Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Fisher information of magnetic quantum phase transition on Kondo lattice

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the quantum Fisher information of the transverse spin components — not the longitudinal one — witnesses multipartite entanglement in the Kondo-destroyed antiferromagnetic phase, and that this witness is directly accessi

desk verdict Extends the QFI entanglement witness into the AF-ordered Kondo lattice phase with a clean spin-wave analysis, but the claim that transverse QFI characterizes Kondo quasiparticle destruction is asserted, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16150 v1 pith:ROTP7JH2 submitted 2026-07-17 cond-mat.str-el

Yuan Fang , Lei Chen , Mounica Mahankali , Fang Xie , Yiming Wang , Shouvik Sur , Qimiao Si This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 71.27.+a75.40.Gb
keywords quantumFisherinformationKondolatticeheavyfermionsmultipartiteentanglementdestructionphasetransitionspinwavesinelasticneutronscattering
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 asks whether multipartite entanglement can characterize the ordered, Kondo-destroyed side of a magnetic quantum phase transition in a Kondo lattice. It argues that the quantum Fisher information (QFI) built from the transverse spin components — the ones perpendicular to the antiferromagnetic order parameter — remains nontrivially large throughout the ordered phase, while the longitudinal component stays trivial. That asymmetry, traced to gapless Goldstone modes, is proposed as an experimentally accessible witness that the local moments are entangled in a way that blocks Kondo-singlet formation and thus signals the destruction of heavy quasiparticles. A spin-wave analysis of a pure antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model reproduces the same transverse enhancement, showing the mechanism is generic to symmetry-broken magnets. If correct, the result turns polarized and unpolarized inelastic neutron scattering into probes of multipartite entanglement in heavy-fermion matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized quantum Fisher information density, nQFI = F_Q/N divided by (h_max − h_min)^2, evaluated for the staggered spin operator built from local moments at the antiferromagnetic wavevector Q. The load-bearing mechanism is the spontaneous breaking of SU(2) spin symmetry: the gapless Goldstone mode (the long-wavelength spin wave) feeds large transverse quantum fluctuations, which make nQFI(Sxy) = (zJ1/ω_q)(Sbar/S)^2 tanh(βω_q/2) grow as 1/ω_q; the longitudinal channel, governed by two-magnon processes, stays finite and trivial. The QFI is linked to experiment through the identity f_Q(q) = (4/π)∫ dν tanh(βν/2) χ″(q,ν), which converts the dynamical spin susceptibili

What would settle it

Measure the transverse QFI via polarized inelastic neutron scattering in an antiferromagnetic heavy-fermion compound, and independently measure the quasiparticle weight via quantum oscillation or photoemission measurements. If the transverse QFI is clearly above the trivial threshold while a large, heavy Fermi surface is present, the claimed connection to Kondo destruction would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a Kondo lattice, the paper identifies the QFI of the transverse local-spin operator at the antiferromagnetic ordering wavevector as the entanglement witness that survives in the Kondo-destroyed magnetic phase. In numerical solutions of the periodic Anderson lattice, the normalized QFI for Sz (along the order parameter) falls to the trivial threshold inside the ordered phase, while the transverse QFI stays above it and grows with the RKKY interaction. Spin-wave theory gives the explicit form nQFI(Sxy, q, T) = (zJ1/ω_q)(Sbar/S)^2 tanh(βω_q/2), which diverges as q → 0 at zero temperature because the Goldstone mode is gapless; the longitudinal QFI, by contrast, is finite and produced by t

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the multipartite entanglement among local moments revealed by the transverse QFI is what impedes Kondo-singlet formation, so that a high transverse QFI is a faithful signature of quasiparticle destruction — but the paper asserts this link rather than deriving it from a direct quasiparticle quantity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transverse spin QFI, not longitudinal QFI, is the entanglement witness of the Kondo-destroyed antiferromagnetic phase; the longitudinal QFI remains trivial throughout the ordered phase.
  • The transverse QFI is measurable via unpolarized inelastic neutron scattering, and the transverse-versus-longitudinal contrast is measurable via polarized scattering.
  • The transverse enhancement is a generic spin-wave/Goldstone effect in ordered magnets; it appears in a pure Heisenberg model with no Kondo coupling.
  • The transverse QFI saturates upon cooling, so its temperature dependence defines a characteristic entanglement-depth scale, in contrast to the quantum critical point where no saturation scale appears.
  • The strong operator dependence suggests that different operators can be used to witness multipartite entanglement in different sectors of the phase diagram.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transverse QFI merely tracks Goldstone-mode physics common to all ordered antiferromagnets, then its connection to Kondo destruction requires the additional step — not computed in the paper — of showing that the same entanglement blocks Kondo-singlet formation; a direct test would be to compute the local-moment quasiparticle weight across the ordered phase.
  • The spin-wave formula predicts a divergence of the transverse QFI as q → 0 at zero temperature, so finite-size and finite-temperature neutron measurements in layered heavy-fermion magnets could observe a growing entanglement depth near the magnetic zone center.
  • The same operator-selective QFI logic could be applied to other quantum phase transitions with gapless modes in the broken-symmetry phase, such as spin-nematic or multipolar ordered phases, using the appropriate order-parameter-orthogonal operators.
  • Because QFI can be extracted from the dynamical spin susceptibility alone, existing neutron data on antiferromagnetic heavy-fermion compounds may already contain the raw information for an initial estimate of transverse QFI without new experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of local spin operators in a Kondo lattice model across the magnetic quantum phase transition, combining extended dynamical mean-field theory (EDMFT) with linear spin-wave theory for a quasi-2D J1-J2 Heisenberg model. The central finding is that the QFI associated with the transverse spin components (Sx,Sy) becomes nontrivial in the Kondo-destroyed antiferromagnetic (AF) ordered phase, while the longitudinal Sz QFI remains trivial. The authors attribute this operator-dependent behavior to gapless transverse Goldstone modes, propose a spin-wave expression (Eq. (3)) for the transverse QFI, and suggest that the transverse QFI characterizes the destruction of heavy quasiparticles, with experimental access via unpolarized and polarized inelastic neutron scattering.

Significance. If the central claim held, the paper would provide a new experimentally accessible witness of multipartite entanglement in heavy-fermion ordered phases and a quantum-information characterization of Kondo destruction. The spin-wave derivation (Eq. (3)) and the longitudinal two-magnon calculation (Eq. (4)) are analytic and internally consistent; the EDMFT results show a clear operator-dependent QFI in the ordered phase, and the neutron-scattering proposal is concrete and falsifiable. However, the link between transverse QFI and Kondo quasiparticle destruction is asserted rather than derived. The Heisenberg spin-wave analysis in the same paper shows that the enhancement is a generic property of AF order with a gapless Goldstone mode, so the specific connection to Kondo physics requires either an additional calculated quasiparticle diagnostic or a more modest interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract's central claim that transverse QFI 'characterizes the destruction of heavy quasiparticles' is not derived. The EDMFT calculation reports spin susceptibilities and QFI only; no quasiparticle weight, f-electron self-energy, or Fermi-surface diagnostic is computed in the AF-ordered phase. The spin-wave expression Eq. (3) is obtained for a pure Heisenberg model with no Kondo coupling, and the Discussion itself states that the enhancement is a 'generic consequence' of gapless Goldstone modes. The sentence 'This in turn impedes the entanglement pathway for the formation of Kondo singlets' is an interpretive assertion. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should either (i) compute a quasiparticle quantity in the EDMFT ordered phase and correlate it with nQFI(Sxy), or (ii) soften the abstract and Discussion to state that transverse QFI witnesses multipartite entanglement in
  2. [Origin of enhanced transverse QFI, Eq. (3), Fig. 3] The Heisenberg spin-wave analysis shows that the transverse QFI enhancement follows from Goldstone-mode physics common to all antiferromagnets. As written, this weakens the specificity of the Kondo-lattice claim: the enhanced nQFI(Sxy) in the EDMFT results could be a pure ordering effect unrelated to Kondo destruction. The paper does not provide a quantitative comparison between the EDMFT nQFI(Sxy) and the bare Heisenberg-model prediction with a similar ordered moment and spin-wave stiffness, nor does it show how the Kondo coupling modifies the result. A direct comparison, or an explicit statement that no Kondo-specific effect is claimed beyond the ordered-phase entanglement, would be needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Discussion] Typo: 'qausiparticles' should be 'quasiparticles'.
  2. [Fig. 1(d) caption] Typo: 'The un-normalized QFI density of of the AF magnetization operator' — remove the extra 'of'.
  3. [Introduction] Grammar: 'to not only witness multipartite entanglement in different sectors and but also elucidate' — remove 'and' before 'but'.
  4. [References] Reference [9] is incomplete; volume and page numbers are missing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular step in the QFI derivations; the Kondo-destruction interpretation is an overreach, not a construction.

full rationale

The QFI values are computed from model dynamics, not fitted. Equation (6), f_Q(q) = (4/π)∫ tanh(βν/2) χ''(q,ν) dν, defines QFI through the dynamical susceptibility, and Eq. (7) provides the numerical route used for the EDMFT results. The central spin-wave formula, Eq. (3), nQFI(Ŝ_xy,q,T) = (zJ1/ω_q)(Sbar/S)^2 tanh(βω_q/2), is derived in the Supplemental Material from the J1–J2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian via Holstein–Primakoff and Bogoliubov transformations; ω_q and Sbar are determined by the model parameters, not fitted to the Kondo-lattice data. Thus the enhanced transverse QFI is a genuine prediction of the model dynamics, and no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. The self-citations (Refs. [8] and [43]) supply context and a known trivial-QFI result for the Fermi-liquid phase, but the present ordered-phase calculation does not reduce to them. The abstract's phrase 'characterizes the destruction of heavy quasiparticles' and the Discussion sentence 'This in turn impedes the entanglement pathway for the formation of Kondo singlets' are interpretive leaps: no f-electron quasiparticle weight, self-energy, or Fermi-surface volume is computed in the ordered phase, and the pure-Heisenberg spin-wave analysis shows the same transverse enhancement without any Kondo coupling. That is an overclaim or correctness risk, not a circularity, because no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own inputs by construction. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper computes QFI from model dynamics; the only hand-chosen parameters sit in the Heisenberg-model analysis and are not fitted to the Kondo-lattice targets. The main ledger entries are domain assumptions about EDMFT, analytic continuation, spin-wave theory, and one ad hoc interpretive bridge (entanglement among moments blocks Kondo singlets) that carries the Kondo-destruction wording of the central claim.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (interlayer coupling anisotropy in Heisenberg model, Eq. 2) = lambda -> 0 quasi-2D limit; finite-lambda results in Figs. 3(c,d)
    Hand-chosen model parameter in the spin-wave analysis; qualitative results are robust across lambda, so it is not fitted to the Kondo-lattice target.
  • J2/J1 (frustration ratio in Heisenberg model) = 0 <= J2/J1 <= 0.5, divergence at 0.5
    Scanned parameter; the transverse QFI enhancement is robust and diverges as the spin-wave velocity vanishes at J2/J1 = 0.5, a stated output rather than a fit.
  • Probe momentum q in spin-wave QFI figures = sqrt(2) S |q| = 0.1 (Figs. 3b, 8)
    Chosen to regularize the q -> 0 divergence for illustration; the central claim does not depend on this value.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math QFI witness bound: for m-producible states, f_Q <= m (h_max - h_min)^2; f_Q > (h_max - h_min)^2 witnesses bipartite entanglement
    Used in the End Matter (Eq. 5 region) to translate computed QFI values into entanglement-depth statements; from Hyllus and Toth, cited as refs. [19,20].
  • standard math QFI of a thermal state equals (4/pi) integral d nu tanh(beta nu / 2) chi''(q, nu) (Eq. 6), approx 4 S(q) at low T (Eq. 7)
    Bridges the computed susceptibility to the QFI; from Hauke et al., ref. [23]; requires the state to be a Gibbs state of the model.
  • domain assumption EDMFT with a self-consistent Bose-Fermi Anderson impurity model captures the spin dynamics of the periodic Anderson/Kondo lattice in the ordered phase
    Central numerical method (Kondo lattice section); faithfulness of the local impurity approximation for the QFI quantity is assumed, building on the authors' prior work [3,47].
  • domain assumption Pade and maximum-entropy analytic continuation of imaginary-time EDMFT data reliably yields chi''(q, nu) for the QFI integral
    SM Analytic continuation; Fig. 4 shows the two methods disagree at high frequency, where the QFI weight tanh(beta nu/2) is about 1; the claim that this does not affect QFI is asserted, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory (Holstein-Primakoff, neglecting interactions beyond the Sbar approximation) captures the QFI of the ordered Heisenberg model
    SM Spin wave analysis; valid for large S and weak quantum fluctuations; the S -> infinity limit nQFI -> 0 (Eq. 43) shows the effect is quantum-fluctuation-driven.
  • ad hoc to paper Multipartite entanglement among local moments impedes Kondo-singlet formation, so enhanced transverse QFI characterizes the destruction of heavy quasiparticles
    Discussion: 'impedes the entanglement pathway for the formation of Kondo singlets'; asserted without a calculation relating the QFI to any quasiparticle quantity in the ordered phase.
  • domain assumption The thermodynamic limit is taken after solving around a symmetry-broken ordered state, justifying the divergent q -> 0 transverse QFI
    Footnote [53]; the divergence of transverse QFI at T -> 0, q -> 0 is a property of the broken-symmetry sector; the paper does not address that the exact SU(2)-symmetric Gibbs state would have isotropic QFI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Fisher information of magnetic quantum phase transition on Kondo lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROTP7JH2

@misc{pith2026260716150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Fisher information of magnetic quantum phase transition on Kondo lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROTP7JH2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16150}
}
read the original abstract

Strange metals exemplify highly collective quantum many-body systems that call for new means of characterization, and there is considerable potential for quantum information approaches contributing to the cause. We investigate multipartite entanglement across the quantum phase transition of a Kondo lattice model using the quantum Fisher information (QFI). We show that the QFI associated with the spin components transverse to the order parameter characterizes the destruction of heavy quasiparticles in the Kondo-destroyed magnetic-ordered phase. The physical origin of this observation is elucidated through an analysis of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model. We propose to test the results in terms of both unpolarized and polarized inelastic neutron scattering measurements in the ordered part of the heavy fermion phase diagram. Our findings illustrate how different operators of a many-body system can be employed to not only witness multipartite entanglement in different sectors and but also elucidate the overall physics across different parts of the phase diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Quantum Fisher information of the operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Normalized QFI density (nQFI) of transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of the quasi-2D Heisenberg model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Analytic continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Normalized QFI density determined through maximum entropy method. Only converged points are shown here. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of nQFI (using Padé) and QV for the Kondo lattice model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Zero-temperature reduction of the ordered moment as a function of anisotropy parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Normalized QFI density (nQFI) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum Fisher Information in semiclassical magnon systems

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

    QFI diverges across multiple wavevectors in spin-wave theory whenever a frustrated magnet approaches an emergent quantum phase, offering a momentum-resolved entanglement signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Keimer and J

    B. Keimer and J. E. Moore, Nature Physics13, 1045 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    S.PaschenandQ.Si,NatureReviewsPhysics3,9(2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    H. Hu, L. Chen, and Q. Si, Nature Physics20, 1863 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Coleman, C

    P. Coleman, C. Pépin, Q. Si, and R. Ramazashvili, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter13, R723 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Senthil, M

    T. Senthil, M. Vojta, and S. Sachdev, Physical Review B 69, 035111 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent, and J. L. Smith, Nature 413, 804 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Kirchner, S

    S. Kirchner, S. Paschen, Q. Chen, S. Wirth, D. Feng, J. D. Thompson, and Q. Si, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 011002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Y. Fang, M. Mahankali, Y. Wang, L. Chen, H. Hu, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, Nature Communications16, 2498 (2025)

    2025

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Steffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen, Nature Physics (2026)

    2026

  2. [10]

    J. S. Bell,Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- ics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    B. Zeng, X. Chen, D.-L. Zhou, X.-G. Wen,et al.,Quan- tum information meets quantum matter(Springer, 2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information(Cambridge university press Cambridge, 2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    K. C. Tan, V. Narasimhachar, and B. Regula, Physical Review Letters127, 200402 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Physical Review Letters96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Physical Review Letters 101, 010504 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, M. B. Hastings, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters100, 070502 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Tóth, Phys

    G. Tóth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Pezzè, M

    L. Pezzè, M. Gabbrielli, L. Lepori, and A. Smerzi, Phys- ical Review Letters119, 250401 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Pezzè, A

    L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Mathew, S

    G. Mathew, S. L. L. Silva, A. Jain, A. Mohan, D. T. Adroja, V. G. Sakai, C. V. Tomy, A. Banerjee, R. Goreti, A. V. N., R. Singh, and D. Jaiswal-Nagar, Physical Re- view Research2, 043329 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    F. L. Pratt, F. Lang, W. Steinhardt, S. Haravifard, and S. J. Blundell, Physical Review B106, L060401 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Zhang, Y

    Y.-R. Zhang, Y. Zeng, T. Liu, H. Fan, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Physical Review Research4, 023144 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    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, Physical Review B103, 224434 (2021); Physical Review B107, 059902 (2023)

    2021

  20. [28]

    A. O. Scheie, E. A. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. A. M. Paddi- son, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. D. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, D. Abernathy, D. M. Pajerowski, T. J. Williams, S.-S. Zhang, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. D. Pemmaraju, A. S. Sefat, D. S. Parker, T. P. Dev- ereaux, R....

    2024

  21. [29]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, C. J. Mukherjee, M. M. Koza, M. Enderle, Z. Tylczynski, S. Okamoto, R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, and G. Alvarez, Physical Review Letters127, 037201 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Hales, U

    J. Hales, U. Bajpai, T. Liu, D. R. Baykusheva, M. Li, M. Mitrano, and Y. Wang, Nature Communications14, 3512 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lambert and E

    J. Lambert and E. S. Sørensen, Physical Review B102, 224401 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    T. Liu, L. Xu, J. Liu, and Y. Wang, Physical Review X 15, 011056 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    D. R. Baykusheva, M. H. Kalthoff, D. Hofmann, M. Claassen, D. M. Kennes, M. A. Sentef, and M. Mi- trano, Physical Review Letters130, 106902 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Bałut, B

    D. Bałut, B. Bradlyn, and P. Abbamonte, Physical Re- view B111, 125161 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Abbamonte, and P

    D.Bałut, X.Guo, N.deVries, D.Chaudhuri, B.Bradlyn, 6 P. Abbamonte, and P. W. Phillips, Physica C: Supercon- ductivity and its Applications635, 1354750 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    G. Ji, D. E. Palomino, N. Goldman, T. Ozawa, P. Riseborough, J. Wang, and B. Mera, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.14028 (2025), arXiv:2507.14028 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Guan and B

    Y. Guan and B. Bradlyn, Physical Review Research8, 013291 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, W. Simeth, E. Dagotto, and D. A. Tennant, Materials Today Quantum5, 100020 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Adesso, T

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Coleman and A

    P. Coleman and A. J. Schofield, Nature433, 226 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    L. Y. Chen, D. T. Lowder, E. Bakali, A. M. An- drews, W. Schrenk, M. Waas, R. Svagera, G. Eguchi, L. Prochaska, Y. Wang, C. Setty, S. Sur, Q. Si, S. Paschen, and D. Natelson, Science382, 907 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Y. Wang, Y. Fang, F. Xie, and Q. Si, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.13958 (2025), arXiv:2502.13958 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Si and J

    Q. Si and J. L. Smith, Physical Review Letters77, 3391 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    J.L.SmithandQ.Si,PhysicalReviewB61,5184(2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    Chitra and G

    R. Chitra and G. Kotliar, Physical Review Letters84, 3678 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    H. Hu, L. Chen, and Q. Si, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2210.14197 (2022), arXiv:2210.14197 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Manousakis, Reviews of Modern Physics63, 1 (1991)

    E. Manousakis, Reviews of Modern Physics63, 1 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting electrons and quantum mag- netism(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Physical Review Letters 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  44. [52]

    Supplemental material

  45. [53]

    Here, however, we solve the lattice model around a symmetry-broken ordered state, so the thermodynamic limit can be taken afterward

    Conventionally, spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs only in the thermodynamic limit for a lattice model. Here, however, we solve the lattice model around a symmetry-broken ordered state, so the thermodynamic limit can be taken afterward

  46. [54]

    Frérot and T

    I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Physical Review Letters133, 260402 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    S. Sur, Y. Wang, M. Mahankali, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, Nature Communications17, 4404 (2026)

    2026

  48. [56]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Let- ters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  49. [57]

    Petz and C

    D. Petz and C. Ghinea, inQuantum Probability and Related Topics, edited by R. Rebolledo and M. Orszag (2011) pp. 261–281, arXiv:1008.2417 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kaufmann and K

    J. Kaufmann and K. Held, Computer Physics Communi- cations282, 108519 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, E. Dagotto, D. A. Tennant, and T. Roscilde, Physical Review Research6, 033183 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, E. Dagotto, and D. A. Tennant, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2400196 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Bippus, J

    F. Bippus, J. Krsnik, M. Kitatani, L. Akšamović, A. Kauch, N. Barišić, and K. Held, Physical Review B 112, L081110 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    Frérot and T

    I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Physical Review B94, 075121 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Frérot and T

    I. Frérot and T. Roscilde, Nature Communications10, 577 (2019). End Matter Brief review of quantum Fisher information—QFIwas originally introduced in quantum metrology as a measure of the sensitivity of a quantum state to changes in a pa- rameter [56]. As an entanglement witne...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.