  In their comment, Angelini et al. object to the conclusion of [J. Phys. A:
Math. Theor., 52:445002, 2019] (1), where we show that in [Phys. Rev. B,
87:134201, 2013] the exponent $\nu$ has been obtained by applying a
mathematical relation in a regime where this relation is not valid. We observe
that the criticism above on the mathematical validity of such relation has not
been addressed in the comment. Our criticism thus remains valid, and disproves
the conclusions of the comment. This constitutes the main point of this reply.
  We also provide a point-by-point response and discussion of Angelini et al.'s
claims. First, Angelini et al. claim that the prediction $2^{1/\nu}=1$ of [1]
is incorrect, because it results from the relation $\lambda_{\rm
max}=2^{1/\nu}$ between the largest eigenvalue of the linearized
renormalization-group (RG) transformation and $\nu$, which cannot be applied to
the ensemble renormalization group (ERG) method, because for the ERG
$\lambda_{\rm max} =1 $. However, the feature $\lambda_{\rm max}=1$ is specific
to the ERG transformation and it does not give any grounds for questioning the
validity of the general relation $\lambda_{\rm max}=2^{1/\nu}$ specifically for
the ERG transformation. Second, Angelini et al. claim that $\nu$ should be
extracted from an early RG regime (A), as opposed to the asymptotic regime (B)
used to estimate $\nu$ in [1] and that (B) is dominated by finite-size effects.
Still, (A) is a small-wavelength, non-critical regime, which cannot
characterize the critical exponent $\nu$ related to the divergence of the
correlation length. Also, the fact that (B) involves finite-size effects is a
feature specific to the ERG, and gives no rationale for extracting $\nu$ from
(A).
  Finally, we refute the remaining claims made by Angelini et al., and thus
stand by our assertion that the ERG method yields a prediction given by
$2^{1/\nu}=1$.
