Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Coplanar order induced by emergent frustration

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five Goldstone modes emerge at a magnet's transition

desk verdict A stable b≈2.5 Rényi EE fit at the CBJQ transition is the real new observation, but the coplanar O(4) rotor interpretation rests on unverified finite-size inputs and no direct order-parameter evidence; it deserves peer review, not immediate belief. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13555 v1 pith:EQJ2QD6A submitted 2025-04-18 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mech

Zehui Deng , Lu Liu , Wenan Guo , Hai-Qing Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords emergentfrustrationcoplanarorderchequerboardJ-QmodelRényientanglemententropyGoldstonemodesO(4)symmetryquantumrotorSrCu2(BO3)2
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 claims that the antiferromagnet-to-plaquette-singlet transition in the two-dimensional chequerboard $J$-$Q$ model is not a simple collinear ordering event. At the critical point $Q_c = 4.5977(1)$, the Rényi entanglement entropy with smooth boundaries has a logarithmic coefficient $b = 2.46(9)$ from fits with $L_{\min} \ge 24$, indistinguishable from $b = 2.5$. Using the improved scaling formula $b = N_G/2$, the paper infers $N_G = 5$ Goldstone modes, the number expected for a coplanar order that breaks an emergent O(4) symmetry on three sublattices, a geometry that frustrates collinear order. This "emergent frustration" arises from the symmetry appearing at the transition itself, not from geometric frustration, and the paper argues the same coplanar order may appear at the AFM-PSS transition of the strontium copper borate compound SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$, making the scenario experimentally testable.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the pairing of the improved entanglement-entropy scaling formula, $S_\alpha(L) = aL^{d-1} + (N_G/2)\ln(I(L)^{1/2}\rho_s(L)^{1/2}L^{d-1}) + \gamma_{\rm ord}$, with the effective quantum rotor Hamiltonian for O(4) superspins, $H = (S^{(s)}\cdot S^{(s)} - (S_A^{(s)})^2 - (S_B^{(s)})^2 - (S_C^{(s)})^2)/(2IL^2)$. The rotor model supplies the tower-of-states spectrum $E_L(S) = S(S+n-2)/(2L^2 I(L))$, whose per-level degeneracy $(S+1)^4$ produces the logarithmic correction; the finite-size inertia $I(L)$ is fixed through the transverse susceptibility and chiral perturbation theory. This converts the measured Rényi entropy into a direct count of Goldstone modes $N_G$, with $N_G = 2n-3 = 5$ for coplanar O(4) order.

What would settle it

Compute the static spin structure factor or a sublattice magnetization directly at $Q_c$: a three-sublattice coplanar order would produce magnetic Bragg peaks at the corresponding wavevectors, whereas the previously assumed collinear O(4) to O(3) order would not. Alternatively, extract the low-energy tower-of-states degeneracy from the spectrum; a coplanar O(4) rotor gives degeneracies growing like $(S+1)^4$, while a collinear order would give a different degeneracy, settling whether $b = 2.5$ really means five Goldstone modes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the transition point of the CBJQ model hosts an ordered state with five Goldstone modes rather than the three expected for collinear O(4) to O(3) breaking. Fitting the improved entanglement-entropy scaling formula, Eq. (6), with the finite-size inertia moment obtained from chiral perturbation theory, gives $b = 2.46(9) \approx 2.5$ for $L_{\min} \ge 24$, stable as small sizes are excluded. Because $b = N_G/2$ and $N_G = 5 = 2n - 3$ for a coplanar ordered O(4) system, the paper asserts that the emergent O(4) symmetry is broken in a coplanar pattern on three sublattices. The three sublattices arise because the AFM order parameter lives on lattice sites while the plaquette-singlet order parameter lives on plaquette centers, forming a kagome-like geometry. The paper proposes an effective quantum rotor Hamiltonian, Eq. (4), for four-component superspins on these three sublattices, in which the three-sublattice geometry frustrates collinear order but permits coplanar order.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-energy physics at the transition is captured by an effective quantum rotor model with an emergent O(4) symmetry distributed over three sublattices, so that the logarithmic coefficient in the entanglement-entropy fit can be read as half the number of Goldstone modes; if the rotor description or the three-sublattice structure is wrong, the inferred five Goldstone modes do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the AFM-PSS transition point, the ground state is a three-sublattice coplanar order breaking the emergent O(4) symmetry, not a collinear O(3) order.
  • The Rényi entropy coefficient $b = 2.5$ implies $N_G = 5$ Goldstone modes, which can be checked independently through the tower-of-states degeneracy $(S+1)^4$ of the low-energy spectrum.
  • The same emergent-frustration mechanism may occur at the AFM-PSS transition of SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$, so magnetic probes of that compound could observe the coplanar order.
  • The standard expectation $b = 1.5$ from a collinear O(4)-symmetric order is ruled out by the scaling data, sharpening the description of the CBJQ transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, emergent frustration offers a general route to non-collinear order on bipartite lattices without geometric frustration; similar designer Hamiltonians with coexisting order parameters on different lattice positions could show the same effect.
  • The paper's evidence for three-sublattice coplanar order rests on the EE coefficient alone; a direct measurement of the spin structure factor or sublattice magnetization would convert the inference into a direct observation.
  • Testing the same rotor prediction with other Rényi indices ($\alpha = 3, 4, \ldots$) or with different subsystem geometries would provide independent checks of the $b = 2.5$ coefficient.
  • Comparing the fitted tower-of-states degeneracy in exact diagonalization or QMC spectra would test the rotor Hamiltonian's assumption and the $N_G = 5$ assignment directly.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the checkerboard J-Q (CBJQ) model at its AFM-PSS transition at Qc=4.5977(1). The authors compute the second Rényi entanglement entropy S2(L) for cylindrical subsystems with smooth boundaries using projector QMC, and fit Eq. (6), an improved scaling formula that uses finite-size inputs I(L) and rho_s(L). They obtain b=2.46(9) for fits with Lmin>=24, interpret this as b=2.5=NG/2 with NG=5, and conclude that the emergent O(4) symmetry at the transition is broken to a coplanar ordered state with five Goldstone modes, realized on an effective kagome-like three-sublattice superspin geometry. They name this mechanism 'emergent frustration' and suggest it may also occur at the AFM-PSS transition of SrCu2(BO3)2.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is a genuinely novel and important result: spontaneous emergence of a three-sublattice geometry and coplanar O(4) order at a transition in a bipartite model, with a distinctive Goldstone-mode count that would be measurable. The paper also extends the entanglement-entropy scaling framework to coplanar O(n) systems and provides high-quality QMC data for S2, rho_s, and chi_perp at the transition. These are strengths. However, the central inference depends on an unverified effective rotor Hamiltonian and on identifying the fitted coefficient b with NG/2; no direct order-parameter evidence is presented. The significance is therefore high but strongly conditional on the proposed scenario.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Material, 'Scaling of EE for O(n) coplanar ordered system'] The derivation of Eq. (6) for a coplanar O(n) rotor is not established for the present problem. Equation (S3) assumes a single cutoff S_cut ~ sqrt(c I L) and a single harmonic energy scale Delta_G ~ c/L, and the degeneracy is taken as S^{2n-4}; for a coplanar state realized on O(n)/O(2), the tower-of-states degeneracies and the velocities of the Goldstone modes are not derived, and it is not shown that all modes share the same velocity c entering Eqs. (5) and (6). Since the entire inference b=NG/2 with NG=5 rests on this formula, the derivation must be supplied or the conclusion must be weakened.
  2. [Numerical results and scaling analysis, Eq. (10) and Table II] The finite-size inputs I(L) and rho_s(L) are taken from collinear chiral perturbation theory, Eq. (9), and the resulting correction in Eq. (10) is very large (31.5/L; for L=24 this exceeds unity). No derivation is given that this expansion applies to the proposed three-sublattice kagome-like superspin rotor of Eq. (4). In addition, the error bars in Table II reflect only the statistical uncertainty of S2(L); the quoted uncertainties in rho_s(L)=0.135(3) and chi_perp(L)=0.00288(6) are not propagated into b. This can bias the fitted b and the reported error understates the uncertainty.
  3. [Numerical results and scaling analysis, paragraph beginning 'We calculate the spin stiffness'] The statement that the choice of n 'could change neither the presence of the logarithmic term nor the coefficient of the term' is not a valid defense of the inference. The fitted coefficient b in Eq. (6) is interpreted through b=NG/2, and for a coplanar O(n) order NG=2n-3, so the predicted b depends on n. Moreover, I(L) in Eq. (9) and rho_s(L) are computed with n=4, so n enters the very inputs used to extract b; interpreting the resulting b=2.46(9) as evidence for n=4 is self-referential unless fits with other n values are shown not to change b materially.
  4. [Model and emergent frustration; Discussion and Conclusion] No direct evidence is presented for the three-sublattice coplanar order. The paper introduces an effective superspin model, Eq. (4), with superspins on three sublattices that are not actual lattice sites, but it never measures a spin structure factor, a sublattice magnetization, or a correlation function of the four-component order parameter (m, m_p). The only quantitative support for the coplanar scenario is the fit of b to approximately 2.5. Given that the alternative interpretation is a conventional O(4) rotor with collinear order and uncontrolled corrections, the central claim requires a direct order-parameter probe or an explicit falsifiable prediction beyond the EE coefficient.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The notation S(s)·S(s) and the relation between the total superspin S(s) and the sublattice spins S(s)_A, S(s)_B, S(s)_C are not defined; please clarify the dot product and the derivation of the rotor Hamiltonian.
  2. [Text above Fig. 2] The sentence 'The obtained S2(L) versus system size L atQc of the CBJQ model is shown in Fig. 2' should be reworded for clarity and grammar.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Table I] The definition gamma' = b ln(rho_s/c) + gamma_ord is confusing because Eq. (5) contains ln(rho_s/c L^{d-1}); please make the factorization of the logarithmic term explicit.
  4. [Supplemental Material] The supplemental material contains typographical errors such as 'whereS denotes' and inconsistent parentheses in S^{(2n-4)}; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the b≈2.5 coefficient is extracted, not imposed; n=4 enters as a prior external input, and the improved scaling formula is independently benchmarked.

full rationale

The central inference chain is not circular. The coefficient b in Eq. (6) is a free fitting parameter: the paper reports b=2.46(9) from fits with Lmin≥24 and then compares it with the value 2.5; it is never fixed to 2.5 before the fit. The input n=4 is taken from the previously established emergent O(4) symmetry at the CBJQ transition (Ref. [8], which is external to the present authors), not from the EE fit itself. The finite-size inputs I(L) and ρs(L) are obtained from separate SSE QMC measurements of χ⊥ and ρs, combined with the chiral perturbation theory formula Eq. (9); these inputs are not constructed from the EE data or from the final b value. The improved scaling formula Eq. (6) is indeed the authors' own earlier result (Ref. [43]), but that result was independently benchmarked on Heisenberg and bilayer Heisenberg models, and the coplanar O(n) extension is derived in the Supplemental Material from the rotor/tower-of-states degeneracy; this is independent support rather than a self-citation-only premise. The claim that the choice of n does not affect the logarithmic coefficient is a finite-size approximation that is assessed through the stability of the fits, and any residual bias would be a correctness or systematics issue, not a definitional circularity. The absence of a direct static structure factor or sublattice magnetization for the proposed three-sublattice coplanar state is an evidence gap, but it does not amount to a step in which a prediction reduces to an input by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the EE scaling analysis, and no circular step meeting the stated evidentiary standard is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on two inputs from the prior literature, namely the O(4) symmetry enhancement and the improved entanglement entropy scaling formula, plus a proposed but unverified effective rotor model. The measured coefficient b is the main new evidence, but the jump from b to the kagome-like three-sublattice scenario involves a non-derivative postulate.

free parameters (2)
  • Emergent symmetry dimension n = 4 (input, not fit)
    Used in the spin stiffness factor n and in the finite-size correction to I(L), Eq. (9). The value is taken from the O(4) symmetry enhancement reported in ref. [8]; the authors note that n does not affect the coefficient b beyond shifting gamma.
  • Qc = 4.5977(1)
    Simulation point taken from prior high-precision QMC estimate in ref. [8]; entanglement entropy, spin stiffness, and susceptibility data are all collected at this coupling.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AFM-PSS transition in the CBJQ model has emergent O(4) symmetry.
    Invoked from ref. [8], needed to fix n=4 and to interpret the superspins; all simulations are performed at the symmetry-enhanced first-order transition point.
  • domain assumption The improved entanglement entropy scaling formula Eq. (6) applies to coplanar O(n) ordered systems, with NG=2n-3.
    Derived in the supplemental material using a rotor state-counting argument and references [32,34]; this is the bridge between the measured coefficient b and the number of Goldstone modes.
  • standard math The effective rotor spectrum Eq. (8) and the chiral perturbation theory correction Eq. (9) describe the tower of states and the finite-size inertia of the ordered phase.
    Standard for O(n) quantum rotors and cited to Hasenfratz and Niedermayer; used to convert the measured chi_perp and rho_s into I(L).
  • ad hoc to paper The three-sublattice kagome-like superspin Hamiltonian Eq. (4) is a valid effective description.
    Proposed to explain b=2.5; not derived from the microscopic model and not verified by an independent observable.
invented entities (2)
  • Emergent frustration (three-sublattice superspin geometry)
    purpose: Explains why collinear order is frustrated and coplanar order is preferred at the O(4) symmetric point.
    No direct measurable signature is predicted beyond the entanglement entropy log coefficient; the geometric arrangement is inferred from the coefficient.
  • Coplanar O(4) order with five Goldstone modes
    purpose: Proposed ground-state order at the AFM-PSS transition.
    No direct order parameter or spectrum is measured; the only evidence is the fitted coefficient b.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coplanar order induced by emergent frustration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQJ2QD6A

@misc{pith2026250413555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coplanar order induced by emergent frustration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQJ2QD6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13555}
}
abstract

Traditional frustration arises from the conflict between the spin alignments due to the geometry or the nature of the interactions. Here, we demonstrate a novel form of frustration, dubbed ``emergent frustration'', which is induced by the symmetry that emerges at the phase transition point of a quantum spin model devoid of geometric frustration. We study the two-dimensional bipartite chequerboard $J$-$Q$ model, which hosts the antiferromagnetic (AFM) state to the plaquette-singlet solid state (PSS) phase transition detected in the Shastry-Sutherland compound SrCu$_2({\rm BO}_3)_2$. By analyzing the scaling behavior of the R\'enyi entanglement entropy with smooth boundaries at the transition point, we observe an unexpected scaling behavior, which indicates that the number of Goldstone modes is five. We explain this by proposing a novel scenario in which the system is described by an effective quantum rotor Hamiltonian with a three-sublattice geometry that frustrates collinear order while supporting coplanar order. Such a three-sublattice geometry arises from the emergent symmetry of coexisting orders, which may also occur at the AFM-PSS transition point of SrCu$_2({\rm BO}_3)_2$. Therefore, experimental investigations are warranted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The CBJQ quantum spin model and (b) its ef [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin stiffness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O. A. Starykh, Unusual ordered phases of highly frus- trated magnets: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 052502 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Schmidt and P

    B. Schmidt and P. Thalmeier, Frustrated two dimen- sional quantum magnets, Physics Reports 703, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Olsen, Antiferromagnetism in two-dimensional mate- rials: progress and computational challenges, 2D Mate- rials 11 (2024)

    T. Olsen, Antiferromagnetism in two-dimensional mate- rials: progress and computational challenges, 2D Mate- rials 11 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Tchernyshyov, Field theory of collinear and non- collinear magnetic order, SciPost Phys

    O. Tchernyshyov, Field theory of collinear and non- collinear magnetic order, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 85 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    D. A. Huse and V. Elser, Simple variational wave func- tions for two-dimensional heisenberg spin-½ antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2531 (1988)

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    Bernu, C

    B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, and L. Pierre, Signature of n´ eel order in exact spectra of quantum antiferromagnets on finite lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2590 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    S. R. White and A. L. Chernyshev, Ne´ el order in square and triangular lattice heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127004 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    B. Zhao, P. Weinberg, and A. W. Sandvik, Symmetry- enhanced discontinuous phase transition in a two- dimensional quantum magnet, Nature Physics 15, 678 (2019)

    2019

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    R. K. Kaul, R. G. Melko, and A. W. Sandvik, Bridg- ing lattice-scale physics and continuum field theory with quantum monte carlo simulations, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 179 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    M. E. Zayed, C. R¨ uegg, J. Larrea J., A. M. L¨ auchli, C. Panagopoulos, S. S. Saxena, M. Ellerby, D. F. McMorrow, T. Str¨ assle, S. Klotz, G. Hamel, R. A. Sadykov, V. Pomjakushin, M. Boehm, M. Jim´ enez- Ruiz, A. Schneidewind, E. Pomjakushina, M. Stingaciu, K. Conder, and H. ...

    2017

  3. [11]

    J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, A quantum magnetic analogue to the critical point of wa- ter, Nature ...

    2021

  4. [12]

    J. Guo, G. Sun, B. Zhao, L. Wang, W. Hong, V. A. Sidorov, N. Ma, Q. Wu, S. Li, Z. Y. Meng, A. W. Sand- vik, and L. Sun, Quantum phases of srcu 2(bo3)2 from high-pressure thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 206602 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Y. Cui, L. Liu, H. Lin, K.-H. Wu, W. Hong, X. Liu, C. Li, Z. Hu, N. Xi, S. Li, R. Yu, A. W. Sand- vik, and W. Yu, Proximate deconfined quantum critical point in srcu 2(bo3)2, Science 380, 1179 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adc9487

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J. Guo, P. Wang, C. Huang, B.-B. Chen, W. Hong, S. Cai, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Y. Zhou, et al., De- confined quantum critical point lost in pressurized srcu2 (bo3) 2, Communications Physics 8, 75 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Science 303, 1490 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1091806

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Corboz and F

    P. Corboz and F. Mila, Tensor network study of the shastry-sutherland model in zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115144 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Liu, X.-T

    W.-Y. Liu, X.-T. Zhang, Z. Wang, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Quantum criticality with emergent symmetry in the extended shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. Yang, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Wang, Quantum crit- icality and spin liquid phase in the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060409 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Sig- natures of a deconfined phase transition on the shastry- sutherland lattice: Applications to quantum critical srcu2(bo3)2, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041037 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Kele¸ s and E

    A. Kele¸ s and E. Zhao, Rise and fall of plaquette or- der in the shastry-sutherland magnet revealed by pseud- ofermion functional renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041115 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    N. Xi, H. Chen, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Plaquette valence bond solid to antiferromagnet transition and deconfined quantum critical point of the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B 107, L220408 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016), quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems

    N. Laflorencie, Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems, Physics Reports 646, 1 (2016), quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems

    2016

  16. [24]

    have a columnar valence-bond solid (CVBS) phase, besides the AFM phase. The CVBS order parameter is defined by a two-component vector D = (Dx,Dy), with Dα = 1 N X r Dα(r), (3) where the local order parameter Dα(r) = (−1)rαS(r)· S(r + ˆα), whereα =x,y , ˆα is the unit vector in...

    2000

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Competing orders, non- 6 linear sigma models, and topological terms in quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B 74, 064405 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    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)

    2015

  20. [28]

    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)

    2024

  21. [29]

    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]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2024

  23. [31]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu˜ no, and A. M. Somoza, Deconfined quantum criticality, scaling violations, and classical loop models, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041048 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: Symme- tries and dualities, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Bernu, P

    B. Bernu, P. Lecheminant, C. Lhuillier, and L. Pierre, Exact spectra, spin susceptibilities, and order parameter of the quantum heisenberg antiferromagnet on the trian- gular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 50, 10048 (1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    Lavalle, S

    C. Lavalle, S. Sorella, and A. Parola, Anomalous finite size spectrum in the S = 1/2 two dimensional heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1746 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    Azaria, B

    P. Azaria, B. Delamotte, and D. Mouhanna, Spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum frustrated antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2483 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    Kolley, S

    F. Kolley, S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollw¨ ock, and V. Alba, Entanglement spec- troscopy of su(2)-broken phases in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 88, 144426 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    A. B. Kallin, M. B. Hastings, R. G. Melko, and R. R. P. Singh, Anomalies in the entanglement properties of the square-lattice heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B84, 165134 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    H. F. Song, N. Laflorencie, S. Rachel, and K. Le Hur, Entanglement entropy of the two-dimensional heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 83, 224410 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    M. A. Metlitski and T. Grover, Entanglement En- tropy of Systems with Spontaneously Broken Continu- ous Symmetry, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1112.5166 (2011), arXiv:1112.5166 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D’Emidio, Entanglement entropy from nonequilibrium work, Phys

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

    2020

  33. [41]

    Helmes and S

    J. Helmes and S. Wessel, Entanglement entropy scaling in the bilayer heisenberg spin system, Phys. Rev. B 89, 245120 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Zhao, B.-B

    J. Zhao, B.-B. Chen, Y.-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, Measuring r´ enyi entanglement entropy with high efficiency and precision in quantum monte carlo simulations, npj Quantum Materials 7, 69 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Kulchytskyy, C

    B. Kulchytskyy, C. M. Herdman, S. Inglis, and R. G. Melko, Detecting goldstone modes with entanglement en- tropy, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115146 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Z. Deng, L. Liu, W. Guo, and H. Q. Lin, Improved scal- ing of the entanglement entropy of quantum antiferro- magnetic heisenberg systems, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125144 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Rademaker, Tower of states and the entanglement spectrum in a coplanar antiferromagnet, Phys

    L. Rademaker, Tower of states and the entanglement spectrum in a coplanar antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 92, 144419 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    See Supplemental Material for a derivation of the EE scaling in O(n) coplanar ordered system and polynomial fit of spin stiffness and susceptibility

  39. [47]

    Calabrese and J

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

    2004

  40. [48]

    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. E 95, 062132 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    A. W. Sandvik, Ground state projection of quantum spin systems in the valence-bond basis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 207203 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    A. W. Sandvik and H. G. Evertz, Loop updates for varia- tional and projector quantum monte carlo simulations in the valence-bond basis, Phys. Rev. B 82, 024407 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    A. W. Sandvik, Finite-size scaling of the ground-state pa- rameters of the two-dimensional heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 56, 11678 (1997)

    1997

  44. [52]

    A. W. Sandvik, Computational studies of quantum spin systems, AIP Conference Proceedings 1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Hasenfratz and F

    P. Hasenfratz and F. Niedermayer, Finite size and tem- perature effects in the af heisenberg model, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter 92, 91 (1993)

    1993

  46. [54]

    Neuberger and T

    H. Neuberger and T. Ziman, Finite-size effects in heisen- berg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 39, 2608 (1989)

    1989

  47. [55]

    D. S. Fisher, Universality, low-temperature properties, and finite-size scaling in quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11783 (1989)

    1989

  48. [56]

    L. Wang, K. S. D. Beach, and A. W. Sandvik, High- precision finite-size scaling analysis of the quantum- critical point of s = 1/2 heisenberg antiferromagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 73, 014431 (2006). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Scaling of EE for O(n) coplanar ordered system Take...

    2006

Pith tools

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