Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Quantum Fisher information — an entanglement witness measurable in neutron-scattering spectra — can serve as a thermal and dynamical probe that maps the finite-temperature phase diagram of quantum spin ice and reveals its two crossover scal

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

2026-08-04 09:30 UTC pith:XUXSRIIM

load-bearing objection Solid QMC results and a genuinely useful new algorithm carry a plausible but not fully established extension to the π-flux regime. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.14813 v2 pith:XUXSRIIM submitted 2025-10-16 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Quantum Fisher Information as a Thermal Probe in Frustrated Magnets through Insights from Quantum Spin Ice

Chengkang Zhou , Zhengbang Zhou , F\'elix Desrochers , Yong Baek Kim , Zi Yang Meng This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el quant-ph
keywords quantum Fisher informationquantum spin icepyrochlore latticeentanglement witnessinelastic neutron scatteringquantum Monte Carlostochastic analytic continuationgauge mean-field theory
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 argues that the quantum Fisher information density f_Q, computed from the dynamical structure factor of a pyrochlore XXZ model, is far more than an entanglement witness: it is a thermometer for the phase structure of quantum spin ice. At the Γ point, f_Q(S±_Γ,T) traces the ferromagnetic ordering transition and the two crossovers — paramagnet to classical spin ice near T~J_z, then to quantum spin ice near T~|J_±|^3. At Γ′, it tracks the critical fluctuations between the zero-flux and π-flux quantum spin ice phases. Because f_Q is obtained by frequency-integrating the same spectral function that inelastic neutron scattering measures, the predictions are directly testable in cerium-based pyrochlore candidates. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns an abstract entanglement measure into a concrete experimental diagnostic.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the QFI density f_Q(S±_q,T)=4∫ dω tanh(ω/2T)(1−e^{−ω/T}) A(q,ω) carries a distinct temperature-and-momentum fingerprint for each phase of the pyrochlore XXZ model: ferromagnet, thermal critical region, zero-flux QSI, and π-flux QSI. The paper shows — via sign-problem-free QMC with a new multi-directed loop update, exact diagonalization, and gauge mean-field theory — that the momentum-resolved QFI maps the known thermal phase diagram, certifies entanglement depth (e.g., nQFI≳3 in QSI0 and ≳5 in FM at Γ, nQFI≳2.3 at X for QSIπ), and distinguishes two crossover scales. It further derives q-independent entanglement-depth bounds for the neutron-scattering cross secti

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QFI density f_Q(S^α_q,T)=4∫_0^∞ dω tanh(ω/2T)(1−e^{−ω/T}) A^α(q,ω), which connects the entanglement witness to the dynamical spin structure factor A^α(q,ω) measured by inelastic neutron scattering. For non-Hermitian collective operators S^±_q the paper defines f_Q as a sum witness f_Q(S±_q)=f_Q(S^x_q)+f_Q(S^y_q), with an m-producible-state bound f_Q≤2m, so that nQFI=f_Q/2 yields entanglement-depth certificates. To evaluate it, the new multi-directed loop QMC algorithm samples the six-spin-flip ring processes that connect classical spin-ice states, and stochastic analytic continuation converts imaginary-time correlations to real-frequency spectra; gauge mean-fie

Load-bearing premise

The central prediction rests on the reliability of the stochastic analytic continuation used to convert imaginary-time QMC data into the real-frequency spectra from which f_Q is integrated; at the lowest temperatures (T~10^-3 J_z) where the QSI0 and FM crossover features appear, a distortion of the low-frequency spectral weight would shift or erase those features.

What would settle it

Measure f_Q(S^DO_Γ′,T) in Ce2Hf2O7 by inelastic neutron scattering across T from above J_z down to below |J_±|^3: the paper predicts two inflection points (or, for Ce2Zr2O7 at J_±≈−0.3, a single merged step). If the measured QFI stays monotonic and lacks the predicted hump or two-step structure, the crossover interpretation fails. Numerically, rerunning the QMC+SAC pipeline with a different analytic continuation (e.g., maximum-entropy with explicit error bars) and checking that the Γ-point f_Q values at T=0.001 remain stable within a few percent would settle whether the low-temperature phase m

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • At Γ=(0,0,0), f_Q(S±_Γ,T) delineates the ferromagnetic transition and both crossovers, making the QFI a direct thermal-phase probe.
  • At Γ′=(4π,4π,0), the QFI's nonmonotonic hump marks the critical-fluctuation region between classical spin ice and quantum spin ice, so momentum choice can be tailored to specific physics.
  • Measured QFI values certify nontrivial entanglement depth: e.g., nQFI(S±_Γ)≳3 in QSI0 and ≳5 in FM; nQFI(S^DO_X)≳2.3 in QSIπ.
  • For dipolar-octupolar Ce pyrochlores, the derived q-independent bounds (nQFI(S^DO_q)=3/2 f_Q(S^DO_q)) make the predicted signals directly comparable to unpolarized neutron scattering.
  • The two crossover scales, T~J_z and T~|J_±|^3, appear as distinct inflection points in f_Q — matching the two specific-heat peaks of Ce2Hf2O7 and the single merged feature of Ce2Zr2O7.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the QFI really tracks the spin-ice-to-QSI crossover at T~|J_±|^3, then measuring f_Q as a function of temperature on a single crystal would give a cleaner, more direct extraction of the transverse exchange J_± than fitting specific-heat peaks.
  • The momentum dependence suggests a general strategy: the Γ-point QFI acts as a phase-boundary sensor while the Γ′-point QFI acts as a fluctuation sensor; applying the same pair of momenta to other frustrated magnets may yield analogous thermal maps.
  • Because f_Q is a frequency-integrated quantity, it inherits spectral weight from all scales; a natural extension is to invert the relation and use measured f_Q(T) at multiple momenta to constrain the underlying spin Hamiltonian, turning entanglement data into a fitting observable.
  • The 6/7 factor between GMFT and QMC suggests the mean-field parton theory captures the QFI's qualitative structure; if that factor is universal across the phase diagram, GMFT could be used to predict QFI in sign-problematic regions beyond J_±<0.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the quantum Fisher information density f_Q(S^±_q,T) for the nearest-neighbor spin-1/2 XXZ model on the pyrochlore lattice, with dominant Ising coupling J_z and transverse coupling J_±. It develops a multi-directed-loop SSE QMC algorithm for the sign-problem-free J_±>0 regime, and combines QMC, 16-site mTPQ exact diagonalization, and gauge mean-field theory to compute f_Q from the dynamical structure factor. The central claim is that the momentum- and temperature-resolved QFI maps the phase diagram—FM order, thermal critical region, zero-flux and pi-flux QSI—and reveals two crossover scales (T~J_z and T~|J_±|^3), while also providing experimentally accessible entanglement-depth bounds for neutron scattering on Ce-based pyrochlores.

Significance. Should the results hold, the paper demonstrates a practical thermal/dynamical probe: QFI is not only an entanglement witness but also a phase-boundary/crossover diagnostic. Strengths include a genuinely sign-problem-free QMC method in the QSI0 regime with a new multi-directed-loop update, quantitative comparison of QMC, ED, and GMFT at J_±=0.045, and explicit approximate formulas connecting computed QFI to unpolarized/polarized neutron cross-sections (SM Secs. IV and V). The predicted momentum-space contrast between zero-flux and pi-flux QSI is falsifiable in principle. However, the pi-flux regime is the paper's experimental payoff and rests on a 16-site ED cluster that the SM itself identifies as below the standard stability threshold; this is the main limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM §II and main-text Fig. 1(c)] The QSI_π maps and all J_±<0 results are obtained from mTPQ on a 16-site cluster. The SM states that mTPQ is not numerically stable for N<20 and that the next symmetry-respecting cluster (32 sites) is intractable. Since the key QSI_π signature is a momentum-resolved contrast (f_Q(S^±_Γ)≈0 vs f_Q(S^±_Γ')≈3), finite-size spectral-weight shifts on a single conventional cell could change or even invert the contrast. Without a finite-size check (e.g., a 32-site diagonalization, a tensor-network or DMRG calculation, or a different small-cluster geometry), the central QSI_π claim is not established to the same standard as the J_±>0 QMC results.
  2. [§Model and Method, Eq. (4), and SM §I.4] All QMC-based QFI values are obtained by stochastic analytic continuation of imaginary-time correlations to A(q,ω), followed by a frequency integral. The paper gives no error bars, no number of SAC samples, and no convergence or consistency checks for the low-ω spectrum. The quantitative crossover thresholds (T∼|J_±|^3) and the entanglement-depth statements (f_Q≳3, ≳5, nQFI≳2.2–3.7) are sensitive to exactly the low-ω weight that is hardest for analytic continuation. Please provide an uncertainty estimate or a direct test, e.g., comparing f_Q from different SAC configurations, sum-rule constraints, or a check at higher L.
  3. [§Results and SM §III, Fig. S8] The GMFT results are rescaled by a factor 6/7 calibrated to QMC/ED at J_±=0.045 and then used, with the same factor, for J_±<0. This makes the GMFT support for QSI_π partly circular: agreement at positive J_± does not guarantee the same mean-field correction at negative J_±. Please state explicitly whether the 6/7 factor is derived or empirical, and, if possible, test it at a second positive value or against ED at a second negative value; otherwise present the J_±<0 GMFT curves only as qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Just after Eq. (1)] The sentence 'In the perturbative regime |J_±|≫J_z' should read |J_±|≪J_z to be consistent with the stated regime J_z>|J_±|.
  2. [SM Eq. (S71b)] The line 'nQFI(S^DO_q)=3/2 f_Q(S^{NSF}_q)' appears to have a typo; the right-hand side should be f_Q(S^DO_q).
  3. [Figs. 1 and 3] Many heat-map axis labels are rendered with missing minus signs (shown as '□'), making the negative-J_± panels hard to read.
  4. [§Results] The notation f_Q(S±_q)=f_Q(S^x_q+S^y_q) is unconventional because S±_q is not Hermitian; SM Sec. V justifies it, but a one-sentence reminder in the main text would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: QFI values are computed from A(q,ω) and benchmarked against, not fitted to, the known phase diagram.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The central quantity f_Q is obtained from Eq. (4) as a fixed frequency-moment of the dynamical structure factor A(q,ω) from QMC+SAC, ED, and GMFT. No step fits f_Q to the phase diagram: the FM/QSI0 boundary, the π-flux QSI regime, and the two crossover scales (T~Jz and T~|J±|^3) are taken from prior thermodynamics and are used as labels against which the computed QFI is compared. That is a consistency check, not a circular construction. The choice of Γ' is motivated by the known ETSF maximum of QSIπ, and the T→0 identity f_Q = ETSF is explicit, but the finite-temperature QFI values are computed rather than imposed; this is guided probe design, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The GMFT 6/7 rescaling (SM §III, Fig. S8) is calibrated to QMC at J±=0.045 and extended to J±<0; this is a global scale extrapolation and does not force the momentum-resolved contrast that is the main QSIπ signature, which comes from independent 16-site ED. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 85, 89, 149, 150, 160, 161) supply known phase boundaries, crossover temperatures, ETSF peak location, and the GMFT framework; they are published, externally checkable results used as benchmarks, not as uniqueness theorems forbidding alternatives. The SM (Sec. II) itself states that mTPQ is numerically stable only for N≥20 while the 16-site cluster has N=16; this is an acknowledged finite-size limitation affecting quantitative certainty but is not a circular step. No equation reduces a purported prediction to a fitted parameter or defines an input in terms of an output, so I find no significant circularity, with only minor non-circular caveats.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is a numerical computation; no new physical entities (particles, fields, dimensions) are introduced. Spinons, emergent photons, and monopoles are pre-existing concepts from the QSI literature (refs 79–85). The analysis rests primarily on standard QFI relations, the mTPQ/SAC approximations, and the GMFT mean-field truncation, all of which are stated in the paper itself.

free parameters (1)
  • GMFT rescaling factor = 6/7 ≈ 0.857
    GMFT QFI is rescaled by ≈6/7 to match QMC and ED at J±=0.045 (SM §III, Fig. S8); the same factor is then applied to GMFT predictions for J±<0 (QSIπ) where no QMC benchmark exists.
axioms (8)
  • standard math QFI is related to the dynamical structure factor by f_Q(S_q^α,T)=4∫dω tanh(ω/2T)(1-e^{-ω/T}) A^α(q,ω) (Eq. 4).
    Standard relation due to Hauke et al. (ref 59), used throughout to compute QFI from spectra.
  • standard math Hyllus–Tóth bound: F_Q[ρ,O]/N ≤ m(Δλ)^2 for any m-producible state (Eq. 2).
    Standard entanglement-depth witness; the paper extends it to non-Hermitian operators in the SM.
  • domain assumption mTPQ on the 16-site cluster approximates the thermal ensemble despite known finite-size effects.
    SM §II explicitly states 'N≥20 is a numerically stable size' and that finite-size effects are 'not negligible' for 16 sites; authors average over 4 samples to mitigate.
  • domain assumption SAC reliably reconstructs A(q,ω) from imaginary-time QMC data at T down to ~10^-3 Jz.
    SM §I.4 describes the measurement and SAC procedure; no error bars or convergence checks are provided, and analytic continuation is an ill-posed inverse problem.
  • domain assumption GMFT approximations (electric field integrated out, gauge field frozen to mean-field value) remain valid in the QSIπ regime.
    SM §III states these as 'two crucial approximations'; the 6/7 calibration assumes validity extends to J±<0.
  • standard math The multi-directed-loop update satisfies detailed balance.
    SM §I.3 proves P(A→B)/P(B→A)=W(B)/W(A) under the condition that all heads close simultaneously.
  • domain assumption The XXZ model with dominant J_z captures the physics of Ce-based dipolar-octupolar pyrochlores.
    Taken from prior experimental/theoretical fits (refs 125, 131–133, 140–143); the paper maps the DO Hamiltonian to the XXZ form via a rotation.
  • domain assumption QMC is sign-problem-free for ferromagnetic transverse coupling J±>0.
    Standard property of the XXZ model with the chosen loop update; allows unbiased QMC for QSI0 and FM regimes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32803 in / 15107 out tokens · 125738 ms · 2026-08-04T09:30:02.216534+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Fisher Information as a Thermal Probe in Frustrated Magnets through Insights from Quantum Spin Ice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUXSRIIM

@misc{pith2026251014813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Fisher Information as a Thermal Probe in Frustrated Magnets through Insights from Quantum Spin Ice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUXSRIIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.14813}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Quantum Fisher information (QFI) is a measure of multipartite entanglement accessible via inelastic neutron scattering. Here we demonstrate that QFI reveals thermal and dynamical properties of quantum spin ice (QSI), a three-dimensional quantum spin liquid with fractionalized excitations. By developing a multi-directed loop update quantum Monte Carlo algorithm, along with exact diagonalization and gauge mean-field theory, we compute the QFI for the pyrochlore lattice. The temperature and momentum dependence of QFI maps the phase diagram, distinguishing the ferromagnetic ordered phase, its critical region, the zero-flux QSI, and the $\pi$-flux QSI. QFI also captures two crossover scales: from trivial paramagnet to classical spin ice, then to QSI. We discuss the $\pi$-flux QSI in light of experiments on cerium-based pyrochlores. Our results suggest that QFI not only detects entanglement but also serves as a sensitive thermal and dynamical probe for frustrated quantum magnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14813 by Chengkang Zhou, F\'elix Desrochers, Yong Baek Kim, Zhengbang Zhou, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] 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 3 Pith papers

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

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

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0

    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 va...

  2. Quantum Fisher information of the Klein--Gordon, $\phi^4$, and Dirac vacua

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Vacuum quantum Fisher information versus mass scales as m^{d-2} for free Klein–Gordon fields, diverges or shrinks under ϕ⁴ interactions, and is UV-divergent or zero for free Dirac fields depending on dimension.

  3. Spectroscopic Demarcation of Emergent Photons and Spinons in a Dipolar-Octupolar Quantum Spin Liquid

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    A weak [111] magnetic field suppresses the emergent-photon weight but leaves the spinon continuum intact in Ce2Zr2O7, giving a new field-tuning protocol to demarcate fractionalized excitations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

189 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Physical review47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  2. [2]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Reviews of modern physics81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    J. S. Bell, Physics Physique Fizika1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  4. [4]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys- ical review letters23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  5. [5]

    Aspect, Nature398, 189 (1999)

    A. Aspect, Nature398, 189 (1999)

    1999

  6. [6]

    Zeilinger, Reviews of Modern Physics71, S288 (1999)

    A. Zeilinger, Reviews of Modern Physics71, S288 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    Vedral, Nature453, 1004 (2008)

    V . Vedral, Nature453, 1004 (2008)

    2008

  8. [8]

    Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B4, 239 (1990)

    X.-G. Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B4, 239 (1990)

    1990

  9. [9]

    Vidal, J

    G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and A. Kitaev, Physical review letters90, 227902 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

    Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons(Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    X.-G. Wen,Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and electrons(Oxford University Press on Demand, 2004)

    2004

  11. [11]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Reviews of modern physics77, 871 (2005)

    2005

  12. [12]

    Z.-C. Gu, M. Levin, and X.-G. Wen, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics78, 205116 6 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V . Vedral, Reviews of modern physics80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  14. [14]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B82, 155138 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Laflorencie, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    N. Laflorencie, Physics Reports646, 1 (2016)

    2016

  16. [16]

    Wen, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 041004 (2017)

    X.-G. Wen, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    De Chiara and A

    G. De Chiara and A. Sanpera, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 074002 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Wen, Science363, eaal3099 (2019)

    X.-G. Wen, Science363, eaal3099 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Zhao, Y .-C

    J. Zhao, Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y . Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010601 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Zhao, B.-B

    J. Zhao, B.-B. Chen, Y .-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y . Meng, npj Quantum Materials7, 69 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Da Liao, M

    Y . Da Liao, M. Song, J. Zhao, and Z. Y . Meng, Phys. Rev. B 110, 235111 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Y . Meng, Science Advances11, eadr0634 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    J. Zhao, Z. Y . Meng, Y .-C. Wang, and N. Ma, Phys. Rev. B 112, 094416 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Wen, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Wen, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. D68, 065003 (2003)

    2003

  26. [26]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B71, 045110 (2005)

    2005

  27. [27]

    Z.-C. Gu, M. Levin, B. Swingle, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B79, 085118 (2009)

    2009

  28. [28]

    P. W. Anderson, science235, 1196 (1987)

    1987

  29. [29]

    P. A. Lee, Reports on Progress in Physics71, 012501 (2007)

    2007

  30. [30]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    Y . Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  32. [32]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Norman, and T. Senthil, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 110405 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    Kitaev and J

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

    2006

  37. [37]

    S. V . Isakov, M. B. Hastings, and R. G. Melko, Nature Physics 7, 772 (2011)

    2011

  38. [38]

    Chen, H.-H

    B.-B. Chen, H.-H. Tu, Z. Y . Meng, and M. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B106, 094415 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Grover, A

    T. Grover, A. M. Turner, and A. Vishwanath, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 195120 (2011)

    2011

  40. [40]

    Jiang, Z

    H.-C. Jiang, Z. Wang, and L. Balents, Nature Physics8, 902 (2012)

    2012

  41. [41]

    Grover, Physical review letters111, 130402 (2013)

    T. Grover, Physical review letters111, 130402 (2013)

    2013

  42. [42]

    Alba, Phys

    V . Alba, Phys. Rev. E95, 062132 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    D’Emidio, Phys

    J. D’Emidio, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110602 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Lambert and E

    J. Lambert and E. S. Sørensen, Physical Review B99, 045117 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Lambert and E

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

    2020

  46. [46]

    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, Phys. Rev. B103, 224434 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Scheie, E

    A. Scheie, E. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. Paddison, N. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. Woods, D. Abernathy, et al., Nat. Phys.20, 74 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Laurell, A

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

    2021

  49. [49]

    Menon, N

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

    2023

  50. [50]

    Scheie, P

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

    2025

  51. [51]

    Laurell, A

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

    2025

  52. [53]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Physical Review Letters72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  53. [54]

    Petz and C

    D. Petz and C. Sud ´ar, Journal of Mathematical Physics37, 2662 (1996)

    1996

  54. [55]

    Petz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General35, 929 (2002)

    D. Petz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General35, 929 (2002)

    2002

  55. [56]

    M. G. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Information7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  56. [57]

    Escher, R

    B. Escher, R. L. de Matos Filho, and L. Davidovich, Nature Physics7, 406 (2011)

    2011

  57. [58]

    G. M. Tino and M. A. Kasevich,Atom interferometry, V ol. 188 (IOS Press, 2014)

    2014

  58. [59]

    Hauke, M

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

    2016

  59. [60]

    S. W. Lovesey,Theory of neutron scattering from condensed matter(Oxford University Press, 1984)

    1984

  60. [61]

    A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of neutron scattering from con- densed matter(Oxford University Press, 2020)

    2020

  61. [62]

    S. T. Bramwell and B. Keimer, Nature Materials13, 763 (2014)

    2014

  62. [63]

    T ´oth, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 022322 (2012)

    G. T ´oth, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  63. [64]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´e, and A. Smerzi, Phys- ical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  64. [65]

    Sabharwal, T

    S. Sabharwal, T. Shimokawa, and N. Shannon, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023271 (2025)

    2025

  65. [66]

    Shimokawa, S

    T. Shimokawa, S. Sabharwal, and N. Shannon, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11874 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [67]

    Murani, Journal of Applied Physics49, 1604 (1978)

    A. Murani, Journal of Applied Physics49, 1604 (1978)

    1978

  67. [68]

    S.-H. Lee, C. Broholm, G. Aeppli, A. Ramirez, T. Perring, C. Carlile, M. Adams, T. Jones, and B. Hessen, EPL (Euro- physics Letters)35, 127 (1996)

    1996

  68. [69]

    J. A. Paddison, M. Daum, Z. Dun, G. Ehlers, Y . Liu, M. B. Stone, H. Zhou, and M. Mourigal, Nature Physics13, 117 (2017)

    2017

  69. [70]

    Z. Zhu, P. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. Chernyshev, Phys- ical review letters119, 157201 (2017)

    2017

  70. [71]

    Kimchi, A

    I. Kimchi, A. Nahum, and T. Senthil, Physical Review X8, 031028 (2018)

    2018

  71. [72]

    B. Gao, T. Chen, C.-L. Huang, Y . Qiu, G. Xu, J. Liebman, L. Chen, M. B. Stone, E. Feng, H. Cao,et al., Physical Review B108, 024431 (2023)

    2023

  72. [73]

    K. A. Ross, J. W. Krizan, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, R. J. Cava, and C. L. Broholm, Physical Review B93, 014433 (2016)

    2016

  73. [74]

    Sarkar, J

    R. Sarkar, J. W. Krizan, F. Br ¨uckner, E. d. C. Andrade, S. Rachel, M. V ojta, R. J. Cava, and H.-H. Klauss, Physical Review B96, 235117 (2017)

    2017

  74. [75]

    Aizenman and J

    M. Aizenman and J. Wehr, Physical review letters62, 2503 (1989)

    1989

  75. [76]

    R. L. Greenblatt, M. Aizenman, and J. L. Lebowitz, Physical review letters103, 197201 (2009)

    2009

  76. [77]

    Aizenman, R

    M. Aizenman, R. L. Greenblatt, and J. L. Lebowitz, Journal of mathematical physics53(2012). 7

    2012

  77. [78]

    V ojta, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, R143 (2006)

    T. V ojta, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, R143 (2006)

    2006

  78. [80]

    Castro Neto, P

    A. Castro Neto, P. Pujol, and E. Fradkin, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics74, 024302 (2006)

    2006

  79. [81]

    Benton, O

    O. Benton, O. Sikora, and N. Shannon, Phys. Rev. B86, 075154 (2012)

    2012

  80. [82]

    Castelnovo, R

    C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.3, 35 (2012)

    2012

Showing first 80 references.