Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Honeycomb lattice entanglement data matches SO(5) critical theory

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 16:06 UTC pith:NYAYNZ6I

load-bearing objection Honeycomb EE study has genuine new findings but oversells SO(5) agreement — 3 of 5 corner extractions disagree with the benchmark the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07248 v1 pith:NYAYNZ6I submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat

Critical SO(5) scaling of entanglement entropy at honeycomb lattice deconfined criticality

Sankalp Kumar , Jonathan D'Emidio , Sumiran Pujari This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-lat PACS 05.30.-d75.10.Jm05.50.+q11.25.Hf
keywords dqcplatticescalingentanglementbehaviorcriticalhoneycomblogarithmic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper asks whether a class of exotic quantum phase transitions known as deconfined quantum critical points (DQCPs) genuinely possess an emergent higher symmetry called SO(5), as predicted by field theory. The DQCP describes a direct continuous transition between two phases with unrelated broken symmetries — an antiferromagnetic Néel state and a valence-bond-solid (VBS) state — and is expected to host fractionalized spinon excitations and an enlarged SO(5) symmetry not present in the microscopic model. On the square lattice, the transition is now believed to be weakly first-order, and entanglement entropy measurements have given conflicting results depending on how the system is cut. The authors move to a honeycomb lattice model, compute the second Rényi entanglement entropy via large-scale quantum Monte Carlo for many bipartition geometries, and compare the universal logarithmic corner coefficients against leading-order predictions from a 5-component Gaussian free field theory used as a proxy for the SO(5) conformal field theory. For smooth cuts, no logarithmic corrections appear, consistent with CFT and ruling out Goldstone modes. For cuts with 60° corners, the bearded-edge triangle yields b = 0.072(3), close to the predicted 0.074. For 120° corners in a hexagonal geometry, the data splits into three oscillating sequences by system size mod 9, with only the 9-sequence (b = 0.015(4)) matching the predicted 0.0125, while the 6-sequence goes negative (b = −0.013(4)), violating CFT positivity. The paper thus reports partial agreement with an emergent SO(5) CFT on the honeycomb lattice, alongside a genuine puzzle: the hexagonal subsystem exhibits period-3 oscillations that produce sign-changing logarithmic terms not explained by existing theoretical frameworks.

Core claim

The universal corner coefficients of the Rényi entanglement entropy at the honeycomb Néel-VBS transition are in partial numerical agreement with leading-order predictions from a 5-component (SO(5)-proxy) conformal field theory — most cleanly for 60° bearded-triangle corners (b = 0.072 vs. 0.074) and for the 9-sequence of hexagonal 120° corners (b = 0.015 vs. 0.0125) — while a period-3 finite-size oscillation in the hexagonal geometry produces three distinct scaling series, one of which violates the CFT positivity constraint. This constitutes evidence that emergent SO(5) symmetry is reflected in entanglement scaling on the honeycomb lattice, but also reveals a lattice-specific oscillatory效应未由

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the universal logarithmic coefficient b_θ in the entanglement entropy scaling S₂ = aL − b ln L + c, extracted for subsystems with sharp corners of angle θ. The predicted benchmark values (b_{60°} = 0.074, b_{120°} = 0.0125) come from N=5 times the Gaussian free field corner coefficient, used as a large-N proxy for the true SO(5) CFT. The QMC method computes the second Rényi entropy via replica partition function ratios in the stochastic series expansion framework, using an equilibrium reweighting protocol to evaluate incremental ratios Z(λ_{i+1})/Z(λ_i).

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark values used for comparison — N=5 times the Gaussian free field corner coefficients — are assumed to approximate the true SO(5) CFT values well enough that numerical agreement or disagreement can be meaningfully interpreted. The paper itself notes that the DQCP is described by a non-linear sigma model with a topological Wess-Zumino-Witten term rather than O(N) Wilson-Fisher theory, and that differences would appear as lower-order corrections whose magnitude for N

What would settle it

If the true SO(5) CFT corner coefficients differ substantially from the leading-order 5-component Gaussian values used here, the reported agreements (bearded triangle, hexagon 9-sequence) could be coincidental, and the disagreements (zigzag triangle, hexagon 6-sequence) would be equally consistent with the benchmark being wrong rather than with edge effects or oscillations.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the SO(5) CFT description is correct, the period-3 oscillation in the hexagonal geometry must be explained by an operator or lattice-commensurability effect not yet identified in the continuum theory; resolving this would tighten the link between entanglement diagnostics and DQCP field theory.
  • The discrepancy between zigzag and bearded triangle corner coefficients (0.091 vs. 0.072) suggests that edge-type effects survive at the system sizes accessible to QMC; a subtraction scheme that cancels edge contributions recovers the CFT value for 60° but fails for 120°, indicating the two corner angles couple differently to boundary physics.
  • Extending entanglement entropy measurements to other lattice geometries (e.g., kagome, triangular) with different VBS degeneracies would test whether the degree of agreement with SO(5) predictions correlates with the scaling dimension of monopole defects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the second Rényi entanglement entropy (EE) at the Néel–VBS transition in a spin-1/2 honeycomb J-Q model using large-scale stochastic-series-expansion QMC. The authors examine smooth bipartitions (finding no logarithmic corrections, consistent with CFT) and bipartitions with 60° and 120° corners (triangular and hexagonal subsystems), extracting universal corner coefficients and comparing them to leading-order N=5 Gaussian free-field predictions as a proxy for an emergent SO(5) CFT. A notable finding is a period-3 oscillation in the hexagonal subsystem data, which splits the results into three finite-size series with different logarithmic coefficients. The work is a careful numerical study that contributes useful data to the ongoing debate about entanglement diagnostics at deconfined criticality.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: whether entanglement entropy scaling at the DQCP is governed by universal SO(5) CFT physics or is sensitive to microscopic bipartition geometry, a tension previously seen on the square lattice. Studying the honeycomb lattice provides an independent realization with different lattice symmetry and VBS degeneracy, which is valuable. The finding that smooth bipartitions show no logarithmic corrections (ruling out Goldstone modes) is a clean result. The period-3 oscillation in the hexagonal data is a genuinely novel observation that poses a puzzle for field theory. The authors are transparent about the large-N caveat in their benchmark values and about the cases where agreement fails, which is commendable.

major comments (3)
  1. The abstract states 'we extract for corners with 60 and 120 degree angles and find close agreement with an emergent SO(5) CFT.' However, Table I shows that of five direct corner-coefficient extractions, only two (bearded triangle b_60=0.072(3) vs 0.074; hexagon 9-sequence b_120=0.015(4) vs 0.0125) agree with the benchmark. The zigzag triangle gives 0.091(3) (a ~5σ discrepancy), the hexagon 3-sequence gives 0.008(2), and the hexagon 6-sequence gives −0.013(4), which violates the CFT positivity requirement b_θ > 0 stated in Sec. I. The phrase 'close agreement' in the abstract overstates the evidence. The authors should qualify the abstract claim to reflect that agreement is found in specific cases while other cases show deviations, including a positivity violation. The current wording risks misleading readers who consult only the abstract.
  2. The subtraction scheme in Appendix A successfully resolves the zigzag triangle discrepancy (b_60=0.076(1) vs 0.074), but the same scheme fails for the 120° case (Fig. 4d), with no explanation offered beyond 'The reason for the failure of the subtraction method in this case is a mystery.' Since the subtraction method is invoked to support the central claim of SO(5) agreement for 60° corners, its unexplained failure for 120° corners undermines confidence in the method's reliability. The authors should either provide a hypothesis for why the method works in one case but not the other, or explicitly state that the subtraction result for 60° corners should be treated with caution given the method's inconsistency.
  3. The period-3 oscillation in the hexagonal subsystem (Sec. IV B) is presented as a 'caveat' or 'counterexample,' but the data pattern is more severe than this framing suggests. The 6-sequence yields b_120 = −0.013(4), which is negative and thus violates the CFT positivity constraint b_θ > 0 that the authors themselves state in Sec. I. A negative corner coefficient is not merely a deviation from the benchmark value—it is inconsistent with any unitary CFT. The authors should discuss whether this negativity could indicate that the 6-sequence is not in the asymptotic scaling regime, or whether it points to a breakdown of the CFT description for this bipartition. The current treatment does not adequately address the implications of a CFT constraint violation.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sec. I: The large-N caveat is explained clearly, but the statement that 'the leading order values would be the same for both the theories' (nonlinear sigma model and O(N) Wilson-Fisher) should cite or briefly justify why the Wess-Zumino-Witten term does not affect the leading-order entanglement coefficients.
  2. Sec. IV B: The statement 'the bearded result is in excellent agreement with the 5-component prediction' uses 'excellent' for a 0.7σ agreement (0.072(3) vs 0.074), while the zigzag result (0.091(3) vs 0.074) is described without noting it is a ~5σ discrepancy. The language should be more balanced.
  3. Sec. V: The discussion of proper bipartitioning and surface criticality is inconclusive. While the authors state they are 'not attempting to draw firm conclusions,' the section could benefit from explicitly stating which specific predictions or expectations from each framework are falsified by the honeycomb data.
  4. Fig. 2(d): The dotted line showing the expected 5-component slope is helpful, but a corresponding dotted line for the zigzag case would make the discrepancy visually clearer.
  5. The reference to Ref. [25] (Zhou et al.) in the Conclusion is discussed as reaching an 'apparently opposite conclusion,' but the tension is left unresolved. A brief statement of how the present results might be reconciled with the fuzzy-sphere findings would strengthen the Conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: benchmark values come from independent theoretical works, QMC method computes EE from first principles

full rationale

The paper's central claim compares QMC-computed Rényi entanglement entropy corner coefficients against CFT predictions. The benchmark values (b_{60°}=0.074, b_{120°}=0.0125) come from Refs [34, 35] (Whitsitt, Witczak-Krempa, Sachdev, Helmes et al.) — independent theoretical works where none of the current authors appear. The QMC method for computing EE (Refs [33, 48], co-authored by D'Emidio) is a methodological tool that computes the EE from the Hamiltonian via stochastic series expansion, not a result being validated. The honeycomb J-Q model (Ref [9], co-authored by Pujari) is defined by an explicit Hamiltonian (Eq. 2) with a critical coupling determined by independent prior QMC simulations. The 'proper bipartitioning' heuristic (Ref [33]) is discussed critically in Sec. V and found to be incomplete, not invoked as a load-bearing constraint. The subtraction scheme in Appendix A (from Ref [33]'s supplement) is a data analysis technique that isolates corner contributions by differencing subsystems with identical perimeters — it does not assume the result it tests. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The self-citations provide tools and model definitions, not circular validation of the central claim. The selective agreement issue (3 of 5 extractions disagree) is a correctness/interpretation concern, not a circularity concern — the benchmark is independently derived and the QMC data is independently computed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The SO(5) symmetry is an emergent property predicted by existing theory (Refs [4,5]), not invented by this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • a (area-law coefficient) = varies per bipartition
    Non-universal coefficient fitted to QMC data in Eq. 1 for each bipartition separately.
  • c (constant term) = varies per bipartition
    Non-universal constant fitted to QMC data in Eq. 1 for each bipartition separately.
  • b (logarithmic coefficient) = varies per bipartition
    The quantity of interest; fitted to QMC data and compared against CFT predictions. Not a free parameter in the theoretical sense but is extracted from fits.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The leading-order O(N) Gaussian free field corner coefficient for N=5 approximates the true SO(5) CFT value.
    Stated in Sec. I: 'the leading order values would be the same for both the theories, and the differences would manifest as lower-order corrections.' No independent estimate of the size of these corrections is provided.
  • domain assumption The honeycomb J-Q transition is sufficiently close to a critical point that CFT-based EE scaling forms apply.
    The transition is believed to be weakly first-order (Sec. II). The paper assumes the weakly first-order nature does not corrupt EE scaling, which is supported empirically by the observed scaling but not proven.
  • standard math β = L is sufficient to approximate ground-state properties.
    Standard practice in QMC; stated in Sec. III.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 20174 in / 4311 out tokens · 200624 ms · 2026-07-09T16:06:05.443540+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The deconfined quantum critical point (DQCP) in square lattice S=1/2 quantum antiferromagnets has been extensively studied with a large body of evidence pointing to a weakly first-order transition scenario. Recent studies, which focused on entanglement at this nearly continuous DQCP in square lattice J-Q models, have observed conflicting bipartite entanglement entropy (EE) scaling behavior. One bipartition choice gave scaling coefficients in remarkable agreement with predictions from the unitary CFT corresponding to the putative DQCP. While another equally natural choice gave scaling coefficients in complete violation of unitary CFT that may be attributed to lack of scale invariance at the known weakly first-order behavior of the model. This motivates the exploration of DQCP behavior via entanglement measures in lattice models with distinct crystalline symmetries. Here we study a S=1/2 honeycomb model that hosts a nearly continuous transition between N\'eel and valence-bond-solid ground states relevant to probing DQCP. Using large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulations, we compute the R\'enyi EE for a variety of bipartitions and test the CFT based description of the DQCP on the honeycomb lattice. For smooth bipartitions, we find no evidence of logarithmic corrections, in accordance with CFT, thereby essentially ruling out contributions from Goldstone modes. For subsystems with corners, CFT predicts universal logarithmic contributions, which we extract for corners with 60 and 120 degree angles and find close agreement with an emergent SO(5) CFT. While we observe scaling consistent with a critical system in the majority of cases, we also demonstrate an intriguing counterexample of the hexagon subsystem that exhibits a subtle period three oscillation. This results in three separate finite-size series, where the sign of the logarithmic term apparently changes depending on the series.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07248 by Jonathan D'Emidio, Sankalp Kumar, Sumiran Pujari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a–d) Two types of smooth bipartitions of size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a,b) Triangular bipartitions of size 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a–c)Hexagonal bipartition of size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Subsystems used to isolate the 60 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Science303, 1490 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1091806

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1091806 2004

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [5]

    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)

    work page 2005

  5. [6]

    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)

    work page 2007

  6. [7]

    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

  7. [8]

    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

  8. [9]

    Pujari, K

    S. Pujari, K. Damle, and F. Alet, N´ eel-state to valence- bond-solid transition on the honeycomb lattice: Evidence for deconfined criticality, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 087203 (2013). 10

    work page 2013

  9. [10]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum critical- ity with two length scales, Science352, 213–216 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [11]

    A. W. Sandvik and B. Zhao, Consistent Scaling Expo- nents at the Deconfined Quantum-Critical Point, Chinese Physics Letters37, 057502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [12]

    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

  12. [13]

    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

  13. [14]

    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

  14. [15]

    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

  15. [16]

    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, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2008, P02009 (2008)

    work page 2008

  16. [17]

    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

  17. [18]

    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

  18. [19]

    SO(5) multicriticality in two-dimensional quantum magnets

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [20]

    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)

    work page 2017

  20. [21]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan, Walking, weak first-order transitions, and complex CFTs, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [22]

    Gorbenko, S

    V. Gorbenko, S. Rychkov, and B. Zan, Walking, Weak first-order transitions, and Complex CFTs II. Two- dimensional Potts model atQ >4, SciPost Phys.5, 050 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [23]

    Ma and C

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

    work page 2020

  23. [24]

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

    A. Nahum, Note on wess-zumino-witten models and qua- siuniversality in 2 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. B102, 201116(R) (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [25]

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, So(5) deconfined phase transition under the fuzzy-sphere microscope: Ap- proximate conformal symmetry, pseudo-criticality, and operator spectrum, Physical Review X14, 10.1103/phys- revx.14.021044 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2024

  25. [26]

    Kumar, S

    S. Kumar, S. Pujari, and J. D’Emidio, Pseudocriticality in antiferromagnetic spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 076701 (2026)

    work page 2026

  26. [27]

    Fradkin and J

    E. Fradkin and J. E. Moore, Entanglement entropy of 2d conformal quantum critical points: Hearing the shape of a quantum drum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 050404 (2006)

    work page 2006

  27. [28]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, Universal terms for the entan- glement entropy in 2+1 dimensions, Nuclear Physics B 764, 183 (2007)

    work page 2007

  28. [29]

    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

  29. [30]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, Z. Y. Meng, C. Xu, and M. Cheng, Extracting subleading corrections in entanglement en- tropy at quantum phase transitions, SciPost Phys.17, 010 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [31]

    Z. Deng, L. Liu, W. Guo, and H.-Q. Lin, Diagnosing quantum phase transition order and deconfined criticality via entanglement entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 100402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [32]

    B.-B. Mao, Z. Wang, B.-B. Chen, and Z. Yan, Detect- ing the emergent continuous symmetry of criticality via a subsystem’s entanglement spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 046401 (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [33]

    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

  33. [34]

    Whitsitt, W

    S. Whitsitt, W. Witczak-Krempa, and S. Sachdev, En- tanglement entropy of large-nwilson-fisher conformal field theory, Phys. Rev. B95, 045148 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [35]

    Helmes, L

    J. Helmes, L. E. Hayward Sierens, A. Chandran, W. Witczak-Krempa, and R. G. Melko, Universal corner entanglement of dirac fermions and gapless bosons from the continuum to the lattice, Phys. Rev. B94, 125142 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [36]

    Y. Zhu, Z. Liu, Z. Wang, Y.-C. Wang, and Z. Yan, Bi- partite entanglement and surface criticality: The extra contribution of the nonordinary edge in entanglement, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 046501 (2026)

    work page 2026

  36. [37]

    Pujari, F

    S. Pujari, F. Alet, and K. Damle, Transitions to valence- bond solid order in a honeycomb lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B91, 104411 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [38]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions, 2nd ed

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

    work page 2011

  38. [39]

    Murthy and S

    G. Murthy and S. Sachdev, Action of hedgehog instan- tons in the disordered phase of the (2+1)-dimensional cpn-1 model, Nuclear Physics B344, 557 (1990)

    work page 1990

  39. [40]

    However, numerical studies on both honeycomb and square lattices have not found any first-order related “dips” in the staggered magnetization Binder ratio. See Ref. [52] for more on this point, in particular Secs. 3.4 and 5 therein

    work page

  40. [41]

    R. G. Melko, A. B. Kallin, and M. B. Hastings, Finite-size scaling of mutual information in monte carlo simulations: Application to the spin- 1 2 xxzmodel, Phys. Rev. B82, 100409 (2010)

    work page 2010

  41. [42]

    M. B. Hastings, I. Gonz´ alez, A. B. Kallin, and R. G. Melko, Measuring renyi entanglement entropy in quan- tum monte carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 157201 (2010)

    work page 2010

  42. [43]

    Humeniuk and T

    S. Humeniuk and T. Roscilde, Quantum monte carlo cal- culation of entanglement r´ enyi entropies for generic quan- tum systems, Phys. Rev. B86, 235116 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [44]

    Inglis and R

    S. Inglis and R. G. Melko, Wang-landau method for cal- culating r´ enyi entropies in finite-temperature quantum monte carlo simulations, Phys. Rev. E87, 013306 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [45]

    D. J. Luitz, X. Plat, N. Laflorencie, and F. Alet, Im- proving entanglement and thermodynamic r´ enyi entropy measurements in quantum monte carlo, Phys. Rev. B90, 125105 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [46]

    Kulchytskyy, C

    B. Kulchytskyy, C. M. Herdman, S. Inglis, and R. G. Melko, Detecting goldstone modes with entanglement en- 11 tropy, Phys. Rev. B92, 115146 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [47]

    Alba, Out-of-equilibrium protocol for r´ enyi entropies via the jarzynski equality, Phys

    V. Alba, Out-of-equilibrium protocol for r´ enyi entropies via the jarzynski equality, Phys. Rev. E95, 062132 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [48]

    D’Emidio, Entanglement entropy from nonequilibrium work, Phys

    J. D’Emidio, Entanglement entropy from nonequilibrium work, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [49]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2004, P06002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [50]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, AIP Conference Proceedings1297, 135 (2010)

    work page 2010

  50. [51]

    D’Emidio, R

    J. D’Emidio, R. Or´ us, N. Laflorencie, and F. de Juan, Universal features of entanglement entropy in the hon- eycomb hubbard model, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 076502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [52]

    Vijigiri, S

    V. Vijigiri, S. Pujari, and N. Desai, Deconfined pseud- ocriticality in a model spin-1 quantum antiferromagnet, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter38, 025601 (2026)

    work page 2026

  52. [53]

    [36] for a quantitative discussion of such boundary effects which we also discuss in Sec

    For example, see Ref. [36] for a quantitative discussion of such boundary effects which we also discuss in Sec. V. Appendix A: Subtraction method From the EE scaling of the triangular and hexagonal bipartitions, we found that agreement with a putative SO(5) CFT seems to sensitively depend on the boundary structure or geometry. From a continuum perspective...

    work page