772 (2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    D’Emidio, Entanglement Entropy from Nonequilibrium Work, Phys

    J. D’Emidio, Entanglement Entropy from Nonequilibrium Work, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110602 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Zhao, Y .-C

    J. Zhao, Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y . Meng, Scal- ing of Entanglement Entropy at Deconfined Quantum Critical- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010601 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, Z. Y . Meng, C. Xu, and M. Cheng, Extract- ing subleading corrections in entanglement entropy at quantum phase transitions, SciPost Phys.17, 010 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    D’Emidio, R

    J. D’Emidio, R. Or ´us, N. Laflorencie, and F. de Juan, Universal Features of Entanglement Entropy in the Honeycomb Hubbard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 076502 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Y . D. Liao, Universal Term of Entanglement Entropy in theπ- Flux Hubbard Model, npj Quantum Information11, 64 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Y . Meng, Evolution of entanglement entropy at SU(N) deconfined quantum critical points, Science Advances11, eadr0634 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    J. I. Cirac, D. P ´erez-Garc´ıa, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Ma- trix product states and projected entangled pair states: Con- cepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 045003 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting Topological Order in a Ground State Wave Function, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110405 (2006)

    2006

  20. [20]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological Entanglement Entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Zhao, B.-B

    J. Zhao, B.-B. Chen, Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y . Meng, Measuring R ´enyi entanglement entropy with high effi- ciency and precision in quantum Monte Carlo simulations, npj Quantum Materials7, 69 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    Helmes, L

    J. Helmes, L. E. Hayward Sierens, A. Chandran, W. Witczak- Krempa, and R. G. Melko, Universal corner entanglement of Dirac fermions and gapless bosons from the continuum to the lattice, Phys. Rev. B94, 125142 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Whitsitt, W

    S. Whitsitt, W. Witczak-Krempa, and S. Sachdev, Entanglement entropy of the largeNWilson-Fisher conformal field theory, Phys. Rev. B95, 045148 (2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Inglis and R

    S. Inglis and R. G. Melko, Entanglement at a two-dimensional quantum critical point: a T=0 projector quantum Monte Carlo study, New Journal of Physics15, 073048 (2013), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2013

  25. [25]

    E. M. Stoudenmire, P. Gustainis, R. Johal, S. Wessel, and R. G. Melko, Corner contribution to the entanglement entropy of strongly interacting O(2) quantum critical systems in 2+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B90, 235106 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    A. B. Kallin, E. M. Stoudenmire, P. Fendley, R. R. P. Singh, and R. G. Melko, Corner contribution to the entanglement entropy of an O(3) quantum critical point in 2+1 dimensions, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2014, P06009 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    Helmes and S

    J. Helmes and S. Wessel, Entanglement entropy scaling in the bilayer Heisenberg spin system, Phys. Rev. B89, 245120 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    G. Pan, Y . D. Liao, W. Jiang, J. D’Emidio, Y . Qi, and Z. Y . Meng, Stable computation of entanglement entropy for two- dimensional interacting fermion systems, Phys. Rev. B108, L081123 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    The Supplemental Material provides details on the renormal- ization group flow from the Gaussian fixed point to the (2+1)D Ising conformal field theory. It also describes an advancement in the non-equilibrium measurement of entanglement entropy for path-integral quantum Monte Carlo, including benchmark results between this method and the incremental SW AP...

  30. [30]

    Blume, V

    M. Blume, V . J. Emery, and R. B. Griffiths, Ising Model for the λTransition and Phase Separation in He 3-He4 Mixtures, Phys. Rev. A4, 1071 (1971)

    1971

  31. [31]

    Maciołek, M

    A. Maciołek, M. Krech, and S. Dietrich, Phase diagram of a model for 3He−4He mixtures in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 69, 036117 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Farahmand Bafi, A

    N. Farahmand Bafi, A. Maciołek, and S. Dietrich, Phase dia- gram of fluid phases in 3He− 4 He mixtures, Phys. Rev. E91, 022138 (2015)

    2015

  33. [33]

    Lang and B

    J. Lang and B. Widom, Equilibrium of three liquid phases and approach to the tricritical point in benzene-ethanol-water- ammonium sulfate mixtures, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications81, 190 (1975)

    1975

  34. [34]

    D. R. Nelson and M. E. Fisher, Renormalization-group analy- sis of metamagnetic tricritical behavior, Phys. Rev. B11, 1030 (1975)

    1975

  35. [35]

    M. E. Fisher and D. R. Nelson, Universality of magnetic tricrit- ical points, Phys. Rev. B12, 263 (1975)

    1975

  36. [36]

    Binder, K

    K. Binder, K. V ollmayr, H.-P. Deutsch, J. D. Reger, M. Scheucher, and D. P. Landau, Monte Carlo Methods for First Order Phase Transitions: Some Recent Progress, International Journal of Modern Physics C03, 1025 (1992)

    1992

  37. [37]

    V ollmayr, J

    K. V ollmayr, J. D. Reger, M. Scheucher, and K. Binder, Finite size effects at thermally-driven first order phase transitions: A 12 phenomenological theory of the order parameter distribution, Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik B Condensed Matter91, 113 (1993)

    1993

  38. [38]

    Peschel, Calculation of reduced density matrices from corre- lation functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral36, L205 (2003)

    I. Peschel, Calculation of reduced density matrices from corre- lation functions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Gen- eral36, L205 (2003)

    2003

  39. [39]

    A. W. Sandvik, Ground State Projection of Quantum Spin Sys- tems in the Valence-Bond Basis, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 207203 (2005)

    2005

  40. [40]

    A. W. Sandvik and H. G. Evertz, Loop Updates for Varia- tional and Projector Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations in the Valence-Bond Basis, Physical Review B82, 024407 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    Pfeuty and R

    P. Pfeuty and R. J. Elliott, The Ising model with a transverse field. II. Ground state properties, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics4, 2370 (1971)

    1971

  42. [42]

    Hesselmann and S

    S. Hesselmann and S. Wessel, Thermal Ising transitions in the vicinity of two-dimensional quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B93, 155157 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    X. Y . Xu, K. Sun, Y . Schattner, E. Berg, and Z. Y . Meng, Non- Fermi Liquid at (2+1)D Ferromagnetic Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. X7, 031058 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    Pasquale Calabrese and John Cardy, Entanglement Entropy and Quantum Field Theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: The- ory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  45. [45]

    M. B. Hastings, I. Gonz ´alez, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, Measuring Renyi Entanglement Entropy in Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations, Physical Review Letters104, 157201 (2010)

    2010

  46. [46]

    T.-T. Wang, M. Song, L. Lyu, W. Witczak-Krempa, and Z. Y . Meng, Entanglement microscopy and tomography in many- body systems, Nature Communications16, 96 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    L. Lyu, M. Song, T.-T. Wang, Z. Y . Meng, and W. Witczak- Krempa, Multiparty entanglement microscopy of quantum Ising models in one, two, and three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 111, 245108 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Song, T.-T

    M. Song, T.-T. Wang, L. Lyu, W. Witczak-Krempa, and Z. Y . Meng, Entanglement architecture of beyond-Landau quantum criticality, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.09983 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, A. M. Samarakoon, B. Lake, S. E. Na- gler, G. E. Granroth, S. Okamoto, G. Alvarez, and D. A. Ten- nant, Witnessing entanglement in quantum magnets using neu- tron scattering, Phys. Rev. B103, 224434 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    C. Zhou, Z. Zhou, F. Desrochers, Y . B. Kim, and Z. Y . Meng, Quantum Fisher Information as a Thermal and Dynamical Probe in Frustrated Magnets: Insights from Quantum Spin Ice, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.14813 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    random sin- glet

    T. Shimokawa, S. Sabharwal, and N. Shannon, Can experimentally-accessible measures of entanglement distin- guish quantum spin liquids from disorder-driven “random sin- glet” phases ?, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.11874 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    T.-T. Wang, M. Song, Z. Y . Meng, and T. Grover, Analog of Topological Entanglement Entropy for Mixed States, PRX Quantum6, 010358 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    HPC2021, Information Technology Services, The University of Hong Kong

  54. [54]

    Beijing PARATERA Tech CO.,Ltd

  55. [55]

    http://www.nhr-verein.de/en/our-partners

  56. [56]

    L. D. Landauet al., On the theory of phase transitions, Zh. eksp. teor. Fiz7, 926 (1937)

    1937

  57. [57]

    K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Critical Exponents in 3.99 Di- mensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.28, 240 (1972)

    1972

  58. [58]

    Precise computation of universal corner entanglement entropy at 2+1 dimension: From Ising to Gaussian quantum critical points

    C. Jarzynski, Nonequilibrium Equality for Free Energy Differ- ences, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2690 (1997). 1 Supplemental Material for “Precise computation of universal corner entanglement entropy at 2+1 dimension: From Ising to Gaussian quantum critical points” In Sec. I, we provide the details in the RG flow analysis from the Gaussian fixed point to the Isin...

    1997

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.