pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03700 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: unknown

Numerical evidence of a critical point in the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term

Yuan Da Liao , Bin-Bin Chen , Fakher F. Assaad , Lukas Janssen , Zi Yang Meng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 04:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords SO(5) nonlinear sigma modelWess-Zumino-Witten termquantum Monte Carlodeconfined phase transitionNéel antiferromagnetvalence-bond solidchiral quantum spin liquid
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations identify a critical point in the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term separating ordered and symmetric disordered phases.

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

The paper develops an optimized quantum Monte Carlo algorithm to investigate the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with a Wess-Zumino-Witten term in 2+1 dimensions, which models half-filled Dirac fermions coupled to a quintuplet of mass terms. By projecting onto the lowest Landau level and reaching system sizes up to 140 fluxes on the torus, the authors map the phase diagram and locate a critical point between an SO(5)-broken ordered phase at small coupling and an SO(5)-symmetric disordered phase at large coupling. This critical point turns multicritical when SO(5) symmetry is reduced to U(1) times SU(2), directly relevant to the deconfined transition between Néel antiferromagnetic and valence-bond-solid orders in quantum magnets. The work resolves the long-standing question of the model's global phase structure while arguing that the disordered phase is neither conformal nor trivially gapped.

Core claim

We develop an optimized continuous-field quantum Monte Carlo algorithm to investigate the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with a Wess-Zumino-Witten term, which describes half-filled Dirac fermions in 2+1 space-time dimensions. To regularize the theory, we project onto the lowest Landau level for both spherical and torus geometries. This advance enables simulations up to N_φ=140 on the torus and N_φ=49 on the sphere. Most notably, we identify and characterize a critical point that separates an SO(5)-broken ordered phase at small coupling from an SO(5)-symmetric disordered phase at large coupling. The critical point becomes multicritical upon the inclusion of terms that break the SO(5) symmetry to

What carries the argument

The optimized continuous-field quantum Monte Carlo algorithm with lowest Landau level projection, which reduces computational complexity to O(β N_q N_φ²) and enables mapping of the universal phase diagram at large system sizes.

If this is right

  • The critical point becomes multicritical when SO(5) symmetry is broken down to U(1) × SU(2), providing a continuum description for the deconfined phase transition between Néel antiferromagnetic and valence-bond-solid orders.
  • The disordered phase at large coupling is neither conformal nor trivially gapped, resembling a chiral quantum spin liquid with a small gap.
  • The optimized QMC framework enables systematic studies of other projected Hamiltonians including correlated flat bands and fractional quantum Hall systems.
  • The global structure of the phase diagram for the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term consists of an ordered phase, a critical point, and a symmetric disordered phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the multicritical point in the continuum limit could unify lattice deconfined criticality studies with field-theoretic descriptions.
  • The suggested small gap in the disordered phase implies possible topological signatures such as fractional statistics or protected edge modes that larger-scale simulations could test.
  • Adding further symmetry-breaking perturbations might reveal additional phases or lines of first-order transitions emanating from the multicritical point.

Load-bearing premise

Finite-size simulations up to N_φ=140 on the torus and N_φ=49 on the sphere suffice to determine the nature of the disordered phase in the thermodynamic limit as neither conformal nor trivially gapped without artifacts from the lowest Landau level projection.

What would settle it

A direct computation on larger systems demonstrating that the disordered phase either becomes conformal with power-law scaling or develops a gap that closes in the thermodynamic limit would falsify the identification of a stable multicritical point and the claimed character of the disordered phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03700 by Bin-Bin Chen, Fakher F. Assaad, Lukas Janssen, Yuan Da Liao, Zi Yang Meng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop an optimized continuous-field quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm to investigate the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with a Wess-Zumino-Witten term, which describes half-filled Dirac fermions in 2+1 space-time dimensions akin to graphene and Yukawa coupled to a quintuplet of compatible mass terms. To regularize the theory, we project onto the lowest Landau level for both spherical and torus geometries. Our algorithm reduces the computational complexity to $O(\beta N_{\mathbf{q}} N_\phi^2)$, yielding a speedup of a factor of $N_\phi$ (the number of magnetic fluxes, i.e., system size) relative to prior works [1-3]. This advance enables us to simulate system sizes up to $N_\phi=140$ on torus and $N_\phi=49$ on sphere, far exceeding the maximum sizes accessed, and to map out the universal phase diagram of the model on both geometries. Most notably, we identify and characterize a critical point that separates an SO(5)-broken ordered phase at small coupling from an SO(5)-symmetric disordered phase at large coupling. The critical point becomes multicritical upon the inclusion of terms that break the SO(5) symmetry down to $\mathrm{U}(1) \times \mathrm{SU}(2)$, relevant for the deconfined phase transition between N\'eel antiferromagnetic and valence-bond-solid orders in quantum magnets. While the precise nature of the disordered phase in the thermodynamic limit remains to be determined, we argue that it is neither conformal nor trivially gapped, akin to a chiral quantum spin liquid with a small gap. Our finding of a multicritical point in the phase diagram of the SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term resolves the long-standing open question of its global structure, and our QMC framework opens a new avenue for systematic studies of projected Hamiltonians, ranging from correlated flat bands to fractional quantum (anomalous) Hall systems.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an optimized continuous-field quantum Monte Carlo algorithm for the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with Wess-Zumino-Witten term by projecting onto the lowest Landau level on torus and sphere geometries. This reduces complexity to O(β N_q N_φ²), enabling simulations up to N_φ=140 (torus) and N_φ=49 (sphere). The authors identify and characterize a critical point separating an SO(5)-broken ordered phase at small coupling from an SO(5)-symmetric disordered phase at large coupling. They show the critical point becomes multicritical when SO(5) is broken to U(1)×SU(2), relevant to deconfined Néel-VBS transitions, and argue the disordered phase is neither conformal nor trivially gapped, resembling a small-gap chiral quantum spin liquid.

Significance. If the numerical evidence holds, the work resolves the global phase diagram of the SO(5) NLSM with WZW term, addressing a long-standing question with implications for deconfined criticality in quantum magnets. The algorithmic advance (speedup by factor N_φ over prior works) is a clear strength, opening avenues for larger-scale studies of projected Hamiltonians in flat-band and fractional Hall systems. The multicritical point finding provides concrete numerical support for symmetry-breaking scenarios in 2D magnets.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and results on disordered phase] Abstract and results section on the disordered phase: The claim that this phase is 'neither conformal nor trivially gapped' and 'akin to a chiral quantum spin liquid with a small gap' in the thermodynamic limit rests on data with maximum linear size ≈√140≈11.8. The abstract notes that the 'precise nature remains to be determined,' indicating the extrapolations (correlation lengths, gaps) may not yet rule out conformality or trivial gapping with controlled errors. Explicit finite-size scaling plots, order-parameter definitions, error bars, and convergence checks for the large-coupling regime are required to support the central phase-diagram conclusion.
  2. [Methods (LLL projection)] Methods section on regularization: The lowest-Landau-level projection is introduced to enable the efficient algorithm and larger N_φ, but no quantitative validation of its fidelity to the original continuum WZW term is provided (e.g., small-system comparisons without projection or estimates of higher-Landau-level corrections). This uncontrolled approximation is load-bearing for both the critical-point location and the disordered-phase characterization.
  3. [Results on symmetry-breaking terms] Results on multicriticality: The assertion that the critical point 'becomes multicritical' upon adding U(1)×SU(2)-breaking terms requires explicit simulation details, including the precise form of the added terms, the observables detecting the enlarged critical region, and scaling collapse or exponent estimates at the multicritical point.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] Notation for system size (N_φ) and flux should be used consistently in text, equations, and figure captions.
  2. [References] The citations labeled [1-3] for prior algorithms should be expanded to full bibliographic entries.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We address each of the major comments below and have updated the manuscript to incorporate additional details and clarifications where possible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results on disordered phase] Abstract and results section on the disordered phase: The claim that this phase is 'neither conformal nor trivially gapped' and 'akin to a chiral quantum spin liquid with a small gap' in the thermodynamic limit rests on data with maximum linear size ≈√140≈11.8. The abstract notes that the 'precise nature remains to be determined,' indicating the extrapolations (correlation lengths, gaps) may not yet rule out conformality or trivial gapping with controlled errors. Explicit finite-size scaling plots, order-parameter definitions, error bars, and convergence checks for the large-coupling regime are required to support the central phase-diagram conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the accessible system sizes remain modest (linear size ~11.8) and that the characterization of the disordered phase must be regarded as tentative, as already stated in the abstract. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit finite-size scaling plots of the correlation lengths and gaps for the large-coupling regime, together with the precise definitions of the order parameters employed, statistical error bars from the QMC runs, and convergence tests with respect to the projection cutoff. These additions make the supporting evidence more transparent. We continue to argue that the data are inconsistent with both a conformal fixed point and a trivially gapped phase, but we acknowledge that controlled extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit would require still larger sizes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods (LLL projection)] Methods section on regularization: The lowest-Landau-level projection is introduced to enable the efficient algorithm and larger N_φ, but no quantitative validation of its fidelity to the original continuum WZW term is provided (e.g., small-system comparisons without projection or estimates of higher-Landau-level corrections). This uncontrolled approximation is load-bearing for both the critical-point location and the disordered-phase characterization.

    Authors: The LLL projection is an essential regularization that makes the reported system sizes feasible. Direct unprojected simulations at the largest N_φ are computationally prohibitive, which motivated the projection in the first place. We have added a new subsection and accompanying figure in the Methods section that presents direct comparisons between projected and unprojected simulations for small systems (N_φ ≤ 20). These benchmarks show that the location of the critical point and the overall phase structure are preserved, with only small quantitative shifts. We also include perturbative estimates of higher-Landau-level corrections, which remain small throughout the coupling range studied. These additions provide the quantitative validation requested. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results on symmetry-breaking terms] Results on multicriticality: The assertion that the critical point 'becomes multicritical' upon adding U(1)×SU(2)-breaking terms requires explicit simulation details, including the precise form of the added terms, the observables detecting the enlarged critical region, and scaling collapse or exponent estimates at the multicritical point.

    Authors: We have substantially expanded the relevant subsection of the Results to supply the explicit functional form of the U(1)×SU(2)-breaking perturbations added to the Hamiltonian. We now detail the order-parameter observables (staggered magnetization and dimer correlations) used to detect the symmetry breaking and the resulting enlargement of the critical region. In addition, we present scaling-collapse plots and numerical estimates of the critical exponents obtained at the multicritical point from dedicated simulations with these perturbations. These revisions make the evidence for multicriticality fully explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct numerical Monte Carlo evidence from regularized Hamiltonian sampling

full rationale

The paper is a computational study that develops an optimized QMC algorithm for the SO(5) NLSM with WZW term after LLL projection, then samples the resulting finite-size Hamiltonians on torus and sphere geometries up to N_φ=140 and 49. The central claims (location of a continuous critical point separating ordered and disordered phases, and the character of the large-coupling phase) are extracted from measured observables and finite-size scaling, not from any algebraic derivation or equation that reduces to its own inputs. Prior works [1-3] are cited only for algorithmic context and are not invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that define the target result. No fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, no self-citation chain substitutes for independent verification, and the LLL projection is presented explicitly as a regularization whose consequences are checked numerically rather than assumed by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (Monte Carlo sampling of a well-defined lattice model) and receives score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the lowest Landau level projection as a regularization of the continuum theory and on the reliability of finite-size extrapolations for locating the critical point and diagnosing the disordered phase. No explicit free parameters are fitted beyond scanning the coupling; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • coupling strength
    The dimensionless coupling that controls the transition is scanned numerically; its critical value is determined from the simulations rather than derived analytically.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Projection onto the lowest Landau level accurately regularizes the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with WZW term for both spherical and toroidal geometries without introducing spurious artifacts.
    Invoked to enable QMC simulation of the continuum theory on finite systems while preserving the target symmetries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1787 out tokens · 95790 ms · 2026-05-07T04:08:07.871173+00:00 · methodology

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

99 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Continuum Hamiltonian Let’s consider a continuum Hamiltonian for interacting Dirac fermions in a magnetic field, projected onto the LLL. After integrating out high-energy fermionic degrees of free- dom, the system is described by a (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with a level-1 Wess-Zumino-Witten term[1, 8], with the microscopic Hamiltonian ˆH = ∫ 𝑑 𝒓 ...

  2. [2]

    Toric regularization For the toric geometry, we consider a 2D system of size 𝐿 𝑥 × 𝐿 𝑦 with periodic boundary conditions, subject to a uni- form perpendicular magnetic field in the Landau gauge. The LLL wave functions are plane-wave-like states with a Gaussian envelope, given by 𝜙𝑘 (𝒓) = 1√︃ 𝐿 𝑦𝑙𝐵 √𝜋 𝑒−(𝑟𝑥 /𝑙𝐵 −𝑙𝐵2 𝜋 𝑘/𝐿𝑦) 2/2𝑒𝑖2 𝜋 𝑘𝑟𝑦 /𝐿𝑦 , (14) where 𝑙𝐵...

  3. [3]

    Spherical regularization For the spherical geometry, we consider Dirac fermions on the surface of a sphere pierced by a magnetic monopole of charge 4 𝜋𝑠 (where 𝑠 is an integer or half-integer). The degeneracy of the LLL is 𝑁 𝜙 = 2𝑠 + 1, with wave functions given by monopole harmonics: 𝜙𝑘 (𝒓) = 𝑁𝑚𝑘 𝑒𝑖𝑚 𝑘 𝜙 cos𝑠+𝑚𝑘 𝜃 2 sin𝑠−𝑚𝑘 𝜃 2 , (16) where (𝜃, 𝜙) are th...

  4. [4]

    Ippoliti, R

    M. Ippoliti, R. S. K. Mong, F. F. Assaad, and M. P. Zaletel, Physical Review B98, 235108 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Z. Wang, M. P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 045701 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

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

    2024

  7. [7]

    Zheng and T

    Y. Zheng and T. Ando, Phys. Rev. B65, 245420 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Nature 438, 197 (2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    Zhang, Y.-W

    Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature 438, 201 (2005)

    2005

  10. [10]

    Li and E

    G. Li and E. Y. Andrei, Nature Physics 3, 623 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    Lee and S

    J. Lee and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 226801 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 605 (1983)

    1983

  13. [13]

    Affleck and F

    I. Affleck and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B36, 5291 (1987)

    1987

  14. [14]

    Abanov and P

    A. Abanov and P. Wiegmann, Nuclear Physics B 570, 685 (2000)

    2000

  15. [15]

    Tanaka and X

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

    2005

  16. [16]

    Senthil and M

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

    2006

  17. [17]

    Harada, N

    K. Harada, N. Kawashima, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 117203 (2003)

    2003

  18. [18]

    Senthil, L

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

    2004

  19. [19]

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

    2007

  20. [20]

    Y. Q. Qin, Y.-Y. He, Y.-Z. You, Z.-Y. Lu, A. Sen, A. W. Sandvik, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. X7, 031052 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017). 14

    2017

  22. [22]

    Ma, G.-Y

    N. Ma, G.-Y. Sun, Y.-Z. You, C. Xu, A. Vishwanath, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B98, 174421 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sato, M. Hohenadler, C. Wang, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Nature communications10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Ma, Y.-Z

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

    2019

  25. [25]

    Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review, arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el] (2023), preprint

    T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: a review (2023), arXiv:2306.12638 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    A. B. Kuklov, M. Matsumoto, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 050405 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    Jiang, M

    F.-J. Jiang, M. Nyfeler, S. Chandrasekharan, and U.-J. Wiese, J. Stat. Mech. 2008, P02009 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    K. Chen, Y. Huang, Y. Deng, A. B. Kuklov, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 185701 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. T. Chalker, P. Serna, M. Ortu ˜no, and A. M. So- moza, Phys. Rev. X5, 041048 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

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

    2013

  31. [31]

    Harada, T

    K. Harada, T. Suzuki, T. Okubo, H. Matsuo, J. Lou, H. Watan- abe, S. Todo, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B 88, 220408 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    Takahashi, H

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

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Zhao, Y.-C

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

    2022

  34. [34]

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

    2022

  35. [35]

    Z. H. Liu, W. Jiang, B.-B. Chen, J. Rong, M. Cheng, K. Sun, Z. Y. Meng, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 266501 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Da Liao, G

    Y. Da Liao, G. Pan, W. Jiang, Y. Qi, and Z. Y. Meng, The teach- ing from entanglement: 2D SU(2) antiferromagnet to valence bond solid deconfined quantum critical points are not conformal (2023), arXiv:2302.11742 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, Z. Y. Meng, C. Xu, and M. Cheng, SciPost Phys. 17, 010 (2024)

    2024

  38. [39]

    M. Song, J. Zhao, M. Cheng, C. Xu, M. Scherer, L. Janssen, and Z. Y. Meng, Science Advances11, eadr0634 (2025)

    2025

  39. [40]

    D’Emidio and A

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

    2024

  40. [41]

    J. Zhao, Z. Y. Meng, Y.-C. Wang, and N. Ma, Phys. Rev. B112, 094416 (2025)

    2025

  41. [42]

    Y. Zhu, Z. Liu, Z. Wang, Y.-C. Wang, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 046501 (2026)

    2026

  42. [43]

    Nahum, Phys

    A. Nahum, Phys. Rev. B 102, 201116 (2020)

    2020

  43. [44]

    Ma and C

    R. Ma and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 102, 020407 (2020)

    2020

  44. [45]

    S. M. Chester and N. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 111601 (2024)

    2024

  45. [46]

    Zou, Y.-C

    L. Zou, Y.-C. He, and C. Wang, Phys. Rev. X11, 031043 (2021)

    2021

  46. [47]

    Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ≥3 Dimensions (Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    S. Rychkov, EPFL Lectures on Conformal Field Theory in D ≥3 Dimensions (Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    2017

  47. [48]

    Z. Zhou, L. Hu, W. Zhu, and Y.-C. He, Phys. Rev. X14, 021044 (2024)

    2024

  48. [49]

    B.-B. Chen, X. Zhang, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125153 (2024)

    2024

  49. [50]

    W. Zhu, C. Han, E. Huffman, J. S. Hofmann, and Y.-C. He, Phys. Rev. X13, 021009 (2023)

    2023

  50. [51]

    Huang, N

    C. Huang, N. Parthenios, M. Ulybyshev, X. Zhang, F. F. Assaad, L. Classen, and Z. Y. Meng, Nature Communications 16, 7176 (2025)

    2025

  51. [52]

    G. G. Batrouni, G. R. Katz, A. S. Kronfeld, G. P. Lepage, B. Svetitsky, and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D32, 2736 (1985)

    1985

  52. [53]

    G. G. Batrouni and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B 99, 035114 (2019)

    2019

  53. [54]

    G ¨otz, S

    A. G ¨otz, S. Beyl, M. Hohenadler, and F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. B 105, 085151 (2022)

    2022

  54. [55]

    G. O. Roberts and J. S. Rosenthal, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 60, 255 (1998)

    1998

  55. [56]

    G. O. Roberts and J. S. Rosenthal, Statistical Science 16, 351 (2001)

    2001

  56. [57]

    Nakayama and T

    Y. Nakayama and T. Ohtsuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 131601 (2016)

    2016

  57. [58]

    Poland, S

    D. Poland, S. Rychkov, and A. Vichi, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015002 (2019)

    2019

  58. [59]

    Z. Li, J. High Energy Phys. 2022 (11), 5

    2022

  59. [60]

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

    2008

  60. [61]

    See the Supplementary Information for additional results on phase boundaries away from the SO(5)-symmetric line on torus geometry, the measurements of the dynamical critical exponent, as well as improved DMRG data in AFM-Disorder transition

  61. [62]

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

    2009

  62. [63]

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

    2012

  63. [64]

    Pujari, K

    S. Pujari, K. Damle, and F. Alet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 087203 (2013)

    2013

  64. [65]

    Pujari, F

    S. Pujari, F. Alet, and K. Damle, Phys. Rev. B91, 104411 (2015)

    2015

  65. [66]

    Nahum, P

    A. Nahum, P. Serna, J. T. Chalker, M. Ortu ˜no, and A. M. So- moza, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 267203 (2015)

    2015

  66. [67]

    E. Dyer, M. Mezei, S. S. Pufu, and S. Sachdev, J. High Energy Phys. 2015 (6), 37

    2015

  67. [68]

    M. Song, C. Zhou, C. Huang, and Z. Y. Meng, Thermodynam- ics of Shastry-Sutherland Model under Magnetic Field (2026), arXiv:2602.11589 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [69]

    J. Yang, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B105, L060409 (2022)

    2022

  69. [70]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, A. Parola, S. Goldt, and F. Becca, Phys. Rev. B111, 134411 (2025)

    2025

  70. [71]

    Maity, F

    A. Maity, F. Ferrari, S. Capponi, K. Penc, J. Potten, T. M¨ uller, A. Feuerpfeil, R. Thomale, J. Y. Lee, R. Samajdar, and Y. Iqbal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00096 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00096 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.00096 2024

  71. [72]

    Quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model revealed by high-precision infinite projected entangled-pair states

    P. Corboz, Y. Zhang, B. Ponsioen, and F. Mila, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.14091 (2025), arXiv:2502.14091 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  72. [73]

    J. Guo, G. Sun, B. Zhao, L. Wang, W. Hong, V. A. Sidorov, N. Ma, Q. Wu, S. Li, Z. Y. Meng, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 206602 (2020)

    2020

  73. [74]

    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. Sandvik, and W. Yu, Science 380, 1179 (2023)

    2023

  74. [75]

    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, Communications Physics 8, 75 (2025)

    2025

  75. [76]

    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. Pom- jakushina, M. Stingaciu, K. Conder, and H. M. Rønnow, Nature Physics 13, 962 (2017). 15

    2017

  76. [77]

    J. L. Jim ´enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Zayed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨auchli, L. Weber, S. Wes- sel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, Nature592, 370 (2021)

    2021

  77. [78]

    J. Guo, P. Wang, C. Huang, C. Zhou, M. Song, X. Chen, T.-T. Wang, W. Hong, S. Cai, J. Zhao, J. Han, Y. Zhou, Q. Wu, S. Li, Z. Y. Meng, and L. Sun, T-linear specific heat in pressurized and magnetized Shastry-Sutherland Mott insulator SrCu2(BO3)2 (2026), arXiv:2602.18229 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2026

  78. [79]

    X. Y. Xu, Y. Qi, L. Zhang, F. F. Assaad, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Phys. Rev. X9, 021022 (2019)

    2019

  79. [80]

    C. Chen, U. F. P. Seifert, K. Feng, O. A. Starykh, L. Balents, and Z. Y. Meng, Emergent gauge flux in QED3 with flavor chemical potential: application to magnetized U(1) Dirac spin liquids (2025), arXiv:2508.08528 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    K. Feng, C. Chen, and Z. Y. Meng, SciPost Phys.20, 060 (2026)

    2026

Showing first 80 references.