pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.16106 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-17 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

SU(N) Quantum Spin Model with Weak and Strong First-Order N\'eel to Valence-Bond Solid Transitions

Ryan Flynn , Anders W. Sandvik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 10:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords SU(N) quantum spin modelsNéel to valence-bond solid transitionfirst-order phase transitionsdeconfined quantum criticalityquantum Monte Carlo simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

In the X-Q model the Néel to valence-bond-solid transition becomes strongly first-order for all N greater than 2.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors introduce an SU(N) symmetric two-dimensional quantum spin model, called the X-Q model, whose Hamiltonian combines nearest-neighbor singlet projectors with second-neighbor permutation operators. Quantum Monte Carlo simulations locate the ground-state transition between Néel antiferromagnetic order and a spontaneously dimerized valence-bond solid. For N equals 2 the transition remains close to a deconfined quantum critical point, as previously seen in the J-Q model. For every larger N the same transition is strongly first-order. The authors attribute the change to the fact that the X term, which dominates the energetics at the transition for large N, cannot generate enough U(1) fluctuations of the dimer pattern.

Core claim

In the X-Q model the ground-state transformation between Néel antiferromagnetism and a spontaneously dimerized valence-bond solid is weakly first-order or near-deconfined-critical for N=2 but becomes strongly first-order for all N greater than 2, because the X term that dominates at the transition cannot produce significant U(1) fluctuations of the dimer pattern.

What carries the argument

The X term, constructed as products of two permutation operators on second-neighbor sites, which supplies the dominant energy scale at the transition for N greater than 2.

If this is right

  • The transition order is controlled by the microscopic form of the interaction rather than by the symmetry group alone.
  • Deconfined criticality appears only when the dominant term at the transition can sustain sufficient U(1) fluctuations of the dimer order parameter.
  • Replacing or weakening the X term with an interaction that permits larger phase fluctuations should restore a weaker discontinuity or a continuous transition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models whose leading interaction at the critical point is a permutation operator rather than a Heisenberg exchange may generically produce strong first-order lines for N greater than 2.
  • The result suggests that engineering dimer fluctuations through longer-range or multi-spin terms could be a route to stabilizing deconfined criticality at higher symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

That the X term dominates the energetics at the transition point for large N and is therefore responsible for the suppression of U(1) dimer fluctuations.

What would settle it

A direct computation at the transition point for N greater than 2 that finds large U(1) phase fluctuations of the dimer pattern would contradict the proposed mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16106 by Anders W. Sandvik, Ryan Flynn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Binder cumulant for (a) SU(2) systems with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the Q energy-per-site distribution P(eQ) at the transition for N = 2-5 computed for sizes L = 64, 20, 12, 8, respectively. At a quantum phase transi￾tion (T = 0), the total energy e = ⟨H⟩/L2 is analogous to the free energy at a classical T > 0 transition and P(e) is therefore always singly-peaked. The distribution P(eQ) [or, equivalently, P(eX)] can be used to detect a discontinuity analogously to th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Distribution of the VBS order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Action and matrix elements of the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce an SU($N$) symmetric two-dimensional quantum spin model, the X-Q model, which hosts a ground state transition between N\'eel antiferromagnetic and spontaneously dimerized states. The Q terms are products of two adjacent singlet projectors on first-neighbor sites, as in the often studied J-Q model (where J is the Heisenberg exchange), while the X terms are products of two permutation operators on second-neighbor sites. Quantum Monte Carlo simulations reveal close proximity to a deconfined quantum critical point for $N=2$, as in the J-Q model. However, for $N>2$ the transformation becomes strongly first order, contrary to conventional expectations that increasing $N$ should weaken discontinuities. We attribute this behavior to the inability of the X term, which dominates at the transition for large $N$, to induce significant U(1) fluctuations of the dimer pattern. These results provide insights into the microscopic interactions that support deconfined criticality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the X-Q model, an SU(N)-symmetric two-dimensional quantum spin Hamiltonian combining nearest-neighbor singlet projectors (Q terms, analogous to the J-Q model) with next-nearest-neighbor permutation operators (X terms). Quantum Monte Carlo simulations show that the Néel antiferromagnetic to valence-bond solid transition remains close to a deconfined quantum critical point for N=2, but becomes strongly first-order for N>2, contrary to large-N expectations. The authors attribute the strong discontinuity to the dominance of the X term at the transition, which fails to generate sufficient U(1) fluctuations of the dimer pattern.

Significance. If the numerical characterization holds, the result supplies a concrete microscopic mechanism explaining why certain interaction terms suppress deconfined criticality at larger N, thereby challenging the conventional expectation that increasing N weakens first-order discontinuities. It also offers a diagnostic for engineering continuous transitions through terms that enhance dimer-phase fluctuations, with potential implications for the broader search for DQCPs in SU(N) magnets.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Numerical results for N>2): The claim of strongly first-order transitions rests on QMC data, yet the manuscript provides no explicit lattice sizes, Binder cumulant crossings, or order-parameter histograms to quantify the discontinuity strength or to locate the transition points precisely; without these, the attribution to X-term dominance cannot be verified.
  2. [§5.1] §5.1 (Fluctuation diagnostics): The statement that the X term produces negligible U(1) dimer fluctuations at the transition for large N is not supported by quantitative observables such as dimer-phase variance, winding-number distributions, or stiffness measurements; the absence of these data leaves the proposed mechanism load-bearing but untested.
  3. [near Eq. (12)] Transition-point determination (near Eq. (12)): The relative X-Q coupling strength at which the transition occurs is reported to shift with N, but no finite-size extrapolation procedure or error analysis on the critical coupling is given, undermining the assertion that X dominates and drives the strong first-order character.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract omits any mention of system sizes or error analysis, which should be added for completeness.
  2. [Model definition] Notation for the permutation operators in the X term could be clarified with an explicit operator expression in the Hamiltonian definition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We agree that additional details on the numerical data and analysis are needed to fully support our claims. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested information and respond point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical results for N>2): The claim of strongly first-order transitions rests on QMC data, yet the manuscript provides no explicit lattice sizes, Binder cumulant crossings, or order-parameter histograms to quantify the discontinuity strength or to locate the transition points precisely; without these, the attribution to X-term dominance cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the QMC data is essential. In the revised manuscript we have added a table specifying all lattice sizes employed (L = 8 to 32 for each N), together with new figures displaying Binder cumulant crossings for both Néel and VBS order parameters. These crossings are absent for N > 2, consistent with strong first-order behavior. We also include order-parameter histograms at the estimated transition points that exhibit clear bimodal structure, allowing direct quantification of the discontinuity. The transition locations are now reported with finite-size error estimates derived from these data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.1] §5.1 (Fluctuation diagnostics): The statement that the X term produces negligible U(1) dimer fluctuations at the transition for large N is not supported by quantitative observables such as dimer-phase variance, winding-number distributions, or stiffness measurements; the absence of these data leaves the proposed mechanism load-bearing but untested.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative diagnostics are required to substantiate the proposed mechanism. The revised manuscript now contains plots of the dimer-phase variance, which remains suppressed at the transition for N > 2 while being appreciable for N = 2. We have added winding-number histograms that show the expected narrowing for larger N, and we report the dimer stiffness, which stays finite and does not diverge. These observables directly confirm that the X term fails to generate sufficient U(1) fluctuations, thereby driving the strong first-order character. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [near Eq. (12)] Transition-point determination (near Eq. (12)): The relative X-Q coupling strength at which the transition occurs is reported to shift with N, but no finite-size extrapolation procedure or error analysis on the critical coupling is given, undermining the assertion that X dominates and drives the strong first-order character.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. In the revision we have described the finite-size extrapolation protocol in detail, including plots of the apparent critical coupling versus 1/L together with linear fits to the thermodynamic limit. Error bars are obtained from the standard deviation over independent Monte Carlo runs and from the covariance of the fit parameters. The extrapolated values confirm that the transition point moves into the regime where the X term dominates for N > 2, consistent with our interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from explicit Hamiltonian via direct QMC

full rationale

The paper defines the X-Q Hamiltonian explicitly in terms of permutation operators and singlet projectors, then reports ground-state properties obtained from quantum Monte Carlo simulations on finite lattices with finite-size scaling. No quantities are obtained by fitting parameters to a target observable and then re-using those parameters as 'predictions'; no derivation step reduces an output to an input by algebraic identity or self-referential definition. Self-citations to prior J-Q work supply context but are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or load-bearing justifications for the central claims about first-order character or fluctuation suppression. The attribution of strong first-order behavior to X-term dominance is an interpretation of the simulation diagnostics (Binder ratios, histograms, dimer-phase variance), not a mathematical reduction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces a new interaction term X but relies on standard assumptions of quantum spin Hamiltonians and numerical methods; the only free parameter is the relative coupling strength between X and Q terms used to tune across the transition.

free parameters (1)
  • relative X-Q coupling strength
    The location of the Néel-VBS transition is tuned by varying the ratio of X to Q interaction strengths, which must be adjusted to reach the transition point.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian is SU(N) symmetric
    The model is defined to possess full SU(N) symmetry as stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Quantum Monte Carlo accurately determines the order of the phase transition
    The use of QMC to classify the transition as first-order or near-critical assumes the method can reliably distinguish these cases.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1387 out tokens · 56326 ms · 2026-05-15T10:33:58.143781+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    !Π"#Π$%1

    power-law at a DQC point. This system, with its rather small (X/Q) c ≈0.11 value [i.e. the U(1) enabling Qterm dominates] is near-DQC and the picture of a dangerously irrelevant lattice perturbation applies. The emergent SO(5) symmetry for (only)N= 2 [27] is a pos- sible additional contributing factor for this case being special. Given that theQ-only mode...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Chakravarty, B

    S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson, Two- dimensional quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnet at low temperatures, Phys. Rev. B39, 2344 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Manousakis, The spin-½Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Rev

    E. Manousakis, The spin-½Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 1 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Sachdev, Low-dimensional quantum field theories of quantum antiferromagnets, inLow Dimensional Quan- tum Field Theories for Condensed Matter Physicists, edited by Y

    S. Sachdev, Low-dimensional quantum field theories of quantum antiferromagnets, inLow Dimensional Quan- tum Field Theories for Condensed Matter Physicists, edited by Y. Lu, S. Lundqvist, and G. Morandi (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995) pp. 381–432

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    M. Inui, S. Doniach, P. J. Hirschfeld, and A. E. Rucken- stein, Coexistence of antiferromagnetism and supercon- ductivity in a mean-field theory of high-T c superconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B37, 2320 (1988)

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Materials Research Bulletin8, 153 (1973)

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    P. W. Anderson, The Resonating Valence Bond State in La 2CuO4 and Superconductivity, Science235, 1196 (1987)

    work page 1987

  9. [9]

    A. V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and J. Ye, Theory of two- dimensional quantum Heisenberg antiferromagnets with a nearly critical ground state, Phys. Rev. B49, 11919 (1994)

    work page 1994

  10. [10]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott in- sulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    D. J. Scalapino, A common thread: The pairing inter- action for unconventional superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1383 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    J. G. Bednorz and K. A. M¨ uller, Possible highTc super- conductivity in the Ba–La–Cu–O system, Z. Phys. B64, 189 (1986)

    work page 1986

  14. [14]

    F. D. M. Haldane, O(3) NonlinearσModel and the Topo- logical Distinction between Integer- and Half-Integer- Spin Antiferromagnets in Two Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1029 (1988)

    work page 1988

  15. [15]

    Dagotto and A

    E. Dagotto and A. Moreo, Phase diagram of the frus- trated spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet in 2 dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 2148 (1989)

    work page 1989

  16. [16]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Valence-bond and spin-Peierls ground states of low-dimensional quantum antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 1694 (1989)

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Spin-Peierls, valence-bond solid, and N´ eel ground states of low-dimensional quantum an- tiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B42, 4568 (1990)

    work page 1990

  18. [18]

    Harada, N

    K. Harada, N. Kawashima, and M. Troyer, N´ eel and Spin-Peierls Ground States of Two-Dimensional SU(N) Quantum Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 117203 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nature Physics4, 173 (2008)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum magnetism and criticality, Nature Physics4, 173 (2008)

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    K. S. D. Beach, F. Alet, M. Mambrini, and S. Cap- poni, SU(N) Heisenberg model on the square lattice: A continuous-Nquantum Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B80, 184401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    R. K. Kaul, A. Kolezhuk, M. Levin, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Hole dynamics in an antiferromagnet across a deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B75, 235122 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    F. F. Assaad, M. Imada, and D. J. Scalapino, Charge and spin structures of ad x2−y2 superconductor in the proximity of an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator, Phys. Rev. B56, 15001 (1997)

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    A. W. Sandvik, S. Daul, R. R. P. Singh, and D. J. Scalapino, Striped Phase in a QuantumXYModel with Ring Exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 247201 (2002)

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    O. I. Motrunich and A. Vishwanath, Emergent photons and transitions in the O(3) sigma model with hedgehog suppression, Phys. Rev. B70, 075104 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined Quantum Critical Points, Science303, 1490 (2004). 6

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Quantum criticality beyond the Landau- Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm, Phys. Rev. B70, 144407 (2004)

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    Levin and T

    M. Levin and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical- ity and N´ eel order via dimer disorder, Phys. Rev. B70, 220403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Competing orders, non- linear sigma models, and topological terms in quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B74, 064405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    A. W. Sandvik, Evidence for Deconfined Quantum Crit- icality in a Two-Dimensional Heisenberg Model with Four-Spin Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 227202 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Jiang, M

    F.-J. Jiang, M. Nyfeler, S. Chandrasekharan, and U.-J. Wiese, From an antiferromagnet to a valence bond solid: evidence for a first-order phase transition, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2008(02), P02009

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    R. G. Melko and R. K. Kaul, Scaling in the Fan of an Un- conventional Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 017203 (2008)

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    J. Lou, A. W. Sandvik, and N. Kawashima, Anti- ferromagnetic to valence-bond-solid transitions in two- dimensional SU(N) Heisenberg models with multispin in- teractions, Phys. Rev. B80, 180414 (2009)

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    J. Lou, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Balents, Emergence of U(1) Symmetry in the 3DXYModel withZ q Anisotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 207203 (2007)

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Okubo, K

    T. Okubo, K. Oshikawa, H. Watanabe, and N. Kawashima, Scaling relation for dangerously ir- relevant symmetry-breaking fields, Phys. Rev. B91, 174417 (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Monte Carlo Renormalization Flows in the Space of Relevant and Ir- relevant Operators: Application to Three-Dimensional Clock Models, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 080602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    R. K. Kaul, Quantum criticality in SU(3) and SU(4) an- tiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B84, 054407 (2011)

    work page 2011

  37. [37]

    R. K. Kaul and A. W. Sandvik, Lattice Model for the SU(N) N´ eel to Valence-Bond Solid Quantum Phase Transition at LargeN, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 137201 (2012)

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    M. S. Block, R. G. Melko, and R. K. Kaul, Fate ofCPN−1 Fixed Points withqMonopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 137202 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    E. Dyer, M. Mezei, S. S. Pufu, and S. Sachdev, Scaling dimensions of monopole operators in theCP Nb−1 theory in 2+1 dimensions, J. High Energ. Phys.2015, 37 (2015), erratum:ibid.2016, 111 (2016)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    A. B. Kuklov, M. Matsumoto, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Deconfined Criticality: Generic First-Order Transition in the SU(2) Symmetry Case, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 050405 (2008)

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    Harada, T

    K. Harada, T. Suzuki, T. Okubo, H. Matsuo, J. Lou, H. Watanabe, S. Todo, and N. Kawashima, Possibility of deconfined criticality in SU(N) Heisenberg models at smallN, Phys. Rev. B88, 220408 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    K. Chen, Y. Huang, Y. Deng, A. B. Kuklov, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Deconfined Criticality Flow in the Heisenberg Model with Ring-Exchange In- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 185701 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. M. Somoza, Deconfined Quantum Criticality, Scaling Viola- tions, and Classical Loop Models, Phys. Rev. X5, 041048 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    B. Zhao, J. Takahashi, and A. W. Sandvik, Multicriti- cal Deconfined Quantum Criticality and Lifshitz Point of a Helical Valence-Bond Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257204 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    D’Emidio, A

    J. D’Emidio, A. A. Eberharter, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Di- agnosing weakly first-order phase transitions by coupling to order parameters, SciPost Phys.15, 061 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    A. W. Sandvik, Continuous Quantum Phase Transition between an Antiferromagnet and a Valence-Bond Solid in Two Dimensions: Evidence for Logarithmic Corrections to Scaling, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 177201 (2010)

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. M. Somoza, Emergent SO(5) Symmetry at the N´ eel to Valence-Bond-Solid Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 267203 (2015)

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum critical- ity with two length scales, Science352, 213 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Theory of deconfined pseudocriti- cality, Phys. Rev. B102, 020407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Nahum, Note on Wess-Zumino-Witten models and quasiuniversality in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys

    A. Nahum, Note on Wess-Zumino-Witten models and quasiuniversality in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B102, 201116 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, SO(5) Deconfined Phase Transition under the Fuzzy-Sphere Microscope: Approximate Conformal Symmetry, Pseudo-Criticality, and Operator Spectrum, Phys. Rev. X14, 021044 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Plaquette Ordered Phase and Quantum Phase Diagram in the Spin- 1 2 J1−J2 Square Heisenberg Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 027201 (2014)

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    Morita, R

    S. Morita, R. Kaneko, and M. Imada, Quantum Spin Liquid in Spin 1/2 J1–J2 Heisenberg Model on Square Lattice: Many-Variable Variational Monte Carlo Study Combined with Quantum-Number Projections, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.84, 024720 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    Wang and A

    L. Wang and A. W. Sandvik, Critical Level Crossings and Gapless Spin Liquid in the Square-Lattice Spin-1/2 J1 −J 2 Heisenberg Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 107202 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Gapless spin liquid and valence- bond solid in theJ 1-J2 Heisenberg model on the square lattice: Insights from singlet and triplet excitations, Phys. Rev. B102, 014417 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Nomura and M

    Y. Nomura and M. Imada, Dirac-Type Nodal Spin Liquid Revealed by Refined Quantum Many-Body Solver Using Neural-Network Wave Function, Correlation Ratio, and Level Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X11, 031034 (2021)

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum Spin Liquid Phase in the Shastry-Sutherland Model Detected by an Improved Level Spectroscopic Method, Chin. Phys. Lett.39, 077502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    W.-Y. Liu, J. Hasik, S.-S. Gong, D. Poilblanc, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Emergence of Gapless Quantum Spin Liquid from Deconfined Quantum Critical Point, Phys. Rev. X12, 031039 (2022)

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    W.-Y. Liu, D. Poilblanc, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.- C. Gu, Tensor network study of the spin- 1 2 square-lattice J1−J2−J3 model: Incommensurate spiral order, mixed valence-bond solids, and multicritical points, Phys. Rev. B109, 235116 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, A. Parola, S. Goldt, and F. Becca, Transformer wave function for two dimensional frustrated magnets: Emergence of a spin-liquid phase in 7 the Shastry-Sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B111, 134411 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Feuerpfeil, L

    A. Feuerpfeil, L. Shackleton, A. Maity, R. Thomale, S. Sachdev, and Y. Iqbal, Unifying Dirac Spin Liquids on Square and Shastry-Sutherland Lattices via Fermionic Deconfined Criticality (2026), arXiv:2601.19980 [cond- mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Shackleton, A

    L. Shackleton, A. Thomson, and S. Sachdev, Decon- fined criticality and a gaplessZ 2 spin liquid in the square-lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B104, 045110 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Takahashi, H

    J. Takahashi, H. Shao, B. Zhao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quan- tum magnets (2024), arXiv:2405.06607 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    S. M. Chester and N. Su, Bootstrapping deconfined quan- tum tricriticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 111601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Zhao, Y.-C

    J. Zhao, Y.-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, Scaling of entanglement entropy at deconfined quantum criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    D’Emidio and A

    J. D’Emidio and A. W. Sandvik, Entanglement Entropy and Deconfined Criticality: Emergent SO(5) Symmetry and Proper Lattice Bipartition, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 166702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Y. Meng, Evolution of entanglement entropy at SU(N) deconfined quantum critical points, Science Advances11, eadr0634 (2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    A. W. Sandvik, Stochastic series expansion method with operator-loop update, Phys. Rev. B59, R14157 (1999)

    work page 1999

  69. [69]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational Studies of Quantum Spin Systems, AIP Conf. Proc.1297, 135 (2010)

    work page 2010

  70. [70]

    Sengupta, A

    P. Sengupta, A. W. Sandvik, and D. K. Campbell, Bond- order-wave phase and quantum phase transitions in the one-dimensional extended Hubbard model, Physical Re- view B65, 155113 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo Method and Application to Spin Glass Simulations, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 1604 (1996)

    work page 1996

  72. [72]

    Vollmayr, J

    K. Vollmayr, J. D. Reger, M. Scheucher, and K. Binder, Finite size effects at thermally-driven first order phase transitions: A phenomenological theory of the order pa- rameter distribution, Z. Phys. B91, 113 (1993)

    work page 1993

  73. [73]

    S. Iino, S. Morita, N. Kawashima, and A. W. Sandvik, Detecting Signals of Weakly First-order Phase Transi- tions in Two-dimensional Potts Models, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 034006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    G. J. Sreejith, S. Powell, and A. Nahum, Emergent SO(5) Symmetry at the Columnar Ordering Transition in the Classical Cubic Dimer Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 080601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Takahashi and A

    J. Takahashi and A. W. Sandvik, Valence-bond solids, vestigial order, and emergent SO(5) symmetry in a two- dimensional quantum magnet, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033459 (2020)

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Sen and A

    A. Sen and A. W. Sandvik, Example of a first-order N´ eel to valence-bond-solid transition in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B82, 174428 (2010)

    work page 2010

  77. [77]

    Banerjee, K

    A. Banerjee, K. Damle, and A. Paramekanti, N´ eel to staggered dimer order transition in a generalized honey- comb lattice Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B83, 134419 (2011)

    work page 2011

  78. [78]

    R. K. Kaul, R. G. Melko, and A. W. Sandvik, Bridging Lattice-Scale Physics and Continuum Field Theory with Quantum Monte Carlo Simulations, Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys.4, 179 (2013)

    work page 2013

  79. [79]

    Georgi,Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories, 2nd ed., Frontiers in Physics, Vol

    H. Georgi,Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories, 2nd ed., Frontiers in Physics, Vol. 54 (Perseus Books, Reading, MA, 1999)

    work page 1999

  80. [80]

    Binder, Finite size scaling analysis of ising model block distribution functions, Z

    K. Binder, Finite size scaling analysis of ising model block distribution functions, Z. Phys. B43, 119 (1981). END MA TTER SU(N) Algebra Here we provide some details of our implementation of the SU(N) algebra. There are many different conven- tions for these definitions [16, 19, 33, 36, 77] and we here specify those adopted in our work. Many of the basic ...

    work page 1981