pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.01198 · v2 · submitted 2025-03-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.stat-mech· quant-ph

Deconfined criticality as intrinsically gapless topological state in one dimension

Sheng Yang , Fu Xu , Da-Chuan Lu , Yi-Zhuang You , Hai-Qing Lin , Xue-Jia Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 02:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords deconfined criticalitygapless topological statesone-dimensional latticemixed anomalyedge modesspontaneous symmetry breakingphase diagram
0
0 comments X

The pith

In one dimension certain deconfined critical points function as intrinsically gapless topological states whose mixed anomaly protects boundary modes.

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

The paper shows that deconfined criticality realized on a one-dimensional lattice can be identified with an intrinsically gapless topological state that has no gapped counterpart. Field theory plus large-scale numerics map a global phase diagram containing deconfined critical lines that separate two distinct spontaneous-symmetry-breaking phases. The mixed anomaly carried by these critical points is shown to enforce topologically robust edge modes at the open boundaries. A reader would care because the result supplies a concrete lattice mechanism that unifies two classes of states lying outside the Landau paradigm.

Core claim

Certain deconfined criticality can be regarded as an intrinsically gapless topological state without gapped counterparts in a one dimensional lattice model. The mixed anomaly inherent to deconfined criticality enforces topologically robust edge modes near the boundary, providing a general mechanism by which deconfined criticality manifests as a gapless topological state.

What carries the argument

The mixed anomaly of the deconfined critical point, which directly enforces topologically protected edge modes in the lattice model.

If this is right

  • Deconfined critical lines in the phase diagram host gapless topological edge modes while separating two distinct SSB phases.
  • The topological protection is intrinsic to the gapless critical state and does not rely on a nearby gapped topological phase.
  • The same anomaly mechanism supplies a general route by which deconfined criticality appears as a gapless topological state.
  • Numerical simulations of the lattice model confirm both the critical lines and the presence of the protected boundary modes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The anomaly-protection argument may extend to other one-dimensional critical points that carry similar mixed anomalies.
  • Perturbations that preserve the anomaly but change microscopic details could be used to test the robustness of the edge modes.
  • The lattice construction offers a concrete setting in which to search for additional signatures of the mixed anomaly, such as quantized responses at the boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The lattice model realizes a deconfined critical point whose mixed anomaly matches the field-theoretic one and is not altered by extra relevant operators or lattice artifacts that could gap the edge states.

What would settle it

Direct observation, via numerics or experiment, of gapped edge modes or of a changed anomaly structure exactly at the deconfined critical lines would falsify the identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.01198 by Da-Chuan Lu, Fu Xu, Hai-Qing Lin, Sheng Yang, Xue-Jia Yu, Yi-Zhuang You.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic plot of the two-leg spinless fermion lad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The connected correlation functions for fermion (purple circles), CDW (green squares), and BDW (blue diamonds) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The entanglement spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deconfined criticality and gapless topological states have recently attracted growing attention, as both phenomena go beyond the traditional Landau paradigm. However, the deep connection between these two critical states, particularly in lattice realization, remains insufficiently explored. In this Letter, we reveal that certain deconfined criticality can be regarded as an intrinsically gapless topological state without gapped counterparts in a one dimensional lattice model. Using a combination of field-theoretic arguments and large-scale numerical simulations, we establish the global phase diagram of the model, which features deconfined critical lines separating two distinct spontaneous symmetry breaking ordered phases. More importantly, we unambiguously demonstrate that the mixed anomaly inherent to deconfined criticality enforces topologically robust edge modes near the boundary, providing a general mechanism by which deconfined criticality manifests as a gapless topological state. Our findings not only offer a new perspective on deconfined criticality but also deepen our understanding of gapless topological phases of matter.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that certain deconfined critical lines in a one-dimensional lattice model realize intrinsically gapless topological states without gapped counterparts. Field-theoretic arguments identify a mixed anomaly (between translation and internal symmetries) that enforces topologically protected edge modes at the boundary, while large-scale numerics map the global phase diagram showing these critical lines separating two distinct spontaneous symmetry-breaking phases.

Significance. If the anomaly identification and numerical evidence for robust edge modes hold, the work establishes a concrete lattice realization linking deconfined criticality to gapless topological order in 1D, providing a general mechanism beyond Landau paradigms and potentially informing higher-dimensional extensions or other critical states.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (field theory section): The claim that the lattice regularization preserves the precise mixed anomaly of the continuum deconfined critical theory (without relevant operators that could gap boundary modes) is central but not demonstrated explicitly; the matching argument relies on symmetry identification without a direct computation of the anomaly inflow or lattice-level 't Hooft anomaly matching that would exclude discretization artifacts.
  2. [§5] §5 (numerics on edge modes): The demonstration of topologically robust edge modes relies on finite-size spectra or entanglement measures near the boundary, but it remains unclear whether these are distinguished from bulk gaplessness or finite-size effects; no explicit scaling analysis or comparison to a gapped reference phase is provided to confirm the modes persist in the thermodynamic limit solely due to the anomaly.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction use 'unambiguously demonstrate' for the edge-mode result; this phrasing should be softened to reflect the numerical and field-theoretic evidence presented.
  2. Notation for the mixed anomaly (e.g., the specific symmetry groups involved) should be defined consistently between the field-theory and lattice sections to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major points below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and strengthen the supporting arguments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (field theory section): The claim that the lattice regularization preserves the precise mixed anomaly of the continuum deconfined critical theory (without relevant operators that could gap boundary modes) is central but not demonstrated explicitly; the matching argument relies on symmetry identification without a direct computation of the anomaly inflow or lattice-level 't Hooft anomaly matching that would exclude discretization artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration would strengthen the central claim. In the revised version we will expand §3 with a detailed discussion of the lattice model construction, showing that the microscopic interactions preserve the full set of symmetries (translation and internal) of the continuum theory without introducing relevant operators capable of gapping the boundary modes. While a complete lattice-level 't Hooft anomaly computation lies outside the scope of this Letter, the symmetry matching is unambiguous and is corroborated by the numerical observation of the protected edge modes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (numerics on edge modes): The demonstration of topologically robust edge modes relies on finite-size spectra or entanglement measures near the boundary, but it remains unclear whether these are distinguished from bulk gaplessness or finite-size effects; no explicit scaling analysis or comparison to a gapped reference phase is provided to confirm the modes persist in the thermodynamic limit solely due to the anomaly.

    Authors: We will add the requested analysis. The revised manuscript will include a finite-size scaling study of the edge-mode signatures together with a direct comparison to a gapped reference phase (deep inside one of the ordered phases) where the modes are absent. This comparison will isolate the anomaly-protected contribution from bulk gaplessness and finite-size effects, confirming persistence in the thermodynamic limit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external anomaly matching and numerics

full rationale

The paper's central argument combines standard field-theoretic anomaly matching (mixed anomaly between translation and internal symmetries) with large-scale DMRG numerics to map the phase diagram and identify edge modes. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the anomaly structure is invoked from prior literature as an independent input rather than derived internally. The lattice model is treated as realizing the target continuum theory without the derivation itself enforcing that equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum field theory axioms for anomalies and symmetry fractionalization in 1D systems, plus the assumption that the lattice model faithfully realizes the continuum deconfined critical theory without relevant perturbations.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Mixed anomalies between symmetries are preserved under renormalization and enforce boundary modes in gapless systems
    Invoked to link deconfined criticality to topological edge modes
  • domain assumption The lattice model has no additional relevant operators that destabilize the critical lines or gap the edge states
    Required for the phase diagram and the 'intrinsically gapless' claim

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1533 out tokens · 44468 ms · 2026-05-23T02:04:31.667016+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Anomalous Dynamical Scaling at Topological Quantum Criticality

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Topological quantum critical points exhibit anomalous dynamical scaling in boundary dynamics and defect production due to edge modes, beyond conventional Kibble-Zurek scaling.

  2. PT symmetry-enriched non-unitary criticality

    quant-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PT symmetry enriches non-Hermitian critical points with topological nontriviality, robust edge modes, and a quantized imaginary subleading term in entanglement entropy scaling.

  3. Generalized Li-Haldane Correspondence in Critical Dirac-Fermion Systems

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An exact relation is derived between bulk entanglement spectrum and boundary energy spectrum at topological criticality in free-fermion systems, allowing edge-mode degeneracy to be read from bulk data in arbitrary dimensions.

  4. Generalized Li-Haldane Correspondence in Critical Dirac-Fermion Systems

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Derives exact bulk-boundary correspondence allowing extraction of edge-mode degeneracy from bulk entanglement spectrum in critical free-fermion systems of arbitrary dimensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 146 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Sachdev, Physics World12, 33 (1999)

    S. Sachdev, Physics World12, 33 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    S. L. Sondhi, S. M. Girvin, J. P. Carini, and D. Shahar, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 315 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    S.Sachdev, Quantum phases of matter (CambridgeUni- versity Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. Fisher, Science303, 1490 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Senthil, L

    T. Senthil, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B70, 144407 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Senthil, 50 Years of the Renormalization Group: Dedicated to the Memory of Michael E Fisher , 169 (2024)

    T. Senthil, 50 Years of the Renormalization Group: Dedicated to the Memory of Michael E Fisher , 169 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    XU, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics B 26, 1230007 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979212300071

    C. XU, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics B 26, 1230007 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979212300071

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217979212300071 2012

  8. [8]

    Levin and T

    M. Levin and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B 70, 220403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Quantum matters: Physics beyond Landau's paradigms

    T. Senthil, Quantum matters: Physics beyond landau’s paradigms (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0411275 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B74, 064405 (2006)

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    Tanaka and X

    A. Tanaka and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 036402 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Grover and T

    T. Grover and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 156804 (2008)

    work page 2008

  13. [13]

    M. A. Metlitski, M. Hermele, T. Senthil, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B78, 214418 (2008)

    work page 2008

  14. [14]

    Swingle and T

    B. Swingle and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B86, 155131 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Moon and C

    E.-G. Moon and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B86, 214414 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Slagle and C

    K. Slagle and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B89, 104418 (2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Seiberg, T

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang, and E. Witten, Annals of Physics374, 395 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B93, 245151 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 95, 205137 (2017)

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    You, Y.-C

    Y.-Z. You, Y.-C. He, C. Xu, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. X8, 011026 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Gazit, F

    S. Gazit, F. F. Assaad, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, and C. Wang, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 115, E6987 (2018), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1806338115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1806338115 2018

  23. [23]

    C.-M. Jian, A. Thomson, A. Rasmussen, Z. Bi, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B97, 195115 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Bi and T

    Z. Bi and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X9, 021034 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Senthil, D

    T. Senthil, D. T. Son, C. Wang, and C. Xu, Physics Re- ports 827, 1 (2019), duality between (2+1)d quantum critical points

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Z. Bi, E. Lake,and T.Senthil, Phys. Rev.Res.2,023031 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. X9, 041037 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    X.-Y. Song, C. Wang, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-C. He, Nature communications10, 4254 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Song, Y.-C

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-C. He, A. Vishwanath, and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. X10, 011033 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    unnecessary

    Y. Zhang, X.-Y. Song, and T. Senthil, Dirac spin liquid as an "unnecessary" quantum criti- cal point on square lattice antiferromagnets (2025), arXiv:2404.11654 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 026801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 227202 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    J. Lou, A. W. Sandvik, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B 80, 180414 (2009)

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 177201 (2010)

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    R. K. Kaul and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 137201 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    R. K. Kaul and R. G. Melko, Phys. Rev. B78, 014417 (2008)

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 110601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    R. G. Melko and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 017203 (2008)

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    M. S. Block, R. G. Melko, and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 137202 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Phys. Rev. B88, 134411 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Science352, 213 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    H. Suwa, A. Sen, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B94, 144416 (2016)

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    D’Emidio and R

    J. D’Emidio and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 187202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Phys. Rev. X5, 041048 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortuño, and A. M. Somoza, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 267203 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Y. Q. Qin, Y.-Y. He, Y.-Z. You, Z.-Y. Lu, A. Sen, A. W. Sandvik, C.Xu,andZ.Y.Meng,Phys.Rev.X 7,031052 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Ma, G.-Y

    N. Ma, G.-Y. Sun, Y.-Z. You, C. Xu, A. Vishwanath, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174421 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Ma, Y.-Z

    N. Ma, Y.-Z. You, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 175701 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    Deconfined quantum criticality and emergent SO(5) symmetry in fermionic systems

    Z.-X. Li, S.-K. Jian, and H. Yao, Deconfined quantum criticality and emergent so(5) symmetry in fermionic systems (2019), arXiv:1904.10975 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    G. J. Sreejith, S. Powell, and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 080601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Serna and A

    P. Serna and A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195110 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    B. Zhao, P. Weinberg, and A. W. Sandvik, Nature Physics 15, 678 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sato, M. Hohenadler, C. Wang, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Nature Communications10, 2658 (2019)

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Jiang and O

    S. Jiang and O. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B99, 075103 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Roberts, S

    B. Roberts, S. Jiang, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 99, 165143 (2019)

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Huang, D.-C

    R.-Z. Huang, D.-C. Lu, Y.-Z. You, Z. Y. Meng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B100, 125137 (2019). 6

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Takahashi and A

    J. Takahashi and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033459 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    A. W. Sandvik and B. Zhao, Chinese Physics Letters 37, 057502 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Roberts, S

    B. Roberts, S. Jiang, and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155143 (2021)

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Ogino, S

    T. Ogino, S. Furukawa, R. Kaneko, S. Morita, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B104, 075135 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Ogino, R

    T. Ogino, R. Kaneko, S. Morita, S. Furukawa, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B103, 085117 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    S. Yang, Z. Pan, D.-C. Lu, and X.-J. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245152 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Prembabu, R

    S. Prembabu, R. Thorngren, and R. Verresen, Phys. Rev. B109, L201112 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 206602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    T. Song, Y. Jia, G. Yu, Y. Tang, P. Wang, R. Singha, X. Gui, A. J. Uzan-Narovlansky, M. Onyszczak, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, L. M. Schoop, N. P. Ong, and S. Wu, Nature Physics20, 269 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    J. Y. Lee, J. Ramette, M. A. Metlitski, V. Vuletić, W. W. Ho, and S. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 083601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Y. Cui, L. Liu, H. Lin, K.-H. Wu, W. Hong, X. Liu, C. Li, Z. Hu, N. Xi, S. Li, et al. , Science 380, 1179 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    J. Guo, P. Wang, C. Huang, B.-B. Chen, W. Hong, S. Cai, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Y. Zhou, S. Li, Q. Wu, Z. Y. Meng, and L. Sun, Deconfined quan- tumcriticalpointlostinpressurizedsrcu2(bo3)2(2023), arXiv:2310.20128 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  69. [69]

    B. Zhao, J. Takahashi, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257204 (2020)

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    D’Emidio and A

    J. D’Emidio and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 166702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Y.-C. Wang, N. Ma, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, SciPost Phys. 13, 123 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B102, 020407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    Nahum, Phys

    A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. B102, 201116 (2020)

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    D.-C. Lu, C. Xu, and Y.-Z. You, Phys. Rev. B104, 205142 (2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Zhao, Y.-C

    J. Zhao, Y.-C. Wang, Z. Yan, M. Cheng, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Y. Meng, Evolution of entanglement entropy at su(n) deconfined quantum critical points (2025), arXiv:2307.02547 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    B.-B. Chen, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, K. Sun, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021044 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [80]

    J. Zhao, Z. Y. Meng, Y.-C. Wang, and N. Ma, Scal- ing of disorder operator and entanglement entropy at easy-plane deconfined quantum criticalities (2024), arXiv:2406.02681 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [81]

    Z. Deng, L. Liu, W. Guo, and H.-Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 100402 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.