Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Dirac and chiral spin liquids on spin-1/2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The spin-1/2 $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice is argued to have a gapless $Z_2$ Dirac spin liquid ground state at $J_2 = 0.5 J_1$, described by a Gutzwiller-projected parton wave function whose fifth-neighbor…

desk verdict Impressive fidelity and a clever parton-guided DMRG analysis, but the Z2-vs-U(1) distinction needs a benchmarked η5=0 baseline before the headline claim is convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14114 v3 pith:DE3GXG6N submitted 2024-11-21 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.supr-con

Hui-Ke Jin , Hong-Hao Tu , Ya-Hui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.supr-con
keywords quantumspinliquidJ1-J2HeisenbergmodelsquarelatticeZ2DiracGutzwillerprojectiondensitymatrixrenormalizationgroupprojectivesymmetrychiral
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

The paper claims to settle a long-standing debate: at the maximally frustrated point $J_2 = 0.5 J_1$, the spin-1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice has a gapless $Z_2$ Dirac spin liquid ground state, not a valence-bond solid, a gapped spin liquid, or no disordered phase at all. The evidence combines density matrix renormalization group simulations with a Gutzwiller-projected parton wave function whose projective symmetry group fixes its form, and whose fifth-neighbor pairing $\eta_5$ is what breaks the $U(1)$ gauge structure down to $Z_2$. The projected state tracks the DMRG ground state to within 0.8% in energy and about 99.86% per-site wave-function fidelity on cylinders of circumference 4, 6, and 8. The same construction, extended by a chiral term $J_\chi$, produces a $Z_2$ chiral spin liquid that transmutes into a $U(1)_2$ chiral spin liquid as $J_\chi$ grows.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gutzwiller-projected parton ansatz of Eq. (3): a fermionic parton mean-field Hamiltonian with projective symmetry group (PSG) fixed by the lattice symmetries, whose single-occupancy constraint is enforced exactly by projection. Within that ansatz, the fifth-neighbor pairing $\eta_5$ is the decisive term—it produces a large-triangle SU(2) gauge flux proportional to $\eta_5 \sigma^x$ which, together with the square-plaquette flux $a\sigma^0 + b\sigma^y$, breaks the gauge group down to $Z_2$; with $\eta_5 = 0$ the same ansatz reduces to the U(1) staggered-flux Dirac state. The companion numerical method is the Gutzwiller-guided density matrix renormalization group, which uses the projected parton state as a matrix-product initial state, cutting convergence time by a factor of two to three and giving access to wave-function fidelity between the DMRG and parton states as a quantitative check.

What would settle it

Compute, on cylinders of circumference 4, 6, 8, and 10, the variational energy difference between the optimized Z2DSL ansatz and its $\eta_5 = 0$ (U(1) staggered-flux) counterpart at matched bond dimension; if the penalty per site shrinks toward zero with system width, the claimed Z2 gauge structure is not robust. Alternatively, measure the torus ground-state degeneracy of the J1-J2-Jchi model slightly below the claimed transition: a genuine Z2 chiral spin liquid must show four nearly degenerate states, while a U(1)_2 state shows two.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that the disordered phase of the $J_1$-$J_2$ model at $J_2/J_1 = 0.5$ is a gapless $Z_2$ Dirac quantum spin liquid, described by the Gutzwiller-projected parton ansatz of Eq. (3): first-neighbor fermion hopping $\chi\sigma^z$ with pairing $\eta_1\sigma^x$ of alternating sign on x- and y-bonds, second-neighbor pairing $\eta_2\sigma^x$, and fifth-neighbor pairing $\eta_5\sigma^x$. With $\eta_2 = 0$ the parton band structure has Dirac cones at $(\pm\pi/2, \pm\pi/2)$, and a finite optimized $\eta_5$ (0.42, 0.57, 0.58 on YC4, YC6, YC8 cylinders) is what reduces the SU(2) gauge redundancy to $Z_2$: the square-plaquette flux is proportional to $a\sigma^0 + b\sigma^y$, while the large-triangle flux is proportional to $\eta_5 \sigma^x$, and only $\pm\sigma^0$ commutes with both. Setting $\eta_5 = \eta_2 = 0$ recovers the U(1) staggered-flux Dirac state, so the finite $\eta_5$ together with $\eta_1 \neq \chi_1$ is the operational distinction between $Z_2$ and U(1) scenarios. The paper also establishes that on certain cylinders an emergent global flux $\Phi = \pi$ gaps the Dirac cones, which explains the apparent $1/L_y$ scaling of the singlet gap seen in earlier DMRG studies. In the $J_1$-$J_2$-$J_\chi$ model, the chiral term gaps these cones; the optimized parameters $(\eta_1, \eta'_2, \eta_5)$ show $\eta_5$ dropping to zero near $J_\chi \approx 0.35$, signaling a transition from a $Z_2$ chiral spin liquid to a $U(1)_2$ chiral spin liquid, with four-fold versus two-fold topological degeneracy on the torus.

Load-bearing premise

The Z2 versus U(1) assignment rests on the optimized fifth-neighbor pairing $\eta_5$ being genuinely finite, but the paper never reports the energy or fidelity penalty for forcing $\eta_5$ to zero, so a reader cannot tell whether the Z2 gauge structure is robust or a finite-size preference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The long-contested paramagnetic region of the $J_1$-$J_2$ model is a gapless $Z_2$ Dirac spin liquid; valence-bond-solid and gapped-spin-liquid scenarios at $J_2 = 0.5J_1$ are disfavored by the 0.8% energy difference and the ~99.86% per-site fidelity.
  • The apparent $L_y^{-1}$ scaling of the singlet gap from earlier DMRG studies is a finite-size artifact of the $\Phi = \pi$ sector, which avoids cutting the Dirac nodes; wider or flux-tuned simulations should recover gapless behavior.
  • The $Z_2$ versus $U(1)$ distinction is controlled by $\eta_5$: a finite $\eta_5$ in the thermodynamic limit makes the state genuinely $Z_2$, with the $U(1)$ staggered-flux description applying only at the fine-tuned $\eta_5 = 0$ point.
  • Adding the chiral term $J_\chi$ gaps the Dirac cones, producing a $Z_2$ chiral spin liquid (four-fold topological degeneracy on a torus, chiral central charge $c=2$) that transitions to a $U(1)_2$ chiral spin liquid (two-fold degeneracy, bosonic Laughlin type) when $\eta_5$ vanishes near $J_\chi \approx 0.35$.
  • Doping the $Z_2$ Dirac spin liquid or the chiral states is a natural next step toward possible superconducting states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive number the paper leaves out is the energy or fidelity cost of setting $\eta_5 = 0$; if that cost shrinks with cylinder circumference, the U(1) staggered-flux Dirac state would remain a viable thermodynamic-limit description even though the Dirac-spin-liquid scenario survives.
  • Because per-site fidelity stays above 99.85% across $0.45 \le J_2/J_1 \le 0.5$, the same ansatz could be tested near the N\'eel and stripe boundaries to see whether the optimal $\eta_5$ and $\eta_2$ track the shrinking paramagnetic window; the paper leaves that mapping implicit.
  • The supplementary field theory implies the $Z_2\to U(1)$ chiral transition is invisible in spin-spin correlations and must be located through chirality correlations or torus degeneracy, so future finite-size studies should watch those observables rather than energy gaps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript revisits the spin-1/2 J1-J2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet at J2 = 0.5 J1. Using DMRG in combination with Gutzwiller-projected parton states represented as matrix product states, it proposes that the paramagnetic ground state is a gapless Z2 Dirac spin liquid described by the ansatz in Eq. (3), with first-, second-, and fifth-neighbor pairing parameters eta1, eta2, and eta5. The variational energy lies within about 0.8% of the DMRG energy, and the per-site wave-function fidelity is reported as about 99.86%. The paper extends the study by adding a chiral term J_chi, and from the evolution of optimized parton parameters it infers a transition from a Z2 chiral spin liquid to a U(1)2 chiral spin liquid as eta5 vanishes. The supplement contains a PSG classification, topological-degeneracy calculations on tori, and an Abelian Higgs field theory proposed for the transition.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would help settle a long-standing controversy about the nature of the intermediate-J2 paramagnetic phase and would demonstrate that Gutzwiller-guided DMRG can provide quantitatively accurate projected parton wave functions. The strengths are the clean DMRG convergence checks in the supplement, the small variational-DMRG energy difference, the high and system-size-stable per-site fidelity, and the unbiased agreement of DMRG runs initialized from random and parton states. The paper is also careful to distinguish gauge-equivalent ansaetze through PSG analysis, and the numerical method itself is a useful contribution. However, the load-bearing distinction between Z2 and U(1) gauge structure is currently inferred rather than quantitatively demonstrated, because the baseline U(1) state is never evaluated with the same numerical tools.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 'Numerical results' and Eq. (3)] The Z2-versus-U(1) discrimination is not quantitatively established. The paper reports that the optimal eta5 is finite (0.42, 0.57, 0.58 on YC4/YC6/YC8) and that eta1 is far from the SU(2) point, but it never reports the variational energy, per-site fidelity, or any overlap for the U(1) staggered-flux limit eta5 = eta2 = 0 with eta1 re-optimized. Figure 1(e,f) shows only the full two-parameter landscape; the energy gain of finite eta5 relative to the eta5 = 0 line is never quoted. Given that the variational-DMRG energy difference is only 0.8%, the reader cannot judge whether eta5 is genuinely favored by the microscopic Hamiltonian or simply absorbs short-distance correlation energy on the accessible cylinders. Please provide Delta E = E(eta5 = 0) - E(eta5*) and F(eta5 = 0) on at least YC6 and YC8, together with the optimized eta1 in the constrained calculation.
  2. [Section 'CSLs by spin chirality' and Fig. 2(c)] The claimed Z2-CSL to U(1)-CSL transition is inferred solely from the optimized eta5 crossing zero as J_chi increases. No energy crossing between the unconstrained eta5 != 0 ansatz and the constrained eta5 = 0 U(1) ansatz, no fidelity comparison, no order parameter, and no error bars are reported. Because the eta5 = 0 state is a U(1) state by the PSG argument, showing that the energy minimum moves continuously to eta5 = 0 is not by itself evidence of a quantum phase transition. I request a constrained optimization with eta5 = 0 and a direct comparison of energy, fidelity, and, if possible, a topological indicator across J_chi.
  3. [Supplement Section VII (topological ground-state degeneracy)] The four-fold versus two-fold ground-state degeneracy claim is not fully supported by the presented data. For the Z2 CSL, the two smaller eigenvalues of the 4x4 overlap matrix are quoted only at L = 16 (about 0.085 and 0.095), with no system-size dependence for L = 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14. Without showing that these eigenvalues remain nonzero as L grows, the statement that they show 'no trend of decrease' cannot be checked. The U(1) CSL eigenvalues are also not shown at matched system sizes and parameters. This matters because the torus degeneracy is the direct observable distinguishing Z2 from U(1) topological order.
  4. [Section 'Numerical results' and Fig. 1(e,f)] The thermodynamic limit of eta5 is not established. The main-text claim that the variational energy is always minimized at finite eta5 rests on three cylinder widths, with optimal values 0.42, 0.57, and 0.58 for YC4, YC6, and YC8, and no extrapolation in 1/L_y is provided. The jump from YC4 to YC6 and the absence of an error estimate leave open the possibility that eta5 vanishes in the two-dimensional limit, which would remove the Z2 gauge structure. Please provide a finite-size scaling analysis of eta5 and of the energy penalty for setting eta5 = 0 on the available cylinders.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 'Numerical results' and supplement Fig. 5] The main text says that the Gutzwiller-boosted DMRG reduces the wall time 'by half', while the supplement Fig. 5 caption reports that it shortens the convergence time to one-third; please harmonize these statements.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] In the caption of Fig. 2, both the energy/fidelity panel and the parameter panel are labeled '(b)'; the second panel should be labeled '(c)' to match the main-text references.
  3. [Paragraph after Eq. (4)] The phrase 'Overall, In the regime of our interest' contains a capitalized 'In' mid-sentence; please correct the grammar.
  4. [Supplement Section III] The supplement states that the overlap between the SU(2) pi-flux state and the DMRG state is 'almost zero' but gives no numerical value; a quantitative upper bound would be more informative and would strengthen the exclusion of that candidate.
  5. [Reference [69]] The main text cites '[69]' as 'See appendix for details'; since the appendix is an integral part of the evidence, please cite the specific supplement sections explicitly at each point where they are used.
  6. [Abstract and introduction] The phrase 'clear evidence' in the abstract and introduction is stronger than the current quantitative support, given the missing U(1) baseline; I suggest softening to 'strong evidence' or adding the baseline comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Z2 Dirac spin liquid claim is benchmarked against independent DMRG, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central identification of the J1-J2 ground state as a Z2 Dirac spin liquid is anchored to independent DMRG simulations: DMRG is run from both random and parton-initialized states and converges to the same energy (Section 'Numerical results'), and the variational parton state is optimized by minimizing the microscopic Hamiltonian's energy before the wave-function fidelity is evaluated. The gauge-structure classification of the parton ansatz follows from the PSG/flux analysis (Supplementary Eq. (15)), not from the numerical fit. The main self-citations (Refs. [66,73,74,77,90,91]) are to methodological papers for MPS-based techniques (e.g., Gutzwiller-boosted DMRG), which are tools rather than evidence for the model's ground state. The only caveat is that the Z2-vs-U(1) distinction relies on the fitted value of η5, and the paper does not report an explicit energy or fidelity comparison with the η5=0, η2=0 U(1) staggered-flux limit; however, this is an incompleteness in evidence, not a circular reduction, because the gauge structure is not defined as 'the fitted η5 is nonzero' but rather derived from the symmetry of the parton ansatz. Thus, no circularity is present; the score reflects the minor self-citations.

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

The central identification rests on a variational parton ansatz whose parameters (η1, η5, η2, η'2) are optimized against DMRG energies, plus standard PSG and flux arguments. No new fundamental entities are postulated; the key load-bearing choices are the form of the ansatz in Eq. (3) and the interpretation of the finite-size flux sector. The field theory in the supplement is a proposed description, not a derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • η1 = ≈1.5-1.7 (varies with cylinder width)
    First-neighbor singlet pairing amplitude in the Z2DSL ansatz, optimized by minimizing variational energy on YC4/YC6/YC8 cylinders.
  • η5 = 0.42 (YC4), 0.57 (YC6), 0.58 (YC8)
    Fifth-neighbor pairing term that breaks U(1) gauge structure down to Z2; its finite optimized value is the key evidence for the Z2 Dirac spin liquid.
  • η2 = ≈0.04 (set to 0 in most analysis)
    Second-neighbor pairing term; small energy gain and negligible for the gauge structure, so it is not central to the Z2 conclusion.
  • η'2 = grows approximately linearly with Jχ, up to about 0.6 at Jχ=0.4
    idxy pairing on second-neighbor bonds in the CSL ansatz; acts as an effective chiral mass term and drives the chiral spin liquid regime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fermionic parton representation with SU(2) gauge redundancy and single-occupancy Gutzwiller projection
    Used in 'Model and setup' to construct trial wave functions; standard in spin liquid theory but not derived from the microscopic model.
  • standard math PSG classification of Z2 spin liquids on the square lattice (Wen 2002)
    Used to fix the allowed mean-field ansatz, Eq. (3), and to derive the flux criteria in the Supplementary Information.
  • domain assumption DMRG on cylinders (up to YC8, Lx=12) converges to the ground state of the microscopic model, and the lower-energy flux sector is the physical sector
    The finite-size and flux-sector extrapolation is the numerical backbone; the paper shows energy versus truncation error scaling, but the flux-sector assignment is inferred from the parton variational energy.
  • standard math The SU(2) flux criterion maps the gauge structure of the mean-field ansatz to that of the projected spin state
    Used to conclude that a finite η5 means a Z2 rather than U(1) gauge structure; relies on standard PSG and flux arguments.
  • ad hoc to paper The Abelian Higgs field theory in Section VIII describes the U(1)-to-Z2 CSL transition
    Proposed in the supplement; not derived from the microscopic model and not validated by direct numerical simulation of the transition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dirac and chiral spin liquids on spin-1/2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DE3GXG6N

@misc{pith2026241114114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dirac and chiral spin liquids on spin-1/2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DE3GXG6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14114}
}
abstract

We revisit the challenging problem of identifying the quantum spin liquid candidate in the spin-1/2 $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the square lattice. By integrating the Gutzwiller-guided density matrix renormalization group method with analytical analyses, we present clear evidence that the ground state is a Z$_2$ Dirac spin liquid. This state can be efficiently described by a Gutzwiller-projected parton theory characterized by its projective symmetry group. To distinguish the difference between the projected Z$_2$ and U(1) parton state, we investigate the chiral spin liquid ground states as topological orders by incorporating a $J_\chi$ term into the $J_1$-$J_2$ model and observe a transition from a Z$_2$ chiral spin liquid to a U(1)$_2$ chiral spin liquid as $J_\chi$ increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a), the SU(2) gauge fluxes around an elementary square and/or an elementary triangle manifest as aσ 0 + bσ y , where a and b are complex numbers. Since they are invariant under ar￾bitrary U(1) gauge transformations generated by σ y , the set of parameters (η1, η ′ 2 ) indeed corresponds to a U(1) CSL. How￾ever, the gauge flux around the large triangle [see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The variational ground-state energies are obtained by varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Ground-state energies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The ground-state energy for a specific DMRG sweep with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Left axis: the wave function fidelity between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The spin structure factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153 (1973), URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0025540873901670

    arXiv 1973

  2. [2]

    How- ever, the gauge flux around the large triangle [see Fig

    indeed corresponds to a U(1) CSL. How- ever, the gauge flux around the large triangle [see Fig. 2(a)] has a form of ∼ η5σx and thereby only the Z 2 number±σ0 can simultaneously commute the two fluxes proportional to σy and σx, respectively. Consequently, a finite value of η5 changes such a U(1) CSL into a Z 2 CSL. When the e ffect of Jχ is small, the syst...

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987), URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science. 235.4793.1196

    arXiv 1987

  4. [4]

    X. G. Wen, F. Wilczek, and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11413 (1989), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.39.11413

    1989

  5. [5]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1773 (1991), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.66. 1773

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.66 1991

  6. [6]

    P. W. Anderson, P. A. Lee, M. Randeria, T. M. Rice, N. Trivedi, and F. C. Zhang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, R755 (2004), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0953-8984% 2F16%2F24%2Fr02

    2004

  7. [7]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.78.17

    2006

  8. [8]

    P. A. Lee, Science 321, 1306 (2008), URL http://www. sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1306.short

    2008

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010), URL http://dx.doi

    L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010), URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nature08917

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/80/ 1/016502

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Y . Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025003 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.89.025003

    2017

  4. [12]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 451 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-031218-013401

    2019

  5. [13]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Science 367 (2020), ISSN 0036- 8075, URL https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ 367/6475/eaay0668

    2020

  6. [15]

    Dagotto and A

    E. Dagotto and A. Moreo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2148 (1989), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.63.2148

    1989

  7. [17]

    Poilblanc, E

    D. Poilblanc, E. Gagliano, S. Bacci, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 43, 10970 (1991), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.43.10970

    1991

  8. [18]

    A. V . Chubukov and T. Jolicoeur, Phys. Rev. B 44, 12050 (1991), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.44.12050

    1991

  9. [19]

    H. J. Schulz and T. A. L. Ziman, Europhysics Letters 18, 355 (1992), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/ 18/4/013

    1992 doi

  10. [20]

    R. R. P. Singh, Z. Weihong, C. J. Hamer, and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. B 60, 7278 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.60.7278

    1999 doi

  11. [21]

    M. E. Zhitomirsky and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B 54, 9007 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.54.9007

    1996

  12. [22]

    Capriotti and S

    L. Capriotti and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3173 (2000), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.84.3173

    2000

  13. [23]

    Takano, Y

    K. Takano, Y . Kito, Y . ¯Ono, and K. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 197202 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.91.197202

    2003

  14. [24]

    Mambrini, A

    M. Mambrini, A. L ¨auchli, D. Poilblanc, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 74, 144422 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 6 10.1103/PhysRevB.74.144422

    2006 doi

  15. [25]

    Darradi, O

    R. Darradi, O. Derzhko, R. Zinke, J. Schulenburg, S. E. Kr¨uger, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B 78, 214415 (2008), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.214415

    2008 doi

  16. [27]

    Yu and Y .-J

    J.-F. Yu and Y .-J. Kao, Phys. Rev. B 85, 094407 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85. 094407

    2012 doi

  17. [28]

    R. L. Doretto, Phys. Rev. B 89, 104415 (2014), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.104415

    2014 doi

  18. [29]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 027201 (2014), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.027201

    2014 doi

  19. [30]

    Morita, R

    S. Morita, R. Kaneko, and M. Imada, journal of the physical society of japan 84, 024720 (2015), URL https://doi.org/ 10.7566/JPSJ.84.024720

    2015 doi

  20. [31]

    Haghshenas and D

    R. Haghshenas and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B 97, 174408 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.97.174408

    2018

  21. [32]

    Capriotti, F

    L. Capriotti, F. Becca, A. Parola, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 097201 (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.87.097201

    2001

  22. [33]

    L. Wang, D. Poilblanc, Z.-C. Gu, X.-G. Wen, and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 037202 (2013), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.037202

    2013 doi

  23. [34]

    W.-J. Hu, F. Becca, A. Parola, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B 88, 060402 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.88.060402

    2013

  24. [35]

    Poilblanc and M

    D. Poilblanc and M. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. B 96, 014414 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.96.014414

    2017

  25. [36]

    Wang and A

    L. Wang and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 107202 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.121.107202

    2018

  26. [37]

    W.-Y . Liu, S. Dong, C. Wang, Y . Han, H. An, G.-C. Guo, and L. He, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241109 (2018), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.241109

    2018 doi

  27. [38]

    Ferrari, F

    F. Ferrari, F. Becca, and J. Carrasquilla, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125131 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.100.125131

    2019

  28. [39]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Phys. Rev. B102, 014417 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102. 014417

    2020 doi

  29. [40]

    Nomura and M

    Y . Nomura and M. Imada, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031034 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 11.031034

    2021 doi

  30. [41]

    Liu, S.-S

    W.-Y . Liu, S.-S. Gong, Y .-B. Li, D. Poilblanc, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Science Bulletin 67, 1034 (2022), ISSN 2095- 9273, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2095927322001001

    2022

  31. [42]

    W.-Y . Liu, D. Poilblanc, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235116 (2024), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.235116

    2024 doi

  32. [43]

    Jiang, H

    H.-C. Jiang, H. Yao, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 86, 024424 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.86.024424

    2012

  33. [44]

    Qian and M

    X. Qian and M. Qin, Phys. Rev. B 109, L161103 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.109. L161103

    2024 doi

  34. [45]

    Isaev, G

    L. Isaev, G. Ortiz, and J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. B 79, 024409 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.79.024409

    2009

  35. [46]

    Figueirido, A

    F. Figueirido, A. Karlhede, S. Kivelson, S. Sondhi, M. Rocek, and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. B41, 4619 (1990), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.41.4619

    1990 doi

  36. [47]

    N. B. Ivanov and P. C. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B 46, 8206 (1992), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.46.8206

    1992

  37. [49]

    Schulz, T

    H. Schulz, T. Ziman, and D. Poilblanc, Journal de Physique I 6, 675 (1996), URL https://doi.org/10.1051/jp1: 1996236

    1996 doi

  38. [50]

    Zhang, H

    G.-M. Zhang, H. Hu, and L. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 067201 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.91.067201

    2003

  39. [51]

    Sirker, Z

    J. Sirker, Z. Weihong, O. P. Sushkov, and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. B 73, 184420 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.184420

    2006 doi

  40. [52]

    Schmalfuß, R

    D. Schmalfuß, R. Darradi, J. Richter, J. Schulenburg, and D. Ihle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 157201 (2006), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.157201

    2006 doi

  41. [53]

    V . Murg, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 79, 195119 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.79.195119

    2009

  42. [54]

    K. S. D. Beach, Phys. Rev. B 79, 224431 (2009), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.224431

    2009 doi

  43. [55]

    Richter and J

    J. Richter and J. Schulenburg, The European Physical Journal B 73, 117 (2010), URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/ e2009-00400-4

    2010 doi

  44. [56]

    Mezzacapo, Phys

    F. Mezzacapo, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045115 (2012), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.045115

    2012 doi

  45. [57]

    Qi and Z.-C

    Y . Qi and Z.-C. Gu, Phys. Rev. B 89, 235122 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89. 235122

    2014 doi

  46. [59]

    Merino and A

    J. Merino and A. Ralko, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023122 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.4.023122

    2022

  47. [60]

    Richter, R

    J. Richter, R. Zinke, and D. J. Farnell, The European Physical Journal B 88, 1 (2015), URL https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjb/e2014-50589-x

    2015

  48. [61]

    Wang, Z.-C

    L. Wang, Z.-C. Gu, F. Verstraete, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 94, 075143 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.94.075143

    2016

  49. [62]

    Poilblanc, M

    D. Poilblanc, M. Mambrini, and S. Capponi, SciPost Phys. 7, 041 (2019), URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhys.7.4.041

    2019

  50. [63]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863 (1992), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2863

    1992 doi

  51. [64]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.10345

    1993 doi

  52. [65]

    Schollw ¨ock, Ann

    U. Schollw ¨ock, Ann. Phys. 326, 96 (2011), ISSN 0003- 4916, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003491610001752"

    2011

  53. [66]

    Wen, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165113 (2002), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.165113

    2002 doi

  54. [67]

    Jin, H.-H

    H.-K. Jin, H.-H. Tu, and Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 104, L020409 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.104.L020409

    2021

  55. [68]

    Kalmeyer and R

    V . Kalmeyer and R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2095 (1987), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.59.2095. 7

    1987

  56. [69]

    Kalmeyer and R

    V . Kalmeyer and R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. B 39, 11879 (1989), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.39.11879

    1989

  57. [70]

    See appendix for details

  58. [72]

    Mudry and E

    C. Mudry and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 49, 5200 (1994), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.49. 5200

    1994 doi

  59. [73]

    Shackleton, A

    H. Shackleton, A. Thomson, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045110 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.104.045110

    2021

  60. [74]

    Y .-H. Wu, L. Wang, and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 246401 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.124.246401

    2020

  61. [75]

    Jin, H.-H

    H.-K. Jin, H.-H. Tu, and Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. B 101, 165135 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.101.165135

    2020

  62. [76]

    A. M. Aghaei, B. Bauer, K. Shtengel, and R. V . Mishmash,Effi- cient matrix-product-state preparation of highly entangled trial states: Weak mott insulators on the triangular lattice revisited (2020), 2009.12435

    2020 arXiv

  63. [77]

    Petrica, B.-X

    G. Petrica, B.-X. Zheng, G. K.-L. Chan, and B. K. Clark, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125161 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.125161

    2021 doi

  64. [78]

    Jin, R.-Y

    H.-K. Jin, R.-Y . Sun, Y . Zhou, and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. B 105, L081101 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L081101

    2022 doi

  65. [79]

    A. E. Nielsen, G. Sierra, and J. I. Cirac, Nature communi- cations 4, 2864 (2013), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms3864

    2013

  66. [80]

    Poilblanc, Phys

    D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B 96, 121118 (2017), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.121118

    2017 doi

  67. [81]

    Hasik, M

    J. Hasik, M. Van Damme, D. Poilblanc, and L. Vanderstraeten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 177201 (2022), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.177201

    2022 doi

  68. [82]

    Zhang, Y

    X.-T. Zhang, Y . Huang, H.-Q. Wu, D. N. Sheng, and S.-S. Gong, Phys. Rev. B109, 125146 (2024), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.125146

    2024 doi

  69. [83]

    J. Yang, Z. Liu, and L. Wang (2024), 2401.03434, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2401.03434

    2024 arXiv

  70. [84]

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 9780199227259, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780199227259.001.0001

    2007

  71. [85]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL https://www.sciencedirect

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0003491605002381

    2006

  72. [86]

    X.-Y . Song, A. Vishwanath, and Y .-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 103, 165138 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.103.165138

    2021

  73. [87]

    Chulliparambil, U

    S. Chulliparambil, U. F. P. Seifert, M. V ojta, L. Janssen, and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. B 102, 201111 (2020), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.201111

    2020 doi

  74. [88]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Grover, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 84, 075128 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.84.075128

    2011

  75. [89]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Grover, A. Turner, M. Oshikawa, and A. Vish- wanath, Phys. Rev. B 85, 235151 (2012), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.235151

    2012 doi

  76. [90]

    Zhang and A

    Y . Zhang and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B87, 161113 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 87.161113

    2013 doi

  77. [91]

    Sun, H.-K

    R.-Y . Sun, H.-K. Jin, H.-H. Tu, and Y . Zhou, npj Quantum Materials 9, 16 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41535-024-00627-5

    2024

  78. [92]

    Dirac and chiral spin liquids on spin-1 /2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet

    H.-J. Jin and et al., in preparation (2024). 8 Supplementary information for “Dirac and chiral spin liquids on spin-1 /2 square-lattice Heisenberg antiferromagnet” Hui-Ke Jin,1 Hong-Hao Tu,2, Ya-Hui Zhang 3 1School of Physical Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, S...

    2024

  79. [93]

    A k· p expansion around the Dirac cone of (π/2,±π/2) leads to ˜hZ2 = f† p,↑ f−p,↓ !T χ1(−px± py) η1(−px∓ py)∓ 8η5 px py h.c

    Consequently, HZ2DSL exhibits Dirac cones at ( π/2,π/ 2) and (π/2,−π/2). A k· p expansion around the Dirac cone of (π/2,±π/2) leads to ˜hZ2 = f† p,↑ f−p,↓ !T χ1(−px± py) η1(−px∓ py)∓ 8η5 px py h.c. −χ1(−px± py) ! fp,↑ f† −p,↓ ! + f† p,↓ f−p,↑ !T χ1(−px± py) η1(px± py)± 8η5 px ...

  80. [94]

    The results are shown in Fig

    To determine the critical parameters of the J1-J2-Jχ model, we perform calculations of the variational en- ergy by activating one of the four parameters at a time while setting the other three to zero. The results are shown in Fig. 3, which clearly demonstrates that only η′ 2,...

    2000

Pith tools

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