Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Scaling corrections in driven critical dynamics: Application to a two-dimensional dimerized quantum Heisenberg model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A factorized finite-time scaling form that includes corrections from both finite system size and finite driving rate collapses nonequilibrium quantum Monte Carlo data for the Binder cumulant and squared order parameter of the 2D dimerized…

desk verdict A useful, modest step on scaling corrections in driven critical dynamics; the central ansatz needs sharper validation, but the numerics support the qualitative claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04927 v1 pith:XQPEDI3M submitted 2025-02-07 cond-mat.stat-mech

Jing-Wen Liu , Shuai Yin , Yu-Rong Shu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords finite-timescalingcorrectionsdrivencriticaldynamicsdimerizedHeisenbergmodelnonequilibriumquantumMonteCarloBindercumulantKibble-Zurekmechanismfinite-size
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 argues that finite-time scaling (FTS) for a driven quantum phase transition only works when scaling corrections from two sources—finite system size and finite driving rate—are incorporated at once. It proposes a factorized FTS form in which the finite-size correction keeps its equilibrium coefficient while the finite-rate correction enters as a shift of the scaling variable, and it shows that this form collapses nonequilibrium quantum Monte Carlo data for the Binder cumulant and the squared order parameter of the 2D dimerized Heisenberg model, starting from either the Néel or the paramagnetic side. The practical consequence is that driven-dynamics analyses that apply only one correction will miss the true scaling regime, and the improved scaling relations derived from the full form describe large-driving-rate behavior better than the bare FTS power laws.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factorized finite-time scaling form $Q(R,L)=L^{\kappa}(1+b_Q L^{-\omega}) f_{Q1}[RL^r(1+a_Q R^{\omega/r})]$, where $RL^r$ is the FTS scaling variable, $\omega$ is the correction exponent, and $f_{Q1}$ is the scaling function of the corrected variable. The factorization lets the finite-size correction be fixed from equilibrium data and leaves only the finite-rate coefficient $a_Q$ to be fitted. The argument is carried by collapse of nonequilibrium quantum Monte Carlo data across the full range of driving rates: the finite-size factor improves the small-$R$ region, the finite-rate factor fixes the large-$R$ region, and only their combination collapses the entire scaling window.

What would settle it

Perform a free fit of both $b_U$ and $a_U$ on the Binder cumulant data at intermediate driving rates where $L^{-\omega}$ and $R^{\omega/r}$ corrections are comparable; if the best-fit $b_U$ drifts with $RL^r$, or if no single pair $(b_U,a_U)$ collapses all system sizes, the factorized form Eq. (3) is falsified. A second, model-based check is to measure the same quantities in a different $(2+1)$D Heisenberg model: the correction coefficients are nonuniversal, but the collapse quality under the same functional form should persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the general FTS ansatz $Q(R,L)=L^{\kappa} f_Q(RL^r, L^{-\omega}, R^{\omega/r})$ is the right starting point for driven critical dynamics in this model, and that its practically usable content is the approximate factorized form $Q(R,L)=L^{\kappa}(1+b_Q L^{-\omega}) f_{Q1}[RL^r(1+a_Q R^{\omega/r})]$. Here $r=z+1/\nu$ is the scaling dimension of the driving rate, $\omega=0.78$ is the correction exponent of the $(2+1)$D Heisenberg universality class, $b_Q$ is the equilibrium finite-size correction coefficient, and $a_Q$ is a new coefficient for the finite-driving-rate correction. The paper verifies the form by data collapse: with $b_U=1.22$ and $b_M=-0.17$ fixed to their equilibrium values, the fitted values $a_U=-1.18(7)$ and $a_U=-0.35(3)$ collapse the Binder cumulant for the AFM and PM starting states, while $a_M=-0.73(1)$ and $a_M=-0.12(2)$ collapse the squared order parameter. The expanded scaling form yields improved relations $M^2(R)\propto [R(1+a_M R^{\omega/r})]^{2\beta/\nu r}$ for the AFM state and its PM analogue, and these relations describe the large-$R$ slopes better than the bare FTS power laws.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two corrections factor cleanly—the finite-size correction remains the equilibrium factor $(1+b_Q L^{-\omega})$ at every driving rate while the driving-rate correction enters only through the shifted scaling variable $RL^r(1+a_Q R^{\omega/r})$—so that if $b_Q$ actually depends on $RL^r$, the fitted $a_Q$ and the improved scaling relations would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Binder cumulant and squared order parameter of the driven dimerized Heisenberg model collapse under the factorized FTS form only when both correction terms are included, so single-correction analyses in this model are incomplete.
  • The improved scaling relations $M^2(R)\propto [R(1+a_M R^{\omega/r})]^{2\beta/\nu r}$ (AFM start) and its PM analogue describe large-$R$ behavior better than the bare FTS power laws.
  • The finite-size correction dominates at small driving rates, while the finite-driving-rate correction matters at large rates, so the two corrections act in complementary regions.
  • The fitted $a_Q$ values differ between AFM and PM starting states, while $b_Q$ stays at its equilibrium value, so the factorization cleanly separates state-independent and state-dependent corrections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to calibrate $b_Q$ once in equilibrium and then extract $a_Q$ from a single driven run; if the factorized form is correct, the fitted $a_Q$ should be independent of system size.
  • The same two-correction structure should appear in other Hamiltonians of the $(2+1)$D Heisenberg universality class; the universal prediction is the collapse quality, not the numerical values of $a_Q$, which should vary with the microscopic model.
  • For quantum-device experiments that implement Kibble-Zurek driving, these results imply that apparent deviations from FTS power laws could be explained by finite-rate corrections rather than by new physics, and the improved relations provide the curve to fit against.
  • One could directly test the factorization assumption by computing the effective $b_Q$ as a function of $RL^r$; constant $b_Q$ would confirm Eq. (3), while drift would require a more general correction function.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies finite-time scaling (FTS) with scaling corrections in the driven imaginary-time dynamics of the two-dimensional columnar dimerized Heisenberg model. It proposes an approximate factorized scaling form, Eq. (3), in which finite-size corrections appear as a multiplicative factor (1 + b_Q L^{−ω}) with b_Q taken from equilibrium, and finite-driving-rate corrections enter through a shift of the scaling variable, (1 + a_Q R^{ω/r}). Using nonequilibrium quantum Monte Carlo data for the Binder cumulant and the squared order parameter, from both antiferromagnetic and paramagnetic starting states, the authors show that data collapses fail if either correction is omitted and succeed when both are included. They fit the four rate-correction coefficients a_Q by hand to achieve collapses, and they derive improved asymptotic scaling relations, Eqs. (7) and (9), which they compare visually with the numerics. The central claim is that both finite-size and finite-driving-rate corrections are necessary to describe the driven critical dynamics in this model.

Significance. If validated, the proposed modified FTS form would provide a practical framework for analyzing driven critical dynamics with corrections, relevant to quantum simulators and Monte Carlo studies. The paper has notable strengths: it treats two independent correction sources systematically, uses large system sizes up to L = 144, considers two different starting states, and its improved scaling relations are concrete and falsifiable. However, the central validation rests on an untested factorization ansatz, on fixing b_Q to equilibrium values without a stated convention, and on visual collapse quality with fitted coefficients. With quantitative collapse metrics and robustness checks, the paper could make a solid contribution; in its present form the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Scaling theory, Eq. (3); Figs. 2-5] The factorized form Eq. (3) is the load-bearing assumption of the paper, yet its numerical support is weaker than the text suggests. In the collapses of Figs. 2(d), 3(f), 4(e), and 5(f), b_Q is fixed to its equilibrium value and only a_Q is adjusted; since adding a fitting parameter generally improves a collapse, these panels do not by themselves establish that the factorization in Eq. (3), as opposed to an R-dependent b_Q or an additive finite-size correction, is the correct mechanism. The paper reports no collapse metric, no residual error bars, and no test of the stability of a_Q under freeing b_Q. The authors themselves note that deriving Eq. (3) from first principles is challenging, so direct validation is required. I recommend an objective collapse measure and robustness checks, including simultaneous fits of b_Q and a_Q and a comparison with the additive-correction form.
  2. [Eq. (4) and its R→0 limit] The R→0 limit of Eq. (4) is U(L) = f_U(0)(1 + b_U L^{−ω}). If the cited b_U = 1.22 from Refs. [52,64] is the coefficient in the standard additive equilibrium form U(L) = U* + b_U^{eq} L^{−ω}, then the multiplicative form used in Eq. (3) is consistent only if f_U(0) = 1, which is neither stated nor demonstrated. The paper also assumes without discussion that the same b_Q applies at all driving rates, not only in the R→0 limit. Because the fixed b_Q values enter the collapse that determines a_Q and therefore the improved scaling relations in Eqs. (7) and (9), this ambiguity can bias the central results. Please clarify the convention used for b_Q and verify the multiplicative form directly against equilibrium data.
  3. [Numerical methods, Eqs. (4)-(9)] The rescaling procedures and improved scaling relations use the exponents r, ν, β, and z through quantities such as R L^r, R^{ω/r}, and R^{2β/(νr)}, but the numerical values of ν, z, β (and hence r) are never stated in the manuscript; the figures and captions list only ω, b_Q, and a_Q. Without these values and their quoted uncertainties, the collapses are not reproducible, and the sensitivity of the conclusions to the chosen exponents cannot be assessed. Please list the values and uncertainties of all exponents used.
  4. [Eqs. (7), (9), Figs. 4(a), 5(a)] The improved scaling relations are not independent predictions. The same a_M values obtained from the data collapses are inserted into Eqs. (7) and (9), and the match with the numerical data in Figs. 4(a) and 5(a) is judged visually, so these panels are consistency checks rather than verifications. The text uses the words verify and confirms, which overstates the logical status. A quantitative comparison, such as fitting the asymptotic slope with and without the correction and reporting the goodness of fit, or predicting a_M from the slope without reference to the collapse, would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The word qauntum in the opening paragraph should be quantum, and the phrase be generalized in the final paragraph of the introduction should read can be generalized.
  2. [Eq. (6) text] The sentence mentioning the factor c1/r should read c^{1/r}.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] In the caption of Fig. 5, the last sentence says the correction power and coefficients are given in (e), but the relevant panel is (f).
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase finit-R correction in the caption of Fig. 4(a) should be finite-R correction.
  5. [References and text] The text cites [52,64] for the equilibrium coefficients b_U and b_M, but the values are introduced at different places; please unify the references and clearly state which reference provides each coefficient.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The finite-driving-rate correction is fitted, not predicted: the collapse 'confirmations' use a_Q as a free parameter, and the improved scaling relations Eqs. (7) and (9) reuse the same fitted a_M, making the agreement a consistency check rather than a parameter-free verification.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Scaling theory; numerical results for the Binder cumulant from the AFM state, Eq. (4) and Fig. 2(d)]
    "Here the value of bU is fixed and aU is adjustable. By performing data collapse, we find aU = −1.18(7), with the number in parentheses representing one standard deviation, the rescaled curves collapse successfully in the entire scaling region, confirming the validity of Eq. (4), as shown in Fig. 2(d)."

    aU is the only free parameter in Eq. (4) and is obtained by fitting the very curves that are then said to 'confirm' the equation. A one-parameter rescaling always improves a data collapse, and the paper supplies no collapse metric or test with bU freed. The claim that the finite-R correction is necessary therefore rests entirely on the fitted value, making the confirmation a consistency check rather than an independent validation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Numerical results for M^2 from the AFM state, Eq. (7) and Fig. 4(a)]
    "In addition, substituting with aM = −0.73 into Eq. (7), we find in Fig. 4(a) that with the finit-R correction included, the improved scaling relation Eq. (7) can better describe the behavior of M 2 in the large- R region."

    Eq. (7) is derived from Eq. (6), the same scaling form whose coefficient aM was fitted to collapse the M^2 data in Fig. 4(e). Inserting the fitted aM back into Eq. (7) and then observing that the data match the resulting slope is not a prediction; it is the fitted model restated. The agreement is forced by the construction of the collapse, because any successful collapse with the same aM implies the rescaled quantity is flat in the large-R region.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Numerical results for M^2 from the PM state, Eq. (9) and Fig. 5(a)]
    "Still, we find that with the finite-R correction, the improved scaling relation Eq. (9) with aM = −0.12 describes the behavior of M 2(R) slightly better, as seen in Fig. 5(a)."

    The value aM = −0.12 was fit by collapsing the same M^2(R,L) data in Fig. 5(f). Eq. (9) is an algebraic consequence of Eq. (8) with this fitted coefficient, so the 'slightly better' description is a restatement of the fit, not an independent check of the improved scaling relation.

full rationale

The paper's critical exponents, critical point, and equilibrium finite-size coefficients are taken from outside the present data (Refs. [52], [63], [64]), so the mere use of those inputs is not circular; the self-citation to Ref. [64] for bU and bM is not load-bearing in a circular way because those are equilibrium quantities determined independently of the NEQMC driving data. However, the paper's central new element, the finite-driving-rate correction, is introduced through the factorized ansatz Eq. (3), which the paper concedes it cannot derive: 'Although deriving Eq. (3) from first principle is challenging.' The only validation offered is a data collapse in which bU and bM are fixed to equilibrium values and aU or aM is adjusted. Because the adjustable coefficient is fit to the same data, the resulting collapse is a consistency check rather than a confirmation of Eq. (3). More importantly, the 'improved scaling relations' Eqs. (7) and (9) are obtained by substituting the fitted aM into analytic rearrangements of the same fitted form, and the paper presents the agreement as verification. That is a fitted input called a prediction: the slope agreement in Figs. 4(a) and 5(a) is forced by the successful collapse that used the same aM. No collapse metric, residual error bars, or test with bQ freed is provided, so the quantitative content of the finite-R correction (the aQ values and the improved relations) reduces to the fit. The existence of a scaling-correction mechanism is external and not circular, but the paper's specific quantitative claims are not parameter-free predictions; hence the partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling analysis rests on the FTS framework from prior work, the factorized correction ansatz introduced here, and external critical exponent and finite-size coefficient values. The only parameters fitted to the present data are the four rate-correction coefficients a_Q. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • a_U (AFM starting state) = -1.18(7)
    Coefficient of the finite-driving-rate correction in the Binder cumulant scaling form Eq. (4), obtained by data collapse in Fig. 2(d).
  • a_U (PM starting state) = -0.35(3)
    Coefficient of the finite-driving-rate correction in Eq. (4), obtained by data collapse in Fig. 3(f).
  • a_M (AFM starting state) = -0.73(1)
    Coefficient of the finite-driving-rate correction in Eq. (6), obtained by data collapse in Fig. 4(e).
  • a_M (PM starting state) = -0.12(2)
    Coefficient of the finite-driving-rate correction in Eq. (8), obtained by data collapse in Fig. 5(f).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The full FTS scaling form Q = L^kappa f(RL^r, L^-omega, R^(omega/r)) holds for driven critical dynamics.
    Stated as Eq. (2), grounded in Refs. [18-23] and the formal discussion in Ref. [20].
  • ad hoc to paper The approximate factorization Eq. (3) captures the leading corrections, with the finite-size correction factor (1 + b_Q L^-omega) independent of the scaling variable and the finite-R correction entering only through the argument shift (1 + a_Q R^(omega/r)).
    The paper states deriving Eq. (3) from first principles is challenging and motivates it by the R to 0 and large-R limits.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-size correction coefficients b_U and b_M equal their equilibrium values (1.22 and -0.17) for all driving rates.
    The paper fixes b_U and b_M to prior equilibrium estimates [52,64] and does not test for dependence on the FTS variable.
  • domain assumption Imaginary-time driven dynamics reproduces the same scaling behavior as real-time dynamics, with identical critical dimensions for the driving rate R.
    Invoked in the Method section, citing Refs. [28,60].
  • domain assumption The dimerized Heisenberg model belongs to the (2+1)D O(3) universality class with omega = 0.78 and qc = 1.90951(5).
    Taken from Refs. [52,63]; all data collapse analyses assume these values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling corrections in driven critical dynamics: Application to a two-dimensional dimerized quantum Heisenberg model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQPEDI3M

@misc{pith2026250204927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling corrections in driven critical dynamics: Application to a two-dimensional dimerized quantum Heisenberg model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQPEDI3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04927}
}
read the original abstract

Driven critical dynamics in quantum phase transitions holds significant theoretical importance, and also practical applications in fast-developing quantum devices. While scaling corrections have been shown to play important roles in fully characterizing equilibrium quantum criticality, their impact on nonequilibrium critical dynamics has not been extensively explored. In this work, we investigate the driven critical dynamics in a two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg model. We find that in this model the scaling corrections arising from both finite system size and finite driving rate must be incorporated into the finite-time scaling form in order to properly describe the nonequilibrium scaling behaviors. In addition, improved scaling relations are obtained from the expansion of the full scaling form. We numerically verify these scaling forms and improved scaling relations for different starting states using the nonequilibrium quantum Monte Carlo algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the phase diagram and the driven criti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Dependence of the Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Dependence of the Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Dependence of the squared order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Dependence of the squared order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Dziarmaga, Advances in Physics 59, 1063 (2010)

    J. Dziarmaga, Advances in Physics 59, 1063 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Polkovnikov, K

    A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Vengalat- tore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Advances in Physics 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Mitra, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 245 (2018)

    A. Mitra, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 245 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    W. H. Zurek, Nature 317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  8. [8]

    Laguna and W

    P. Laguna and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2519 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Hindmarsh and A

    M. Hindmarsh and A. Rajantie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4660 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Chuang, R

    I. Chuang, R. Durrer, N. Turok, and B. Yurke, Science 251, 1336 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

    Dziarmaga, Phys

    J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5485 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 105701 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Dziarmaga, Phys

    J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 245701 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Damski and W

    B. Damski and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130402 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Lamporesi, S

    G. Lamporesi, S. Donadello, S. Serafini, F. Dalfovo, and G. Ferrari, Nature Physics 9, 656 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Navon, A

    N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science 347, 167 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    K. Du, X. Fang, C. Won, C. De, F.-T. Huang, W. Xu, H. You, F. J. G´ omez-Ruiz, A. del Campo, and S.-W. Cheong, Nature Physics 19, 1495 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    S. Gong, F. Zhong, X. Huang, and S. Fan, New Journal of Physics 12, 043036 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Zhong and Z

    F. Zhong and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 71, 132402 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo method in science and engineering, edited by S

    F. Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo method in science and engineering, edited by S. Mordechai (Inte- chOpen, Rijeka, 2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Yin, B. Feng, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134108 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    B. Feng, S. Yin, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 94, 144103 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    S. Yin, P. Mai, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 89, 094108 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, arXiv: 2403.19258 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, arXiv: 2408.06138 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    W. Wang, S. Liu, J. Li, S.-X. Zhang, and S. Yin, arXiv: 2411.06648 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Deng, G. Ortiz, and L. Viola, Europhysics Letters 84, 67008 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    De Grandi, A

    C. De Grandi, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 84, 224303 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Kolodrubetz, B

    M. Kolodrubetz, B. K. Clark, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 015701 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Chandran, A

    A. Chandran, A. Erez, S. S. Gubser, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 86, 064304 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    L. W. Clark, L. Feng, and C. Chin, Science 354, 606 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Keesling, A

    A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 568, 207 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Ebadi, A

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pichler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Sci...

    2022

  26. [34]

    A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann...

    2023

  27. [35]

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

    1997

  28. [36]

    A. W. Sandvik, AIP Conference Proceedings 1297, 135 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Chakravarty, B

    S. Chakravarty, B. I. Halperin, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1057 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    R. R. P. Singh, M. P. Gelfand, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2484 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B 39, 9760 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    A. J. Millis and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2810 (1993)

    1993

  33. [41]

    A. V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. B 49, 11919 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    Troyer, H

    M. Troyer, H. Kontani, and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3822 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Kim and M

    J.-K. Kim and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2705 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    Matsumoto, C

    M. Matsumoto, C. Yasuda, S. Todo, and H. Takayama, Phys. Rev. B 65, 014407 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    L. Wang, K. S. D. Beach, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. 7 Rev. B 73, 014431 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Giamarchi, C

    T. Giamarchi, C. Ruegg, and O. Tchernyshyov, Nature Physics 4, 198 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Sachdev, Nature Physics 4, 173 (2008)

    S. Sachdev, Nature Physics 4, 173 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Merchant, B

    P. Merchant, B. Normand, K. W. Kramer, M. Boehm, D. F. McMorrow, and C. Ruegg, Nature Physics 10, 373 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Loh¨ ofer, T

    M. Loh¨ ofer, T. Coletta, D. G. Joshi, F. F. Assaad, M. Vo- jta, S. Wessel, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 92, 245137 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Wenzel, L

    S. Wenzel, L. Bogacz, and W. Janke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 127202 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Y. Q. Qin, B. Normand, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 92, 214401 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    N. Ma, P. Weinberg, H. Shao, W. Guo, D.-X. Yao, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 117202 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    J. Wu, W. Yang, C. Wu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B 97, 224405 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Tan, C.-D

    D.-R. Tan, C.-D. Li, and F.-J. Jiang, Phys. Rev. B 97, 094405 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Tan and F.-J

    D.-R. Tan and F.-J. Jiang, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054420 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    A. W. Sandvik and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2777 (1994)

    1994

  49. [57]

    H. M. Rønnow, D. F. McMorrow, R. Coldea, A. Harrison, I. D. Youngson, T. G. Perring, G. Aeppli, O. Sylju ˚ asen, K. Lefmann, and C. Rischel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 037202 (2001)

    2001

  50. [58]

    Manousakis, Rev

    E. Manousakis, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 1 (1991)

    1991

  51. [59]

    H. v. L¨ ohneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P. W¨ olfle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1015 (2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    Shu, S.-K

    Y.-R. Shu, S.-K. Jian, A. W. Sandvik, and S. Yin, arXiv: 2305.04771 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    De Grandi, A

    C. De Grandi, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 404216 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    C.-W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174302 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Guida and J

    R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 31, 8103 (1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    Cai, Y.-R

    J.-Q. Cai, Y.-R. Shu, X.-Q. Rao, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184303 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    C.-W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 89, 054307 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.