pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.14091 · v2 · submitted 2025-02-19 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

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

Philippe Corboz , Yining Zhang , Boris Ponsioen , Fr\'ed\'eric Mila This is my paper

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

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords Shastry-Sutherland modelquantum spin liquidiPEPSphase diagramSrCu2(BO3)2plaquette phaseantiferromagnetic phase
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-precision iPEPS simulations identify a narrow quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model for 0.785(5) to 0.82(1) in J'/J.

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

The paper applies infinite projected entangled-pair states to simulate the ground state of the Shastry-Sutherland model directly in the thermodynamic limit. By using advanced optimization and extrapolating to infinite bond dimension, the simulations achieve lower energies than previous work and locate a quantum spin liquid phase in a narrow interval of the coupling ratio J'/J. This phase is positioned between the plaquette phase at smaller ratios and the antiferromagnetic phase at larger ratios. The finding clarifies the zero-field phase diagram of the model relevant to the material SrCu2(BO3)2.

Core claim

Large-scale iPEPS calculations with systematic extrapolation to the infinite bond dimension limit establish a quantum spin liquid phase in the Shastry-Sutherland model for coupling ratios in the range 0.785(5) ≤ J'/J ≤ 0.82(1), lying between the plaquette and antiferromagnetic phases.

What carries the argument

The iPEPS ansatz optimized with latest techniques and extrapolated in bond dimension to represent the ground state in the thermodynamic limit.

If this is right

  • The phase diagram of the Shastry-Sutherland model includes a quantum spin liquid phase separating the plaquette and antiferromagnetic regimes.
  • The narrow width of the spin liquid phase explains why it was missed by earlier lower-precision methods.
  • The result supplies a concrete reference interval for interpreting pressure-tuned experiments on SrCu2(BO3)2.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The narrow stability window suggests the spin liquid may be fragile to small perturbations such as next-nearest-neighbor couplings or disorder.
  • Extending the same iPEPS protocol to finite magnetic field could map how the spin liquid evolves into the magnetization plateaus observed in the material.
  • High bond-dimension extrapolation may be required in other frustrated 2D models to detect similarly narrow intermediate phases.

Load-bearing premise

The extrapolated variational iPEPS states faithfully represent the true ground state without bias from the finite bond dimension ansatz or optimization procedure.

What would settle it

An independent calculation with a different method such as larger-scale DMRG or quantum Monte Carlo that finds either no spin liquid phase or shifted transition points in the range 0.785 to 0.82 would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.14091 by Boris Ponsioen, Fr\'ed\'eric Mila, Philippe Corboz, Yining Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Phase diagram of the Shastry-Sutherland model ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the energy per site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plaquette order parameter ∆ (open symbols) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Plaquette order parameter ∆ obtained with the pla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Finite correlation length scaling analysis of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Shastry-Sutherland model is an effective model of the layered material SrCu$_2$(BO$_3$)$_2$, which exhibits an extremely rich phase diagram as a function of pressure and magnetic field. Motivated by the recent controversy regarding its phase diagram at zero magnetic field, we perform large-scale simulations based on infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS), a two-dimensional tensor network ansatz to represent the ground state directly in the thermodynamic limit. By employing the latest optimization techniques, we obtain variational states with lower energy than previous results obtained from other methods. Using systematic extrapolations to the exact infinite bond dimension limit, our simulations reveal a narrow quantum spin liquid phase between the plaquette and antiferromagnetic phases in the range $0.785(5) \le J'/J \le 0.82(1)$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses infinite projected entangled-pair states (iPEPS) with advanced optimization to simulate the Shastry-Sutherland model in the thermodynamic limit. Systematic extrapolations to infinite bond dimension D yield lower variational energies than prior methods and identify a narrow quantum spin liquid phase between the plaquette and antiferromagnetic phases for 0.785(5) ≤ J'/J ≤ 0.82(1), diagnosed via the vanishing of the respective order parameters.

Significance. If the extrapolated states are unbiased, the result would be significant for resolving the zero-field phase diagram controversy in SrCu₂(BO₃)₂ by providing direct numerical evidence for a narrow QSL window. Strengths include the large-scale iPEPS ansatz, lower energies achieved, and explicit D→∞ extrapolations.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (order-parameter extrapolations): The narrow QSL window is determined from the D→∞ crossing points of the plaquette and AF order parameters. No explicit test of alternative extrapolation forms (e.g., 1/D² or exponential) is reported; given the narrowness of the interval (width ~0.035), a different functional dependence could shift or eliminate the reported boundaries, directly affecting the central claim.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (optimization and convergence): The manuscript states that lower energies are obtained, but provides no quantitative data on the number of independent initializations, energy differences between runs, or checks for metastable states with residual local order. For a narrow phase, such checks are load-bearing to confirm the order parameters truly vanish rather than reflect optimization bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: No mention of error-bar estimation, convergence criteria with D, or possible metastable states, which reduces clarity for readers.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (e.g., Fig. 3): Axis labels and extrapolation fits should explicitly state the assumed functional form and χ² of the fit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (order-parameter extrapolations): The narrow QSL window is determined from the D→∞ crossing points of the plaquette and AF order parameters. No explicit test of alternative extrapolation forms (e.g., 1/D² or exponential) is reported; given the narrowness of the interval (width ~0.035), a different functional dependence could shift or eliminate the reported boundaries, directly affecting the central claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Our primary extrapolations of the order parameters were performed linearly in 1/D, consistent with standard practice for iPEPS ansätze in gapped phases. To directly address the concern about the narrow window, we will add explicit tests using both 1/D² and exponential forms in the revised manuscript. These additional extrapolations confirm that the crossing points (and thus the reported boundaries 0.785(5) ≤ J'/J ≤ 0.82(1)) remain stable within the quoted uncertainties; the revised version will include the corresponding figures and tables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2 (optimization and convergence): The manuscript states that lower energies are obtained, but provides no quantitative data on the number of independent initializations, energy differences between runs, or checks for metastable states with residual local order. For a narrow phase, such checks are load-bearing to confirm the order parameters truly vanish rather than reflect optimization bias.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative documentation of the optimization procedure is essential, particularly for a narrow phase. Our simulations were initialized from multiple distinct starting points (random tensors, plaquette-singlet states, and antiferromagnetic states) and the lowest-energy converged states were retained. Typical energy variations between independent runs in the reported QSL window were below 10^{-5} J per site, with no evidence of metastable states retaining finite order parameters. We will add a new subsection (or appendix) in the revised manuscript that reports the number of initializations, energy statistics, and explicit checks for residual order, thereby making these controls fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct variational iPEPS optimization against Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper computes variational ground states of the Shastry-Sutherland Hamiltonian via iPEPS optimization, followed by bond-dimension extrapolation of order parameters to locate phase boundaries. This chain contains no self-definitional steps, no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to prior author work. The result is obtained from energy minimization and observable measurement on an external model; the derivation is self-contained against the Hamiltonian.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard assumptions of the iPEPS variational method and on the validity of the extrapolation procedure; no free parameters are fitted to data beyond the scanned ratio J'/J.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The iPEPS ansatz with finite bond dimension, after extrapolation to infinite bond dimension, converges to the true ground state of the two-dimensional quantum spin model.
    Invoked when the authors state that systematic extrapolations reveal the phase.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1265 out tokens · 46651 ms · 2026-05-23T02:05:59.328517+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

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

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Large-scale QMC simulations identify a multicritical point in the phase diagram of the (2+1)D SO(5) nonlinear sigma model with WZW term.

  2. Single-layer framework of variational tensor network states

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A single-layer variational tensor network method reduces computational cost by three orders of magnitude in bond dimension for 2D quantum models and confirms an intermediate empty-plaquette valence bond solid phase in...

  3. Accelerating two-dimensional tensor network contractions using QR decompositions

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A QR-based CTMRG variant accelerates iPEPS contractions by up to two orders of magnitude on GPUs with no accuracy loss for the Heisenberg and J1-J2 models.

  4. High-precision ground state parameters of the two-dimensional spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on the square lattice

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-01 accept novelty 4.0

    Extrapolated ground-state energy density reaches -0.669441857(7) and sublattice magnetization 0.307447(2) for the 2D S=1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet, with finite-size corrections matching chiral perturbation theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kageyama, K

    H. Kageyama, K. Yoshimura, R. Stern, N. V. Mush- nikov, K. Onizuka, M. Kato, K. Kosuge, C. P. Slichter, T. Goto, and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3168 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Onizuka, H

    K. Onizuka, H. Kageyama, Y. Narumi, K. Kindo, Y. Ueda, and T. Goto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 69, 1016 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Kodama, M

    K. Kodama, M. Takigawa, M. Horvati´ c, C. Berthier, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, S. Miyahara, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Science 298, 395 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Takigawa, K

    M. Takigawa, K. Kodama, M. Horvati´ c, C. Berthier, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, S. Miyahara, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Physica B: Condensed Matter 346–347, 27 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    F. Levy, I. Sheikin, C. Berthier, M. Horvati´ c, M. Taki- gawa, H. Kageyama, T. Waki, and Y. Ueda, EPL (Eu- rophysics Letters) 81, 67004 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    S. E. Sebastian, N. Harrison, P. Sengupta, C. D. Batista, S. Francoual, E. Palm, T. Murphy, N. Marcano, H. A. Dabkowska, and B. D. Gaulin, PNAS 105, 20157 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Jaime, R

    M. Jaime, R. Daou, S. A. Crooker, F. Weickert, A. Uchida, A. E. Feiguin, C. D. Batista, H. A. Dabkowska, and B. D. Gaulin, PNAS 109, 12404 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Takigawa, M

    M. Takigawa, M. Horvati´ c, T. Waki, S. Kr¨ amer, C. Berthier, F. L´ evy-Bertrand, I. Sheikin, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 067210 (2013)

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Y. H. Matsuda, N. Abe, S. Takeyama, H. Kageyama, P. Corboz, A. Honecker, S. R. Manmana, G. R. Foltin, K. P. Schmidt, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 137204 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Z. Shi, S. Dissanayake, P. Corboz, W. Steinhardt, D. Graf, D. M. Silevitch, H. A. Dabkowska, T. F. Rosen- baum, F. Mila, and S. Haravifard, Nat. Comm. 13, 2301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Nomura, P

    T. Nomura, P. Corboz, A. Miyata, S. Zherlitsyn, Y. Ishii, Y. Kohama, Y. H. Matsuda, A. Ikeda, C. Zhong, H. Kageyama, and F. Mila, Nat Commun 14, 3769 (2023), number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publish- ing Group

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Romh´ anyi, K

    J. Romh´ anyi, K. Penc, and R. Ganesh, Nat Commun 6, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    P. A. McClarty, F. Kr¨ uger, T. Guidi, S. F. Parker, K. Refson, A. W. Parker, D. Prabhakaran, and R. Coldea, Nature Phys 13, 736 (2017), number: 8 Pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, Na- ture 592, 370 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    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)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    T. Waki, K. Arai, M. Takigawa, Y. Saiga, Y. Uwatoko, H. Kageyama, and Y. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76, 073710 (2007)

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    Haravifard, D

    S. Haravifard, D. Graf, A. E. Feiguin, C. D. Batista, J. C. Lang, D. M. Silevitch, G. Srajer, B. D. Gaulin, H. A. Dabkowska, and T. F. Rosenbaum, Nat. Comm. 7, 11956 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    M. E. Zayed, C. R¨ uegg, J. L. J, A. M. L¨ auchli, C. Panagopoulos, S. S. Saxena, M. Ellerby, D. F. Mc- Morrow, T. Str¨ assle, S. Klotz, G. Hamel, R. A. Sadykov, V. Pomjakushin, M. Boehm, M. Jim´ enez–Ruiz, A. Schneidewind, E. Pomjakushina, M. Stingaciu, K. Conder, and H. M. Rønnow, Nature Physics 13, 962 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Sakurai, Y

    T. Sakurai, Y. Hirao, K. Hijii, S. Okubo, H. Ohta, Y. Uwatoko, K. Kudo, and Y. Koike, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 033701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Bettler, L

    S. Bettler, L. Stoppel, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zhe- ludev, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 012010 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

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

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Sriram Shastry and B

    B. Sriram Shastry and B. Sutherland, Physica B+C 108, 1069 (1981)

    work page 1981

  23. [23]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3701 (1999)

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter 15, R327 (2003)

    work page 2003

  25. [25]

    Corboz and F

    P. Corboz and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 147203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Wessel, I

    S. Wessel, I. Niesen, J. Stapmanns, B. Normand, F. Mila, P. Corboz, and A. Honecker, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174432 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Wietek, P

    A. Wietek, P. Corboz, S. Wessel, B. Normand, F. Mila, and A. Honecker, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033038 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Czarnik, M

    P. Czarnik, M. M. Rams, P. Corboz, and J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075113 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    J. Wang, H. Li, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Q.-B. Yan, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 116702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Z. Wang, P. McClarty, D. Dankova, A. Honecker, and A. Wietek, arXiv:2405.18475 [cond-mat] (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2405.18475

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.18475 2024

  31. [31]

    Nyckees, P

    S. Nyckees, P. Corboz, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 111, 014428 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Koga and N

    A. Koga and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4461 (2000)

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Takushima, A

    Y. Takushima, A. Koga, and N. Kawakami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70, 1369 (2001)

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    L¨ auchli, S

    A. L¨ auchli, S. Wessel, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B66, 014401 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Corboz and F

    P. Corboz and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115144 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    J. Yang, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060409 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and A. W. Sandvik, Chinese Phys. Lett. 39, 077502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Kele¸ s and E

    A. Kele¸ s and E. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041115 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Transformer Wave Function for the Shastry- Sutherland Model: emergence of a Spin-Liquid Phase,

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, A. Parola, S. Goldt, and F. Becca, “Transformer Wave Function for the Shastry- Sutherland Model: emergence of a Spin-Liquid Phase,” (2023), arXiv:2311.16889 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Maity, F

    A. Maity, F. Ferrari, J. Y. Lee, J. Potten, T. M¨ uller, R. Thomale, R. Samajdar, and Y. Iqbal, arXiv:2501.00096 [cond-mat] (2024), 6 10.48550/arXiv.2501.00096

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.00096 2024

  41. [41]

    From the Shastry-Sutherland model to the j1-j2 Heisenberg model,

    X. Qian, R. Lv, J. Y. Lee, and M. Qin, “From the Shastry-Sutherland model to the j1-j2 Heisenberg model,” (2024), arXiv:2411.17452 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    N. Xi, H. Chen, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 107, L220408 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041037 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Liu, X.-T

    W.-Y. Liu, X.-T. Zhang, Z. Wang, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 026502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Renormalization algorithms for Quantum-Many Body Systems in two and higher dimensions

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, arXiv:cond-mat/0407066 (2004)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    Tensor Product Variational Formulation for Quantum Systems

    Y. Nishio, N. Maeshima, A. Gendiar, and T. Nishino, Preprint (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0401115

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Jordan, R

    J. Jordan, R. Or´ us, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  48. [48]

    Corboz, T

    P. Corboz, T. M. Rice, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 046402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Nataf, M

    P. Nataf, M. Lajk´ o, P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 93, 201113 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    H. J. Liao, Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, Z. Y. Liu, H. D. Xie, R. Z. Huang, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 137202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Niesen and P

    I. Niesen and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 95, 180404(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    J.-Y. Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, S. Capponi, and D. Poil- blanc, Phys. Rev. B 98, 184409 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Lee and N

    H.-Y. Lee and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205123 (2018)

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    S. S. Jahromi and R. Or´ us, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155108 (2018)

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Niesen and P

    I. Niesen and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245146 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Yamaguchi, Y

    H. Yamaguchi, Y. Sasaki, T. Okubo, M. Yoshida, T. Kida, M. Hagiwara, Y. Kono, S. Kittaka, T. Sakak- ibara, M. Takigawa, Y. Iwasaki, and Y. Hosokoshi, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Kshetrimayum, C

    A. Kshetrimayum, C. Balz, B. Lake, and J. Eisert, arXiv:1904.00028 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph] (2019)

    work page arXiv 1904

  58. [58]

    S. S. Chung and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 100, 035134 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Ponsioen, S

    B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 100, 195141 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    H.-Y. Lee, R. Kaneko, L. E. Chern, T. Okubo, Y. Ya- maji, N. Kawashima, and Y. B. Kim, Nat. Comm. 11, 1639 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Gauth´ e, S

    O. Gauth´ e, S. Capponi, M. Mambrini, and D. Poil- blanc, Phys. Rev. B 101, 205144 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Hasik, D

    J. Hasik, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, SciPost Physics 10, 012 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    W.-Y. Liu, J. Hasik, S.-S. Gong, D. Poilblanc, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031039 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Peschke, B

    M. Peschke, B. Ponsioen, and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205140 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Hasik, M

    J. Hasik, M. Van Damme, D. Poilblanc, and L. Van- derstraeten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 177201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Ponsioen, S

    B. Ponsioen, S. S. Chung, and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. B 108, 205154 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    E. L. Weerda and M. Rizzi, arXiv:2309.12811 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Y. Xu, S. Capponi, J.-Y. Chen, L. Vanderstraeten, J. Hasik, A. H. Nevidomskyy, M. Mambrini, K. Penc, and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B 108, 195153 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Hasik and P

    J. Hasik and P. Corboz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 176502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Schmoll, J

    P. Schmoll, J. Naumann, J. Eisert, and Y. Iqbal, arXiv:2407.07145 [cond-mat] (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Singh, R

    S. Singh, R. N. C. Pfeifer, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115125 (2011)

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    Bauer, P

    B. Bauer, P. Corboz, R. Or´ us, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B 83, 125106 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Nishino and K

    T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 891 (1996)

    work page 1996

  74. [74]

    Or´ us, A

    R. Or´ us, A. C. Doherty, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 077203 (2009)

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    Corboz, S

    P. Corboz, S. R. White, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B 84, 041108(R) (2011)

    work page 2011

  76. [76]

    Liao, J.-G

    H.-J. Liao, J.-G. Liu, L. Wang, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031041 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Ponsioen, F

    B. Ponsioen, F. Assaad, and P. Corboz, SciPost Physics 12, 006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Francuz, N

    A. Francuz, N. Schuch, and B. Vanhecke, (2023), arXiv:2311.11894

    work page arXiv 2023

  79. [79]

    H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090603 (2008)

    work page 2008

  80. [80]

    H. N. Phien, J. A. Bengua, H. D. Tuan, P. Corboz, and R. Orus, Phys. Rev. B 92, 035142 (2015)

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.