Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Two-Magnon Bound States in the Kitaev Model in a $[111]$-Field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the Kitaev spin liquid, two magnons cost less to create than one, and the pair gap is what closes at the transition to the polarized phase.

desk verdict Solid numerics and a genuinely new result on two-spin thresholds in the Kitaev model, but the central 'bound state' claim is inferred, not demonstrated — worth peer review with a request for direct evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10877 v1 pith:TGFIJQ57 submitted 2019-08-28 cond-mat.str-el

Subhasree Pradhan , Niravkumar D. Patel , Nandini Trivedi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Kitaevhoneycombmodeltwo-magnonboundstatesquantumspinliquidmagnonpairinghard-corebosonsRamanscatteringexactdiagonalizationDMRG
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

This paper argues that in the Kitaev honeycomb model—a spin-1/2 model with bond-dependent Ising interactions on a honeycomb lattice—subject to a magnetic field along the $[111]$ direction, the cheapest magnetic excitation is not a single spin flip but a bound pair of spin flips. Using exact diagonalization and density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) to compute one- and two-particle spectra, it finds that the two-magnon gap $\Delta_p$ is smaller than the single-magnon gap $\Delta_s$ throughout the Kitaev spin liquid, and that both gaps vanish at the upper critical field $H_{c2}$. The consequence is that the transition from the spin liquid into the partially polarized phase is driven by magnon pairing, and Raman scattering—which creates and destroys pairs of spins—should see the pair gap close before the single-magnon gap. The paper also reports a crossover at $H \simeq 0.5$ in the polarized phase where $\Delta_p$ dips below $\Delta_s$, and pairing order parameters that peak near $H_{c2}$.

What carries the argument

The key object is the two-particle spectral density $P_\gamma(\omega)$, defined from the response of nearest-neighbor pairs $S_i^\alpha S_{i+\gamma}^\alpha$; its low-energy threshold is read as the two-magnon gap $\Delta_p$. The companion object is the bond pairing order parameter $\Delta_\gamma = (1/N)\sum_i \langle a^\dagger_i a^\dagger_{i+\delta_\gamma}\rangle$ in the hard-core boson representation, which diagnoses whether the low-energy pairs are actually bound rather than independent. The hard-core boson mapping—a spin flip becomes a boson that cannot double-occupy a site—puts single- and pair-magnon processes in one language, and the high-field single-magnon gap is cross-checked against linear spin-wave theory.

What would settle it

Compare the low-energy onset of the two-spin spectral function $P_\gamma(\omega)$ with the two-magnon continuum edge obtained by convolving the single-magnon spectral function $S(\omega)$ on the same cluster: if the onset sits at or above that edge, or shifts to it as the cluster size grows, the low-energy threshold is not a bound state and the central claim collapses. A falsifying experiment would be Raman scattering showing the two-magnon gap remaining at $2\Delta_s$ all the way down to $H_{c2}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that two-magnon bound states are the low-energy excitations that control the field-driven transition in the Kitaev model. It defines the one- and two-particle spectral functions $S(\omega)$ and $P_\gamma(\omega)$, extracts the gaps $\Delta_s$ and $\Delta_p$ from their onsets, and finds $\Delta_p < \Delta_s$ for all fields on the spin-liquid side of $H_{c2}$, with both gaps closing at $H_{c2}$. In the high-field polarized phase, $\Delta_p$ approaches $2\Delta_s$ at large fields, but a crossover near $H \simeq 0.5$ brings $\Delta_p$ below $\Delta_s$ again as the transition is approached. Supporting evidence includes a bond pairing order parameter that is largest close to $H_{c2}$ and spin-flip probability analysis showing that even numbers of spin flips (two and four) dominate the wave function near the transition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-energy onset of the two-spin spectral function $P_\gamma(\omega)$ is a genuine two-magnon bound state, not just the bottom of the two-magnon continuum; the paper infers binding from the ordering $\Delta_p < \Delta_s$ and from pairing order parameters rather than from the pair's internal wavefunction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the spin-liquid side of $H_{c2}$, the two-magnon gap $\Delta_p$ lies below the single-magnon gap $\Delta_s$, so pair excitations dominate the low-energy magnetic response.
  • The upper critical field is reached when the two-magnon gap closes, meaning magnon pairing rather than single-magnon condensation drives the transition into the polarized phase.
  • In the high-field polarized phase $\Delta_p \approx 2\Delta_s$, but near $H \simeq 0.5$ there is a crossover where $\Delta_p$ dips below $\Delta_s$ again; this crossover is a quantitative spectral prediction.
  • Pairing order parameters on all bonds reach their largest magnitude near $H_{c2}$ and fade in the polarized product state, identifying the phase boundary as the preferred place for pair formation.
  • Raman scattering, which couples to pairs of spin operators, should reveal a two-magnon bound-state feature below the single-magnon threshold near $H_{c2}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pair gap really controls the transition, thermodynamic probes such as specific heat and thermal conductivity near $H_{c2}$ should show pair-dominated scaling; the paper does not compute these, so a finite-temperature calculation is a natural next step.
  • The hard-core-boson pairing language likely transfers to other bond-directional models, so the signature of a two-magnon gap below the single-magnon gap could be searched for in compass-type spin systems.
  • The crossover near $H \simeq 0.5$ is sharp enough to be a direct spectral test: a Raman or THz measurement that tracks the two-magnon peak crossing below the one-magnon peak would confirm the mechanism, and one that does not would refute it.
  • Because the pairing order parameters peak just beyond $H_{c2}$, one could speculate about preformed pair correlations in the polarized phase at finite temperature, though the paper establishes only zero-temperature ground-state order parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the isotropic Kitaev honeycomb model in a [111] magnetic field using exact diagonalization, DMRG, and Lanczos methods, and compares with linear spin-wave theory (LSWT) at high fields. It computes the one-magnon density of states S(ω) and the two-spin density of states Pγ(ω), extracts the single-spin-flip gap Δs and the two-spin gap Δp, and reports that Δp < Δs throughout the Kitaev spin liquid and in particular near the upper critical field Hc2, with both gaps vanishing at Hc2. The authors further compute bond pairing order parameters and spin-flip probabilities to argue that two-magnon bound states or pairing processes dominate near the transition into the polarized phase, and they propose Raman scattering as a probe of the predicted two-magnon signatures.

Significance. If the bound-state interpretation is correct, the central result is significant: it identifies two-magnon bound states as the low-energy excitations that close the gap at the transition from the gapless quantum spin liquid to the partially polarized phase, and it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for Raman experiments on Kitaev candidate materials. The paper benefits from multiple numerical probes—dynamical spectra, pairing order parameters, spin-flip probabilities, and LSWT cross-checks—and the finite-size extrapolation of Hc1 and Hc2 in the Supplemental Material is a clear strength. However, the load-bearing claim that Δp is the energy of a genuine two-magnon bound state is not fully established: the quantity Pγ(ω) couples to the entire two-particle sector, and the corroborating ground-state correlations do not identify the excited-state wavefunction at the onset frequency. The manuscript therefore needs additional analysis before the headline conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2) and Fig. 1b] The central claim that Δp is the energy of a two-magnon bound state is not established by the data as presented. Pγ(ω) is defined as the response of the bond-local two-spin operator S_i^α S_{i+γ}^α, which has overlap with the full two-particle continuum as well as with any discrete two-magnon bound state; in the Kitaev spin liquid it can also couple to fractionalized two-spinon excitations. An onset below Δs is evidence for an attractive interaction in the two-particle channel, but it does not by itself prove that the low-energy spectral weight is a bound-state pole rather than the lower edge of the two-magnon continuum. The supporting evidence in Fig. 4 (pairing order parameters) and Fig. S2 (spin-flip probabilities) characterizes the ground state and first excited state, not the excited state at the frequency of the Δp onset. The authors should identify the nature of the low-energy two-particle state, for example by extracting the pole weight and its finite-size scaling, by comparing Δp with the two-magnon continuum edge, or by checking for a bound-state level that separates from the continuum with increasing system size. Without such an analysis, the abstract's wording 'energy to create a bound state of two-magnons' is stronger than what Eq. (2) and the surrounding text demonstrate; the Fig. 1b caption itself defines Δp as 'two spin-flips or a two-magnon bound-state,' which reflects this ambiguity.
  2. [H > Hc2 subsection and Abstract] There is an internal inconsistency between the abstract and the text regarding where Δp < Δs holds. The abstract states that the two-magnon bound-state gap 'becomes lower than the energy to create a single spin flip Δs near Hc2,' while the text reports 'a crossover in Δs and Δp at H≃0.5 where Δp < Δs.' Since the paper quotes Hc2 ≃ 0.34 (Fig. S1d), H = 0.5 is well inside the partially polarized phase, not near Hc2. If the intended meaning is that the two gap curves cross at H ≃ 0.5 and that Δp < Δs for Hc2 < H < 0.5, the phrase 'where Δp < Δs' should be replaced by an explicit description of the inequality on each side of the crossing. As written, the abstract and the text support different statements about the interval in which the pair gap is the smaller gap, and this directly affects the paper's main phenomenological claim.
  3. [Fig. 2c and Methods (η, Δω)] The gaps Δs and Δp are extracted from broadened spectra with a fixed artificial broadening η = 0.02 and a frequency resolution Δω = 0.01, but no error bars, system-size dependence, or broadening dependence are reported for the extracted gap values. Near Hc2 the difference between Δs and Δp is a small quantitative feature in the spectra, and the claim that both gaps vanish at Hc2 relies on locating the onset of spectral weight in the presence of a finite broadening. The authors should show that the gap ordering and the vanishing of the gaps are robust to the choice of η and Δω, or provide numerical gap values with estimates of the uncertainty, for example from the finite-size scaling already used for Hc1 and Hc2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. S3 caption] The word 'Broullion' in the caption of Fig. S3 should be 'Brillouin.'
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The labels 'Rotated ED', 'Un-rotated DMRG', and 'Un-rotated' in the caption of Fig. 4 are not sufficiently explicit about which panel corresponds to which representation; please clarify the correspondence between panels (a)-(e) and the rotated/unrotated bases.
  3. [H < Hc1 subsection] The sentence 'both gaps vanish at Hc1' in the H < Hc1 subsection and the abstract's 'both gaps vanish at Hc2' should be reconciled explicitly, since the intermediate gapless phase Hc1 < H < Hc2 already has Δp = Δs = 0 by the paper's own definitions.
  4. [References [9,10] and phase diagram] The phase diagram in Fig. 1b is based on Refs. [9,10]; the text should state clearly that Hc1 and Hc2 used for the gap analysis are the same values obtained from the finite-size scaling in Fig. S1d, so that the reader can distinguish the previously established phase boundaries from the new gap results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Gap ordering Δp<Δs is an independent ED/DMRG result, but the 'two-magnon bound-state' characterization of Δp is attached by definition in Fig. 1, so the bound-state claim is partly self-definitional.

  1. self definitional [Fig. 1 caption and Abstract; cf. Eq. (2)]
    "The two-particle gap ∆p, main result of our paper, is the energy cost of creating two spin-flips or a two-magnon bound-state."

    The manuscript defines Δp as the threshold of the bond-local two-spin spectral function Pγ(ω) in Eq. (2) and, in the Fig. 1 caption, equates this threshold with 'the energy cost of creating two spin-flips or a two-magnon bound-state.' The abstract then reports 'the energy to create a bound state of two-magnons Δp becomes lower than the energy to create a single spin flip Δs.' The bound-state label is therefore not derived from an independent identification of a discrete two-magnon pole below the continuum; it is assigned to Δp by definition. The quantitative ordering Δp<Δs and the vanishing of both gaps at Hc2 are computed directly by ED/DMRG and are not circular; only the 'bound-state' wording is tautological.

full rationale

Apart from the definitional labeling of Δp as a two-magnon bound-state gap, the paper's quantitative results are self-contained. Δs and Δp are extracted from exact dynamical spectra (Lanczos ED on small clusters and DMRG) with no parameters fitted to the central claim; the high-field comparison to linear spin-wave theory is an independent cross-check. The phase boundaries Hc1 and Hc2 are benchmarked against previous work by the same authors, but Fig. S1 reproduces them from the present ED/DMRG magnetization and susceptibility, so the self-citation is corroborating rather than load-bearing. The only reduction-by-construction element is the semantic one quoted above: once Δp is defined as the two-spin-flip/two-magnon-bound-state threshold, calling Δp the two-magnon bound-state energy adds no new derivation. This does not undermine the computed gap ordering, but it does mean the microscopic claim of a true bound state (rather than a low-lying two-spin continuum edge) rests on the definition rather than on an explicit wavefunction analysis of the excited state. That is a minor circularity, not a fatal one.

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

The central claim rests on standard exact mappings (HCB), numerical extrapolations, and an interpretive step identifying the two-particle spectral onset as a bound state. No new fundamental entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Broadening η = 0.02
    Artificial Lorentzian broadening used in the spectral functions (Eq. 2). Chosen by hand; affects the extracted gaps near critical fields.
  • Frequency resolution Δω = 0.01
    Grid spacing for the DOS calculations. Chosen by hand; limits the accuracy of gap extraction.
  • Critical field Hc1 = 0.208 ± 0.03
    Finite-size scaling extrapolation from ED/DMRG (Fig. S1d). Used to define the phase boundaries in the interpretation.
  • Critical field Hc2 = 0.340 ± 0.01
    Finite-size scaling extrapolation from ED/DMRG (Fig. S1d). The abstract claims both gaps vanish at Hc2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hard-core boson mapping is exact for spin-1/2 operators.
    The HCB transformation preserves the spin algebra with the single-occupancy constraint (Eq. S3).
  • domain assumption The low-energy onset of Pγ(ω) corresponds to a two-magnon bound state.
    The paper interprets the two-particle gap as a bound-state gap but does not verify the bound-state character of the low-energy states directly.
  • domain assumption Finite-size clusters (N=16,18) represent the thermodynamic limit for the gap ordering.
    The main results on Δp and Δs are presented for small ED clusters; finite-size effects near critical fields are not quantified for the two-particle gap.
  • domain assumption LSWT is a controlled approximation at high fields.
    Used to benchmark the one-magnon dispersion at H/K=0.8 (Fig. S3); validity closer to Hc2 is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-Magnon Bound States in the Kitaev Model in a $[111]$-Field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TGFIJQ57

@misc{pith2026190810877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-Magnon Bound States in the Kitaev Model in a $[111]$-Field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TGFIJQ57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10877}
}
abstract

It is now well established that the Kitaev honeycomb model in a magnetic field along the $[111]$-direction harbors an intermediate gapless quantum spin liquid (QSL) phase sandwiched between a gapped non-abelian QSL at low fields $H< H_{c1}$ and a partially polarized phase at high fields $H> H_{c2}$. Here, we analyze the low field and high field phases and phase transitions in terms of single- and two-magnon excitations using exact diagonalization (ED) and density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) methods. We find that the energy to create a bound state of two-magnons $\Delta_p$ becomes lower than the energy to create a single spin flip $\Delta_s$ near $H_{c2}$. In the entire Kitaev spin liquid $\Delta_p<\Delta_s$ and both gaps vanish at $H_{c2}$. We make testable predictions for magnon pairing that could be observable in Raman scattering measurements on Kitaev QSL candidate materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The Kitaev honeycomb model with Ising exchange coupling between Pauli spin operators along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contour plot for the normalized (a) one-particle magnon density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The normalized one-magnon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results obtained using 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhou , author K

    author Y. Zhou , author K. Kanoda , and author T.-K. Ng , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 89 , pages 025003 ( year 2017 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.025003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.025003 2017

  2. [2]

    Wen , journal Phys

    author X.-G. Wen , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 65 , pages 165113 ( year 2002 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.165113

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.65.165113 2002

  3. [3]

    author Balents Leon , journal Nature volume 464 , pages 199 ( year 2010 )

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Lacroix , author P

    author C. Lacroix , author P. Mendels , and author F. Mila , title Introduction to frustrated magnetism: materials, experiments, theory , vol. volume 164 ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media , year 2011 )

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    author Yamashita Minoru , author Nakata Norihito , author Senshu Yoshinori , author Nagata Masaki , author Yamamoto Hiroshi M. , author Kato Reizo , author Shibauchi Takasada , and author Matsuda Yuji , journal Science volume 328 , pages 1246 ( year 2010 ), ://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5983/1246.abstract

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    author J. Q. You , author X.-F. Shi , author X. Hu , and author F. Nori , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 81 , pages 014505 ( year 2010 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.81.014505

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.81.014505 2010

  7. [7]

    Kitaev , journal Annals of Physics volume 321 , pages 2 ( year 2006 ), ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491605002381

    author A. Kitaev , journal Annals of Physics volume 321 , pages 2 ( year 2006 ), ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491605002381

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Knolle , title Dynamics of a Quantum Spin Liquid ( publisher Springer International Publishing , year 2016 ), edition 1st ed., note see also references therein

    author J. Knolle , title Dynamics of a Quantum Spin Liquid ( publisher Springer International Publishing , year 2016 ), edition 1st ed., note see also references therein

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    and author Trivedi Nandini , journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences volume 116 , pages 12199 ( year 2019 ), ://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12199.abstract

    author Patel Niravkumar D. and author Trivedi Nandini , journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences volume 116 , pages 12199 ( year 2019 ), ://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12199.abstract

    2019

  2. [10]

    author D. C. Ronquillo , author A. Vengal , and author N. Trivedi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 99 , pages 140413 ( year 2019 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.140413

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Zhu , author I

    author Z. Zhu , author I. Kimchi , author D. N. Sheng , and author L. Fu , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 97 , pages 241110 ( year 2018 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.241110

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Hickey and author S

    author C. Hickey and author S. Trebst , journal Nature communications volume 10 , pages 530 ( year 2019 ), ://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08459-9

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Jiang , author C.-Y

    author H.-C. Jiang , author C.-Y. Wang , author B. Huang , and author Y.-M. Lu , journal arXiv e-prints p. pages 1809.08247 ( year 2018 ), ://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08247

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jackeli and author G

    author G. Jackeli and author G. Khaliullin , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 102 , pages 017205 ( year 2009 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.017205

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Trebst , journal ArXiv e-prints p

    author S. Trebst , journal ArXiv e-prints p. pages 1701.07056 ( year 2017 ), note see also references therein , ://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07056

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    author S. M. Winter , author A. A. Tsirlin , author M. Daghofer , author J. van den Brink , author Y. Singh , author P. Gegenwart , and author R. Valentí , journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter volume 29 , pages 493002 ( year 2017 ), ://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/29/i=49/a=493002

    2017

  9. [17]

    author S. H. Chun , author J.-W. Kim , author J. Kim , author H. Zheng , author C. C. Stoumpos , author C. Malliakas , author J. Mitchell , author K. Mehlawat , author Y. Singh , author Y. Choi , et al. , journal Nature Physics volume 11 , pages 462 ( year 2015 ), ://doi.org/1...

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Singh , author S

    author Y. Singh , author S. Manni , author J. Reuther , author T. Berlijn , author R. Thomale , author W. Ku , author S. Trebst , and author P. Gegenwart , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 108 , pages 127203 ( year 2012 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.127203

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Banerjee , author J

    author A. Banerjee , author J. Yan , author J. Knolle , author C. A. Bridges , author M. B. Stone , author M. D. Lumsden , author D. G. Mandrus , author D. A. Tennant , author R. Moessner , and author S. E. Nagler , journal Science volume 356 , pages 1055 ( year 2017 ), ://sci...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Banerjee , author P

    author A. Banerjee , author P. Lampen-Kelley , author J. Knolle , author C. Balz , author A. A. Aczel , author B. Winn , author Y. Liu , author D. Pajerowski , author J. Yan , author C. A. Bridges , et al. , journal npj Quantum Materials volume 3 , pages 8 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  13. [21]

    Kasahara , author T

    author Y. Kasahara , author T. Ohnishi , author Y. Mizukami , author O. Tanaka , author S. Ma , author K. Sugii , author N. Kurita , author H. Tanaka , author J. Nasu , author Y. Motome , et al. , journal Nature volume 559 , pages 227 ( year 2018 ), ://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-0...

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    a mer , author D. Biner , author A. Biffin , author C. R \

    author N. Jan s a , author A. Zorko , author M. Gomil s ek , author M. Pregelj , author K. W. Kr \"a mer , author D. Biner , author A. Biffin , author C. R \"u egg , and author M. Klanj s ek , journal Nature physics volume 14 , pages 786 ( year 2018 ), ://doi.org/10.1038/s4156...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    note S ee Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for a description (I) hard-core boson transformation and axis rotation, (II) bencharked results within the transformed Hamiltonian and (III) the analysis of spin-flip probabilities within the ground-state

  16. [24]

    author S. R. White , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 69 , pages 2863 ( year 1992 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863

    1992 doi

  17. [25]

    author S. R. White , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 48 , pages 10345 ( year 1993 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    author S. R. White , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 77 , pages 3633 ( year 1996 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3633

    1996 doi

  19. [27]

    Avella and author F

    author A. Avella and author F. Mancini , title Strongly Correlated Systems: Numerical Methods , Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences ( publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg , year 2013 ), ISBN isbn 9783642351068 , ://books.google.com/books?id=Be4\_AAAAQBAJ

    2013

  20. [28]

    Alvarez , journal Computer Physics Communications volume 180 , pages 1572 ( year 2009 )

    author G. Alvarez , journal Computer Physics Communications volume 180 , pages 1572 ( year 2009 )

    2009

  21. [29]

    author E. F. D'Azevedo , author W. R. Elwasif , author N. D. Patel , and author G. Alvarez , journal ArXiv e-prints p. pages 1902.09621v1 ( year 2019 ), ://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09621v1

    1902 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Schollw\"ock , journal Rev

    author U. Schollw\"ock , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 77 , pages 259 ( year 2005 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    Schollw\"ock , journal Annals of Physics volume 326 , pages 96 ( year 2011 ), ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491610001752

    author U. Schollw\"ock , journal Annals of Physics volume 326 , pages 96 ( year 2011 ), ://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491610001752

    2011

  24. [32]

    Jakli c c and author P

    author J. Jakli c c and author P. Prelov s s ek , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 49 , pages 5065 ( year 1994 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.49.5065

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    author T. P. Devereaux and author R. Hackl , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 79 , pages 175 ( year 2007 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.79.175

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    Wang , author S

    author Z. Wang , author S. Reschke , author D. H\"uvonen , author S.-H. Do , author K.-Y. Choi , author M. Gensch , author U. Nagel , author T. R\ o\ om , and author A. Loidl , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 119 , pages 227202 ( year 2017 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRe...

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    author S. M. Winter , author K. Riedl , author D. Kaib , author R. Coldea , and author R. Valent\' , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 120 , pages 077203 ( year 2018 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.077203

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    Matsubara and author H

    author T. Matsubara and author H. Matsuda , journal Progress of Theoretical Physics volume 16 , pages 416 ( year 1956 )

    1956

  29. [38]

    Trivedi and author D

    author N. Trivedi and author D. M. Ceperley , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 41 , pages 4552 ( year 1990 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.41.4552

    1990 doi

  30. [39]

    Gohlke , author R

    author M. Gohlke , author R. Moessner , and author F. Pollmann , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 98 , pages 014418 ( year 2018 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.014418

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    author D. G. Joshi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 98 , pages 060405 ( year 2018 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.060405

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    author P. A. McClarty , author X.-Y. Dong , author M. Gohlke , author J. G. Rau , author F. Pollmann , author R. Moessner , and author K. Penc , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 98 , pages 060404 ( year 2018 b ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.060404

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    author T. D. K\"uhner and author S. R. White , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 60 , pages 335 ( year 1999 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.335

    1999 doi

  34. [43]

    Nocera and author G

    author A. Nocera and author G. Alvarez , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 94 , pages 053308 ( year 2016 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.94.053308

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    a mer, Karl W and Biner, Daniel and Biffin, Alun and R \

    Subhasree Pradhan, M. S. Laad, Avijeet Ray, T. Maitra, A. Taraphder, arXiv:1703.08200v2 (2017). @article HPT, title = Field Dependence of the Intrinsic Domain Magnetization of a Ferromagnet , author = Holstein, T. and Primakoff, H. , journal = Phys. Rev. , volume = 58 , issue ...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.