Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Multiparty entanglement loops in quantum spin liquids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In quantum spin liquids, multiparty entanglement is confined to closed loops.

desk verdict The loop-positive entanglement structure is likely real and the exact string-net and Kitaev results are solid, but the categorical "entirely absent" claim outruns what the GMN witness and finite certificates can establish. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18124 v2 pith:6PHMFM2I submitted 2025-05-23 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Liuke Lyu , Deeksha Chandorkar , Samarth Kapoor , So Takei , Erik S. S{o}rensen , William Witczak-Krempa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords quantumspinliquidsgenuinemultipartiteentanglementfrustrationminimalentangledsubregionKitaevhoneycombmodelKagomeHeisenbergstring-netwavefunctionsgaugetheories
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 sets out to show that genuine multiparty entanglement (GME), the strongest form of entanglement in which every party contributes to the correlation, is organized in a fundamentally different way in quantum spin liquids than in conventional matter. It claims that small non-loopy clusters of neighboring spins carry no GME, a phenomenon it calls entanglement frustration, and that GME appears only in subregions that contain a closed loop, with the smallest such loop-like cluster serving as the minimal multipartite entangled subregion. The evidence comes from exact-diagonalization ground states of the Kitaev honeycomb model on 32 sites and the Kagome Heisenberg model on 36 sites, exact Majorana-fermion solutions, and string-net fixed-point wavefunctions with abelian and non-abelian anyons. If the claim is right, loop-shaped multiparty entanglement is a hallmark of deconfined quantum gauge theories and can serve as a diagnostic for detecting spin-liquid behavior in candidate materials and quantum simulators.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is entanglement microscopy: take the full quantum state of a small lattice subregion, its reduced density matrix, and evaluate its multiparty entanglement. The quantitative workhorse is the genuine multipartite negativity (GMN), a convex-roof entanglement monotone computable by semidefinite programming whose positivity certifies genuine multiparty entanglement; to convert a zero GMN value into a rigorous statement about absence of GME, the paper uses an adaptive-polytope algorithm that certifies biseparability. The organizational concept is the minimal multipartite entangled subregion (MMES), defined as the smallest subregion that carries GME, and the paper tracks how the MMES grows stepwise from three spins to four, five, and finally the six-spin hexagon as frustration increases. For the Kitaev model at zero field and in the small-field non-abelian phase, the hexagon reduced density matrices are computed exactly from the Majorana-fermion solution, providing thermodynamic-limit checkpoints that agree with the 32-site numerics.

What would settle it

On the $N=36$ Kagome ground state at $J_2=0$, compute GMN and adaptive-polytope biseparability certificates for every tree-shaped subregion with up to eight sites; a single tree with certified genuine multiparty entanglement would refute the claim that non-loopy subregions are GME-free, while a loop subregion with certified biseparability would refute the loop-positive part. A cheaper check is to repeat the same scan on the $N=32$ Kitaev cluster in the zero-field limit, where the exact solution provides ground-truth reduced density matrices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in quantum spin liquids the genuine multiparty entanglement of a subregion is controlled by whether that subregion contains a loop: reduced density matrices of small non-loopy subregions have vanishing genuine multipartite negativity (GMN) across finite parameter windows, while loop-containing subregions such as the six-spin hexagonal plaquette, the five-spin Kagome bowtie, and larger loop aggregates carry positive GMN. The paper reports this loop confinement in gapped and gapless quantum spin liquids, in the Kitaev honeycomb model at zero and small $[111]$ field, in the Kagome Heisenberg model near $J_2=0$, in resonating-valence-bond wavefunctions, and in abelian and non-abelian string-net models; for abelian string-nets it proves that any non-loopy subregion is fully separable. It also reports that in the Kitaev intermediate phase, between fields $h_{c1}=0.38$ and $h_{c2}=0.64$ on the 32-site cluster, non-loopy GME appears, which it interprets as evidence against a quantum spin liquid there, while in the chiral Kagome spin liquid the minimal entangled subregion shrinks to a triangle, indicating a more loopy entanglement structure. The paper concludes by arguing that loop-localized GME is a general property of deconfined quantum gauge theories, not just of the specific spin-liquid Hamiltonians studied.

Load-bearing premise

The broad conclusion that all non-loopy subregions have zero genuine multiparty entanglement in the Kitaev and Kagome spin liquids assumes that the exact-diagonalization ground states on the 32-site honeycomb and 36-site Kagome clusters represent the thermodynamic limit, and that a zero GMN value can be read as absence of GME even where no explicit biseparability certificate was computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GME becomes a practical phase diagnostic: loop-only entanglement with the hexagon or bowtie as the minimal multipartite entangled subregion supports a stable quantum spin liquid in the Kagome Heisenberg window, while the appearance of non-loopy GME in the Kitaev intermediate phase argues against a quantum spin liquid across the whole intermediate regime.
  • The zero-GME regions are stable rather than fine-tuned: because the biseparable set is convex and has full measure, sufficiently small perturbations of couplings, temperature, or environment keep non-loopy subregions free of GME, and the paper verifies finite parameter ranges where this holds.
  • Loop GME is locally robust: a projective measurement on any single spin, inside or outside the loop, does not destroy the GME of a loopy subregion, so the correlation is genuinely collective around the loop.
  • In abelian string-nets the absence is total: every non-loopy subregion is fully separable, so there is no entanglement of any kind there, while in non-abelian string-nets non-loopy subregions remain GME-free and the hexagon can acquire GME, as in the Ising string-net.
  • For chiral quantum spin liquids, the universal edge-mode contribution to multiparty entanglement in a disk partition scales with the chiral central charge, so multiparty negativity can read off chiral edge data from the reduced density matrix of a macroscopic loopy region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If loop confinement of GME is universal for deconfined gauge theories, then a local GME witness defined on a loop subregion could serve as an experimental deconfinement probe in cold-atom or superconducting simulators, avoiding full state tomography; the paper mentions such a witness but does not develop the measurement protocol.
  • The paper's own caveat that GMN equals zero does not strictly exclude GME means the entirely absent formulation is only as strong as the set of subregions scanned; a single counterexample among larger tree-shaped subregions, or one found by a different measure, would force the weaker claim that loop-containing regions are the first to host GME.
  • A direct extension would be to test the chiral prediction by computing GMN on disks of increasing radius in the Kitaev model at small field and extracting the logarithmic slope; a matching slope in a lattice model would confirm that the chiral edge mode drives large-scale multiparty entanglement.
  • Applying the same machinery to fracton orders and symmetry-protected topological states could map which phases share loop-localized GME; the paper sketches a CZX-type SPT where the square plaquette is the minimal multipartite entangled subregion, suggesting the loop rule may extend beyond gauge theories.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses entanglement microscopy to study genuine multiparty entanglement (GME) in quantum spin liquids. Its central claims are: (i) in QSLs, GME is absent in small non-loopy subregions ('entanglement frustration'); (ii) GME arises only in subregions containing a closed loop; and (iii) this 'loop-only' structure is a universal feature of deconfined quantum gauge theories. The evidence combines exact diagonalization on a 32-site honeycomb Kitaev cluster and a 36-site Kagome cluster, exact Majorana-fermion computations for Kitaev plaquette reduced density matrices, GMN semidefinite programming, adaptive-polytope separability certificates, and exact results for Abelian and non-Abelian string-net models. The paper also introduces the minimal multipartite entangled subregion (MMES) and uses its evolution to discuss the Kitaev phase diagram and the Kagome Heisenberg model under perturbations.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper identifies a qualitatively new organizational principle for multipartite entanglement in fractionalized phases: GME is confined to loops rather than distributed over all small clusters. This would be a substantial advance over bipartite measures and would provide a new entanglement-based diagnostic for spin-liquid phases. The exact Abelian string-net separability theorem, the exact Kitaev plaquette RDM construction, and the careful use of GMN as a convex-roof measure are genuine strengths. However, the categorical formulation 'entirely absent in non-loopy subregions' is not fully supported by the evidence, because GMN=0 does not by itself certify biseparability and the adaptive-polytope certificates cover only a finite list of subregions. With appropriate recalibration of the claims, the paper would make an important contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section II] The abstract and Section II state that GME is 'entirely absent' in non-loopy subregions and 'arises solely in loops.' This categorical statement is not established for the Kitaev, Kagome, and RVB examples: the evidence there is vanishing GMN, and the Methods explicitly acknowledge that N(ρ)=0 does not exclude GME. SM Table I lists adaptive-polytope certificates only for a finite set of subregions. To retain the categorical claim, the authors would need to certify biseparability for every tree subregion on the clusters or prove that GMN=0 is sufficient in these models; otherwise the abstract and Section II should be weakened to 'no GME detected' or restricted to the certified subregions.
  2. [Section II (Figs. 3, 5) and SM IX] The 'entirely absent' part of the claim relies on ground states obtained on a single 32-site honeycomb cluster and a single 36-site Kagome cluster. The N=24 comparison and the four-point size scan for two Kagome subregions mitigate finite-size effects for those specific shapes, but they do not establish representativeness for all non-loopy subregions, especially because the MMES hierarchy involves a changing set of nested subregions. Please either quantify finite-size effects for a broader family of non-loopy subregions or explicitly restrict the claim to the subregions studied.
  3. [String Nets and SM X] SM X proves full separability for non-loopy subregions in Abelian string-nets. This theorem is strong and exact, but it does not apply to the Kitaev, Kagome, RVB, or non-Abelian string-net examples, where the absence of GME is inferred from vanishing GMN together with a finite list of certificates. The paper should explicitly distinguish proven absence (Abelian fixed points) from numerically observed absence, and should not present the Abelian theorem as covering the other models.
  4. [Discussion] The statement that 'entanglement loops are a universal property of quantum gauge theories' goes beyond the evidence presented, which consists of specific microscopic models plus the Abelian fixed-point theorem. A universal claim would require a general proof or should be explicitly labeled as a conjecture based on the examples studied. Please temper this sentence or provide a precise conjecture with stated conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in 'S(k, ω.' near the discussion of the dynamic structure factor; the closing parenthesis is missing.
  2. [Introduction] The notation 'fQ > k' and 'fQ < k' is confusing because the integer k is also used for the number of particles; please clarify the meaning of k in these inequalities.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that solid (dashed) lines show tripartite GMN (six-partite GMN), but the meaning of '3 party' and '6 party' in the figure panels should be spelled out in terms of the actual partitions used.
  4. [SM Table I] The table would benefit from a short definition of each subregion (e.g., '3-hex' as three consecutive spins on a hexagon) directly in the caption, and from a statement of which Hamiltonian parameters and cluster sizes the bounds refer to.
  5. [Section II, Anisotropy paragraph and Fig. 4 inset] The text says the second derivative of GMN diverges at the topological transition, but the inset shows a power-law fit; please state explicitly the exponent, the fitting range, and whether the divergence is in d²N/dγ² or in a related quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: loop confinement of GME is computed from exact ground states and string-net definitions; the GMN zero-to-absence gap is a witness limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—entanglement frustration and loop confinement of GME—are derived by computing the genuine multipartite negativity (GMN) from ground states obtained by exact diagonalization and exact Majorana/string-net solutions. No parameter is fitted to enforce the loop-vs-non-loopy distinction: the ED ground states come from the Kitaev, Kagome, and RVB Hamiltonians via standard Lanczos methods, and the string-net RDMs follow from the model's F-tensors and branching rules. The paper cites several works by the same group (entanglement microscopy [14], Ising-model GME [30], RVB separability [46], fate of entanglement [50]), but these are context and independent building blocks; the load-bearing loop-confinement conclusion does not reduce to any of them. The phase boundaries hc1 and hc2 are taken from the authors' forthcoming work [29], but the loop-confinement claim does not depend on those boundaries; the intermediate-phase interpretation is secondary. The Methods explicitly acknowledge that GMN=0 does not certify biseparability, and the paper partially closes this gap with adaptive-polytope certificates for selected subregions (SM Table I) and an exact Abelian string-net separability proof (SM X). The remaining gap—that 'entirely absent' is inferred from zero GMN plus a finite list of certificates—is a witness/logical-strength issue, not a circular reduction of prediction to input. Accordingly, no circular step satisfying the quote-and-reduction criterion was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to make the central claim work; the coupling constants in the Hamiltonians are scanned inputs. The main burdens are the finite-size representativeness of ED clusters, the GMN-to-biseparability inference, and the imported CFT negativity scaling. No new physical entities are introduced; entanglement frustration and MMES are names for observed phenomena, not postulates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption An Abelian string-net has branching rules with no multiplicity, so fixing any two edge labels at a trivalent vertex determines the third.
    Used in SM X to prove that every non-loopy RDM in Abelian string-nets is fully separable; this is the defining property of Abelian string-nets cited from Levin and Wen [51].
  • domain assumption The Kitaev honeycomb model is exactly solvable via Majorana fermions, and the thermodynamic-limit ground state is flux free.
    SM VIII uses the exact solution and the flux-free ground state to compute the plaquette RDM correlation functions; relies on Kitaev [3] and Lieb's flux theorem [62].
  • domain assumption The 32-site honeycomb and 36-site Kagome exact diagonalization ground states are representative of the thermodynamic-limit spin liquids.
    The Kitaev and Kagome loop-only results in Figs. 3 and 5 assume finite-size ED ground states capture the bulk entanglement structure; the paper offers N=24 vs N=32 and size scans up to N=36 as support.
  • domain assumption A vanishing genuine multipartite negativity is treated as absence of GME, supplemented by adaptive-polytope biseparability certificates for selected states.
    Methods, SM VI and SM VII.C. The paper acknowledges GMN=0 alone does not exclude GME, and uses the adaptive polytope algorithm for key RDMs; the assumption is that this certification covers the states that are used to conclude no GME.
  • domain assumption For a chiral disk, the tripartite negativity contains a universal term log N ~ (c/4) log(R/a), and the boundary-law contributions cancel when comparing three and four slices.
    Section III 'Chiral loops'. This imports Calabrese, Cardy and Tonni [54] negativity scaling and assumes the disk RDM can be represented by a pure boundary state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiparty entanglement loops in quantum spin liquids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PHMFM2I

@misc{pith2026250518124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiparty entanglement loops in quantum spin liquids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PHMFM2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18124}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum spin liquids (QSLs) give rise to exotic emergent particles by weaving intricate entanglement patterns in the underlying electrons. Bipartite measures between subregions can detect the presence of anyons, but little is known about the full entanglement structure of QSLs. Here, we study the multiparty entanglement of QSLs via entanglement microscopy. We find that in contrast to conventional matter, the genuine multiparty entanglement (GME) between spins is absent in the smallest subregions, a phenomenon we call "entanglement frustration". Instead, GME is more collective, and arises solely in loops. By exploiting exact results and large-scale numerics, we confirm these properties in various gapped and gapless QSLs realised in physically motivated Hamiltonians, as well as with string-net wavefunctions hosting abelian or non-abelian anyons. Our results shed new light on the phase diagram of Kitaev's honeycomb model in a Zeeman field, and the Kagome Heisenberg model under various perturbations. Going beyond QSLs, we provide evidence that entanglement loops are a universal property of quantum gauge theories. This leads to a new understanding of fractionalization, and the means by which gauge bosons encode quantum information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. A plaquette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Site groupings contributing to four-spin correlation functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Spin triple arrangements contributing to the projected Hamiltonian. (a) Spin triples on a plaquette. These correspond [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Entanglement architecture of beyond-Landau quantum criticality

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At ordinary Landau quantum critical points, genuine multipartite entanglement is strong even in tiny three-spin regions; at exotic non-Landau critical points, it vanishes in small non-loopy regions and appears only in...

  2. Emergence of a Macroscopic Cat State and Multi-Channel Entanglement in a Frustrated Cluster Spin Chain

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cluster–ANNNI spin chain has a first-order QPT between a ferromagnetic cat-state phase (gap closing exponentially) and a gapped incommensurate phase with four dominant Schmidt channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [29]

    L. Lyu, W. Witczak-Krempa, A. Läuchli, and E. S. Sørensen, in preparation

    work page

  2. [1]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2023)

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phases of Matter (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  5. [4]

    Kurita, H

    T.Yokoi, S.Ma, Y.Kasahara, S.Kasahara, T.Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Half-integer quantized anomalous thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev material can- didate α − RuCl 3, Science373, 568 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Planar thermal Hall effect of topological bosons in the Kitaev magnetα-RuCl3, Nature Materials 22, 36 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Lefrançois, G

    E. Lefrançois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taille- fer, Evidence of a Phonon Hall Effect in the Kitaev Spin 10 Liquid Candidate α−RuCl3, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021025 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    P. A. Lee, Quantized (or not quantized) thermal Hall ef- fect and oscillations in the thermal conductivity in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate α-RuCl3, Condensed mat- ter Journal Club 10.36471/JCCM_November_2021_02 (2021)

    work page doi:10.36471/jccm_november_2021_02 2021

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Kee, Thermal Hall conductivity ofα-RuCl3, Na- ture Materials22, 6 (2023)

    H.-Y. Kee, Thermal Hall conductivity ofα-RuCl3, Na- ture Materials22, 6 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    Non-Abelian braiding of graph vertices in a supercon- ducting processor, Nature618, 264 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Z. K. Minev, K. Najafi, S. Majumder, J. Wang, A. Stern, E.-A. Kim, C.-M. Jian, and G. Zhu, Realiz- ing string-net condensation: Fibonacci anyon braiding for universal gates and sampling chromatic polynomials, arXiv:2406.12820

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Xu, Z.-Z

    S. Xu, Z.-Z. Sun, K. Wang, H. Li, Z. Zhu, H. Dong, J. Deng, X. Zhang, J. Chen, Y. Wu, C. Zhang, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Gao, A. Zhang, N. Wang, Y. Zou, Z. Tan, F. Shen, J. Zhong, Z. Bao, W. Li, W. Jiang, L.-W. Yu, Z. Song, P. Zhang, L. Xiang, Q. Guo, Z. Wang, C. Song, H. Wang, and ...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Levin and X.-G

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

    2006

  6. [13]

    Kitaev and J

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

    2006

  7. [14]

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

    2025

  8. [15]

    Berthiere and W

    C. Berthiere and W. Witczak-Krempa, Entanglement of Skeletal Regions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 240502 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Entanglement detection, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Mea- suring multipartite entanglement through dynamic sus- ceptibilities, Nature Physics12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Frérot, M

    I. Frérot, M. Fadel, and M. Lewenstein, Probing quan- tum correlations in many-body systems: a review of scal- able methods, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 114001 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, E. Dagotto, and D. A. Tennant, Witnessing Entanglement and Quantum Correlations in Condensed Matter: A Review, Advanced Quantum Tech- nologies 8, 2400196 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys

    G. Tóth, Multipartite entanglement and high-precision metrology, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwem- mer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Fisher information and multiparticle entan- glement, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  15. [22]

    Hickey and S

    C. Hickey and S. Trebst, Emergence of a field-driven U(1) spin liquid in the Kitaev honeycomb model, Nature Com- munications 10, 530 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Z. Zhu, I. Kimchi, D. N. Sheng, and L. Fu, Robust non- Abelian spin liquid and a possible intermediate phase in the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model with magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B97, 241110 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Dynamical and topological properties of the Kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field, Physical Review B 98, 014418 (2018), pRB

    2018

  18. [25]

    Holdhusen, D

    W. Holdhusen, D. Huerga, and G. Ortiz, Emergent mag- netic order in the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model in a

  19. [26]

    Zhang, G

    S.-S. Zhang, G. B. Halász, and C. D. Batista, Theory of the Kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field, Nature Communications 13, 399 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Jungnitsch, T

    B. Jungnitsch, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne, Taming Mul- tiparticle Entanglement, Physical Review Letters 106, 190502 (2011)

    2011

  21. [28]

    Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys

    A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    L. Lyu, M. Song, T.-T. Wang, Z. Y. Meng, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Multiparty entanglement mi- croscopy of quantum Ising models in one, two, and three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B111, 245108 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Lambert and E

    J. Lambert and E. S. Sørensen, Revealing divergent lengthscalesusingquantumFisherinformationintheKi- taevhoneycombmodel,Phys.Rev.B 102,224401(2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    H. J. Liao, Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, Z. Y. Liu, H. D. Xie, R. Z. Huang, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Gapless Spin-Liquid Ground State in the S = 1/2 Kagome Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 137202 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Mekata, Kagome: The Story of the Basketweave Lat- tice, Physics Today56, 12 (2003)

    M. Mekata, Kagome: The Story of the Basketweave Lat- tice, Physics Today56, 12 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Y.-C. He, M. P. Zaletel, M. Oshikawa, and F. Poll- mann, Signatures of Dirac Cones in a DMRG Study of the Kagome Heisenberg Model, Phys. Rev. X7, 031020 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Iqbal, F

    Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, and D. Poilblanc, Projected wave function study ofZ2 spin liquids on the kagome lattice for the spin- 1 2 quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B84, 020407 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    B. K. Clark, J. M. Kinder, E. Neuscamman, G. K.-L. Chan, and M. J. Lawler, Striped Spin Liquid Crystal Ground State Instability of Kagome Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 187205 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    P. W. Leung and V. Elser, Numerical studies of a 36-site kagome antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B47, 5459 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    Lecheminant, B

    P. Lecheminant, B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, L. Pierre, and P. Sindzingre, Order versus disorder in the quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the kagomé lattice using exact spectra analysis, Phys. Rev. B56, 2521 (1997)

    1997

  31. [39]

    A. M. Läuchli, J. Sudan, and E. S. Sørensen, Ground- state energy and spin gap of spin-1 2 Kagomé-Heisenberg antiferromagnetic clusters: Large-scale exact diagonal- ization results, Phys. Rev. B83, 212401 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    A. M. Läuchli, J. Sudan, and R. Moessner,S = 1 2 kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet revisited, Phys. Rev. B100, 155142 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Becca, Gutzwiller projected states for theJ1 − J2 Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice: Achievements and pitfalls, Phys

    Y.Iqbal, F.Ferrari, A.Chauhan, A.Parola, D.Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Gutzwiller projected states for theJ1 − J2 Heisenberg model on the Kagome lattice: Achievements and pitfalls, Phys. Rev. B104, 144406 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Bauer, L

    B. Bauer, L. Cincio, B. P. Keller, M. Dolfi, G. Vidal, S. Trebst, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Chiral spin liquid and emergent anyons in a Kagome lattice Mott insulator, Na- ture Communications5, 5137 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    P. W. Anderson, The Resonating Valence Bond State in La2CuO4 and Superconductivity, Science 235, 1196 (1987). 11

    1987

  36. [44]

    Schuch, D

    N. Schuch, D. Poilblanc, J. I. Cirac, and D. Pérez-García, Resonating valence bond states in the PEPS formalism, Phys. Rev. B86, 115108 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    F.YangandH.Yao,FrustratedResonatingValenceBond States in Two Dimensions: Classification and Short- Range Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 147209 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Parez, C

    G. Parez, C. Berthiere, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Sep- arability and entanglement of resonating valence-bond states, SciPost Phys.15, 066 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Superconductivity and theQuantumHard-CoreDimerGas,Phys.Rev.Lett. 61, 2376 (1988)

    1988

  40. [48]

    Y. Tang, A. W. Sandvik, and C. L. Henley, Properties of resonating-valence-bond spin liquids and critical dimer models, Phys. Rev. B84, 174427 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    A. F. Albuquerque and F. Alet, Critical correlations for short-range valence-bond wave functions on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B82, 180408 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Parez and W

    G. Parez and W. Witczak-Krempa, The Fate of Entan- glement, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.06677 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    M. A. Levin and X.-G. Wen, String-net condensation: A physical mechanism for topological phases, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045110 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Cappelli, M

    A. Cappelli, M. Huerta, and G. R. Zemba, Thermal transport in chiral conformal theories and hierarchical quantum Hall states, Nuclear Physics B636, 568 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    Li and F

    H. Li and F. D. M. Haldane, Entanglement Spectrum as a Generalization of Entanglement Entropy: Identification ofTopologicalOrderinNon-AbelianFractionalQuantum Hall Effect States, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 010504 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Calabrese, J

    P. Calabrese, J. Cardy, and E. Tonni, Entanglement neg- ativity in extended systems: a field theoretical approach, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment 2013, P02008 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Chen, Z.-X

    X. Chen, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Two-dimensional symmetry-protected topological orders and their pro- tected gapless edge excitations, Physical Review B84, 10.1103/physrevb.84.235141 (2011)

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bilityofmixedstates: necessaryandsufficientconditions, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    Hofmann, T

    M. Hofmann, T. Moroder, and O. Gühne, Analytical characterization of the genuine multiparticle negativity, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47, 155301 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Ohst, X.-D

    T.-A. Ohst, X.-D. Yu, O. Gühne, and H. C. Nguyen, Certifyingquantumseparabilitywithadaptivepolytopes, SciPost Phys.16, 063 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Löfberg, inIn Proceedings of the CACSD Conference (Taipei, Taiwan, 2004)

    J. Löfberg, inIn Proceedings of the CACSD Conference (Taipei, Taiwan, 2004)

    2004

  52. [60]

    MOSEK Optimization Toolbox for MATLAB 10.2.17 , MOSEK ApS (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Lewenstein, B

    M. Lewenstein, B. Kraus, J. I. Cirac, and P. Horodecki, Optimization of entanglement witnesses, Phys. Rev. A 62, 052310 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    E. H. Lieb, Flux Phase of the Half-Filled Band, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 2158 (1994)

    1994

  55. [63]

    Zschocke and M

    F. Zschocke and M. Vojta, Physical states and finite- size effects in Kitaev’s honeycomb model: Bond disorder, spin excitations, and NMR line shape, Phys. Rev. B92, 014403 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Yao and X.-L

    H. Yao and X.-L. Qi, Entanglement Entropy and Entan- glement Spectrum of the Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080501 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Baskaran, S

    G. Baskaran, S. Mandal, and R. Shankar, Exact Results for Spin Dynamics and Fractionalization in the Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 247201 (2007)

    2007

  58. [66]

    Hamma, R

    A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Bipartite entan- glement and entropic boundary law in lattice spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A71, 022315 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    entanglement frustration

    K.-C. Ha, K. H. Han, and S.-H. Kye, Separability of multi-qubit states in terms of diagonal and anti-diagonal entries, Quantum Information Processing18, 34 (2018). 12 Supplemental Materials for Multipartite Entanglement in Quantum Spin Liquids CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. En...

    2018

  60. [111]

    field, Phys. Rev. B109, 174411 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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