Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Long-range multipartite entanglement in holographic gapless systems

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All nonvanishing holographic multipartite entanglement quantities for strips share one large-distance power-law exponent fixed by the IR geometry.

desk verdict A genuine scaling-universality claim for multipartite RT quantities, but the proof rests on an omitted shape-invariance check for full networks; worth refereeing if that check is supplied. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09056 v1 pith:XRNAKVP4 submitted 2026-08-10 hep-th

Xiantong Chen , Xuanting Ji , Xin-Xiang Ju , Wen-Peng Li , Ya-Wen Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords multipartiteentanglementlong-rangeholographyhyperscalingviolationinfraredgeometryRyu-Takayanagisurfacewedgecrosssectiongaplessquantumsystems
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 tries to establish a scaling rigidity: in any static, translationally invariant holographic gapless system, every nonvanishing multipartite entanglement quantity built from finite networks of minimal surfaces for strip configurations has the same leading large-distance power-law exponent, namely $1+\alpha_V/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)$, fixed by the deep IR geometry. If true, this means long-distance multipartite entanglement in strongly coupled gapless states is not a collection of independent behaviors but one unified phenomenon whose strength is controlled by the IR scaling exponents. The authors then use hyperscaling-violating IR geometries to show this shared exponent can be tuned: entanglement decays for effective dimension $d_{\rm eff}>1$, becomes logarithmic at $d_{\rm eff}=1$, grows subextensively for $0

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the minimal-surface network together with the IR power-law metric data $(\alpha_i,\alpha_r,\alpha_V)$. For strips, each RT surface is an arch with turning point $r_*$, and $l_i\propto r_*^{1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r}$; the scaling transformation $x_i\to\lambda x_i$, $r\to\lambda^{-1/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)}r$ rescales boundary widths and radial depth together, preserving the network shape. The claim that every segment of the network, including entanglement wedge cross sections and Steiner junctions, scales as $\lambda^{1+\alpha_V/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)}$ is what carries the unification; for a single RT surface it reduces to the entropy exponent $l^{1-d_{\rm eff}}$ in hyperscaling-violating geometries.

What would settle it

Compute, in a concrete asymptotically-AdS-to-HV interpolating geometry, the areas of distinct components of a minimal-surface network (arch, straight legs, EWCS, Steiner junction) at several large strip widths, and check whether each component scales exactly as $\lambda^{1+\alpha_V/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)}$; if the EWCS or Steiner segment has a different leading $\lambda$-scaling, Eq. (2.24) fails for multipartite quantities built from those components even though it holds for entanglement entropy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Eq. (2.24): for any entanglement quantity $Q$ constructed directly from combinations of minimal surfaces (RT surfaces, entanglement wedge cross sections, Steiner-type junctions) for strip configurations, without leading cancellation, $Q \propto \lambda^{1+\alpha_V/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)}$ at large common scale $\lambda$. The exponents come from the deep-IR power-law metric $f_i\propto r^{2\alpha_i}$, $f_V\propto r^{2\alpha_V}$, $f_r\propto r^{2\alpha_r}$, and the combination is gauge invariant. The proof argument: deep turning points $r_*\to 0$ make the tail outside the IR region negligible (by dominated convergence), then a rescaling $x_i\to\lambda x_i$, $r\to\lambda^{-1/(1-\alpha_i+\alpha_r)}r$ leaves the entire minimal-surface network shape-invariant, so every segment area scales by the same factor. Consequently all nonvanishing multipartite quantities---entanglement entropy, mutual information, $n$-partite information, Markov gap, $\kappa$, EWCS, multi-EWCS---share one leading IR exponent; differences appear only in coefficients, subleading terms, transition points, and possible leading cancellations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that when the whole configuration is blown up by $\lambda$, every piece of the network of minimal surfaces---not just the arch for a single strip---keeps exactly the same shape after rescaling the depth coordinate, a step the paper states but does not display the derivation of.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any holographic gapless state with a given IR geometry, measuring one nonvanishing strip-based multipartite quantity (say tripartite information) fixes the leading large-distance scaling of all other multipartite quantities; no independent tunability of IR exponents remains.
  • For HV IR geometries with effective dimension $d_{\rm eff}$, long-range multipartite entanglement scales as $l^{1-d_{\rm eff}}$; choosing $d_{\rm eff}$ between 0 and 1 produces scale-growing subextensive entanglement, and $d_{\rm eff}=0$ gives a volume-law contribution to ground-state entanglement.
  • At $d_{\rm eff}=1$, balanced quantities such as $I_3$, the Markov gap, and $\kappa$ become constant while unbalanced ones like entanglement entropy and multi-entropy grow logarithmically; both are manifestations of the same universal exponent after accounting for UV divergences.
  • In the anisotropic $\mathrm{AdS}_3\times\mathbb{R}^2$ IR geometry, long-range multipartite entanglement along the $z$-direction is CFT$_2$-like (logarithmic or constant), while along the $x,y$ directions it undergoes an RT phase transition to area law, so directional entanglement scaling diagnoses which spatial directions remain gapless.
  • The large-distance scaling of entanglement quantities can be used to read off the IR scaling exponents $\alpha_i,\alpha_r,\alpha_V$, providing an entanglement-based reconstruction of the leading IR geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The omitted shape-invariance verification is the point to stress-test: if it fails for networks containing entanglement wedge cross sections or Steiner junctions, the universality would survive only for quantities built from single RT surfaces, and the claimed unification of $I_3$, Markov gap, and $\kappa$ would not follow.
  • The same exponent rigidity may extend beyond strip shapes: for ball-shaped regions, curvature corrections would introduce shape-dependent subleading terms, but the leading IR exponent would likely still be controlled by the same $\alpha$-data, suggesting a shape-independent IR entanglement fingerprint.
  • Because the exponent is shared while coefficients are not, a tensor-network or quantum-simulation test for volume-law multipartite entanglement near $d_{\rm eff}=0$ could distinguish hyperscaling-violating IR phases from semi-local criticality, which has no spatially extensive entanglement channel.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the large-distance scaling of multipartite entanglement in holographic gapless systems. It proposes that, for strip configurations in a static asymptotically-AdS bulk whose IR metric behaves as g_ii ∝ r^{2α_i}, g_rr ∝ r^{2α_r}, every nonvanishing entanglement quantity built from a finite network of minimal surfaces scales as Q ∝ λ^{1+α_V/(1-α_i+α_r)} under a common rescaling of all subregion sizes. It then applies this formula to hyperscaling-violating IR geometries, predicting decay, logarithmic, subextensive, or volume-law long-distance multipartite entanglement depending on the effective dimension d_eff, and to an anisotropic AdS_3×R^2 IR geometry, where long-range entanglement survives only along the gapless direction. The paper includes a proof outline via dominated convergence and a shape-invariance argument, and illustrates the results with the tripartite information I_3 and with previous numerical observations.

Significance. The claimed result, if fully established, would be a strong and falsifiable statement: it would reduce the IR scaling of many distinct holographic entanglement measures to a single exponent fixed by the IR metric, and it would provide a concrete nonlocal diagnostic of the IR universality class. The derivation is mostly analytic and does not fit free parameters to data; the citations to previous numerical work are motivational rather than load-bearing. The classification of hyperscaling-violating and anisotropic phases is clear, and the conditions under which long-range multipartite entanglement is enhanced are explicit. The main weaknesses are that the proof of the network-level statement is incomplete at a load-bearing point, and there is a sign error in the anisotropic section; both appear fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.19)–(2.24)] The central universality claim rests on the assertion, immediately after Eq. (2.20), that the entire minimal-surface network is shape-invariant under the rescaling (2.19). This is the load-bearing step, and it is omitted. Eq. (2.20) only checks invariance of the x_i-span of a single arch-shaped RT segment; it does not verify the scaling of vertical-wall EWCS segments once their endpoints on the RT surfaces are included, nor the scaling of Steiner-type junction nodes and their force-balance conditions. If shape invariance fails for any segment type or junction, Eq. (2.23) applies only to single RT surfaces and Eq. (2.24) is not established for multipartite quantities. Please supply the full verification, including the endpoint and junction steps, or explicitly restrict the claim to single RT surfaces.
  2. [Section 4, around Table 3] The text states that 'the scaling components combination 1−α_i+α_r = z_i' for the anisotropic hyperscaling-violating metric. From the metric (3.1), α_i = z_i − θ/d and α_r = −1 − θ/d, so the correct combination is 1 − α_i + α_r = −z_i. As written, substituting z_i into the denominator of (2.24) would produce the wrong exponent; the entries of Table 3 appear to use the correct sign. Please correct this statement and check all formulas in Section 4 for consistency with the sign.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.14) and (2.17)] The dominated-convergence steps rely on asserted monotonicity and integrability of the dominating functions; these are plausible but should be verified in a sentence or two so that the asymptotic derivation is fully self-contained.
  2. [Section 4, after Eq. (4.5)] The numerical statements about c_x, c_z, and I_3 are reported without plots, parameter values, or fitting details; please include the relevant data or a precise description of the computation, even if it is a summary of previous work.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'we we prove' at the end of the Introduction, 'hologaphy' in Section 2.1, 'qunatity' in the note to Table 3, and 'effect spatial dimension' in Section 3.2; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal scaling exponent is derived from the IR power-law metric via the RT area functional; self-citations are motivational, and the only notable weakness is an omitted shape-invariance proof for full RT networks, which is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (2.24), is derived rather than assumed. Starting from the IR power-law metric (2.13), the RT area functional for strip configurations yields l_i ∝ r_*^{1−α_i+α_r} via a dominated-convergence argument (Section 2.2), and the area integrals (2.21)–(2.22) transform covariantly under the rescaling (2.19), giving the same prefactor λ^{1+α_V/(1−α_i+α_r)} for both arch-type and straight-leg segments. The claimed universality is therefore a consequence of the input geometry plus the RT prescription; it is not equivalent to the definition of Q, and the nontrivial content is that different multipartite quantities, including balanced ones, share the exponent unless leading terms cancel. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction: the numerical c-function and I_3 computations in Section 4 are checks of the analytical formula, and fitting the numerical power law is standard data reduction, not a fitted input. The self-citations [31,32] (and [28–30]) are used to motivate the principle and to report prior numerical observations; the analytical proof in Section 2 does not rely on them, so they are not load-bearing. The one genuine weakness is an omitted verification, stated immediately after Eq. (2.20): the authors assert that the full minimal-surface network, including EWCS segments and Steiner junctions, is shape-invariant under (2.19), and say the verification is 'relatively lengthy' and omitted. Eq. (2.20) checks only a single arch; without a check of force-balance at network nodes, Eq. (2.23) is strictly proven for single RT surfaces and straight legs, not for arbitrary junctions. This is a proof gap and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because the shape-invariance is neither defined in terms of the conclusion nor imported from a self-citation; it is simply unproved. Separately, the text's statement in Section 4 that 'the scaling components combination 1−α_i+α_r = z_i' has the wrong sign (the combination equals −z_i), but for z_i = 0 the AdS_3 × R^2 conclusion is unaffected; this is an error, not a circular step. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the holographic dictionary, on the assumption that the deep IR metric is a pure power law, and on two geometric assertions about RT networks (arch/straight-leg decomposition and scale invariance) that are not fully proved. The scanning parameters theta and z_i are inputs of the HV family, not derived or fitted. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Hyperscaling-violation exponent theta = scanned over [0,d]; key regimes theta=d-1, d-1<theta<d, theta=d
    Controls d_eff = d - theta in Eq. (3.6) and therefore the predicted entanglement scaling regimes in Table 1. It is an input of the HV IR geometry, not derived or fitted in the paper.
  • Anisotropic spatial scaling exponents z_i = z_i >= 0, subject to NEC constraints in Eq. (3.2)
    For anisotropic HV geometries, the ratio (sum_j z_j - theta)/z_i sets the effective spatial dimension in each direction (Table 3); z_i = 0 selects the gapped-direction case AdS3 x R2. These are free parameters of the model family being classified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Holographic dictionary: S = Area / 4 G_N for RT surfaces, and multipartite entanglement quantities are represented by finite networks of minimal surfaces.
    The entire derivation, including Eq. (2.1) and Section 2.1, assumes the semiclassical holographic prescription for entanglement.
  • domain assumption The deep IR metric has pure power-law form f_i proportional to r^(2 alpha_i), f_V proportional to r^(2 alpha_V), f_r proportional to r^(2 alpha_r), with no additional scales.
    Eq. (2.13) is the basis for the exact scaling formula (2.15) and for the proof that all minimal surfaces share one large-distance exponent.
  • domain assumption Every minimal surface in an RT network for strip configurations is either an arch (part of an RT surface) or a straight leg constant in the strip direction.
    Section 2.2, after Fig. 1, asserts this decomposition as 'not difficult to see' but does not prove it; the area-scaling argument depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The whole minimal-surface network is shape-invariant under the rescaling in Eq. (2.19).
    This is the load-bearing unproved step: the authors write that the verification is 'relatively lengthy' and omit it after Eq. (2.20). Eq. (2.23) and thus Eq. (2.24) rely on it.
  • domain assumption HV parameters satisfy the Null Energy Condition in Eq. (3.2) and d >= theta.
    These constraints restrict the physically allowed parameter ranges used in Table 1 and Table 3.
  • domain assumption There exists an interpolating bulk solution between a magnetic-field AdS3 x R2 IR geometry and an asymptotically AdS5 UV geometry.
    Section 4 outlines a shooting procedure with a deformation parameter delta but does not exhibit the solution; the anisotropic results assume such a flow exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-range multipartite entanglement in holographic gapless systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRNAKVP4

@misc{pith2026260809056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-range multipartite entanglement in holographic gapless systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRNAKVP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09056}
}
abstract

Gapless quantum systems support correlations over arbitrarily long distances, giving rise to power-law long-range entanglement. We investigate long-range entanglement at strong coupling for three-dimensional gapless systems using holography, asking whether multipartite entanglement can exhibit scale-growing behavior and become enhanced at large distances. We show that a broad class of multipartite entanglement quantities share the same leading large-distance scaling exponent determined by the IR geometry. To realize different scaling regimes, we consider hyperscaling-violating IR geometries. Depending on the parameters, long-distance multipartite entanglement can decay, become logarithmic, grow subextensively, or reach a volume law. We also analyze an anisotropic IR geometry \(\mathrm{AdS}_{3}\times\mathbb{R}^{2}\), where long-range multipartite entanglement survives along one direction but becomes short-ranged in the transverse gapped directions. These results show that holographic gapless phases can support rich and enhanced long-range multipartite entanglement, providing a nonlocal characterization of the underlying IR physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Levin, X.-G

    M. Levin, X.-G. Wen, Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function, Physical Review Letters 96 (11) (Mar. 2006).doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110405. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110405

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110405 2006

  2. [2]

    Wen, Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics 2013 (2013) 1–20

    X.-G. Wen, Topological order: From long-range entangled quantum matter to a unified origin of light and electrons, ISRN Condensed Matter Physics 2013 (2013) 1–20. doi:10.1155/2013/198710. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/198710

    doi:10.1155/2013/198710 2013

  3. [3]

    Kitaev, J

    A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, Topological entanglement entropy, Physical Review Letters 96 (11) (Mar. 2006).doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110404. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.110404

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.110404 2006

  4. [4]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Steffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, S. Paschen, Quantum fisher information in a strange metal, Nature Physics 22 (7) (2026) 1064–1070. doi:10.1038/s41567-026-03298-0. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-026-03298-0

    doi:10.1038/s41567-026-03298-0 2026

  5. [5]

    Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (2) (1998) 253–291.doi:10.4310/atmp.1998.v2.n2.a2

    E. Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography, Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2 (2) (1998) 253–291.doi:10.4310/atmp.1998.v2.n2.a2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2

    doi:10.4310/atmp.1998.v2.n2.a2 1998

  6. [6]

    Gubser, I

    S. Gubser, I. Klebanov, A. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory, Physics Letters B 428 (1-2) (1998) 105–114.doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00377-3. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00377-3

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00377-3 1998

  7. [7]

    Maldacena, The large-n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38 (4) (1999) 1113–1133

    J. Maldacena, The large-n limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38 (4) (1999) 1113–1133. doi:10.1023/a:1026654312961. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026654312961

    doi:10.1023/a:1026654312961 1999

  8. [8]

    S. Ryu, T. Takayanagi, Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from the anti–de sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence, Physical Review Letters 96 (18) (May 2006).doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602 – 26 –

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602 2006

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Ju, W.-B

    X.-X. Ju, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Y. Zhao, Holographic multipartite entanglement from the upper bound ofn-partite information (2024).arXiv:2411.07790. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07790

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Harper, T

    J. Harper, T. Takayanagi, T. Tsuda, Multi-entropy at low renyi index in 2d cfts, SciPost Physics 16 (5) (May 2024).doi:10.21468/scipostphys.16.5.125. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.5.125

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Iizuka, A

    N. Iizuka, A. Miyata, The junction law for multipartite entanglement in confining holographic backgrounds (2026).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2604.10583. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10583

    2026 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. Hu, S. Lin, I. Nechita, Multi-entropy in random tensor networks (2026). doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2606.04470. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04470

    2026 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dutta, T

    S. Dutta, T. Faulkner, A canonical purification for the entanglement wedge cross-section, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (3) (Mar. 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep03(2021)178. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021)178

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Umemoto, T

    K. Umemoto, T. Takayanagi, Entanglement of purification through holographic duality, Nature Physics 14 (6) (2018) 573–577.doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0075-2

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Hayden, O

    P. Hayden, O. Parrikar, J. Sorce, The markov gap for geometric reflected entropy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (10) (Oct. 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep10(2021)047. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2021)047

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Y. Zou, K. Siva, T. Soejima, R. S. Mong, M. P. Zaletel, Universal tripartite entanglement in one-dimensional many-body systems, Physical Review Letters 126 (12) (Mar. 2021). doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.120501. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.120501

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Akers, P

    C. Akers, P. Rath, Entanglement wedge cross sections require tripartite entanglement, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020 (4) (Apr. 2020).doi:10.1007/jhep04(2020)208. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2020)208

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    N. Bao, N. Cheng, Multipartite reflected entropy, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (10) (Oct. 2019).doi:10.1007/jhep10(2019)102. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)102

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    N. Bao, A. Chatwin-Davies, G. N. Remmen, Entanglement of purification and multiboundary wormhole geometries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019 (2) (Feb. 2019). doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)110. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2019)110

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    N. Bao, K. Furuya, J. Naskar, Tripartite correlation signal from multipartite entanglement of purification, Journal of High Energy Physics 2026 (5) (May 2026). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2026)236. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2026)236

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    J. K. Basak, V. Malvimat, J. Yoon, A new genuine multipartite entanglement measure: from qubits to multiboundary wormholes (2024).doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2411.11961. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11961

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Charmousis, B

    C. Charmousis, B. Gout´ eraux, B. Soo Kim, E. Kiritsis, R. Meyer, Effective holographic – 27 – theories for low-temperature condensed matter systems, Journal of High Energy Physics 2010 (11) (Nov. 2010).doi:10.1007/jhep11(2010)151. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2010)151

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Gout´ eraux, E

    B. Gout´ eraux, E. Kiritsis, Generalized holographic quantum criticality at finite density, Journal of High Energy Physics 2011 (12) (Dec. 2011).doi:10.1007/jhep12(2011)036. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2011)036

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Huijse, S

    L. Huijse, S. Sachdev, B. Swingle, Hidden fermi surfaces in compressible states of gauge-gravity duality, Physical Review B 85 (3) (Jan. 2012). doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.035121. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.035121

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    D. S. Fisher, Scaling and critical slowing down in random-field ising systems, Physical Review Letters 56 (5) (1986) 416–419.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.56.416. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.416

    1986 doi

  18. [26]

    M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, D. S. Fisher, Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition, Physical Review B 40 (1) (1989) 546–570. doi:10.1103/physrevb.40.546. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.40.546

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    Baggioli, Y

    M. Baggioli, Y. Liu, X.-M. Wu, Entanglement entropy as an order parameter for strongly coupled nodal line semimetals, Journal of High Energy Physics 2023 (5) (May 2023). doi:10.1007/jhep05(2023)221. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2023)221

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Ji, X.-X

    X. Ji, X.-X. Ju, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-T. Wang, H.-L. Zhou, Holographic geometry/real-space entanglement correspondence and metric reconstruction, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025 (9) (2025).doi:10.1007/jhep09(2025)081. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2025)081

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Ju, T.-Z

    X.-X. Ju, T.-Z. Lai, B.-H. Liu, W.-B. Pan, Y.-W. Sun, Entanglement structures from modified ir geometry, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024 (7) (2024). doi:10.1007/jhep07(2024)181. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2024)181

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Ju, B.-H

    X.-X. Ju, B.-H. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, B.-Y. Xu, Y. Zhao, Holographic multipartite entanglement structures in ir modified geometries, Journal of High Energy Physics 2026 (3) (Mar. 2026). doi:10.1007/jhep03(2026)095. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2026)095

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    X. Chen, X. Ji, Y.-W. Sun, Multipartite entanglement characterizing topological phase transitions in holographic nodal line semimetals, Journal of High Energy Physics 2026 (7) (2026).doi:10.1007/jhep07(2026)072. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2026)072

    2026 doi

  24. [32]

    X. Chen, X. Ji, W.-P. Li, Y.-W. Sun, Detecting topological transitions and anisotropy through multipartite entanglement in holographic weyl semimetals (2026). arXiv:2606.05757. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05757

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Landsteiner, Y

    K. Landsteiner, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Quantum phase transition between a topological and a trivial semimetal from holography, Physical Review Letters 116 (8) (Feb. 2016). – 28 – doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.081602. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081602

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Liu, X.-M

    Y. Liu, X.-M. Wu, An improved holographic nodal line semimetal, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (5) (May 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep05(2021)141. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2021)141

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, Y.-W. Sun, Y.-L. Zhang, A weyl-z2 semimetal from holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021 (12) (Dec. 2021).doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)066. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2021)066

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    H. Chu, X. Ji, Y.-W. Sun, Coexistence of topological semimetal states in holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2024 (5) (May 2024).doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)166. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)166

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    X. Dong, S. Harrison, S. Kachru, G. Torroba, H. Wang, Aspects of holography for theories with hyperscaling violation, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (6) (2012). doi:10.1007/jhep06(2012)041. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2012)041

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    Iizuka, K

    N. Iizuka, K. Maeda, Stripe instabilities of geometries with hyperscaling violation, Physical Review D 87 (12) (2013).doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.126006. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.126006

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Cremonini, L

    S. Cremonini, L. Li, Criteria for superfluid instabilities of geometries with hyperscaling violation, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (11) (Nov. 2016). doi:10.1007/jhep11(2016)137. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2016)137

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Iqbal, H

    N. Iqbal, H. Liu, M. Mezei, Semi-local quantum liquids, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (4) (Apr. 2012).doi:10.1007/jhep04(2012)086. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)086

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    Giataganas, U

    D. Giataganas, U. G¨ ursoy, C. Moran, J. F. Pedraza, D. Rodr ´ ıguez Fern´ andez, Anisotropic critical points from holography, Journal of High Energy Physics 2026 (3) (Mar. 2026). doi:10.1007/jhep03(2026)026. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2026)026

    2026 doi

  34. [42]

    Mateos, D

    D. Mateos, D. Trancanelli, AnisotropicN= 4 super-yang-mills plasma and its instabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 101601.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.101601. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.101601

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Jeong, Y

    H.-S. Jeong, Y. Ahn, D. Ahn, C. Niu, W.-J. Li, K.-Y. Kim, Thermal diffusivity and butterfly velocity in anisotropic q-lattice models, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (1) (Jan. 2018). doi:10.1007/jhep01(2018)140. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2018)140

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    D’Hoker, P

    E. D’Hoker, P. Kraus, Magnetic brane solutions in ads, Journal of High Energy Physics 2009 (10) (2009) 088–088.doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/088. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/088

    2009 doi

  37. [45]

    Y.-W. Sun, Q. Yang, Negative magnetoresistivity in holography, JHEP 09 (2016) 122. arXiv:1603.02624,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)122

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. C. Myers, A. Singh, Comments on holographic entanglement entropy and rg flows, – 29 – Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (4) (Apr. 2012).doi:10.1007/jhep04(2012)122. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2012)122

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    Baggioli, D

    M. Baggioli, D. Giataganas, Detecting topological quantum phase transitions via the c-function, Physical Review D 103 (2) (Jan. 2021).doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.026009. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.026009

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    A. V. Sologubenko, E. Felder, K. Giann` o, H. R. Ott, A. Vietkine, A. Revcolevschi, Thermal conductivity and specific heat of the linear chain cuprate sr 2cuo3 : evidence for thermal transport via spinons, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) R6108(R)–R6111(R). doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.62.R6108...

    2000 doi

  41. [49]

    Cheng, L

    K. Cheng, L. Wang, Y. Xu, F. Yang, H. Zhu, J. Ke, X. Lu, Z. Xia, J. Wang, Y. Shi, Y. Yang, Y. Luo, Realization of kondo chain in ceco 2ga8, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3 (2019) 021402(R). doi:10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.021402. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.021402

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    Chatterjee, W

    A. Chatterjee, W. Ji, X.-G. Wen, Emergent generalized symmetry and maximal symmetry topological order, Physical Review B 112 (11) (2025).doi:10.1103/jzfv-ygmr. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/jzfv-ygmr

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    Bordas, C

    E. Bordas, C. de Graaf, R. Caballol, C. J. Calzado, Electronic structure of Cacu 2o3: Spin ladder versus one-dimensional spin chain, Phys. Rev. B 71 (2005) 045108. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045108. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045108

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    Rangamani, T

    M. Rangamani, T. Takayanagi, Holographic Entanglement Entropy, Springer International Publishing, 2017.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52573-0. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52573-0

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Eisert, M

    J. Eisert, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 277–306.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.277

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    H. Liu, M. Mezei, A refinement of entanglement entropy and the number of degrees of freedom, Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (4) (Apr. 2013). doi:10.1007/jhep04(2013)162. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2013)162

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Xu, Y.-X

    G. Xu, Y.-X. Zhang, Multipartite greenberger-horne-zeilinger entanglement in monitored random clifford circuits, Physical Review B 112 (18) (Nov. 2025).doi:10.1103/mh1s-kbjl. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/mh1s-kbjl – 30 –

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.