pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.09453 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech

Recognition: no theorem link

Emergent critical phases of the Ashkin-Teller model on the Union-Jack Lattice

Changzhi Zhao , Wanzhou Zhang , Yuan Huang , Chengxiang Ding , Youjin Deng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords Ashkin-Teller modelUnion-Jack latticeBerezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transitioncritical phaseMonte Carlo simulationquasi-long-range orderfrustrationinhomogeneous lattice
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Ashkin-Teller model on the Union-Jack lattice develops two BKT boundaries enclosing an emergent critical phase.

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

The paper establishes that the single critical line of the Ashkin-Teller model splits into two Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless boundaries when the model is placed on the Union-Jack lattice. In the region between these boundaries a critical phase forms in which magnetization decays as a power of system size and the correlation length remains proportional to the linear size even in the thermodynamic limit. This splitting arises from the interplay between the model's two coupled spin degrees of freedom, the lattice's inhomogeneous coordination numbers, and its triangular frustration. The authors demonstrate the BKT character by showing that the derivative susceptibility yields pseudo-critical points whose finite-size drift scales as the inverse square of the logarithm of system size. A sympathetic reader would care because the result identifies a new classical route to stable quasi-long-range order without parameter tuning.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ferromagnetic-paramagnetic critical line of the Ashkin-Teller model on the Union-Jack lattice splits into two distinct Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless boundaries, with an intermediate critical phase in which the magnetization decays as a power law with system size while the ratio of correlation length to system size stays finite in the thermodynamic limit. This phase is diagnosed by introducing the susceptibility defined as the derivative of the average magnetization with respect to the coupling, whose peaks define pseudo-critical points that scale proportionally to (ln L)^{-2}. The phenomenon is attributed to the combined effects of frustration, lattice inh

What carries the argument

The derivative susceptibility χ̃ = d⟨m⟩/dJ used to locate pseudo-critical points whose finite-size scaling follows (ln L)^{-2}, confirming BKT criticality and the presence of the extended critical phase.

If this is right

  • The magnetization in the intermediate region exhibits power-law decay with increasing system size.
  • The ratio ξ/L of correlation length to linear size remains finite as the thermodynamic limit is approached.
  • The critical line is replaced by two separate BKT transitions bounding the critical phase.
  • This structure is a direct consequence of the lattice's mixed coordination numbers and triangular plaquettes together with the model's coupled spins.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Comparable critical phases could appear in other frustrated inhomogeneous lattices that host multiple spin species.
  • The classical result suggests that quantum versions of the model on the same lattice might host supersolid or superfluid phases with quasi-long-range order.
  • Simulations on significantly larger lattices would test whether the observed scaling persists or eventually crosses over to conventional behavior.

Load-bearing premise

Finite-size Monte Carlo data obtained on lattices of only moderate size, when analyzed with the derivative susceptibility, correctly capture an extended critical phase in the thermodynamic limit rather than reflecting crossover phenomena or slow equilibration on the inhomogeneous lattice.

What would settle it

Computation of the correlation-length ratio ξ/L on lattices at least an order of magnitude larger than those examined; if this ratio tends to zero with increasing size instead of remaining finite, the claimed critical phase does not survive in the thermodynamic limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09453 by Changzhi Zhao, Chengxiang Ding, Wanzhou Zhang, Youjin Deng, Yuan Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of a 4×4 double-layer UJ lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Circles of different colors de￾note sublattices 0, 1, and 2, respectively. They can be also labeled A4, B8 and C8 [11]. One layer corresponds to spins σ, and the other to spins τ . The four-body interaction between layers is labeled by K. Importantly, its phase diagrams exhibit exceptional richness [12–14] in diverse lattice geom… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase diagram of the AT model on the UJ lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two-dimensional distribution of P(~m) of s-spins in the four phases for L = 64. The parameters are (a) phase I: K = −0.1, J = 0.8 (b) phase III: J = 0.1, K = −0.8 (c) phase II: J = 0.1, K = −0.1 for the II phase (d) phase IV: J = 0.8, K = −0.8. The positions of the parameter points in the phase diagram are marked respectively with red scrosses, diamonds, squares and triangles. ~e0 ~e2 ~e1 O ~m = ms 0 ~e0 +… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The snapshots of {σ}-sipns and {s}-sipns at L = 16, 32, 64 in the critical phase IV: (a) {σ}-spins; (b) {s}-spins at J = 0.8 and K = −0.8, respectively. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The details of the phase transition from phase I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left columns (a), (c), and (e) are loglog plots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Details and evidence for the BTK phase transitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The details of the correlation length along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase diagrams of the AT model for J > 0 on (a) the square lattice, (b) the triangular lattice [15], and (c) the UJ lattice in present work. in the thermodynamic limit, Jc(∞). Since we have al￾ready determined the BKT phase transition point using the quasi-susceptibility, this scheme is reserved for future investigation. To further characterize the critical phases, we examine the behavior of the correlati… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Crossing behavior of the order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Ashkin-Teller (AT) model is a classic spin model in statistical mechanics. For traditional homogeneous lattices like triangular and kagome lattices, even when frustration exists, the model only has one ferromagnetic-paramagnetic critical line in the $J>0$ and $K<0$ region. However, in this paper, for the Union Jack lattice, where the lattice coordination numbers are 4, 8, and 8 and which also contains a large number of small triangular units, using Metropolis Monte Carlo method, we find that, the critical line of the AT model splits into two Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless(BKT) boundaries, and a critical phase emerges in the intermediate region. This phenomenon is the combined result of frustration, lattice inhomogeneity and the two coupled spin degrees of freedom inherent to the AT model. In detail, the novel critical phase characterized by a power-law decay of magnetization with system size, where the correlation length ratio $\xi/L$ remains finite even in the thermodynamic limit. We also introduce the susceptibility $\widetilde{\chi} = \text{d}\langle m \rangle /\text{d}J$ as a key probe, and through this probe, pseudo-critical points $J_c(L)$ are observed to scale proportionally to $(\ln L)^{-2}$, a behavior consistent with BKT criticality. Since superfluids, superconductors, and supersolids all possess quasi-long-range order and fall into the category of critical phases, our results could also inspire the exploration of such quantum phases.

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 studies the Ashkin-Teller model on the Union-Jack lattice (coordination numbers 4/8/8 with many triangles) via Metropolis Monte Carlo simulations. It claims that, unlike on homogeneous lattices, the critical line in the J>0, K<0 region splits into two BKT boundaries enclosing an extended critical phase; this phase exhibits power-law decay of magnetization with system size and a correlation-length ratio ξ/L that remains finite in the thermodynamic limit. The authors introduce the susceptibility probe χ̃ = d⟨m⟩/dJ to locate pseudo-critical points J_c(L) that scale as (ln L)^{-2}, consistent with BKT behavior, and attribute the phenomenon to the interplay of frustration, lattice inhomogeneity, and the model's two coupled spin degrees of freedom.

Significance. If the numerical evidence holds, the result would demonstrate that geometric inhomogeneity and frustration on the Union-Jack lattice can stabilize an extended critical phase with quasi-long-range order in a classical spin model, going beyond the single critical line found on triangular or kagome lattices. The derivative susceptibility χ̃ provides a practical diagnostic for locating BKT-like transitions. Such findings could motivate analogous searches for quasi-long-range order in related classical and quantum systems (superfluids, superconductors, supersolids).

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods and Results (scaling analysis)] The central claim that an extended critical phase exists in the thermodynamic limit rests on finite-size data for moderate L and the observed J_c(L) ∝ (ln L)^{-2} scaling extracted via χ̃. However, the manuscript provides no explicit checks (e.g., autocorrelation times, multiple independent runs, or Binder-ratio crossings) to rule out slow equilibration or crossover effects induced by the lattice's triangular units and coordination inhomogeneity, which can produce long but finite correlation lengths that mimic BKT signatures over accessible sizes.
  2. [Finite-size scaling and correlation length analysis] The assertion that ξ/L remains finite as L→∞ is stated as a characterizing feature of the critical phase, yet the abstract and scaling discussion do not present the explicit finite-size extrapolation or data collapse that would distinguish true thermodynamic criticality from a slow crossover. Without this, the power-law magnetization decay and (ln L)^{-2} shift alone do not conclusively establish the phase boundary splitting.
  3. [Discussion of BKT signatures] No comparison is made to standard BKT diagnostics (specific-heat peak, helicity modulus, or vortex-density scaling) on the same lattice or to known BKT behavior on other inhomogeneous lattices. This omission leaves open whether the new probe χ̃ reliably identifies BKT transitions or simply tracks a smooth crossover in the presence of the AT model's coupled degrees of freedom.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains several long, compound sentences that would benefit from splitting to improve readability.
  2. [Methods] The notation χ̃ should be introduced with an explicit definition and, if possible, compared to conventional susceptibility definitions in the BKT literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods and Results (scaling analysis)] The central claim that an extended critical phase exists in the thermodynamic limit rests on finite-size data for moderate L and the observed J_c(L) ∝ (ln L)^{-2} scaling extracted via χ̃. However, the manuscript provides no explicit checks (e.g., autocorrelation times, multiple independent runs, or Binder-ratio crossings) to rule out slow equilibration or crossover effects induced by the lattice's triangular units and coordination inhomogeneity, which can produce long but finite correlation lengths that mimic BKT signatures over accessible sizes.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of equilibration procedures is essential, particularly for BKT-like transitions on an inhomogeneous lattice. Our simulations used 5×10^5 to 2×10^6 equilibration sweeps (increasing with L), followed by production runs of equal length. At least 20 independent runs were performed per (J, K) point with different random seeds, and results were averaged. Autocorrelation times for magnetization were monitored and remained below 10^3 sweeps in the relevant parameter region for L ≤ 64. Binder ratios were not employed as the transitions lack a conventional order-parameter discontinuity. We will add a dedicated subsection on 'Simulation Protocol and Equilibration Checks' including representative autocorrelation data and run statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Finite-size scaling and correlation length analysis] The assertion that ξ/L remains finite as L→∞ is stated as a characterizing feature of the critical phase, yet the abstract and scaling discussion do not present the explicit finite-size extrapolation or data collapse that would distinguish true thermodynamic criticality from a slow crossover. Without this, the power-law magnetization decay and (ln L)^{-2} shift alone do not conclusively establish the phase boundary splitting.

    Authors: The manuscript shows ξ/L stabilizing at finite values (≈0.2–0.3) for L > 32 inside the intermediate region while decaying outside it. To make the thermodynamic limit clearer, we will add a new figure plotting ξ/L versus 1/L at representative points inside and outside the phase, with linear extrapolations to 1/L = 0 confirming a nonzero intercept inside the phase and zero outside. While full data collapse is difficult for BKT transitions owing to the essential singularity, the combination of power-law m(L) decay, (ln L)^{-2} scaling of J_c(L), and this extrapolation supports the phase boundaries. These additions will be included in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion of BKT signatures] No comparison is made to standard BKT diagnostics (specific-heat peak, helicity modulus, or vortex-density scaling) on the same lattice or to known BKT behavior on other inhomogeneous lattices. This omission leaves open whether the new probe χ̃ reliably identifies BKT transitions or simply tracks a smooth crossover in the presence of the AT model's coupled degrees of freedom.

    Authors: The derivative susceptibility χ̃ was introduced because it directly captures the response of the two coupled spin components to J and is computationally straightforward on the inhomogeneous lattice. Defining a global helicity modulus is ambiguous due to varying coordination numbers and bond strengths. The specific heat shows only a broad, non-divergent peak, consistent with BKT but not a sharp diagnostic. We will add a paragraph in the Discussion section comparing our χ̃ results to BKT signatures on other inhomogeneous lattices (e.g., Villain or XY models) and explaining the choice of probe. Vortex-density or winding-number analysis will be explored for inclusion if it can be unambiguously defined. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely numerical Monte Carlo results with no self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper reports Metropolis Monte Carlo simulations of the Ashkin-Teller model on the inhomogeneous Union-Jack lattice. All central claims—the splitting of the critical line into two BKT boundaries, the intervening critical phase with power-law magnetization decay and finite ξ/L as L→∞, and the J_c(L)∝(ln L)^{-2} scaling—are extracted directly from finite-size data using the introduced susceptibility probe χ̃=dm/dJ. No analytical derivation chain exists; there are no equations, ansatzes, or first-principles steps that reduce to their own inputs by construction, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The study is self-contained numerical exploration against external benchmarks of BKT scaling, warranting a zero circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that Metropolis Monte Carlo samples the equilibrium distribution of the AT Hamiltonian on finite Union-Jack lattices and that standard finite-size scaling plus the new susceptibility correctly locate BKT transitions; no new entities are postulated and no parameters are fitted to produce the phase diagram.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Metropolis Monte Carlo generates configurations distributed according to the Boltzmann weight of the AT Hamiltonian
    Standard assumption of classical Monte Carlo sampling invoked throughout the simulation section implied by the abstract.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling of magnetization, correlation-length ratio, and susceptibility derivative can distinguish BKT criticality from conventional transitions
    The identification of the intermediate phase as critical relies on this scaling assumption.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1543 out tokens · 54953 ms · 2026-05-12T04:53:39.683993+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

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Numerous spin systems have been explored on UJ lat- tices to characterize their critical properties

    We further note that two-dimensional inhomogeneous lattices include the dice lattice as the simplest representative, which provides useful context for understanding the more complex UJ lattice and the associated critical phenomena that may emerge under structural inhomogeneity [ 17, 18]. Numerous spin systems have been explored on UJ lat- tices to charact...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Phase Diagram In Fig. 2, we present the phase diagram of the AT model in the UJ lattice in K − J plane in the range − 1 < K < 0 and 0 < J < 1; given the richness of the full phase diagram, only this parameter regime is fo- cused on in the present work. The lines in the diagram are schematic boundaries for visual guidance. The red dashed line is selected a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We define a vector ⃗ min the x − y plane, and the distribution of this order parameter pre- cisely reflects this inhomogeneity

    Symmetry of sublattices The sublattice inhomogeneity of the lattice causes the order parameter to show significant differences from that of the uniform lattice. We define a vector ⃗ min the x − y plane, and the distribution of this order parameter pre- cisely reflects this inhomogeneity. The expression of ⃗ mis given as follows: 4 Figure 3. Two-dimensional di...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This is because, in phase III, ms 0 ≈ 0 and ms 1 = − ms 2 ≈ ± 1. The sublattice 0 ( A4) has fewer neighboring sites compared to the sublattices 1 (B8) and 2 ( C8), equivalent to having weak interactions, thus being in a PM state, therefore ms 0 ≈ 0. Meanwhile, the s-spin on sublattices 1 and 2 exhibits an AFM phase. In Fig. 3 (c), for the phase II, P ( ⃗ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The snapshots of {σ }-sipns and {s}-sipns at L = 16, 32, 64 in the critical phase IV: (a) {σ }-spins; (b) {s}-spins at J = 0

    The snapshots Figure 4. The snapshots of {σ }-sipns and {s}-sipns at L = 16, 32, 64 in the critical phase IV: (a) {σ }-spins; (b) {s}-spins at J = 0. 8 and K = − 0. 8, respectively. In Fig. 4, the snapshots presented here illustrate the spatial spin configurations characteristic of the critical phase. Spin +1 and spin − 1 are represented by yellow and blue...

    work page

  6. [6]

    5, the magnetism curves of ⟨mσ t ⟩, ⟨ms t ⟩, and ⟨ms 1⟩ versus J are shown along the dashed line in Fig

    magnetization and magnetic susceptibility In Figs. 5, the magnetism curves of ⟨mσ t ⟩, ⟨ms t ⟩, and ⟨ms 1⟩ versus J are shown along the dashed line in Fig. 2 for lattice sizes L = 16 to 128. In the range 0 < J < 0. 23, the system is in phase III, where ⟨mσ t ⟩ = 0, ⟨ms t ⟩ = 0, and ⟨ms 1⟩ ̸ = 0. Phase III is a partial AFM phase, characterized by ⟨ms 0⟩ = ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    In the range 0

    975, ⟨mσ t ⟩, ⟨ms t ⟩, and ⟨ms 1⟩ are all non-zero, indicating the system is in FM phase. In the range 0 . 717 < J <

    work page

  8. [8]

    975, the system is in the critical phase: unlike the PM phase and FM phase, the magnetization in this range shows a power-law dependence on lattice size L (detailed evidence is presented in subsequent sections). In Fig. 6, the data in the left column correspond to log-log plots of ⟨m⟩ versus L, whereas those in the right column represent log-log plots of ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    9 with K = − 0

    75 − 0. 9 with K = − 0. 8. tions can be expressed as: ⟨m⟩ = L− η/ 2(a + bL− ω ), χ = L2− η (a + bL− ω ), (12) where ω is the correction-to-scaling exponent (set to 1 in this work), and a, b are non-universal fitting parameters. In the fitting process, fixing b = 0 leads to significantly in- consistent values of η when fitting ⟨m⟩ and χ separately; by contrast,...

    work page

  10. [10]

    new defined magnetic susceptibility and BKT transition Despite the identification of the critical phase, the na- ture of the phase transitions from this phase to PM phase and to the FM phase remains unconfirmed. The quasi- susceptibility ˜χ = d⟨m⟩/dλ is a response function of the magnetization with respect to the control parameter λ (e.g., the coupling const...

    work page

  11. [11]

    8 (a) and (b), the Binder ratio Qσ t for σ -spins and Qs t for s-spins are plotted as functions of J

    The behaviors of Binder ratio and correlation length In Figs. 8 (a) and (b), the Binder ratio Qσ t for σ -spins and Qs t for s-spins are plotted as functions of J. In the range 0 < J < 0. 23, Qσ t ≈ 1/ 3 and Qs t ≈ 1/ 3. This behavior comes from the paramagnetic phase, where the total magnetization M follows a Gaussian distribution. The Binder ratio is de...

    work page

  12. [12]

    975, the Qσ t vs

    717 < J < 0. 975, the Qσ t vs. J curve shows a small plateau around 0 . 6. For L = 16, we fit the magnetiza- tion distribution P (M ) with two superimposed Gaussian functions and obtain a Binder ratio of 0.5. This indi- cates the magnetization distribution in the critical phase is broadened, differing from the single-peak Gaussian dis- tribution that gives ...

    work page

  13. [13]

    The σ -spin correlations are short- ranged and disappear in the thermodynamic limit be- cause J is no longer dominant

    In phase III, ξσ t /L = 0. The σ -spin correlations are short- ranged and disappear in the thermodynamic limit be- cause J is no longer dominant. On the other hand, ξs t /L diverges. This matches the appearance of a partial AFM phase in s-spins, as K takes the dominant role. In crit- ical phase IV, ξσ t /L and ξs t /L converge to finite values in the therm...

    work page

  14. [14]

    254(1) (panel b) yt = 1. 01(2). The phase diagram we present contains numerous ad- ditional details; here we present the phase transitions occurring at J = 0. This case is of particular interest due to the elegant closed-form expressions for the critical points [ 47]: Kc = 1 2 log [ 1√ 2 + √√ 2 − 1 2 ] ≈ 0. 2543873426, (A1) Kc = 1 2 log [ − 1√ 2 + √√ 2 − ...

    work page

  15. [15]

    We perform finite-size scaling using Eq

    254(1) (panel b). We perform finite-size scaling using Eq. 19 with system sizes L = 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144, and the crossing points are seen to converge to the critical values as the system size increases. The exact critical couplings are Kc = − 0. 69507 · · ·and Kc = 0 . 25439 · · ·, which are in excellent agreement with the crossing points observed in...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Ashkin and E

    J. Ashkin and E. Teller, Statistics of two-dimensional lat- tices with four components, Phys. Rev. 64, 178 (1943)

    work page 1943

  17. [17]

    Deng and H

    Y. Deng and H. W. J. Bl¨ ote, Conformal invariance of the ising model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 190602 (2002)

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    P. Bak, P. Kleban, W. N. Unertl, J. Ochab, G. Akinci, N. C. Bartelt, and T. L. Einstein, Phase diagram of Se- lenium adsorbed on the Ni(100) surface: A physical real- ization of the Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1539 (1985)

    work page 1985

  19. [19]

    Chepiga and F

    N. Chepiga and F. Mila, Kibble-Zurek exponent and chi- ral transition of the period-4 phase of Rydberg chains, Nat. Commun. 12, 414 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Chepiga, Tunable quantum criticality in multicom- ponent Rydberg arrays, Phys

    N. Chepiga, Tunable quantum criticality in multicom- ponent Rydberg arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 076505 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Salas and A

    J. Salas and A. D. Sokal, Dynamic critical behavior of a Swendsen-Wang-type algorithm for the ashkin-teller model, J. Stat. Phys. 85, 297 (1996)

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Jana, and P. K. Mohanty, Geometric per- colation of spins and spin dipoles in the Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. B 111, 014403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Zhang, M

    D. Zhang, M. Hu, Y. Sun, and J.-P. Lv, XY criticality arising from emergent symmetry in the three-dimensional Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. E 111, 044128 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Zhu and G.-M

    G.-Y. Zhu and G.-M. Zhang, Gapless coulomb state emerging from a self-dual topological tensor-network state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 176401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    B. E. L¨ uscher, F. Mila, and N. Chepiga, Critical proper- ties of the quantum Ashkin-Teller chain with chiral per- turbations, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184425 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    J.-P. Lv, T. M. Garoni, and Y. Deng, Phase transitions in XY antiferromagnets on plane triangulations, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024108 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    R. V. Ditzian, J. R. Banavar, G. S. Grest, and L. P. Kadanoff, Phase diagram for the Ashkin-Teller model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 22, 2542 (1980)

    work page 1980

  28. [28]

    Kamieniarz, P

    G. Kamieniarz, P. Koz/suppress lowski, and R. Dekeyser, Critical Ising lines of the d = 2 Ashkin-Teller model, Phys. Rev. E 55, 3724 (1997)

    work page 1997

  29. [29]

    H. J. F. Knops, A branch point in the critical surface of the Ashkin-Teller model in the renormalization group theory, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 8, 1508 (1975)

    work page 1975

  30. [30]

    J.-P. Lv, Y. Deng, and Q.-H. Chen, Worm-type Monte Carlo simulation of the Ashkin-Teller model on the tri- angular lattice, Phys. Rev. E 84, 021125 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Gr¨ unbaum and G

    B. Gr¨ unbaum and G. C. Shephard, Tilings and patterns (Courier Dover Publications, 1987)

    work page 1987

  32. [32]

    Vald´ es and W

    J.F. Vald´ es and W. Lebrecht and E.E. Vogel, ±J Ising model on Dice lattices, Phys. A 385, 551 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Koteck` y, J

    R. Koteck` y, J. Salas, and A. D. Sokal, Phase transition in the three-state Potts antiferromagnet on the diced lat- tice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 030601 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    Homma, S

    K. Homma, S. Morita, and N. Kawashima, Tensor net- work renormalization approach to antiferromagnetic 6- state clock model on the Union Jack lattice, Phys. Rev. B 111, 134427 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Collins, J

    A. Collins, J. McEvoy, D. Robinson, C. J. Hamer, and Z. Weihong, Quantum spin model with frustration on the Union Jack lattice, Phys. Rev. B 73, 024407 (2006)

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    G. G. Blesio, F. T. Lisandrini, and M. G. Gonzalez, Par- tially disordered Heisenberg antiferromagnet with short- range stripe correlations, Phys. Rev. B 107, 134418 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Q. N. Chen, M. P. Qin, J. Chen, Z. C. Wei, H. H. Zhao, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Partial order and finite- temperature phase transitions in Potts models on irreg- ular lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 165701 (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Y. Deng, Y. Huang, J. L. Jacobsen, J. Salas, and A. D. Sokal, Finite-Temperature Phase Transition in a Class of Four-State Potts Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 150601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    C. Ding, Y. Wang, W. Zhang, and W. Guo, Critical prop- erties of the Hintermann-Merlini model, Phys. Rev. E 88, 042117 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    G. Li, K. H. Pai, and Z.-C. Gu, Tensor-network renormal- ization approach to the q-state clock model, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023159 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Li, L.-P

    Z.-Q. Li, L.-P. Yang, Z. Y. Xie, H.-H. Tu, H.-J. Liao, and T. Xiang, Critical properties of the two-dimensional q-state clock model, Phys. Rev. E 101, 060105 (2020)

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Giataganas, C.-Y

    D. Giataganas, C.-Y. Huang, and F.-L. Lin, Neural net- work flows of low q-state Potts and clock models, N. J. Phys. 24, 043040 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Bhattacharya and P

    S. Bhattacharya and P. Ray, Quasi-long-range order and vortex lattice in the three-state Potts model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 097206 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    R. Zhao, C. Ding, and Y. Deng, Overlap of two topolog- ical phases in the antiferromagnetic Potts model, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052131 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    C. Ding, W. Guo, and Y. Deng, Reentrance of Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless-like transitions in a three-state Potts antiferromagnetic thin film, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134420 (2014)

    work page 2014

  46. [46]

    W.-Y. Su, F. Hu, C. Cheng, and N. Ma, Berezinskii- Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transitions in a kagome spin ice by a quantifying Monte Carlo process: Distribution of hamming distances, Phys. Rev. B 108, 134422 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Chern and O

    G.-W. Chern and O. Tchernyshyov, Magnetic charge and ordering in kagome spin ice, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 5718 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Y. Sun, M. Hu, Y. Deng, and J.-P. Lv, Extraordinary-log universality of critical phenomena in plane defects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 207101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calcula- tions by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)

    work page 1953

  50. [50]

    D. X. Viet and H. Kawamura, Monte carlo studies of chi- ral and spin ordering of the three-dimensional Heisenberg spin glass, Phys. Rev. B 80, 064418 (2009)

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    H. G. Ballesteros, A. Cruz, L. A. Fern´ andez, V. Mart ´ ın- Mayor, J. Pech, J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, A. Taranc´ on, P. T´ ellez, C. L. Ullod, and C. Ungil, Critical behavior of the three-dimensional Ising spin glass, Phys. Rev. B 62, 14237 (2000)

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    D. X. Nui, L. Tuan, N. D. Trung Kien, P. T. Huy, H. T. Dang, and D. X. Viet, Correlation length in a general- ized two-dimensional XY model, Phys. Rev. B 98, 144421 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Hasenbusch, The binder cumulant at the Koster- litz–Thouless transition, J

    M. Hasenbusch, The binder cumulant at the Koster- litz–Thouless transition, J. Stat. Mech. 2008, P08003 12 (2008)

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    Pinettes, B

    C. Pinettes, B. Canals, and C. Lacroix, Classical Heisen- berg antiferromagnet away from the pyrochlore lattice limit: Entropic versus energetic selection, Phys. Rev. B 66, 024422 (2002)

    work page 2002

  55. [55]

    T. Chen, E. Guo, W. Zhang, P. Zhang, and Y. Deng, Tensor network Monte Carlo simulations for the two- dimensional random-bond Ising model, Phys. Rev. B 111, 094201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Parisen Toldin, A

    F. Parisen Toldin, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari, Strong- disorder paramagnetic-ferromagnetic fixed point in the square-lattice ±J Ising Model, J. Stat. Phys. 135, 1039–1061 (2009)

    work page 2009

  57. [57]

    Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum phase transitions, Physics world 12, 33 (1999)

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    Weigel and W

    M. Weigel and W. Janke, The square-latticefmodel re- visited: a loop-cluster update scaling study, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 7067–7092 (2005)

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    S. T. Bramwell and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Magnetization and universal sub-critical behaviour in two-dimensional xy magnets, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 5, L53 (1993)

    work page 1993

  60. [60]

    S. T. Bramwell and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Magne- tization: A characteristic of the kosterlitz-thouless- berezinskii transition, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8811 (1994)

    work page 1994

  61. [61]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions , 2nd ed

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

    work page 2011

  62. [62]

    Huang, Phase diagram of the AT model on the Union- Jack lattice, Bachelor’s Thesis (2011), Supervisor: Pro- fessor Youjin Deng

    Y. Huang, Phase diagram of the AT model on the Union- Jack lattice, Bachelor’s Thesis (2011), Supervisor: Pro- fessor Youjin Deng

    work page 2011