Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

In the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar model, every holographic entanglement measure has critical exponent 1, twice that of the scalar field.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:09 UTC pith:SZSHV5T3

load-bearing objection A workmanlike first computation with a plausible exponent-doubling story, but the headline universality claims outrun the evidence: the v_B competition picture rests on an underived proportionality and the α=1 fits lack controlled windows or error bars. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.00069 v3 pith:SZSHV5T3 submitted 2025-12-31 hep-th gr-qc

Diagnosing Critical Behavior in AdS Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar Theory via Holographic Entanglement Measures

Zhe Yang , GuangZai Ye , Jian-Pin Wu , Peng Liu This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords holographic entanglement entropymutual informationentanglement wedge cross-sectionbutterfly velocityEinstein-Maxwell-scalar theorycritical exponentsspontaneous scalarizationphase transition
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 paper studies four holographic probes of the spontaneous scalarization transition in AdS Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory: holographic entanglement entropy, mutual information, entanglement wedge cross-section, and butterfly velocity. Its central claim is that the probes it scales — v_B, HEE, and EWCS — all change with critical exponent 1, exactly twice the exponent 1/2 of the scalar order parameter, and it argues this doubling is universal for geometry-derived quantities. The mechanism is the quadratic relation δg ∼ (δφ)^2 from the perturbative expansion near the critical point. It also argues that the butterfly velocity's non-monotonic dependence on the coupling constant comes from a competition between a thermal-entropy term and an entanglement term in the horizon formula, and that mutual information consistently grows faster than EWCS during the transition.

Core claim

Numerically in the EMS model, the paper establishes that the differences in butterfly velocity, holographic entanglement entropy, and entanglement wedge cross-section between scalarized and normal phases all vanish as (1 − T/T_c)^1, while the scalar condensate vanishes as (1 − T/T_c)^{1/2}: α_vB = α_SE = α_Ew = 1 = 2α_φ. The mechanism offered is the perturbative expansion about the critical point, in which the scalar field starts at order ε and the metric functions U and V start at order ε^2, so δg_μν ∼ (δφ)^2 and any geometry-derived measure inherits twice the scalar's exponent. The paper also reports that MI and EWCS grow across the transition while HEE falls, and that v_B is non-monotonic

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the horizon formula for the butterfly velocity, v_B^2 = πT μ / (2V(z) − V'(z)) evaluated at z=1, together with the identification of the two denominator terms: V(z) is the thermal entropy density, and E_w ∝ V'(z) from an expansion of the entanglement wedge cross-section. The perturbative expansion φ = εφ_1 + ε^3φ_2 + …, U = 1 + ε^2 U_2 + …, V = 1 + ε^2 V_2 + … supplies the δg ∼ (δφ)^2 relation that converts the scalar's exponent 1/2 into the exponent 1 seen in all geometric measures. The EWCS computation uses the Newton-Raphson method to impose orthogonality conditions that locate the global minimum cross-section in the entanglement wedge.

Load-bearing premise

Everything about the butterfly velocity's non-monotonicity rests on the assertion, from Eq. (25), that the entanglement wedge cross-section E_w is proportional to V'(z) at the horizon; that proportionality is not proven from the full minimization, and if it fails the thermal-vs-entanglement competition story for v_B loses its foundation.

What would settle it

Recompute E_w from the full minimal-surface equations without using the near-horizon expansion (25), and test whether E_w / V'(z) stays constant as b approaches the critical coupling at fixed T; a non-constant ratio would refute the claimed competition mechanism for v_B. Separately, an independent high-precision extraction of the slope of log(δv_B) versus log(1 − T/T_c) that deviates from 1 would falsify the universal-exponent claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the universal exponent α = 1 holds, the holographic information measures can serve as sharper order-parameter diagnostics than the scalar condensate itself, since their critical signature is twice as steep.
  • The butterfly velocity's non-monotonicity becomes a predicted signature of the competition between thermal and entanglement contributions, not a numerical artifact, and should appear in other holographic phase transitions with the same denominator structure.
  • The inequality A(I) ≥ A(E_w) for growth rates, previously seen in holographic p-wave superconductors, is here extended to EMS theory, supporting the claim that MI outgrowing EWCS is a general feature of thermodynamic holographic transitions.
  • Because HEE is contaminated by thermal entropy for large widths, MI and EWCS are better suited for diagnosing the onset of scalarization; this guides which observable to use in future holographic studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If δg ∼ (δφ)^2 is the true mechanism, then any holographic quantity built purely from the metric — such as entanglement entropy for other shapes, Wilson loops, or the quantum information metric — should also exhibit the doubled exponent 1 in this model; this is a testable corollary the paper does not compute.
  • The claimed proportionality E_w ∝ V'(z) suggests a direct diagnostic: compute the full entanglement wedge cross-section without the near-horizon expansion and check whether it tracks V'(z) as the coupling approaches its critical value; a failure would undermine the v_B competition picture.
  • The MI–EWCS growth inequality could be probed in tensor-network or cold-atom simulations of critical systems, since the paper frames it as a general property of mixed-state entanglement measures during phase transitions rather than a peculiarity of holography.
  • The non-monotonic v_B could serve as a distinguishing signature: models where the entanglement term dominates first in the denominator would show the same dip-and-rise, while transitions with a different ordering of thermal and entanglement contributions would not.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies holographic entanglement measures — holographic entanglement entropy (HEE), mutual information (MI), entanglement wedge cross-section (EWCS), and butterfly velocity v_B — in Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar (EMS) theory. It reports that HEE decreases across the scalarization transition while MI and EWCS increase, and that v_B is non-monotonic in the coupling constant. The non-monotonicity is attributed to a competition between a term V(z) associated with thermal entropy and a term V'(z) associated with entanglement, based on Eq. (23) and Eq. (25). The paper further claims that all critical exponents characterizing δv_B, δS_E, and δE_w are equal to 1, twice the scalar-field exponent 1/2, and explains this as δg ∼ (δφ)^2 from the perturbative expansion in Eq. (33). Finally, it reports an inequality between the growth rates of MI and EWCS, A(Ĩ) ≥ A(Ēw), and suggests these features are universal across thermodynamic phase transitions.

Significance. If correct, the claim that all holographic information measures share a universal critical exponent α=1 twice that of the order parameter would be a useful, simple diagnostic for holographic phase transitions. The paper provides numerical evidence in a specific EMS model and proposes a qualitative explanation via metric backreaction. The comparison of static versus dynamical information measures and the MI–EWCS growth-rate inequality are also interesting. The model is concrete and the computations cover several nonlocal observables. However, the central quantitative claims are not yet established because the exponent extraction lacks error control, the derivation of the key proportionality E_w ∝ V'(z) is incomplete, and the perturbative explanation is an ansatz that is not independently verified for the actual quantities entering the observables.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (25)] The claim that EWCS is proportional to V'(z), which underlies the competition picture for v_B in Fig. 7 and the discussion after Eq. (23), is not established. Equation (25) displays an integral with a singular (z−1)^{-2} factor and no derivation, integration limits, or justification of why it implies E_w ∝ V'(z). As written, this equation does not lead to that proportionality. Since the qualitative explanation of v_B's non-monotonicity rests entirely on this relation, the derivation must be supplied or the interpretation must be removed.
  2. [III.C, Figs. 8–10] The critical exponents are extracted from log-log linear fits without error bars, without a statement of the fitting-window selection, and without demonstrating that the local slope approaches a constant. The slope insets show substantial variation: in Fig. 8 the T-scan slope wanders roughly between 0.8 and 1.2, and the b-scan slope varies from about 0.4 to 1.1; Fig. 9 insets show similar non-constant behavior; Fig. 10 insets vary between about 0.4 and 0.65. If the local slope is not asymptotically constant, the data do not define a unique exponent. The claims α_vB ≈ α_SE ≈ α_Ew ≈ 1 and α_φ = 1/2 require fit windows, uncertainties, and a stability check.
  3. [III.C, Eqs. (33)–(34)] The theoretical explanation of exponent doubling is essentially read off the assumed perturbative expansion U = 1 + ϵ²U₂ + …, V = 1 + ϵ²V₂ + …, which already imposes δg ∼ (δφ)². The paper verifies only the scaling of the boundary coefficient φ₃ (Fig. 10), not the scaling of the horizon quantities V(1) − 1 and V'(1) that actually enter v_B and the entanglement measures. To make the argument load-bearing, the authors should directly measure δV(1) ∼ τ and δV'(1) ∼ τ near the critical point; otherwise Eq. (34) is a restatement of the ansatz, not an independent derivation.
  4. [IV, Fig. 11] The inequality A(Ĩ) ≥ A(Ēw) is demonstrated for a single subsystem configuration, (a,p,c) = (0.3, 0.1, 0.2). The abstract and Section IV claim this inequality is universal across thermodynamic phase transitions. Universality of this type cannot be concluded from one configuration. The authors should either scan over (a,p,c) and strip width or provide an analytic argument for why the inequality is configuration-independent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (23)] Equation (23) writes v_B ∝ 1/(2V(z) − V'(z)), but from Eq. (22) it is v_B² that is proportional to this denominator. The square root should appear in Eq. (23) or the text should refer to v_B². This is important for interpreting the competition in Fig. 7.
  2. [II.B, Eq. (20)] In the definition of Q₂(θ₁,θ₂), the inner product appears to be with ∂/∂θ₁ again, but it should be with ∂/∂θ₂ to enforce orthogonality at p₂. Please fix the typo.
  3. [III.B, Eq. (25)] The notation ∫_Σ ... dz is unclear: what is the surface Σ and what are the integration limits? Also the integrand contains (z−1)² in the denominator; please clarify the expansion and ensure no divergence at the horizon.
  4. [Fig. 8] The right panel legend lists temperatures (T=0.2114, etc.) but the x-axis is ln(δ(b/bc−1)). The legend entries should correspond to the b-scan curves or the caption should be clarified.
  5. [III.C] The term 'growth rate' for the amplitude A(Q) in Eq. (37) is misleading; A(Q) is the coefficient of the power-law correction, not a rate. Consider renaming it 'amplitude' or 'power-law coefficient'.
  6. [IV, Fig. 11] The text says the left plot shows relative values 'with varying coupling constants b', but the horizontal axis is T. Please clarify what is plotted: the relative values as functions of T for several fixed b, or as functions of b at fixed T?

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central exponent relation follows from a standard perturbative expansion of the EMS equations and is cross-checked by independent numerical solutions; self-citations are supporting but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular. The claim α_vB ≈ α_SE ≈ α_Ew ≈ 1 = 2α_ϕ is presented in two parts: (i) a numerical extraction of slopes from solutions of the full EMS equations (Figs. 8–10), and (ii) an analytic explanation via the standard even-in-ϕ perturbative expansion in Eq. (33), which yields δg ∼ (δϕ)^2. The numerical data are generated from the complete nonlinear equations of motion, not from the perturbative expansion, so the agreement is a genuine consistency check rather than a fit being renamed as a prediction. The v_B non-monotonicity is a direct numerical property of the denominator in Eq. (22); the decomposition into V(z) and V'(z) is an interpretation of that formula, not a circular derivation. The identification E_w ∝ V'(z) via Eq. (25) is asserted rather than fully demonstrated, which is a rigor/correctness concern, not a circularity. The MI–EWCS growth-rate inequality is verified numerically in this paper (Fig. 11); reference [39] is an independent prior numerical study, and invoking it to suggest generality is an overgeneralization but not circular. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation chain is used to force the central claims. The absence of error bars and fitting-window definitions affects the robustness of the exponent extraction, not the circularity of the argument.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model and all holographic measures are taken from prior literature; no new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are the fitted exponents/coefficients and the hand-chosen subsystem widths.

free parameters (3)
  • critical exponents α_vB, α_SE, α_Ew, α_φ = ≈1, ≈1, ≈1, ≈0.5
    Extracted from linear fits to log-log plots in Figs. 8–10; no uncertainties reported; these fitted numbers carry the central scaling claim.
  • growth-rate coefficients A(Ĩ), A(Ēw) = not tabulated
    Fitted from relative-value curves in Fig. 11; their difference is the basis for the proposed inequality.
  • subsystem widths (a,p,c) and strip width w = (0.3,0.1,0.2); w=1
    Chosen by hand; all MI/EWCS and HEE results are shown for a single configuration, so the 'opposite behavior' and inequality claims are not demonstrated across configurations.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Ryu–Takayanagi formula S_A=Area/4G_N (Eq. 11)
    Used to define holographic entanglement entropy; standard but unproved in this paper.
  • domain assumption EWCS is the holographic dual of mixed-state entanglement measures (Eq. 16)
    Conjectural duality invoked to interpret E_w as entanglement; the paper relies on it.
  • domain assumption Butterfly velocity formula for anisotropic black branes (Eq. 21), simplified to Eq. (22)
    Taken from ref. [54]; the shockwave computation behind it is not reproduced.
  • domain assumption Perturbative expansion Eq. (33): φ = εφ1 + ε^3φ2 + ..., U,V = 1 + ε^2U2 + ...
    The even-power metric expansion assumes δg ∼ δφ²; the exponent doubling is read off this ansatz rather than derived from the full EOM here.
  • domain assumption Coupling function f(φ)=e^{-bφ²}
    Defines the EMS model [58,59]; all results depend on this choice of coupling.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15211 in / 14958 out tokens · 142857 ms · 2026-08-03T13:09:05.075019+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the holographic mixed-state entanglement measures in the Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar (EMS) theory. Several quantities are computed, including the holographic entanglement entropy (HEE), mutual information (MI), entanglement wedge cross-section (EWCS), and butterfly velocity ($v_B$). Our findings demonstrate that these measures can effectively diagnose phase transitions. Notably, EWCS and MI, as mixed-state entanglement measures, exhibit behavior opposite to that of the HEE. Additionally, we study the butterfly velocity, a dynamic quantum information measure, and observe that it behaves differently from the static quantum information measures. We analyze the butterfly velocity and find that its non-monotonic behavior arises from the competition between two contributions in its expression, which the analytic structure suggests may be correlated with distinct physical interpretations. Moreover, we examine the scaling behavior of the holographic entanglement measures and find that all the critical exponents are equal to $1$, which is twice that of the scalar field. We also explore the inequality between EWCS and MI, noting that the growth rate of MI consistently exceeds that of EWCS during phase transitions. These features are expected to be universal across thermodynamic phase transitions, with the inequalities becoming more significant as one moves away from the critical point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00069 by GuangZai Ye, Jian-Pin Wu, Peng Liu, Zhe Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phase diagram of thermal phase transition in the EMS model. boundary and z = 1 representing the horizon. The quantities U, V, a, ϕ are the functions of z, which can be obtained by solving the EOM. Additionally, the ansatz will return to AdS-RN black brane when we set a = U = V = 1, and ϕ = 0. The Hawking temperature of this system is given by T˜ = 6−µ 2 8π . Notably, the system remains invariant under the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The left plot: The minimum surface for a given width w. The right plot: The minimum cross-section (green surface) of the entanglement wedge. trated in the left plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Illustration of holographic mutual information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The illustration depicting the calculation of EWCS, and the red surface representing the minimum cross-section. where S(a) and S(c) denote the HEE of subsystems a and c, respectively. A positive MI signals entanglement; zero or negative values indicate a disentangled phase where thermal effects dominate. Nevertheless, MI can still be influenced by thermal entropy in certain configurations [31], prompting i… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The behavior of HEE and MI versus temperature T and coupling constant b when the phase transition occurs. The red dashed line represents the critical point. Left plot: the behavior of HEE SE when we set the width w = 1. Right plot: the behavior of MI when we set the configurations (a, p, c) = (0.3, 0.1, 0.2). For an isotropic EMS model, this simplifies to vB = s πT µ 2V (z) − V ′ (z) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The red dashed line represents the critical point of the phase transition. Left plot: the behavior of EWCS Ew versus different coupling constant b and the temperature T. Right plot: the behavior of butterfly velocity vB versus different coupling constant b and the temperature T. critical point. The rate of change accelerates markedly in the scalarized phase. However, for large strip widths, HEE becomes dom… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left plot: the function (2V (z) − V ′ (z))|z=1 versus the coupling constant b at different temperatures T. Right plot: the butterfly velocity vB versus b at T = 0.2114. The blue dashed line represents the peak point of vB and the critical point, respectively. As the coupling constant b decreases, the region of vB is predominantly influenced by V ′ (z) and V (z), respectively. The above analysis reveals dis… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The scaling behavior of butterfly velocity vB. The inset plot is the slope of the scaling behavior, which represents the critical exponent. Left plot: the scaling behavior of vB with the change of temperature T. Right plot: the scaling behavior of vB with the change of coupling constant b, where bc represents the critical coupling constant. b=-12.03 b=-13.14 b=-14.35 -5.0 -4.5 -4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -6.0 -5.5 -5.0… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The scaling behavior of HEE SE and EWCS Ew. The inset plot is the slope of the scaling behavior, which represents the critical exponent. Left plot: the scaling behavior of SE with the change of temperature. Right plot: the scaling behavior of Ew with the change of temperature. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The scaling behavior of ϕ3. The inset plot represents the slope of the scaling behavior, which can represent the critical exponent. Left plot: the scaling behavior of ϕ3 as a function of temperature. Right plot: the scaling behavior of ϕ3 with respect to the coupling constant b. study, we have found an inequality between the growth rate of the EWCS and the MI in the holographic p-wave superconductor [39].… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The growth rate of EWCS and MI with the same configuration. Left plot: the relative values of EWCS and MI with varying coupling constants b, at the phase transition point. The solid line represents the relative value of EWCS E˜ w. The dashed line represents the relative value of MI ˜I. Right plot: the value of A( ˜I) − A(E˜ w). The red dashed line marks the critical point of the phase transition. be repre… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multipartite entanglement characterizing topological phase transitions in holographic nodal line semimetals

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Tripartite entanglement measures in holographic nodal line semimetals vanish at long distance but decay with phase-dependent power laws that jump at the quantum critical point.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition,

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci and R. Fazio, “Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition,” Nature416, no.6881, 608-610 (2002) doi:10.1038/416608a

    work page doi:10.1038/416608a 2002

  2. [2]

    Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 181602 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602 [arXiv:hep-th/0603001 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Generalized gravitational entropy,

    A. Lewkowycz and J. Maldacena, “Generalized gravitational entropy,” JHEP08, 090 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)090 [arXiv:1304.4926 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A Covariant holographic entanglement en- tropy proposal,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, “A Covariant holographic entanglement en- tropy proposal,” JHEP07, 062 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062 [arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Entanglement in many-body systems,

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh and V. Vedral, “Entanglement in many-body systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517-576 (2008) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.517 [arXiv:quant-ph/0703044 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    AdS Bubbles, Entropy and Closed String Tachyons,

    T. Nishioka and T. Takayanagi, “AdS Bubbles, Entropy and Closed String Tachyons,” JHEP 01, 090 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/090 [arXiv:hep-th/0611035 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Entanglement as a probe of confinement,

    Klebanov, I., Kutasov, D. & Murugan, A. “Entanglement as a probe of confinement,” Nuclear Physics B796, 274-293 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.12.017 19

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.12.017 2008

  8. [8]

    Topological Entanglement Entropy and Holography,

    A. Pakman and A. Parnachev, “Topological Entanglement Entropy and Holography,” JHEP 07, 097 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/097 [arXiv:0805.1891 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Holographic Phase Transition Probed by Nonlocal Observables,

    X. X. Zeng and L. F. Li, “Holographic Phase Transition Probed by Nonlocal Observables,” Adv. High Energy Phys.2016, 6153435 (2016) doi:10.1155/2016/6153435 [arXiv:1609.06535 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Interplay between the holographic QCD phase diagram and mutual\&n- partite information,

    S. Mahapatra, “Interplay between the holographic QCD phase diagram and mutual\&n- partite information,” JHEP04, 137 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)137 [arXiv:1903.05927 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [12]

    Computable measure of entanglement,

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, “Computable measure of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A65(2002), 032314 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032314 [arXiv:quant-ph/0102117 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [13]

    Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex,

    M. B. Plenio, “Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex,” Physical review letters, vol. 95, no. 9, p. 090503, 2005

    2005

  13. [14]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009), 865-942 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865 [arXiv:quant-ph/0702225 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [15]

    Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function,

    Levin, Michael, and Xiao-Gang Wen. “Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function,” Physical review letters 96.11 (2006): 110405

    2006

  15. [16]

    Heavy Fermions and Quantum Phase Transitions,

    Q. Si and F. Steglich, “Heavy Fermions and Quantum Phase Transitions,” Science329, 1161 (2010) doi:10.1126/science.1191195 [arXiv:1102.4896 [cond-mat.str-el]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [17]

    Charge density wave, superconductivity, and anomalous metallic be- havior in 2d transition metal dichalcogenides,

    A. C. Neto, “Charge density wave, superconductivity, and anomalous metallic be- havior in 2d transition metal dichalcogenides,” Physical review letters86, (2001). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4382

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.86.4382 2001

  17. [18]

    Quantum criticality in heavy-fermion metals,

    P. Gegenwart, Q. Si, and F. Steglich, “Quantum criticality in heavy-fermion metals,” nature physics4, 186–197 (2008) doi:10.1038/nphys892

    doi:10.1038/nphys892 2008

  18. [19]

    Observation of the frac- tional quantum hall effect in graphene,

    K. I. Bolotin, F. Ghahari, M. D. Shulman, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, “Observation of the frac- tional quantum hall effect in graphene,” nature462, 196–199 (2009). doi:10.1038/nature08582

    doi:10.1038/nature08582 2009

  19. [20]

    The World as a hologram,

    L. Susskind, “The World as a hologram,” J. Math. Phys.36, 6377-6396 (1995) doi:10.1063/1.531249 [arXiv:hep-th/9409089 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  20. [21]

    The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” 20 Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231-252 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1 [arXiv:hep- th/9711200 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 1998

  21. [22]

    Caceres, P

    E. Caceres, P. H. Nguyen and J. F. Pedraza, JHEP09(2015), 184 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)184 [arXiv:1507.06069 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [23]

    Mixed state entanglement and thermal phase transitions,

    P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “Mixed state entanglement and thermal phase transitions,” Phys. Rev. D104(2021) no.4, 046017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.046017 [arXiv:2009.01529 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [24]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy on P- wave Superconductor Phase Transition,

    R. G. Cai, S. He, L. Li and Y. L. Zhang, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy on P- wave Superconductor Phase Transition,” JHEP07(2012), 027 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)027 [arXiv:1204.5962 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  24. [25]

    Holographic Entanglement Entropy Close to Quantum Phase Transitions,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, C. Niu, J. P. Wu and Z. Y. Xian, “Holographic Entanglement Entropy Close to Quantum Phase Transitions,” JHEP04, 114 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)114 [arXiv:1502.03661 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [26]

    Characterization of Quantum Phase Transition us- ing Holographic Entanglement Entropy,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “Characterization of Quantum Phase Transition us- ing Holographic Entanglement Entropy,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.12, 126004 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.126004 [arXiv:1604.04857 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [27]

    The Effect of Anisotropy on Holographic En- tanglement Entropy and Mutual Information,

    P. Liu, C. Niu and J. P. Wu, “The Effect of Anisotropy on Holographic En- tanglement Entropy and Mutual Information,” Phys. Lett. B796, 155-161 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.07.035 [arXiv:1905.06808 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [28]

    Holographic informational properties for a specific Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity theory,

    G. Fu, P. Liu, H. Gong, X. M. Kuang and J. P. Wu, “Holographic informational properties for a specific Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton gravity theory,” Phys. Rev. D104, no.2, 026016 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.026016 [arXiv:2007.06001 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [29]

    Informational properties of holo- graphic Lifshitz field theory,

    H. Gong, P. Liu, G. Fu, X. M. Kuang and J. P. Wu, “Informational properties of holo- graphic Lifshitz field theory,” Chin. Phys. C45, no.6, 6 (2021) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abefca [arXiv:2009.00450 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [30]

    Entanglement of Purification in Holographic Systems,

    P. Liu, Y. Ling, C. Niu and J. P. Wu, “Entanglement of Purification in Holographic Systems,” JHEP09, 071 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2019)071 [arXiv:1902.02243 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [31]

    Mixed State Entanglement for Holographic Axion Model,

    Y. f. Huang, Z. j. Shi, C. Niu, C. y. Zhang andP . Liu,“Mixed State Entanglement for Holographic Axion Model,” Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.5, 426 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020- 7921-y [arXiv:1911.10977 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    Entanglement of purification through holographic duality,

    T. Takayanagi and K. Umemoto, “Entanglement of purification through holographic duality,” Nature Phys.14, no.6, 573-577 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2 [arXiv:1708.09393 [hep- 21 th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [33]

    Entanglement of Purification for Multipartite States and its Holographic Dual,

    K. Umemoto and Y. Zhou, “Entanglement of Purification for Multipartite States and its Holographic Dual,” JHEP10, 152 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)152 [arXiv:1805.02625 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [34]

    A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section,

    S. Dutta and T. Faulkner, “A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section,” JHEP03(2021), 178 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)178 [arXiv:1905.00577 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    Entanglement negativity and minimal entanglement wedge cross sections in holographic theories,

    J. Kudler-Flam and S. Ryu, “Entanglement negativity and minimal entanglement wedge cross sections in holographic theories,” Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no.10, 106014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.106014 [arXiv:1808.00446 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [36]

    Notes on entanglement wedge cross sections,

    N. Jokela and A. P¨ onni, “Notes on entanglement wedge cross sections,” JHEP07(2019), 087 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)087 [arXiv:1904.09582 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    Reflected entropy in double holography,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, Y. Liu, C. Niu, Z. Y. Xian and C. Y. Zhang, “Reflected entropy in double holography,” JHEP02, 037 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)037 [arXiv:2109.09243 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [38]

    Entanglement wedge minimum cross- section for holographic aether gravity,

    C. Y. Chen, W. Xiong, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and P. Liu, “Entanglement wedge minimum cross- section for holographic aether gravity,” JHEP08(2022), 123 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)123 [arXiv:2109.03733 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [39]

    The mixed-state entanglement in holo- graphic p-wave superconductor model,

    Z. Yang, F. J. Cheng, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and P. Liu, “The mixed-state entanglement in holo- graphic p-wave superconductor model,” JHEP04, 110 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2023)110 [arXiv:2301.13574 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Entanglement wedge minimum cross-section in holographic massive gravity theory,

    P. Liu, C. Niu, Z. J. Shi and C. Y. Zhang, “Entanglement wedge minimum cross-section in holographic massive gravity theory,” JHEP08, 113 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)113 [arXiv:2104.08070 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Diagnosing Emergent Isotropy in Anisotropic Holographic Systems using Quantum Information Measures,

    C. Y. Chen, M. J. Li, Z. Yang, D. M. Jin and P. Liu, “Diagnosing Emergent Isotropy in Anisotropic Holographic Systems using Quantum Information Measures,” [arXiv:2404.11021 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [42]

    Mixed-state entanglement for AdS Born-Infeld theory,

    P. Liu, Z. Yang, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and J. P. Wu, “Mixed-state entanglement for AdS Born-Infeld theory,” JHEP09, 105 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)105 [arXiv:2301.04854 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [43]

    Mixed-state entanglement and transport in Einstein–Maxwell–Axion–Horndeski theory,

    M. J. Li, C. Y. Chen, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and P. Liu, “Mixed-state entanglement and transport in Einstein–Maxwell–Axion–Horndeski theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.2, 164 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12521-2 [arXiv:2311.01172 [hep-th]]. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [44]

    A. R. Chowdhury, A. Saha and S. Gangopadhyay, JHEP02(2022), 192 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)192 [arXiv:2106.04562 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [45]

    S. Paul, A. Roy Chowdhury, A. Saha and S. Gangopadhyay, JHEP10(2024), 033 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)033 [arXiv:2408.03670 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [46]

    Karan and S

    D. Karan and S. Pant, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.2, 113 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 12463-9 [arXiv:2308.00018 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    P. Jain, S. S. Jena and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.8, 086016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.086016 [arXiv:2209.15355 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    Chowdhury Roy, A

    A. Chowdhury Roy, A. Saha and S. Gangopadhyay, Annals Phys.452(2023), 169270 doi:10.1016/j.aop.2023.169270 [arXiv:2204.08012 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  48. [49]

    Jain and S

    P. Jain and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D102(2020), 126022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.126022 [arXiv:2010.07702 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [50]

    Lieb-Robinson Bound and the Butterfly Ef- fect in Quantum Field Theories,

    D. A. Roberts and B. Swingle, “Lieb-Robinson Bound and the Butterfly Ef- fect in Quantum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.9, 091602 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091602 [arXiv:1603.09298 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [51]

    Black holes and the butterfly effect,

    S. H. Shenker and D. Stanford, “Black holes and the butterfly effect,” JHEP03, 067 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)067 [arXiv:1306.0622 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  51. [52]

    Universal Charge Diffusion and the Butterfly Effect in Holographic The- ories,

    M. Blake, “Universal Charge Diffusion and the Butterfly Effect in Holographic The- ories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.9, 091601 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091601 [arXiv:1603.08510 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [53]

    Dynamic properties of two-dimensional latticed holographic system,

    P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “Dynamic properties of two-dimensional latticed holographic system,” JHEP02, 119 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2022)119 [arXiv:2104.04189 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [54]

    Holographic Butterfly Effect at Quantum Critical Points,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “Holographic Butterfly Effect at Quantum Critical Points,” JHEP10, 025 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)025 [arXiv:1610.02669 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [55]

    Note on the butterfly effect in holographic superconductor mod- els,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “Note on the butterfly effect in holographic superconductor mod- els,” Phys. Lett. B768, 288-291 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.03.010 [arXiv:1610.07146 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [56]

    Lilani, D

    N. Lilani, D. Sandhu and S. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.4, 4 doi:10.1103/mvs2- 45rn [arXiv:2505.15357 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    J. K. Zhao and L. Li, JHEP10(2025), 131 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)131 [arXiv:2503.10584 [hep-th]]. 23

    arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Dynamical spontaneous scalarization in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory *,

    W. Xiong, P. Liu, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and B. Wang, “Dynamical spontaneous scalarization in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory *,” Chin. Phys. C46, no.9, 095103 (2022) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/ac70ad [arXiv:2205.07538 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [59]

    Dynamical charged black hole spon- taneous scalarization in anti–de Sitter spacetimes,

    C. Y. Zhang, P. Liu, Y. Liu, C. Niu and B. Wang, “Dynamical charged black hole spon- taneous scalarization in anti–de Sitter spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D104, no.8, 084089 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084089 [arXiv:2103.13599 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [60]

    Area laws for the entanglement entropy - a re- view,

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer and M. B. Plenio, “Area laws for the entanglement entropy - a re- view,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010), 277-306 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277 [arXiv:0808.3773 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [61]

    Quantum Computation and Quantum In- formation: 10th Anniversary Edition,

    Nielsen, Michael A. and Chuang, Isaac L., “ Quantum Computation and Quantum In- formation: 10th Anniversary Edition,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2010). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2010

  61. [62]

    Analytical Computation of Critical Exponents in Several Holographic Superconductors,

    H. B. Zeng, X. Gao, Y. Jiang and H. S. Zong, “Analytical Computation of Critical Exponents in Several Holographic Superconductors,” JHEP05(2011), 002 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)002 [arXiv:1012.5564 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [63]

    Analytical study on holographic superconductors with backreactions,

    Q. Pan, J. Jing, B. Wang and S. Chen, “Analytical study on holographic superconductors with backreactions,” JHEP06(2012), 087 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2012)087 [arXiv:1205.3543 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [64]

    Bao and I

    N. Bao and I. F. Halpern, JHEP03(2018), 006 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)006 [arXiv:1710.07643 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [65]

    Traversable thin-shell worm- hole in the 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory,

    C. Y. Zhang, C. Niu, W. L. Qian, X. Wang and P. Liu, “Traversable thin-shell worm- hole in the 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory,” Chin. J. Phys.83, 527-538 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.cjph.2023.04.016 [arXiv:2004.14267 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Instability of regularized 4D charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet de-Sitter black holes,

    P. Liu, C. Niu and C. Y. Zhang, “Instability of regularized 4D charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet de-Sitter black holes,” Chin. Phys. C45, no.2, 025104 (2021) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abcd2d [arXiv:2004.10620 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    Linear instability of charged massless scalar perturbation in regularized 4D charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet anti de-Sitter black holes,

    P. Liu, C. Niu and C. Y. Zhang, “Linear instability of charged massless scalar perturbation in regularized 4D charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet anti de-Sitter black holes,” Chin. Phys. C 45, no.2, 025111 (2021) [arXiv:2005.01507 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [68]

    Holographic Q-lattices,

    A. Donos and J. P. Gauntlett, “Holographic Q-lattices,” JHEP04(2014), 040 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)040 [arXiv:1311.3292 [hep-th]]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  68. [69]

    Quantum phase transition between a topologi- cal and a trivial semimetal from holography,

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu and Y. W. Sun, “Quantum phase transition between a topologi- cal and a trivial semimetal from holography,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) no.8, 081602 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081602 [arXiv:1511.05505 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [70]

    Holographic Metal-Insulator Transition in Higher Derivative Gravity,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, J. P. Wu and Z. Zhou, “Holographic Metal-Insulator Transition in Higher Derivative Gravity,” Phys. Lett. B766(2017), 41-48 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.051 [arXiv:1606.07866 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [71]

    Conjecture on the Butterfly Velocity across a Quantum Phase Transition,

    M. Baggioli, B. Padhi, P. W. Phillips and C. Setty, “Conjecture on the Butterfly Velocity across a Quantum Phase Transition,” JHEP07, 049 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)049 [arXiv:1805.01470 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [72]

    Detecting Topological Quantum Phase Transitions via the c-Function,

    M. Baggioli and D. Giataganas, “Detecting Topological Quantum Phase Transitions via the c-Function,” Phys. Rev. D103, no.2, 026009 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.026009 [arXiv:2007.07273 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [73]

    A novel insulator by holographic Q-lattices,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu and J. P. Wu, “A novel insulator by holographic Q-lattices,” JHEP02, 075 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)075 [arXiv:1510.05456 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [74]

    Building a doped Mott system by holography,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, C. Niu and J. P. Wu, “Building a doped Mott system by holography,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.8, 086003 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.086003 [arXiv:1507.02514 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [75]

    Holographic fermionic system with dipole coupling on Q-lattice,

    Y. Ling, P. Liu, C. Niu, J. P. Wu and Z. Y. Xian, “Holographic fermionic system with dipole coupling on Q-lattice,” JHEP12, 149 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)149 [arXiv:1410.7323 [hep-th]]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014