Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 54 references

Probing Impurity Quantum Criticality with Entanglement Witnesses

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measurable spin and charge fluctuations provide an entanglement witness of quantum criticality in the two-impurity Kondo model: the quantum Fisher information of the staggered impurity-spin operator exceeds the separability bound for all…

desk verdict A careful DMRG/NRG study showing that QFI of collective spin and charge operators tracks and certifies entanglement across the two-impurity Kondo critical point; the finite-size extrapolation is the only soft spot and it does not threaten the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12317 v1 pith:KBVUTJ7G submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

Mateo Cárdenes Wuttig , Andrew J. Millis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords two-impurityKondomodelquantumFisherinformationentanglementwitnesscriticalitynon-Fermi-liquidJones-Varmacriticalpointspinandchargefluctuationsdissipativesusceptibility
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 the quantum phase transition in the two-impurity Kondo model—between two independently Kondo-screened impurities and an inter-impurity singlet—is not only a reorganization of entanglement but a reorganization that can be seen in ordinary, measurable response functions. Using the quantum Fisher information (QFI), it claims that the staggered impurity-spin operator $S^{z,-}_{II}=S^z_1-S^z_2$ violates the left–right separability bound $F_Q>2$ for all $K>0$, that $\partial_K F_Q$ peaks at the Jones–Varma critical coupling, and that entanglement certification survives to $T\approx0.5$ at $K_c$. The same critical signature is imprinted on the QFI of adjacent-electron spin and density operators, so the transition is visible without touching the impurity spins. A sympathetic reader should care because this converts an abstract entanglement diagnostic into a concrete experimental protocol for a controlled quantum-critical system.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quantum Fisher information of a generator $O$, defined thermally as $F_Q[\rho_T,O]=\frac{4}{\pi}\int_0^\infty d\omega\,\tanh(\omega/2T)\,\chi''_{OO}(\omega,T)$. For a pure state it reduces to $4\,\mathrm{Var}(O)$, and for $O=O_L\pm O_R$ built from local operators of unit spectral width, left–right separable states have $F_Q\le 2$. The identity $F_Q(S^{z,\pm}_{II})=2\pm \frac{8}{3}C_{II}$ links the witness directly to the inter-impurity spin correlator, while the same integral over the dissipative response of the adjacent-electron density imbalance $n^-_{ee}$ carries the critical signal into charge fluctuations.

What would settle it

Measure the out-of-phase magnetic response of the two impurities driven in antiphase in a coupled-quantum-dot device tuned near $J=2$, $K\approx1.6$, and $T=0.1$; if the quantum Fisher information reconstructed from that dissipative susceptibility does not exceed 2 in that region, or if the derivative peak is absent in both the impurity-spin and adjacent-electron-density channels, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Jones–Varma non-Fermi-liquid critical point, where $K=K_c(J)$ separates two Kondo-screened impurities from an inter-impurity singlet, is encoded in the quantum Fisher information of collective operators. For the SU(2)-invariant ground state the antisymmetric impurity-spin QFI obeys $F_Q(S^{z,-}_{II})=2-\frac{8}{3}C_{II}$, so exceeding the separability bound $F_Q=2$ is the same physical statement as the onset of antiferromagnetic inter-impurity correlations; the symmetric channel $F_Q(S^{z,+}_{II})=2+\frac{8}{3}C_{II}$ witnesses the complementary triplet-correlated regimes. The derivative $\partial_K F_Q(S^{z,-}_{II})$ is maximal at the size-dependent pseudo-critical coupling, and its finite-size extrapolation gives $K_c=1.620\pm0.005$ at $J=2$, consistent with the low-temperature Wilson-chain susceptibility peak at $1.59\pm0.03$. The same peak appears in $\partial_K F_Q(n^-_{ee})$ for the charge imbalance of the adjacent conduction electrons, showing the critical restructuring propagates into the baths. At finite temperature the QFI is obtained from the dissipative part of the dynamical susceptibility, and it remains above the separability bound at $K_c$ up to $T\approx0.5$, with the spin-resolved density channel witnessing up to $T\approx0.1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-size rounding of the transition follows a clean inverse-square-root law in chain length; if extra corrections creep in, the extrapolated critical coupling would be biased, but the broader claim that the fluctuations witness the critical entanglement would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The staggered impurity-spin QFI exceeds the left–right separability bound for every $K>0$ at $J=2$, so entanglement across the impurity-bath subsystems is certified over the entire antiferromagnetic side of the phase diagram.
  • The derivative $\partial_K F_Q(S^{z,-}_{II})$ develops a peak that extrapolates to $K_c=1.620\pm0.005$ from tensor-network finite-size data and matches the low-temperature Wilson-chain susceptibility peak at $1.59\pm0.03$; the QFI therefore locates the critical point quantitatively.
  • The charge-imbalance QFI $F_Q(n^-_{ee})$ carries the same critical peak, so the transition can be detected from electron-density fluctuations alone, without impurity-spin readout.
  • At finite temperature the dissipative QFI isolates quantum from thermal fluctuations, and entanglement at $K_c$ is certified up to $T\approx0.5$ in the impurity-spin channel and up to $T\approx0.1$ in the spin-resolved density channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical two-channel measurement—drive the two impurities in phase and in antiphase, then subtract the two QFI values—could extract the inter-impurity correlator $C_{II}$ directly from linear response; the paper states the identity but does not develop it as a standalone correlator thermometer.
  • The thermal window of certification suggests a concrete experimental target: in coupled quantum dots with $T_K\sim0.9t$, operating below roughly half the hopping scale should preserve the witness, a translation to laboratory units the paper does not make.
  • If charge-transfer between baths rounds the critical point into a crossover, the same charge-QFI channel may track the crossover rather than the true transition; testing this robustness is a natural next step the paper leaves open.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the two-impurity Kondo model with DMRG at zero temperature and NRG at finite temperature. It shows that the quantum Fisher information of the staggered impurity-spin operator S^{z,-}_{II}=S^z_1-S^z_2 exceeds the separability bound F_Q=2 for all K>0, that its derivative peaks near the Jones–Varma critical coupling, and that the same structure is encoded in collective charge and spin QFIs of the adjacent conduction electrons. An exact identity F_Q(S^{z,-}_{II})=2-(8/3)C_{II} for SU(2)-invariant ground states recasts the impurity correlator as an entanglement witness. Finite-size DMRG extrapolation gives K_c=1.620±0.005, consistent with the NRG value 1.59±0.03 at T=0.001, and the certification is reported to survive up to T≈0.5 at K_c. An exactly solvable four-spin model is used to support the finite-temperature behavior of the local correlators and QFI.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a genuinely useful contribution: it converts an abstract entanglement diagnostic into experimentally measurable fluctuations in a well-controlled impurity system, with explicit protocols (gate-voltage modulation, rf reflectometry, STM). The numerical work is unusually careful: DMRG convergence is checked by energy variance and bond-dimension scans, NRG convergence is checked against discretization, truncation, and spectral-cutoff variations, and the four-spin exact solution provides an independent check of the thermal trends. The central relation between QFI and C_II is derived, not fitted, and the finite-size extrapolation is the only soft premise; it is appropriately caveated and independently corroborated by NRG. I find no circular step or omitted proof affecting the main claim.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 2 and 3 captions] The floating text 'no extrapolation; largest m = 4000 value' appears as an unattached annotation in the main figures and in several supplementary figures; please integrate this information into the captions or remove it.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The line 'a b c d Figure 5' immediately before 'FIG. 4' appears to be a typographical artifact and should be deleted.
  3. [Supplementary Sec. 2b] Please report the individual K_c(L) values for L=50,100,200,500 and the linear-fit residuals; with only four data points, the stated extrapolation uncertainty of ±0.005 in K_c would be easier to assess if the raw peak positions were tabulated.
  4. [Sec. VII B] The notation S(A_L) is described as the entropy of 'two single-impurity chains' but the partition is drawn in Fig. 1b as a left-right cut; please spell out the precise definition of A_L at first use to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. V] The sentence 'This QFI witnesses entanglement over a range of coupling strengths K even at T=1; the separability bound (dotted line) is violated up to T∼0.5 at K_c' is slightly ambiguous; please clarify whether the T=1 certification occurs away from K_c and specify the range of K over which it holds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: QFI results are computed from independent ground states and response functions, with exact recasting identities made explicit.

full rationale

The central claim is that QFI of collective spin and charge operators tracks the two-impurity Kondo critical point and witnesses entanglement. The QFI is computed from DMRG ground-state variances at T=0 and from NRG dissipative susceptibilities at T>0 via Eq. (4); neither quantity is defined in terms of the critical coupling K_c or the separability threshold. The relation F_Q(S_II^{z,-}) = 2 - (8/3) C_II (main text Sec. IV and Methods Sec. VII.B) is an exact identity for an SU(2)-invariant state, and the paper explicitly describes it as a recasting, not as a fitted input or as an independent prediction. The finite-size extrapolation K_c(L) = K_c + a/sqrt(L) (Supplementary Sec. 2b) is motivated by the Affleck-Ludwig-Jones boundary CFT scaling dimension x_epsilon = 1/2 from external prior work (ref. [17]), is stated as an assumption, and is cross-checked against a low-temperature NRG estimate; even if the extrapolation were biased, the qualitative QFI certification and derivative-peak claims do not depend on the precise K_c value. The additional electron-density QFI F_Q(n_ee^-) provides an independent charge probe not equivalent to C_II. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness import from the authors, or fitted parameter renamed as a prediction was found. The paper's own convergence checks and the exactly solvable four-spin model further support the finite-temperature behavior rather than importing the target conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main inputs are the model Hamiltonian, standard numerical methods, and established QFI theorems. The only fitted parameters are the finite-size scaling intercept and slope used to locate K_c, plus several analysis thresholds. The paper's key output is a set of numerically computed QFI values and their interpretation as entanglement witnesses.

free parameters (4)
  • Finite-size scaling intercept K_c = 1.620 ± 0.005
    Intercept of K_c(L) versus 1/sqrt(L) linear fit used to locate the thermodynamic critical coupling from DMRG pseudo-critical points; assumes the scaling form in Supplementary Eq. (A.24).
  • Finite-size scaling slope a = Not reported numerically, sign indicates shift with L
    Slope in K_c(L) = K_c + a/sqrt(L), fitted to the same finite-size data; its value is not physically interpreted.
  • Correlation-weight screening threshold p = 0.98
    Chosen threshold in the definition of the screening length xi(p) in Supplementary Sec. 3e; used for qualitative diagnostics, not for the central QFI claims.
  • Spline smoothing strength lambda = 10
    Smoothing parameter in the cubic spline derivative extraction in Supplementary Sec. 4c; peak positions shift by less than 0.01 in K when lambda is varied from 10 to 100.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-impurity Kondo model with independent, half-filled conduction chains and no inter-bath charge transfer exhibits a non-Fermi-liquid quantum critical point for J,K > 0.
    This is the Jones-Varma critical point established in prior literature [16-18]; the paper builds on it rather than deriving it.
  • domain assumption The leading relevant boundary perturbation at the critical point has scaling dimension x_epsilon = 1/2, giving the crossover scale T* ~ (K-K_c)^2/T_K and the finite-size shift K_c(L)-K_c ~ 1/sqrt(L).
    This is taken from the Affleck-Ludwig-Jones CFT analysis [17]; used in Supplementary Sec. 2b to justify the extrapolation fit.
  • standard math For a separable state across the left-right partition, the quantum Fisher information of a difference of local operators with unit spectral width is bounded by 2.
    This is the Hyllus et al. bound [31], used to interpret F_Q > 2 as an entanglement witness.
  • standard math The dissipative part of the dynamical susceptibility determines the QFI of a thermal state via the integral in Eq. (4).
    This is the Hauke et al. result [24], which connects response functions to QFI.
  • domain assumption DMRG with bond dimension 4000 and NRG with N_keep=1500 provide converged approximations to the ground state and thermal spectra for the reported observables.
    The paper provides convergence checks in Supplementary Secs. 3b and 4c, but these are numerical checks, not proofs; the central quantitative claims depend on the accuracy of these approximations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Impurity Quantum Criticality with Entanglement Witnesses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBVUTJ7G

@misc{pith2026260812317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Impurity Quantum Criticality with Entanglement Witnesses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBVUTJ7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12317}
}
read the original abstract

Entanglement is a defining feature of quantum mechanics, and its relation to quantum criticality is of considerable current interest. Here we show that measurable spin and charge fluctuations provide an entanglement witness of quantum criticality in the two-impurity Kondo model, which has experimental realizations in terms of coupled quantum dots and magnetic impurities added to surfaces. We use density-matrix renormalization group and numerical renormalization group calculations to resolve the non-Fermi-liquid critical point separating two independently Kondo-screened impurities from an inter-impurity singlet and interpret it as a change in the dominant entanglement partner of each local moment: from entanglement of the local moment with an extended set of conduction-electron degrees of freedom to entanglement with the other impurity. This reorganization is accompanied by a singular response of the impurity-bath entanglement and the inter-impurity susceptibility. We show how the same structure is encoded in the quantum Fisher information of collective spin and charge operators at zero and finite temperatures, connecting the entanglement picture to experimentally accessible dynamical response functions. Our results establish impurity systems as controlled settings in which quantum-critical entanglement can be detected through measurable correlations, and provide further insight into the possibility of understanding heavy-fermion physics in terms of entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12317 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a b c Kondo coupling J Inter-impurity coupling K FM polarization AFM screening Triplet J < 0 J > 0 K < 0 K > 0 2KS IIS FLM TKS FKS CIE > 0 CIE ∼ − 3/4 CII ∼ 1/4 Singlet CII ∼ − 3/4 Electrons S=1/2 Impurities S(A (electrons : impurities) imp) ⟨ I S(A (left chain : right chain) L) ⟨ I t J K ... ... CII CIE 1 … L Quantum phase transition Kc(J ) ⟨ e−1/J FIG. 1. Two-impurity Kondo model, entanglement partitions, and sche… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a b c d e f FKS CII = ∼ 3/8 IIS 2KS FLM TKS no extrapolation; largest m = 4000 value FIG. 2. Correlations, entanglement, and quantum Fisher information across the phase diagram. Zero temper￾ature ground-state observables as a function of the electron–impurity Kondo coupling J (horizontal axis) and inter-impurity exchange K (vertical axis), obtained from DMRG. a, d, Spin-spin correlations. The impurity–impurity corre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. no extrapolation; largest m = 4000 value b c d FIG. 3. Quantum Fisher information reveals entanglement redistribution at the critical point. Derivatives with respect to the inter-impurity exchange K for J = 2 and different electron chain lengths L. a, The derivative of the impurity–electron correlator, ∂KC 1 IE, develops a peak near the size-dependent critical coupling Kc(L), visualized by large symbols. The insets … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a contains the correlation-weight screening length ξ extracted from the impurity–electron spin correlator as a function of K for J = 2. We observe a pronounced maximum whose position drifts systematically with system size, reflecting the growth and eventual cutoff of …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the two phase boundaries connected to the decoupled axes of the two-impurity Kondo model. For fixed J < 0, tuning K through zero produces a singlet-triplet level crossing of residual local moments, see Fig. 12a, as revealed by CII, which distinguishes triplet an…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jayaprakash, H

    C. Jayaprakash, H. R. Krishna-murthy, and J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 737 (1981)

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    The corresponding QFI can be probed with an oscil- lating magnetic field applied with the same or oppo- site sign on both impurities, respectively

    Here, Sz,+ II probes uniform, ferromagnetic fluctuations, while Sz,− II detects staggered, antiferromagnetic fluctuations. The corresponding QFI can be probed with an oscil- lating magnetic field applied with the same or oppo- site sign on both impurities, respectively. For a pure SU(2)-invariant state with vanishing impurity magne- tization,F Q(Sz,± II )...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Simon, R

    P. Simon, R. López, and Y. Oreg, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 086602 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    A. K. Mitchell, E. Sela, and D. E. Logan, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 086405 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Pouse, L

    W. Pouse, L. Peeters, C. L. Hsueh, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, M. A. Kastner, A. K. Mitchell, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Nature Physics19, 492 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    N. J. Craig, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Lester, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science304, 565 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Spinelli, M

    A. Spinelli, M. Gerrits, R. Toskovic, B. Bryant, M. Ternes, and A. F. Otte, Nature Communications 6, 10046 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Bork, Y.-h

    J. Bork, Y.-h. Zhang, L. Diekhöner, L. Borda, P. Simon, J. Kroha, P. Wahl, and K. Kern, Nature Physics7, 901 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Wegner, R

    D. Wegner, R. Yamachika, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, T. Baruah, M. R. Pederson, B. M. Bartlett, J. R. Long, and M. F. Crommie, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 087205 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    E. Li, B. Danu, Y. Liu, H. Xie, Z. Yuan, C. Li, Y. Jiang, J. W. Y. Lam, B. Z. Tang, S. Wang, F. F. Assaad, and N. Lin, Journal of the American Chemical Society147, 46535 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    E. S. Sørensen, M.-S. Chang, N. Laflorencie, and I. Af- fleck, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2007, P08003 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Alkurtass, A

    B. Alkurtass, A. Bayat, I. Affleck, S. Bose, H. Johannes- son, P. Sodano, E. S. Sørensen, and K. Le Hur, Phys. Rev. B93, 081106(R) (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

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

    2025

  6. [14]

    Quantum fisher information of magnetic quantum phase transition on kondo lattice,

    Y. Fang, L. Chen, M. Mahankali, F. Xie, Y. Wang, S. Sur, and Q. Si, “Quantum fisher information of magnetic quantum phase transition on kondo lattice,” (2026), arXiv:2607.16150 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Holzner, I

    A. Holzner, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, J. von Delft, and F. Heidrich-Meisner, Phys. Rev. B80, 205114 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Affleck and P

    I. Affleck and P. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2854 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    B. A. Jones, C. M. Varma, and J. W. Wilkins, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 125 (1988)

    1988

  10. [18]

    Affleck, A

    I. Affleck, A. W. W. Ludwig, and B. A. Jones, Phys. Rev. B52, 9528 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    B. A. Jones and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B40, 324 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Affleck and A

    I. Affleck and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1046 (1992)

    1992

  13. [21]

    Bayat, S

    A. Bayat, S. Bose, P. Sodano, and H. Johannesson, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 066403 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Bayat, H

    A. Bayat, H. Johannesson, S. Bose, and P. Sodano, Nature Communications5, 3784 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, E. Dagotto, and D. A. Tennant, Advanced Quantum Technologies8, 2400196 (2025), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.202400196

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Tóth, Phys

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

    2012

  17. [25]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Na- ture Physics12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Schollwöck, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollwöck, Annals of Physics326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 773 (1975)

    1975

  21. [29]

    Žitko and T

    R. Žitko and T. Pruschke, Phys. Rev. B79, 085106 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    P. W. Anderson, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics3, 2436 (1970)

    1970

  23. [31]

    Doniach, Physica B+C91, 231 (1977)

    S. Doniach, Physica B+C91, 231 (1977)

    1977

  24. [32]

    Hyllus, W

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

    2012

  25. [33]

    Local and non- local entanglement witnesses of fermi liquid,

    Y. Wang, Y. Fang, F. Xie, and Q. Si, “Local and non- local entanglement witnesses of fermi liquid,” (2025), arXiv:2502.13958 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Osterloh, L

    A. Osterloh, L. Amico, G. Falci, and R. Fazio, Nature 416, 608 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Lechtenberg, F

    B. Lechtenberg, F. Eickhoff, and F. B. Anders, Phys. Rev. B96, 041109(R) (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Dynamical kondo effect and kondo destruction in effec- tive models for quantum-critical heavy fermion metals,

    A. Cai, H. Hu, K. Ingersent, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, “Dynamical kondo effect and kondo destruction in effec- tive models for quantum-critical heavy fermion metals,” (2019), arXiv:1904.11471 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. J. Chorley, J. Wabnig, Z. V. Penfold-Fitch, K. D. Petersson, J. Frake, C. G. Smith, and M. R. Buitelaar, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 036802 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    P. Wahl, P. Simon, L. Diekhöner, V. S. Stepanyuk, P. Bruno, M. A. Schneider, and K. Kern, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 056601 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    A. F. Otte, M. Ternes, S. Loth, C. P. Lutz, C. F. Hir- jibehedin, and A. J. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 107203 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    K. Yang, W. Paul, F. D. Natterer, J. L. Lado, Y. Bae, P. Willke, T. Choi, A. Ferrón, J. Fernández-Rossier, A. J. Heinrich, and C. P. Lutz, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 227203 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    L. M. Veldman, L. Farinacci, R. Rejali, R. Broekhoven, J. Gobeil, D. Coffey, M. Ternes, and A. F. Otte, Science372, 964 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg8223

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    P. Kot, M. Ismail, R. Drost, J. Siebrecht, H. Huang, and C. R. Ast, Nature Communications14, 6612 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    R.-Q. He, J. Dai, and Z.-Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B91, 155140 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Zaránd, C.-H

    G. Zaránd, C.-H. Chung, P. Simon, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 166802 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Steffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen, Nature Physics (2026), 10.1038/s41567-026-03298-0

    2026 doi

  39. [47]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022). 10

    2022

  40. [48]

    E. S. Sørensen and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B53, 9153 (1996). 11 Appendix

    1996

  41. [49]

    In the eigenbasis ofρ= P nλn|n⟩⟨n|, the QFI is FQ[ρ,O] = 2 X m,n (λm−λn)2 λm +λn |⟨m|O|n⟩| 2,(A.1) only including terms withλm +λn >0

    Experimental measurement of quantum Fisher information For a density matrixρand a Hermitian generatorO, the QFIF Q[ρ,O]quantifies the sensitivity ofρto the unitary transformationρ ν =e −iνOρeiνO[23], whereνis the parameter encoded by the transformation. In the eigenbasis ofρ= ...

  42. [50]

    Jones–Varma critical point a. Kondo temperature The relevant low-energy scale in the two-impurity Kondo problem for antiferromagnetic couplingsJ,K >0is the single-impurity Kondo temperatureTK(J), which determines the energy scale below which an impurity spin becomes screened b...

  43. [51]

    We include noise during the first sweeps to ensure convergence, and use a maximum SVD truncation error ofε= 10 −10

    Zero-temperature DMRG calculations All our calculations are performed using the ITensor library[46] with 40 DMRG sweeps in a sector of fixed particle number. We include noise during the first sweeps to ensure convergence, and use a maximum SVD truncation error ofε= 10 −10. The...

  44. [52]

    Finite-temperature NRG calculations a. Hamiltonian Finite-temperature observables are computed using full-density-matrix numerical renormalization group (FDM– NRG) calculations with the NRG Ljubljana/TRIQS implementation[28]. The Hamiltonian is given by H(Λ,z) NRG = 2X α=1 ∞X ...

  45. [53]

    The normalization of the NRG spectra is calibrated by the exact zero-temperature identityFQ[|ψ0⟩,O] = 4 Var0(O),whereVar 0(O)denotes the variance in the ground state|ψ0⟩. For collective generatorsOη =O 1 +ηO 2, η=±, the corresponding dissipative response is assembled from the ...

  46. [54]

    Four-spin model The four-spin model provides a minimal strong-coupling description of the local degrees of freedom in the two- impurity Kondo problem by retaining only the two impurity spins and the two conduction-electron spins closest to them. The Hamiltonian is given by H4−...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.