Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Spin excitations arising from anisotropic Dirac spinons in YCu$_3$(OD)$_6$Br$_2$[Br$_{0.33}$(OD)$_{0.67}$]

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the low-energy spin excitations of the kagome compound YCu3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67] are a Dirac-spinon continuum, with linear-in-temperature broadening from spinon-spinon scattering and a 1.5 in-plane/out-of-plane…

desk verdict Solid new INS data (linear-T broadening, polarization anisotropy, high-energy spectra) on YCu3-Br, but the Dirac-spinon interpretation rests on an analogy to graphene rather than a calculation for this model; still deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09883 v3 pith:GAIE4CCQ submitted 2024-11-15 cond-mat.str-el

Lankun Han , Zhenyuan Zeng , Min Long , Menghan Song , Chengkang Zhou , Bo Liu , Maiko Kofu , Kenji Nakajima
show 5 more authors
Paul Steffens Arno Hiess Zi Yang Meng Yixi Su Shiliang Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumspinliquidDiracspinonkagomelatticeinelasticneutronscatteringDzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractionspinon-spinonYCu3(OD)6Br2
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 tries to establish that the low-energy spin excitations in the kagome-lattice compound YCu3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67] are best understood as pairs of Dirac spinons, the fractionalized quasiparticles of a Dirac quantum spin liquid. It reports three new experimental facts: the width of the low-energy excitations grows linearly with temperature, the in-plane magnetic fluctuations are about 1.5 times stronger than the out-of-plane ones, and the high-energy spectra near 14 meV line up with the one-pair spinon-antispinon response seen in Raman scattering. The paper argues that the linear temperature broadening is the spinon analogue of electron-electron scattering in graphene, and that the 1.5 anisotropy comes from Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions whose presence would also explain why the bulk susceptibility is nearly temperature independent. If correct, these results reconcile neutron, Raman, and NMR data and remove earlier evidence against the Dirac spin liquid picture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Dirac spinon: a spin-1/2 fermionic quasiparticle with a linear dispersion, whose particle-hole pairs form the observed conical continuum. The quantitative engine is the 3J kagome-lattice Hamiltonian, which uses three distinct antiferromagnetic couplings (J, J′, and J7) together with a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term Di,j = (ΔD, ΔD, D); the paper generates dynamical structure factors from this model using Landau-Lifshitz dynamics and DMRG/TDVP tensor-network calculations. The graphene analogy supplies the physical mechanism for the linewidth: near a Dirac node, the inverse quasiparticle lifetime scales linearly with temperature and energy, which translates through ΔE ≈ ℏνF ΔQ into a linear-in-temperature momentum width. The DM anisotropy is what turns the otherwise isotropic spinon continuum into the observed Mab/Mc ≈ 1.5 response.

What would settle it

Compute the spinon-scattering linewidth for the 3J model and compare the predicted slope d(FWHM)/dT at 0.1 meV with the measured 0.0211 ± 0.003 Å⁻¹/K; if the predicted slope is incompatible, the graphene analogy fails. A second check would be to measure the low-energy FWHM in samples with controlled disorder, since the damped-magnon alternative predicts a strong disorder dependence while the spinon-scattering mechanism does not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin dynamics of YCu3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67] are governed by a continuum of pairs of Dirac spinons, and that apparent contradictions in earlier data disappear once spinon interactions and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya anisotropy are included. The measured full width at half maximum of the low-energy response rises linearly with both energy and temperature, with slope 0.0211 ± 0.003 Å⁻¹/K at 0.1 meV, which the authors attribute to a finite spinon lifetime caused by spinon-spinon scattering. Polarized neutron scattering yields Mab/Mc ≈ 1.5, interpreted as the signature of DM interactions and reproduced by Landau-Lifshitz dynamics simulations with D ≈ 1.5 meV and Δ ≈ 0.7. The high-energy continuum around 14 meV matches the one-pair spinon-antispinon Raman response, and the real part of the dynamical susceptibility obtained via the Kramers-Kronig relationship reproduces the NMR Knight shift. The paper concludes that YCu3-Br is a strong candidate for a Dirac quantum spin liquid, while carefully presenting the claim as further insights rather than a proof.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the observed linear-in-temperature broadening of the low-energy spectrum comes from spinon-spinon scattering with a Dirac dispersion, as in graphene; no scattering rate for the 3J model is derived, and a damped-magnon picture could in principle produce a similar broadening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the linear-in-temperature broadening is spinon-spinon scattering, the spinon lifetime should also show up in other probes, so earlier null thermal-conductivity results would not contradict a Dirac spin liquid.
  • The DM-induced 1.5 anisotropy means magnetic susceptibility and Knight shift approach a constant at zero temperature despite a gapless Dirac spectrum, so the previously reported flat susceptibility is not evidence against Dirac spinons.
  • The agreement near 14 meV between neutron and Raman one-pair excitations implies that a single spinon band can be measured by both probes, allowing momentum-resolved checks of the spinon dispersion.
  • The successful DMRG/TDVP modeling with moderate exchange energies indicates strong quantum fluctuations, so classical spin-wave and Landau-Lifshitz treatments will systematically overestimate exchange couplings in this material.
  • The consistency between the Kramers-Kronig-derived susceptibility and the NMR Knight shift rules out magnetic impurities as the source of the low-temperature static susceptibility, strengthening the intrinsic QSL interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DM interpretation is right, the ratio Mab/Mc ≈ 1.5 fixes a combination of in-plane and out-of-plane DM components that could be independently tested by electron spin resonance or torque magnetometry.
  • A natural extension is to map the linewidth across the full Brillouin zone: the graphene analogy predicts the broadening to scale with distance from the Dirac nodes, so the FWHM should be smallest exactly at the cone nodes and grow away from them.
  • The paper's argument implies that other kagome QSL candidates with sizable DM interactions will also show temperature-independent susceptibility even if they host gapless spinons, so the absence of a linear-in-temperature susceptibility should not be used as a disqualifier without estimating DM strength.
  • The linear-in-temperature FWHM could conceivably be reproduced by a disorder-broadened magnon at some parameter ranges; a decisive experiment would compare crystals with different disorder levels and check whether the 0.0211 Å⁻¹/K slope changes.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports further inelastic neutron scattering (INS) studies of the kagome quantum-spin-liquid candidate YCu3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67]. Unpolarized cold-neutron measurements show that the low-energy excitation width at 0.1 meV grows linearly with temperature up to 6 K; polarized triple-axis measurements find an in-plane/out-of-plane magnetic response ratio Mab/Mc ≈ 1.5; high-energy measurements reveal excitations up to about 18 meV with spectral weight near the K points, resembling the one-pair Raman response. The authors interpret the linear temperature broadening as evidence of spinon-spinon interactions in a Dirac spin liquid, attribute the anisotropy to Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, and use Landau-Lifshitz dynamics and DMRG/TDVP calculations on the 3J kagome model to support the high-energy spectra. They also derive χ'(Q) by Kramers-Kronig transformation and compare it with NMR Knight-shift data.

Significance. If the Dirac-spinon interpretation is correct, this work would be a rare example of quantitative cross-validation among INS, Raman, and NMR measurements in a quantum spin liquid, and it would strengthen the case that YCu3(OD)6Br2[Br0.33(OD)0.67] hosts a Dirac quantum spin liquid. The experimental work has clear strengths: careful batch screening via specific heat, co-alignment of about 800 crystals, a full XYZ polarized analysis, and a plausible use of the Kramers-Kronig relation to connect neutron data with bulk susceptibility. The theoretical part is also substantial, employing the open-source Sunny/LLD suite and large-bond DMRG/TDVP simulations on a 3J model. Nevertheless, the central new evidence for Dirac spinons, the linear-in-temperature linewidth, is supported by analogy to graphene rather than by a calculation for the 3J model, and the simulations that are used to validate the model explicitly do not reproduce the low-energy conical continuum. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether that gap can be closed or whether the claims are appropriately softened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 2(h) and following text] The linear temperature dependence of the FWHM at 0.1 meV is the paper's main new evidence for Dirac spinons, but it is interpreted only by analogy to electron-electron scattering in graphene, citing Ref. [60]. No spinon self-energy, spinon-spinon vertex, gauge-field contribution, or two-spinon response function is computed for the 3J model. The step from a single-spinon inverse lifetime to the measured two-spinon momentum width is asserted rather than derived from a convolution of spinon spectral functions. Because a damped-magnon or disorder-broadened response could also produce a linear-in-T width, this load-bearing inference needs either a concrete calculation for the model or a clearly stated restriction to 'suggestive analogy' rather than the stronger claim in the conclusions.
  2. [Section IV, Figs. 6 and 7] The agreement between theory and experiment is weakened by parameter choices made to reproduce the data. In the LLD calculation, D = 1.5 meV and Δ = 0.7 are chosen to match the measured Mab/Mc ratio (Fig. 6), and the DMRG calculation sets J7 = 9 meV 'to reproduce the experimentally observed feature' (Sec. IV). The exchange ratio α is also tuned within the 3J model. As a result, the simulations demonstrate consistency with the chosen parameter set but do not independently validate the Dirac-spinon mechanism. The authors should either justify these parameters from independent constraints or explicitly state that the comparison is a demonstration of plausibility, not a parameter-free prediction.
  3. [Section IV, final paragraph; Section V] The paper states that neither the LLD nor the DMRG approach 'adequately describes the low-energy conical spin continuum'. This is a significant limitation because the conical continuum is the principal pre-existing evidence for Dirac spinons in this material. Consequently, the theoretical modeling presented here supports the high-energy spectral features and the DM-induced anisotropy, but it does not provide a microscopic validation of the low-energy Dirac spinon response, which is the feature most directly connected to the paper's central interpretation.
  4. [Section V, damped-magnon discussion] The dismissal of the damped-magnon alternative rests on two indirect arguments: the factor-of-40 discrepancy in the specific heat and the intensity at Q = (1/3,0). These arguments are not quantitative enough to exclude the alternative as an explanation of the new linear-in-T FWHM and the Mb/Mc anisotropy. In particular, no calculation is shown for the temperature-dependent width in a disordered magnon or random-singlet scenario. The authors should either provide such a comparison or explicitly state that the damped-magnon scenario remains equally compatible with the new data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, text near Fig. 2] The text refers to 'Figs. 2(h) and 2(i)' and 'Figs. 2(h) and 2(i)' for the energy and temperature dependence of the FWHM, but the caption labels only panels (g) and (h) in Fig. 2; the panel numbering should be corrected.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is introduced with a comma-period typo: 'as follows,' followed by a period before the comma. This should be cleaned up.
  3. [Section II, theoretical methods] The text says the LLD calculations are performed using the 'Su(n)ny suite'; the correct package name is Sunny, and this should be fixed for consistency with Refs. [50-52,56].
  4. [Section IV, parameter definitions] The parameter notation is inconsistent: the text first states 'we set J = J7 = 30 meV and J' = αJ', but subsequently uses 'J7 = αJ = J'/α = 30 meV' for the LLD results and 'J7 = αJ = J'/α = 9 meV' for DMRG. The definitions of J, J', and J7 for each calculation should be stated unambiguously.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two fitted inputs are presented as validation: the LLD DM parameters are tuned to reproduce the measured Mab/Mc=1.5 ratio, and J7 is set to reproduce an experimental feature, so those 'consistent' calculations are enforced by construction; other cross-checks (Knight shift, Raman) are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, LLD calculations (paragraph following Eq. (6), Fig. 6)]
    "If both DM interactions are introduced (D = 1.5 meV and ∆ = 0.7), the calculations reproduce the experimentally observed 1.5 ratio of Mab/Mc [Figs. 3(e) and 3(f)], as shown in Fig. 6(b). This clearly demonstrates the role of DM interactions in causing the anisotropic low-energy spin excitations."

    The DM parameters D and Delta are chosen by scanning until the computed Mab/Mc equals the measured 1.5 ratio; the agreement is therefore an input to the simulation, not an output. Claiming this 'demonstrates' DM as the cause uses the target observable as the calibration target, so the anisotropy result is forced by construction. The only independent residue is that some in-plane/out-of-plane DM combination with these parameters can produce the ratio, which is a fit rather than a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, DMRG/TDVP calculation (paragraph after Eq. (7), Fig. 7)]
    "We set the energy unit J7 = 9 meV to reproduce the experimentally observed feature in our tensor network calculation."

    The exchange scale J7 is fixed so that the DMRG spectral feature lands at the experimental position, and then the DMRG result is described as closely resembling experiment. The energy-scale match is thus a parameter fit, not an independent confirmation. The remaining non-fitted content is the momentum dependence (weight near K-point), which does provide some independent check, but any claim that theory 'captures' the observed high-energy feature at ~14 meV is partly circular because that energy was used to set J7.

full rationale

The paper's central new claim—the linear-T broadening of the low-energy FWHM as evidence for Dirac spinon-spinon scattering—is not itself circular: it is an interpretive analogy to the graphene result of Ref. [60], with no parameter fitted to the FWHM data. However, the two theoretical 'consistent with our modeling' statements in Sec. IV are circular in the narrower sense of fitted input called prediction. The LLD calculation fixes D=1.5 meV and Delta=0.7 to reproduce the measured Mab/Mc=1.5 ratio and then presents that reproduction as demonstrating the role of DM interactions. Similarly, J7=9 meV is set to reproduce an experimental feature before the DMRG spectra are said to resemble experiment. These are self-consistency fits, not tests, and they would not by themselves validate the Dirac-spinon mechanism. The paper is honest that neither LLD nor DMRG describes the low-energy conical continuum, which it attributes to classical/finite-size limitations. Independent evidence lowers the overall circularity: the Kramers-Kronig chi'(Q) comparison with the NMR Knight shift is an external cross-check, as is the INS/Raman 1P peak comparison, and the cone continuum itself is an earlier experimental observation. No load-bearing self-citation uniqueness argument is made. Score 6: several presented 'reproductions' reduce by construction, but the central experimental phenomenology retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a specific model Hamiltonian whose parameters are fit to the data, on the prior spinon interpretation of the continuum, and on an analogy to graphene for the temperature broadening. No genuinely new physical entity is introduced; the Dirac spinon is a pre-existing theoretical concept.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = J'/J (exchange ratio) = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 in different calculations
    Set separately in LLD and DMRG to control the ground state and match spectral peak positions. No independent determination is provided.
  • DM interaction parameters D and Delta = D = 1.5 meV, Delta = 0.7, with randomness between 0.9 and 2.1 meV
    Chosen so that LLD reproduces the measured Mab/Mc about 1.5. These are free parameters tuned to the target observation.
  • J7 = J (exchange energy scale) = J7 = 30 meV in LLD; J7 = 9 meV in DMRG
    LLD requires a large J7 to match high-energy spectra, while DMRG uses 9 meV 'to reproduce the experimentally observed feature'. The factor-of-three difference is not independently constrained.
  • Langevin damping constant lambda = 0.1
    Phenomenological damping in the Landau-Lifshitz dynamics equation; not derived from the material and without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The magnetic system is described by the 3J kagome Hamiltonian with DM couplings (Eq. 1).
    Based on prior analyses of similar Y-kapellasite materials (Ref. [57]) rather than derived from first principles. Invoked in Secs. II and IV.
  • domain assumption The low-energy excitation continuum is the convolution of two Dirac spinons.
    Adopted from previous work (Ref. [38]); this paper does not derive it from the Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper Electron-electron interaction results in graphene apply qualitatively to spinon-spinon interactions in a Dirac QSL.
    The paper states 'we argue the same mechanism may also work for Dirac spinons' (Sec. III), an analogy without a derivation for the 3J model.
  • domain assumption Classical Landau-Lifshitz dynamics approximates the quantum spin dynamics for these calculations.
    The LLD method neglects entanglement; the authors acknowledge its semi-classical limitation (Sec. IV, V).
  • standard math The Kramers-Kronig relationship can be applied to the measured S(Q, omega) over a finite energy range.
    Equation (4) uses the Kramers-Kronig relation, which assumes knowledge over all frequencies; extrapolation beyond the measured range is needed and the associated error is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin excitations arising from anisotropic Dirac spinons in YCu$_3$(OD)$_6$Br$_2$[Br$_{0.33}$(OD)$_{0.67}$]." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAIE4CCQ

@misc{pith2026241109883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin excitations arising from anisotropic Dirac spinons in YCu$_3$(OD)$_6$Br$_2$[Br$_0.33$(OD)$_0.67$]},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAIE4CCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09883}
}
abstract

A Dirac quantum spin liquid hosts Dirac spinons, which are low-energy fractionalized neutral quasiparticles with spin 1/2 that obey the Dirac equation. Recent inelastic neutron scattering studies have revealed a cone spin continuum in YCu$_3$(OD)$_6$Br$_2$[Br$_{x}$(OD)$_{1-x}$], consistent with the convolution of two Dirac spinons. In this work, we further studied spin excitations using the inelastic neutron scattering technique. The width of low-energy spin excitations shows a linear temperature dependence, which can be explained by spinon-spinon interactions with a Dirac dispersion. Polarized neutron scattering measurements reveal that in-plane magnetic fluctuations are about 1.5 times stronger than the out-of-plane ones, suggesting the presence of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction and consistent with our theoretical modeling and simulations. Moreover, the high-energy spin excitations around 14 meV agree with the one-pair spinon-antispinon excitations in Raman studies. The real part of the dynamical susceptibility derived from the Kramers-Kronig relationship also agrees with the Knight shift measured by nuclear magnetic resonance, clearly demonstrating the negligible effects of magnetic impurities on static susceptibility. These results provide a rare example in studying quantum-spin-liquid materials where different experimental techniques can be directly compared, and they give further insights for the possible Dirac quantum spin liquid in this system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09883 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Specific heat below 1 K at 0 and 9 T from 21 dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) and (b) Illustration of the neutron polarized mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a)-(c) Intensity contour plots of the INS results as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Energy dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) shows the energy dependence of the calculated Mab and Mc, where only the out-of-plane DM interac￾tion is considered (D = 1.5 meV and ∆ = 0). A clear energy gap appears in Mab and a similar gap emerges in Mc if only the in-plane DM interaction is taken into account.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [60]

    Li and S

    Q. Li and S. Das Sarma, Finite temperature inelastic mean free path and quasiparticle lifetime in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 87, 085406 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [1]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: A re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spin liquid states, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science 367, 263 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Ma, G.-Y

    N. Ma, G.-Y. Sun, Y.-Z. You, C. Xu, A. Vishwanath, A. W. Sandvik, and Z. Y. Meng, Dynamical signature of fractionalization at a deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174421 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    X. Y. Xu, Y. Qi, L. Zhang, F. F. Assaad, C. Xu, and Z. Y. Meng, Monte carlo study of lattice compact quan- tum electrodynamics with fermionic matter: The parent state of quantum phases, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021022 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    M. B. Hastings, Dirac structure, R VB, and Goldstone modes in the kagom´ e antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B63, 014413 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    Hermele, Y

    M. Hermele, Y. Ran, P. A. Lee, and X.-G. Wen, Prop- erties of an algebraic spin liquid on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B 77, 224413 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    Y.-C. He, M. P. Zaletel, M. Oshikawa, and F. Pollmann, Signatures of dirac cones in a dmrg study of the kagome heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031020 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    W. Zhu, X. Chen, Y.-C. He, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Entanglement signatures of emergent Dirac fermions: Kagome spin liquid and quantum criticality, Sci. Adv. 4, eaat5535 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    W. Zhu, S. shu Gong, and D. N. Sheng, Identifying spinon excitations from dynamic structurefactor of spin- 1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet onthe kagome lattice, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 116, 5437 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    X.-Y. Song, C. Wang, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-C. He, Uni- fying description of competing orders in two-dimensional quantum magnets, Nat. Commun. 10, 4254 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Hering, J

    M. Hering, J. Sonnenschein, Y. Iqbal, and J. Reuther, Characterization of quantum spin liquids and their spinon band structures via functional renormalization, Phys. Rev. B 99, 100405 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Dupuis, M

    E. Dupuis, M. B. Paranjape, and W. Witczak-Krempa, Transition from a dirac spin liquid to an antiferromagnet: Monopoles in a qed 3-gross-neveu theory, Phys. Rev. B 100, 094443 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Song, Y.-C

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-C. He, A. Vishwanath, and C. Wang, From spinon band topology to the symmetry quantum numbers of monopoles in Dirac spin liquids, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011033 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Iqbal, F

    Y. Iqbal, F. Ferrari, A. Chauhan, A. Parola, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Gutzwiller projected states for the J1 − J2 heisenberg model on the kagome lattice: Achievements and pitfalls, Phys. Rev. B 104, 144406 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Kiese, F

    D. Kiese, F. Ferrari, N. Astrakhantsev, N. Nigge- mann, P. Ghosh, T. M¨ uller, R. Thomale, T. Neupert, J. Reuther, M. J. P. Gingras, S. Trebst, and Y. Iqbal, Pinch-points to half-moons and up in the stars: The kagome skymap, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012025 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Ferrari, F

    F. Ferrari, F. Becca, and R. Valent ´ ı, Spin-phonon inter- actions on the kagome lattice: Dirac spin liquid versus valence-bond solids, Phys. Rev. B 109, 165133 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    U. F. P. Seifert, J. Willsher, M. Drescher, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Spin-peierls instability of the U(1) Dirac spin liquid, Nat. Commun. 15, 7110 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    M. A. de Vries, K. V. Kamenev, W. A. Kockelmann, J. Sanchez-Benitez, and A. Harrison, Magnetic ground state of an experimental S = 1/2 kagome antiferromag- net, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 157205 (2008)

    2008

  13. [20]

    D. E. Freedman, T. H. Han, A. Prodi, P. M¨ uller, Q.- Z. Huang, Y.-S. Chen, S. M. Webb, Y. S. Lee, T. M. McQueen, and D. G. Nocera, Site specific x-ray anoma- lous dispersion of the geometrically frustrated kagom´ e magnet, herbertsmithite, ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132...

    2010

  14. [21]

    Y. Y. Huang, Y. Xu, L. Wang, C. C. Zhao, C. P. Tu, J. M. Ni, L. S. Wang, B. L. Pan, Y. Fu, Z. Hao, C. Liu, J.-W. Mei, and S. Y. Li, Heat transport in herbertsmithite: Can a quantum spin liquid survive disorder?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 267202 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    T. H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Fraction- alized excitations in the spin-liquid state of a kagome- lattice antiferromagnet, Nature 492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    M. Fu, T. Imai, T.-H. Han, and Y. S. Lee, Evidence for a gapped spin-liquid ground state in a kagome heisenberg antiferromagnet, Science 350, 655 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    T.-H. Han, M. R. Norman, J.-J. Wen, J. A. Rodriguez- Rivera, J. S. Helton, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Cor- related impurities and intrinsic spin-liquid physics in the kagome material herbertsmithite, Phys. Rev. B 94, 060409 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Khuntia, M

    P. Khuntia, M. Velazquez, Q. Barth´ elemy, F. Bert, E. Kermarrec, A. Legros, B. Bernu, A. Z. L. Messio, and P. Mendels, Gapless ground state in the archetypal quantum kagome antiferromagnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Nat. Phys. 16, 469 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Z. Feng, Z. Li, X. Meng, W. Yi, Y. Wei, J. Zhang, Y.-C. Wang, W. Jiang, Z. Liu, S. Li, F. Liu, J. Luo, S. Li, G. qing Zheng, Z. Y. Meng, J.-W. Mei, and Y. Shi, Gapped spin-1/2 spinon excitations in a new kagome quantum spin liquid compound Cu 3Zn(OH)6FBr, Chin. Phys. Lett. 34,...

    2017

  20. [27]

    Y. Wei, Z. Feng, W. Lohstroh, D. H. Yu, D. Le, C. dela Cruz, W. Yi, Z. F. Ding, J. Zhang, C. Tan, L. Shu, Y.-C. Wang, H.-Q. Wu, J. Luo, J.-W. Mei, F. Yang, X.-L. Sheng, W. Li, Y. Qi, Z. Y. Meng, Y. Shi, and S. Li, Evidence for the topological order in a kagome an- tiferromagne...

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Z. Feng, W. Yi, K. Zhu, Y. Wei, S. Miao, J. Ma, J. Luo, S. Li, Z. Y. Meng, and Y. Shi, From claringbullite to a new spin liquid candidate Cu 3Zn(OH)6FCl, Chin. Phys. Lett. 36, 017502 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Fu, M.-L

    Y. Fu, M.-L. Lin, L. Wang, Q. Liu, L. Huang, W. Jiang, Z. Hao, C. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Shi, J. Zhang, J. Dai, D. Yu, F. Ye, P. A. Lee, P.-H. Tan, and J.-W. Mei, Dy- 10 namic fingerprint of fractionalized excitations in single- crystalline Cu 3Zn(OH)6FBr, Nature Communications 12,...

    2021

  23. [30]

    Y. Wei, X. Ma, Z. Feng, Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, H. Yang, Y. Qi, Z. Y. Meng, Y.-C. Wang, Y. Shi, and S. Li, Non- local effects of low-energy excitations in quantum-spin- liquid candidate Cu 3Zn(OH)6FBr, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 097501 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    M. R. Norman, Colloquium: Herbertsmithite and the search for the quantum spin liquid, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 041002 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    Chen, Y.-X

    X.-H. Chen, Y.-X. Huang, Y. Pan, and J.-X. Mia, Quan- tum spin liquid candidate YCu 3(OH)6Br2[Brx(OH)1−x] (x ≈ 0.51): With an almost perfect kagom´ e layer, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 512, 167066 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Z. Zeng, X. Ma, S. Wu, H.-F. Li, Z. Tao, X. Lu, X.-h. Chen, J.-X. Mi, S.-J. Song, G.-H. Cao, G. Che, K. Li, G. Li, H. Luo, Z. Y. Meng, and S. Li, Possible Dirac quantum spin liquid in the kagome quantum antiferro- magnet YCu3(OH)6Br2[Brx(OH)1−x], Phys. Rev. B 105, L121109 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    J. Liu, L. Yuan, X. Li, B. Li, K. Zhao, H. Liao, and Y. Li, Gapless spin liquid behavior in a kagome heisenberg an- tiferromagnet with randomly distributed hexagons of al- ternate bonds, Phys. Rev. B 105, 024418 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    X. Hong, M. Behnami, L. Yuan, B. Li, W. Brenig, B. B¨ uchner, Y. Li, and C. Hess, Heat transport of the kagome Heisenberg quantum spin liquid candidate YCu3(OH)6.5Br2.5: Localized magnetic excitations and a putative spin gap, Phys. Rev. B 106, L220406 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    F. Lu, L. Yuan, J. Zhang, B. Li, Y. Luo, and Y. Li, The observation of quantum fluctuations in a kagome Heisen- berg antiferromagnet, Commun. Phys. 5, 272 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    S. Li, Y. Cui, Z. Zeng, Y. Wang, Z. Hu, J. Liu, C. Li, X. Xu, Y. Chen, Z. Liu, S. Li, and W. Yu, Nmr ev- idence of spinon localization in the kagome antiferro- magnet YCu3(OH)6Br2[Br1−x(OH)x], Phys. Rev. B 109, 104403 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Z. Zeng, C. Zhou, H. Zhou, L. Han, R. Chi, K. Li, M. Kofu, K. Nakajima, Y. Wei, W. Zhang, D. G. Maz- zone, Z. Y. Meng, and S. Li, Spectral evidence for dirac spinons in a kagome lattice antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys. 20, 1097 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    A. Xu, Q. Shen, B. Liu, Z. Zeng, L. Han, L. Yan, J. Luo, J. Yang, R. Zhou, and S. Li, Magnetic ground states in the kagome system ycu 3(OH)6[(ClxBr1−x)3−y(OH)y], Phys. Rev. B 110, 085146 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    B. S. Shivaram, J. C. Prestigiacomo, A. Xu, Z. Zeng, T. D. Ford, I. Kimchi, S. Li, and P. A. Lee, Nonana- lytic magnetic response and intrinsic ferromagnetic clus- ters in a kagome spin-liquid candidate, Phys. Rev. B110, L121105 (2024)

    2024

  34. [41]

    Suetsugu, T

    S. Suetsugu, T. Asaba, S. Ikemori, Y. Sekino, Y. Kasa- hara, K. Totsuka, B. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Li, Y. Kohama, and Y. Matsuda, Gapless spin excitations in a quantum spin liquid state of s=1/2 perfect kagome antiferromag- net (2024), arXiv:2407.16208

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Suetsugu, T

    S. Suetsugu, T. Asaba, Y. Kasahara, Y. Kohsaka, K. Tot- suka, B. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Li, M. Tokunaga, and Y. Mat- suda, Emergent spin-gapped magnetization plateaus in a spin-1 /2 perfect kagome antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 226701 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    S. Jeon, D. Wulferding, Y. Choi, S. Lee, K. Nam, K. H. Kim, M. Lee, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, S. Lee, S. Choi, C. Lee, H. Nojiri, and K.-Y. Choi, One-ninth magnetiza- tion plateau stabilized by spin entanglement in a kagome antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys. 20, 435 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Zheng, Y

    G. Zheng, Y. Zhu, K.-W. Chen, B. Kang, D. Zhang, K. Jenkins, A. Chan, Z. Zeng, A. Xu, O. A. Valenzuela, J. Blawat, J. Singleton, S. Li, P. A. Lee, and L. Li, Un- conventional magnetic oscillations in kagome Mott insu- lators, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 122, e2421390122 (2025)

    2025

  38. [45]

    Zheng, D

    G. Zheng, D. Zhang, Y. Zhu, K.-W. Chen, A. Chan, K. Jenkins, B. Kang, Z. Zeng, A. Xu, D. Ratkovski, J. Blawat, A. F. Bangura, J. Singleton, P. A. Lee, S. Li, and L. Li, Thermodynamic evidence of fermionic behav- ior in the vicinity of one-ninth plateau in a kagome anti- ferrom...

    2025

  39. [46]

    Z. Y. Meng, C. Batista, and S. Li, Perspective: The- oretical and numerical efforts in understanding modern experiments on quantum magnetism, in preparation

  40. [47]

    Nakajima, S

    K. Nakajima, S. Ohira-Kawamura, T. Kikuchi, M. Naka- mura, R. Kajimoto, Y. Inamura, N. Takahashi, K. Aizawa, K. Suzuya, K. Shibata, T. Nakatani, K. Soyama, R. Maruyama, H. Tanaka, W. Kambara, T. Iwahashi, Y. Itoh, T. Osakabe, S. Wakimoto, K. Kaku- rai, F. Maekawa, M. Harada, K...

    2011

  41. [48]

    Boehm, A

    M. Boehm, A. Hiess, J. Kulda, S. Roux, and J. Saroun, ThALES—three axis low energy spectroscopy at the In- stitut Laue–Langevin, Meas. Sci. Technol. 19, 034024 (2008)

    2008

  42. [49]

    Inamura, T

    Y. Inamura, T. Nakatani, J. Suzuki, and T. Otomo, De- velopment status of software ’Utsusemi’ for chopper spec- trometers at MLF, J-PARC, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.82, SA031 (2013)

    2013

  43. [50]

    Dahlbom, C

    D. Dahlbom, C. Miles, H. Zhang, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros, Langevin dynamics of generalized spins as su(n) coherent states, Phys. Rev. B 106, 235154 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, X. Bai, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros, Geometric integration of classical spin dynamics via a mean-field schr¨ odinger equation, Phys. Rev. B 106, 054423 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    Zhang and C

    H. Zhang and C. D. Batista, Classical spin dynamics based on SU( n) coherent states, Phys. Rev. B 104, 104409 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992)

    1992

  47. [54]

    Haegeman, J

    J. Haegeman, J. I. Cirac, T. J. Osborne, I. Piˇ zorn, H. Ver- schelde, and F. Verstraete, Time-dependent variational principle for quantum lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 070601 (2011)

    2011

  48. [55]

    Haegeman, C

    J. Haegeman, C. Lubich, I. Oseledets, B. Vandereycken, and F. Verstraete, Unifying time evolution and optimiza- tion with matrix product states, Phys. Rev. B 94, 165116 (2016)

    2016

  49. [56]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, D. Pajerowski, S. Johnston, Z. Wang, H. Lane, Y. W. Li, X. Bai, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Bar- ros, Sunny.jl: A julia package for spin dynamics, (2025), 2501.13095...

    2025 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Hering, F

    M. Hering, F. Ferrari, A. Razpopov, I. I. Mazin, R. Va- lent ´ ı, H. O. Jeschke, and J. Reuther, Phase diagram of 11 a distorted kagome antiferromagnet and application to Y-kapellasite, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 10 (2022)

    2022

  51. [58]

    Ferrari, S

    F. Ferrari, S. Niu, J. Hasik, Y. Iqbal, D. Poil- blanc, and F. Becca, Static and dynamical signatures of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions in the heisenberg model on the kagome lattice, SciPost Phys. 14, 139 (2023)

    2023

  52. [59]

    Chatterjee, P

    D. Chatterjee, P. Puphal, Q. Barth´ elemy, J. Willwa- ter, S. S¨ ullow, C. Baines, S. Petit, E. Ressouche, J. Ol- livier, K. M. Zoch, C. Krellner, M. Parzer, A. Riss, F. Garmroudi, A. Pustogow, P. Mendels, E. Kermarrec, and F. Bert, From spin liquid to magnetic ordering in the...

    2023

  53. [61]

    L. P. Regnault, Inelastic neutron polarization analysis, in Neutron Scattering from Magnetic Materials, edited by T. Chatterji (Elsevier B.V., 2006) Chap. 8, pp. 363– 395

    2006

  54. [62]

    Strictly speaking, it is not clear whether neutron scatter- ing can detect two spinon excitations with a total S = 0 or not, but the argument in the text holds in both cases

  55. [63]

    H. Lane, H. Zhang, D. Dahlbom, S. Quinn, R. D. Somma, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros, Kernel poly- nomial method for linear spin wave theory, SciPost Phys. 17, 145 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Dahlbom, F

    D. Dahlbom, F. T. Brooks, M. S. Wilson, S. Chi, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. B. Stone, H. Cao, Y.-W. Li, K. Barros, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and X. Bai, Quantum-to-classical crossover in generalized spin sys- tems: Temperature-dependent spin dynamics of fei 2, Phys. Rev. B 109, 014...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, Z. Laraib, D. M. Pajerowski, K. Barros, and C. Batista, Renormalized classical theory of quantum magnets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03874 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    S.-H. Do, H. Zhang, D. A. Dahlbom, T. J. Williams, V. O. Garlea, T. Hong, T.-H. Jang, S.-W. Cheong, J.- H. Park, K. Barros, et al., Understanding temperature- dependent su (3) spin dynamics in the s= 1 antiferro- magnet ba2fesi2o7, npj Quantum Materials 8, 5 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    C. Kim, S. Kim, P. Park, T. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Ohira- Kawamura, N. Murai, K. Nakajima, A. Chernyshev, M. Mourigal, et al., Bond-dependent anisotropy and magnon decay in cobalt-based kitaev triangular antifer- romagnet, Nature Physics 19, 1624 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    C´ epas, C

    O. C´ epas, C. M. Fong, P. W. Leung, and C. Lhuillier, Quantum phase transition induced by Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interactions in the kagome antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 78, 140405 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Zorko, S

    A. Zorko, S. Nellutla, J. van Tol, L. C. Brunel, F. Bert, F. Duc, J.-C. Trombe, M. A. de Vries, A. Harrison, and P. Mendels, Dzyaloshinsky-moriya anisotropy in the spin- 1/2 kagome compound zncu 3(OH)6cl2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026405 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    T. Arh, M. Gomilˇ sek, P. Prelovˇ sek, M. Pregelj, M. Klanjˇ sek, A. Ozarowski, S. J. Clark, T. Lancaster, W. Sun, J.-X. Mi, and A. Zorko, Origin of magnetic or- dering in a structurally perfect quantum kagome antifer- romagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 027203 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Tensorkit, https://jutho.github.io/TensorKit.jl/ stable/, accessed: December 21, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Kang and P

    B. Kang and P. A. Lee, Generation of gauge magnetic fields in a kagome spin liqud candidate using the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (2024), arXiv:2401.01946

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    M. Punk, D. Chowdhury, and S. Sachdev, Topological ex- citations and the dynamic structure factor of spin liquids on the kagome lattice, Nat. Phys. 10, 289 (2014)

    2014

  66. [7000]

    tinu .bra ( ytisnetnI A3 ( degree ) Q = (1,0,1) (a) (b) (d)(c) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6K/lom/J ( T/C 2 ) T ( K ) 9T 0T 40 x C /Tcal FIG. 1. (a) Specific heat below 1 K at 0 and 9 T from 21 dif- ferent batches of YCu 3-Br samples. The upturn below about 0...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.