Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

Tuning the order of a deconfined quantum critical point

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A symmetry-preserving term turns a quantum critical point first-order

desk verdict A concrete fermionic realization of a tuning parameter that drives the DQCP strongly first order; the observation is solid, though the 'tuning a DQCP' framing leans on a baseline that isn't re-established here. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17215 v1 pith:AU3DGLRN submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.str-el

Anika Götz , Fakher F. Assaad , Natanael C. Costa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords deconfinedquantumcriticalpointSu-Schrieffer-Heegermodelelectron-phononinteractionfirst-orderphasetransitionvalencebondsolidantiferromagnetismemergentsymmetryMonteCarlo
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 deconfined quantum critical point (DQCP) in a two-dimensional Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model is not a fixed, universal phenomenon: it can be turned into a strongly first-order transition by a symmetry-preserving knob. The knob is the strength of a term that favors antiferromagnetism (a square-hopping amplitude λ, or a Hubbard U that reduces the symmetry from O(4) to SO(4)), which lowers the critical phonon frequency at which the valence-bond-solid to antiferromagnet transition occurs. For both symmetry variants, increasing this knob produces a step in the free-energy derivative, coexisting VBS and AFM peaks in order-parameter histograms, and hysteresis, all hallmarks of a strongly first-order transition. The authors argue this provides the missing tuning parameter that must exist if the DQCP is actually a complex fixed point or an SO(5) multicritical point, and it explains why longer-ranged interactions in other DQCP models also push the transition first-order.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the lattice Hamiltonian of Eq. (1): a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model with phonon-assisted hopping, a square-hopping term −λ $K_b^{2}$ that for small hopping t maps to −4λ(S_i·S_j + η_i·η_j) and thereby favors antiferromagnetism (and η-pairing), and a Hubbard U term that reduces the O(4) symmetry (exposed by writing the fermions as four Majorana components) to SO(4). The tuning of λ (and U) changes the critical phonon frequency ω0 at which the VBS-to-AFM transition occurs. The diagnostics that carry the argument are the derivative ∂F/∂ω0 (which develops a step), histograms of the VBS order parameters mx and my (which show a four-peak pattern in the VBS phase, a circular emergent-U(1) distribution at the λ=0.5 DQCP, and coexisting four-peak plus central peak at large λ), and hysteresis loops. The interpretive mechanism is that the DQCP has emergent Lorentz invariance, so increasing the imaginary-time range of the retarded phonon-mediated interaction is equivalent to increasing its real-space range, which drives the transition strongly first order; the paper connects this to the Peierls instability of the emergent compact U(1) gauge theory and to SO(5) multicriticality.

What would settle it

At λ=0.5, U=0, run order-parameter histograms and correlation-length measurements on system sizes larger than L=14 (for example L=20–24, with β=L scaled accordingly). If the histogram shows coexisting VBS four-peak and AFM central-peak structures, and the correlation-length exponent at the transition falls outside the conformal bootstrap bound for a single relevant operator, then the baseline transition was already first-order, undermining the paper's central interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the order of the deconfined quantum critical point in the assisted-hopping Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model can be tuned from a continuous (or weakly first-order) transition into a strongly first-order one by increasing λ or adding a Hubbard U, and this holds for both the O(4)-symmetric U=0 case and the SO(4)/SU(2)-symmetric finite-U case. As λ grows, the critical phonon frequency decreases, and the transition acquires a discontinuity in the derivative of the free energy with respect to ω0, a coexistence of VBS four-peak structure and AFM central peak in the histogram of the VBS order parameter, and hysteresis upon sweeping ω0 up and down. The tuning parameter preserves the full symmetry of the Hamiltonian, so the change in order is not a symmetry-breaking effect. The paper interprets this as consistent with three scenarios: a Peierls instability of the emergent compact U(1) gauge theory, annihilation of complex fixed points producing a slow RG flow, or an SO(5) multicritical point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the λ=0.5, U=0 transition is a genuine deconfined quantum critical point (or at least weakly first-order); if that baseline were already strongly first-order at accessible sizes, the observation would reduce to 'strengthening a first-order transition' rather than tuning a DQCP.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the DQCP is not a single isolated critical point but carries a symmetry-preserving tuning parameter (the effective interaction range) that controls whether the transition is continuous or strongly first order.
  • The critical phonon frequency becomes a practical control knob: lowering it by reinforcing the AFM phase with λ or U pushes the transition toward strong first order on numerically accessible lattice sizes.
  • The same tuning behavior appears for both O(4) and SO(4)/SU(2)×C4 realizations, so the result is not an artifact of the larger symmetry group.
  • The observation that a small change in interaction range strongly alters criticality is a signature of the special nature of DQC, consistent with complex fixed points, fixed-point annihilation, or an SO(5) multicritical point rather than an ordinary critical point.
  • Longer-ranged interactions in other DQCP models (e.g. J-Qn-type models) should also produce first-order transitions, matching the authors' comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a monopole-free realization of DQC, one without the compact U(1) gauge-field monopoles that drive the Peierls instability, should not show this tuning-to-first-order effect; testing this would discriminate the Peierls mechanism from the complex-fixed-point and multicritical scenarios.
  • We infer that the same tuning mechanism could be realized experimentally in quantum simulators by engineering phonon-mediated (retarded) interactions of variable range in Hubbard-type lattices, where the critical phonon frequency could be read off from spectral or thermodynamic signatures.
  • We infer that the existence of this symmetry-preserving knob offers a practical route to settle the correlation-length-exponent puzzle: tuning λ toward the small-λ DQCP and measuring the exponent on large lattices could reveal whether the apparent DQCP is a true critical point or a slow RG flow near a complex fixed point.
  • We infer that the paper's mechanism predicts that any DQCP with an emergent compact U(1) gauge field will become first-order when the interaction range is extended, regardless of microscopic details, so the effect should be visible in other fermion and boson models with retarded interactions.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-dimensional Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model in the assisted-hopping limit, with electron-phonon coupling, a square-hopping term λ, and optional Hubbard U. The authors report that increasing λ (or adding U) lowers the critical phonon frequency of the VBS-to-AFM transition and changes the transition from a DQCP (or weakly first-order transition) into a strongly first-order transition. Evidence includes a developing step in the free-energy derivative, hysteresis loops, coexistence in VBS order-parameter histograms, and discontinuities in correlation ratios. The paper argues that this provides a symmetry-preserving tuning parameter for DQCP, and discusses interpretations in terms of a Peierls instability of the emergent U(1) gauge theory, a complex fixed point, or SO(5) multicriticality.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a concrete, symmetry-preserving parameter that tunes the order of a deconfined quantum critical point, which is directly relevant to the ongoing debate about whether DQCPs are truly continuous or weakly first-order. The study uses multiple observables (free-energy derivative, histograms, hysteresis, correlation ratios) that consistently show strong first-order behavior at larger λ, and the SO(4) case extends the result to the symmetry class of standard DQCP models. A notable strength is that Eq. (2) is an exact operator identity with no fitted constant, and the numerical method is based on the publicly available ALF code. However, the significance is conditional on the assumption that the λ=0.5, U=0 baseline is a genuine DQCP; the in-paper evidence for that baseline is limited to small system sizes, and the introduction itself allows that it may be 'continuous or weakly first order'. The interpretation sections are appropriately cautious, but the central claim would be weakened if the baseline were already weakly first-order.

major comments (3)
  1. [O(4) results, Figs. 2 and 3] The premise that λ tunes the order of a DQCP rests on the baseline transition at λ=0.5, U=0 being a genuine deconfined quantum critical point. The paper cites Ref. [14] for this baseline, but the in-paper evidence is limited to hysteresis at L=8 (Fig. 2b) and histograms at L=14 (Fig. 3a1–a4). The circular histogram at ω0=2.6 is also consistent with a weakly first-order transition whose correlation length exceeds L, and the introduction itself states the transition may be 'continuous or weakly first order'. Since the entire 'tuning' narrative depends on this starting point, please provide a more direct finite-size scaling analysis of the baseline (e.g., correlation-ratio crossings for the spin and dimer order parameters at λ=0.5, U=0 for L ≥ 16), or explicitly state that the conclusion is conditional on the DQCP interpretation of Ref. [14] and discuss how the results should be interpreted in the weakly-first-order scenario.
  2. [Fig. 3(c2,c3) and Fig. 2(c)] The coexistence histograms and hysteresis loops that establish the strong first-order character are shown at single system sizes: L=14 for histograms and L=8 for hysteresis. To distinguish a genuinely strong first-order transition from a finite-size rounding of a weak first-order transition, the coexistence region should persist and the hysteresis width should grow with system size. Please provide L-scaling of the histograms (e.g., L=10, 12, 14, 16) and of the free-energy derivative step, and if possible a Binder cumulant or interface-tension estimate. Without this, the claim that the transition is 'strongly first order' is not quantitatively supported.
  3. [Fig. 4(a), SO(4) results] The discontinuity in the spin correlation ratio Rc,S at L=10 is presented as evidence of first-order behavior upon increasing λ, but a jump at a single system size is also expected for a continuous transition when plotted versus a tuning parameter, because the correlation ratio changes rapidly in the critical region. To demonstrate that this is a developing discontinuity rather than a finite-size effect, please show Rc,S versus ω0 for multiple system sizes at a representative large λ (e.g., λ=1.5). The supplemental histograms and free-energy derivative support the first-order interpretation, but the main-text claim based on Fig. 4(a) alone is not conclusive.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The sentence introducing Eq. (2) is garbled: 'since forb = ⟨i, j⟩' appears to be a typographical error; it should read 'since for b = ⟨i, j⟩'. Please also ensure the equation and the preceding equality are typeset correctly.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The hysteresis curves in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c) lack error bars, and the sweep protocol (e.g., the number of equilibration sweeps, the increment Δω0, and the direction of the sweep) is not fully described. Adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Notation and Eq. (8)] The notation for the phonon mass and coupling is inconsistent: the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) uses M and g, while Eq. (8) uses m and g with m = 1, and the text defines λe−ph = g^2/2. Please unify the symbols to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the first-order transition at larger λ is a direct QMC observation; Eq. (2) is an exact identity and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: increasing λ (or adding a Hubbard U) strengthens the VBS–AFM transition into a strongly first-order one. The derivation chain is: model Eq. (1); Eq. (2) is an exact operator identity used only to motivate that larger λ favors AFM and lowers the critical frequency; QMC observables — ∂F/∂ω0, hysteresis curves, order-parameter histograms, and correlation ratios — directly show the change in the nature of the transition. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then called a prediction. The λ=0.5, U=0 baseline is taken from prior work Ref. [14] by two of the present authors, but the paper also shows in-panel evidence (circular histogram, Fig. 3(a3)) and, more importantly, the new first-order result at λ=1.0–1.5 does not use Ref. [14] as an input: the coexistence histograms and hysteresis curves are new data. Even if that baseline were later found to be weakly first-order, the observation that increasing λ produces a strongly first-order transition would remain independent. The theoretical interpretations (Peierls instability, complex CFT, SO(5) multicriticality) are presented as possible readings, not as inputs from which the numerics are derived. Self-citations to the ALF implementation and to the prior Su-Schrieffer-Heeger study are tool/context references, not load-bearing reductions. No equation in the paper equates a prediction with its input by construction, so no circular step is present.

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

The paper is a numerical study; it introduces no new particles, mediators, or conserved quantities. The central claim depends on the validity of QMC simulations and on model properties established in prior work, mainly Ref. [14].

free parameters (4)
  • square-hopping coupling lambda = 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (varied)
    Tuning parameter that reinforces AFM; values are chosen to explore the phase diagram, not fitted to a target.
  • Hubbard U = 0.5 t (chosen)
    Chosen by hand to break O(4) to SO(4) symmetry; the central claim is not sensitive to its precise value.
  • electron-phonon coupling lambda_e-ph = 2 (unit setting)
    Sets the energy unit and is fixed as in Ref. [14]; not fitted to data.
  • direct hopping t = 0.1 (chosen)
    Chosen to keep the model in the pi-flux regime as in Ref. [14]; not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The model at U=0 has O(4) symmetry; the Hubbard term reduces it to SO(4)
    Shown via the Majorana representation in Eqs. (4)-(7); the transformation properties are standard but not proven in detail.
  • domain assumption At t=0.1 the model is in the pi-flux regime with emergent Dirac fermions
    Established in Ref. [14] for the same model; used to interpret the transition as a DQCP.
  • domain assumption Lorentz invariance at the critical point implies z=1 and allows beta=L scaling
    The paper states this is confirmed by the data (Figs. 4, 5) but it is not rigorously proven; system sizes are moderate.
  • standard math The auxiliary-field QMC simulations are free of a sign problem and ergodic
    The adapted method of Ref. [26] is used; no sign problem is reported and autocorrelations are claimed efficient in Ref. [14].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tuning the order of a deconfined quantum critical point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AU3DGLRN

@misc{pith2026241217215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tuning the order of a deconfined quantum critical point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AU3DGLRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17215}
}
abstract

We consider a Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model in the assisted hopping limit, where direct electron hopping is subdominant. At fixed electron-phonon coupling and in the absence of Coulomb interactions, the model shows a deconfined quantum critical point (DQCP) between a $(\pi,0)$ valence bond solid in the adiabatic limit and a quantum antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase at high phonon frequencies. Here, we show that by adding terms to the model that reinforce the AFM phase, thereby lowering the critical phonon frequency, the quantum phase transition becomes strongly first order. Our results do not depend on the symmetry of the model. In fact, adding a Hubbard-$U$ term to the model lowers the O(4) symmetry of the model to SU(2) such that the DQCP we observe has the same symmetries as other models that account for similar quantum phase transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The solid (dashed) line corresponds to a continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Normalized free-energy derivative with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Histogram of the VBS order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a1)-(a3) Single-particle spectral function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Phase transitions on the dark side of the Gross-Neveu model: Spontaneous $\textrm{O}(4N)$ symmetry breaking at repulsive coupling

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spontaneous O(4N) symmetry breaking is confirmed in the repulsive Gross-Neveu model via sign-problem-free quantum Monte Carlo, with a weakly first-order transition at N=2.

  2. Imaginary-time correlations in time-sliced stochastic series expansion

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Time-sliced SSE with boundary-based operators and loop crossings yields unbiased off-diagonal imaginary-time correlators, benchmarked on Ising and XXZ chains.

  3. Lectures on insulating and conducting quantum spin liquids

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The notes argue that the FL* state — small pockets plus a quantized spin-liquid anomaly — resolves the ADMR pocket and v_F >> v_Delta problems that defeated holon-metal and plain fermionic-parton theories of the cuprates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [21]

    Z. H. Liu, M. Vojta, F. F. Assaad, and L. Janssen, Criti- cal properties of metallic and deconfined quantum phase transitions in dirac systems, Phys. Rev. B110, 125123 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [14]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: Symme- tries and dualities, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  3. [1]

    6 2 2 . 4 2 . 8 3 . 2 (a)

    work page

  4. [2]

    5 2 . 6 2 . 7 2 . 8 2 . 9 (b) λ = 0. 5

    work page

  5. [3]

    6 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 9 2 (c) λ = 1. 5 1 Nb ∂F ∂ω 0 ω 0 λ = 0. 5

    work page

  6. [4]

    5 1 Nb ∂F ∂ω 0 ω 0→ ← 1 Nb ∂F ∂ω 0 ω 0 FIG. 2. (a) Normalized free-energy derivative with respect to ω0. (b) and (c) Hysteresis curve for free-energy derivative with respect toω0. Here, t = 0.1, U = 0, and β = L = 8. Deep in the VBS-ordered phases [Figs. 3(a1)(b1)(c1)], the histograms clearly show four peaks, thereby demon- strating the fourfold degenerac...

    work page

  7. [5]

    2 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 my (a1) ω 0 = 2. 5 (a2) ω 0 = 2. 55 (a3) ω 0 = 2. 6 (a4) λ = 0. 5 ω 0 = 2. 65 my (b1) ω 0 = 2. 25 (b2) ω 0 = 2. 3 (b3) ω 0 = 2. 35 0

    work page

  8. [6]

    units] (b4) λ = 1

    8 1 [arb. units] (b4) λ = 1. 0 ω 0 = 2. 4 my mx (c1) ω 0 = 1. 75 mx (c2) ω 0 = 1. 8 mx (c3) ω 0 = 1. 85 mx (c4) λ = 1. 5 ω 0 = 1. 9 FIG. 3. Histogram of the VBS order parametermx and my for different λ and ω0 at t = 0.1, U = 0and β = L = 14. 1 .01 .52 .02 .50 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .8R c , S λ = 0.75 λ = 0.90 λ = 1.00 λ = 1.10 λ = 1.20 λ = 1.30 λ = 1.40 ...

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    4 − 0. 4 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 0 . 4 − 0. 4 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 0 . 4 − 0. 4 − 0. 2 0 0 . 2 0 . 4 ω k (a1) ω 0 = 2. 1 k (a2) ω 0 = 2. 26 k 0. 001

  2. [8]

    5 ω q (b1) q (b2) q 0

    1 1(a3) ω 0 = 2. 5 ω q (b1) q (b2) q 0. 01

  3. [9]

    1 1 10 (b3) ω q (0, 0) (0, 0) (c1) q (0, 0) (0, 0) (c2) q 0. 01

  4. [10]

    1 1 10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (c3) my mx (d1) mx (d2) mx 0

  5. [11]

    unit] (d3) FIG

    5 1 [arb. unit] (d3) FIG. 5. (a1)-(a3) Single-particle spectral function A(k, ω), (b1)-(b3) dynamical VBS structure factorSD(q, ω), (c1)-(c3) dynamical spin structure factorSS(q, ω), and (d1)-(d3) his- togram of the VBS order parametermx and my for different ω0 and t = 0.1, λ ...

  6. [12]

    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. B 70, 144407 (2004)

    2004

  7. [13]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Sci- ence 303, 1490 (2004)

    2004

  8. [15]

    Tanaka and X

    A. Tanaka and X. Hu, Many-body spin berry phases emerging from theπ-flux state: Competition between an- tiferromagnetism and the valence-bond-solid state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 036402 (2005)

    2005

  9. [16]

    Abanov and P

    A. Abanov and P. Wiegmann, Theta-terms in nonlinear sigma-models, Nuclear Physics B570, 685 (2000)

    2000

  10. [17]

    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)

    2006

  11. [18]

    S. Ryu, C. Mudry, C.-Y. Hou, and C. Chamon, Masses in graphenelike two-dimensional electronic systems: Topo- logical defects in order parameters and their fractional exchange statistics, Phys. Rev. B80, 205319 (2009)

    2009

  12. [19]

    Levin and T

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

    2004

  13. [20]

    Z. H. Liu, M. Vojta, F. F. Assaad, and L. Janssen, Metal- lic and deconfined quantum criticality in dirac systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 087201 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    A. W. Sandvik, Evidence for deconfined quantum criti- cality in a two-dimensional heisenberg model with four- spin interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 227202 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Deconfined quantum criticality, scaling violations, and classical loop models, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041048 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sato, M. Hohenadler, C. Wang, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Superconductivity from the condensation of topological defects in a quantum spin- Hall insulator, Nature Communications10, 2658 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    A. Götz, M. Hohenadler, and F. F. Assaad, Phases and exotic phase transitions of a two-dimensional su- schrieffer-heeger model, Phys. Rev. B 109, 195154 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Emergent so(5) symmetry at the néel to valence-bond-solid transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 267203 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    T. Sato, Z. Wang, Y. Liu, D. Hou, M. Hohenadler, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Simulation of fermionic and bosonic critical points with emergent so(5) symmetry, Phys. Rev. B108, L121111 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Nakayama and T

    Y. Nakayama and T. Ohtsuki, Necessary condition for emergent symmetry from the conformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 131601 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Ma and C

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

    2020

  22. [30]

    Nahum, Note on wess-zumino-witten models and qua- siuniversality in 2 + 1dimensions, Phys

    A. Nahum, Note on wess-zumino-witten models and qua- siuniversality in 2 + 1dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 102, 201116 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    S.M.ChesterandN.Su,Bootstrappingdeconfinedquan- tum tricriticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 111601 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Takahashi, H

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

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Soliton ex- citations in polyacetylene, Phys. Rev. B22, 2099 (1980)

    1980

  26. [34]

    U. F. P. Seifert, J. Willsher, M. Drescher, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Spin-peierls instability of the u(1) dirac spin liquid, Nature Communications15, 7110 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hofmeier, J

    D. Hofmeier, J. Willsher, U. F. P. Seifert, and J. Knolle, Spin-peierls instability of deconfined quantum critical points, Phys. Rev. B110, 125130 (2024). 6

    2024

  28. [36]

    Z. Wang, M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. F. As- saad, Phases of the (2 + 1) Dimensional SO(5) Nonlinear Sigma Model with Topological Term, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 045701 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Karakuzu, K

    S. Karakuzu, K. Seki, and S. Sorella, Solution of the sign problem for the half-filled hubbard-holstein model, Phys. Rev. B 98, 201108 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Bercx, F

    M. Bercx, F. Goth, J. S. Hofmann, and F. F. Assaad, The ALF (Algorithms for Lattice Fermions) project re- lease 1.0. Documentation for the auxiliary field quantum Monte Carlo code, SciPost Phys.3, 013 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Huffman, Z

    F.F.Assaad, M.Bercx, F.Goth, A.Götz, J.S.Hofmann, E. Huffman, Z. Liu, F. P. Toldin, J. S. E. Portela, and J. Schwab, The ALF (Algorithms for Lattice Fermions) project release 2.0. Documentation for the auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo code, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 1 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Blankenbecler, D

    R. Blankenbecler, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Monte carlo calculations of coupled boson-fermion sys- tems., Phys. Rev. D24, 2278 (1981)

    1981

  33. [41]

    White, D

    S. White, D. Scalapino, R. Sugar, E. Loh, J. Gubernatis, and R. Scalettar, Numerical study of the two-dimensional hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B40, 506 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    Assaad and H

    F. Assaad and H. Evertz, World-line and determinantal quantum monte carlo methods for spins, phonons and electrons, inComputational Many-Particle Physics, Lec- ture Notes in Physics, Vol. 739, edited by H. Fehske, R. Schneider, and A. Weiße (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg,

  35. [43]

    [14], we symmetrized the histograms by ex- ploiting the C4 symmetry of the model and the arbi- trariness of the minus sign in the definition of the order parameter in Eq

    As in Ref. [14], we symmetrized the histograms by ex- ploiting the C4 symmetry of the model and the arbi- trariness of the minus sign in the definition of the order parameter in Eq. (9)

  36. [44]

    K. S. D. Beach, Identifying the maximum entropy method as a special limit of stochastic analytic con- tinuation, arXiv e-prints , cond-mat/0403055 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0403055 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sandvik, Stochastic method for analytic continuation of quantum monte carlo data, Phys

    A. Sandvik, Stochastic method for analytic continuation of quantum monte carlo data, Phys. Rev. B57, 10287 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Shao and A

    H. Shao and A. W. Sandvik, Progress on stochastic ana- lytic continuation of quantum monte carlo data, Physics Reports 1003, 1 (2023), progress on stochastic analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo data

    2023

  39. [47]

    F. F. Assaad and T. Grover, Simple fermionic model of deconfined phases and phase transitions, Phys. Rev. X6, 041049 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Nandkishore, M

    R. Nandkishore, M. A. Metlitski, and T. Senthil, Orthog- onal metals: The simplest non-fermi liquids, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045128 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Hohenadler and F

    M. Hohenadler and F. F. Assaad, Fractionalized Metal in a Falicov-Kimball Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086601 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Hohenadler and F

    M. Hohenadler and F. F. Assaad, Orthogonal metal in the Hubbard model with liberated slave spins, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125133 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Meng, Monte Carlo Study of Lattice Compact Quan- tum Electrodynamics with Fermionic Matter: The Par- ent State of Quantum Phases, Phys

    X.Y.Xu, Y.Qi, L.Zhang, F.F.Assaad, C.Xu,andZ.Y. Meng, Monte Carlo Study of Lattice Compact Quan- tum Electrodynamics with Fermionic Matter: The Par- ent State of Quantum Phases, Phys. Rev. X9, 021022 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum critical- ity with two length scales, Science352, 213 (2016). 7 1 .01 .52 .02 .50.300 .350 .400 .45N b /s8706 ω 0 1 /s8706 F λ = 0.75 λ = 1.20 λ = 0.90 λ = 1.30 λ = 1.00 λ = 1.40 λ = 1.10 λ = 1.50ω 0 ( a)U /t = 0.5 1 /s8706 F Nb /s87...

    2016

  45. [53]

    3 − 0. 3 0 0 . 3 − 0. 3 0 0 . 3 − 0. 3 0 0 . 3 − 0. 3 0 0 . 3 my (a1) ω 0 = 2. 1 (a2) ω 0 = 2. 24 (a3) ω 0 = 2. 26 (a4) λ = 0. 75 ω 0 = 2. 4 my (b1) ω 0 = 1. 8 (b2) ω 0 = 2. 0 (b3) ω 0 = 2. 05 0

  46. [54]

    units] (b4) λ = 1

    8 1 [arb. units] (b4) λ = 1. 0 ω 0 = 2. 1 my mx (c1) ω 0 = 1. 2 mx (c2) ω 0 = 1. 3 mx (c3) ω 0 = 1. 35 mx (c4) λ = 1. 5 ω 0 = 1. 45 FIG. S2. Histogram of the VBS order parametermx and my for different λ and ω0 at t = 0.1, U = 0.5, β = L = 10. Supplemental Material for: Tuning ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.