Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Dynamic orders of a Quantum Spin Liquid at Non-zero Temperatures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a coherent oscillation in the local spin correlation function of the three-dimensional Kitaev model marks the quantum spin liquid phase at non-zero temperatures, and that its fitted amplitude acts as an order…

desk verdict Dynamic-order claim needs stronger finite-size evidence, but the exact real-time correlation method and the visible oscillation onset make this a worthwhile paper for a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10542 v1 pith:BLYY627I submitted 2024-12-13 cond-mat.str-el

Minsu Park , Masafumi Udagawa , Eun-Gook Moon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumspinliquiddynamicorderKitaevmodelhyper-honeycomblatticeMonteCarlocorrelationfunctionWilsonloopthermalphasetransition
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 aims to establish that a quantum spin liquid, a state lacking any symmetry-breaking order parameter, can be identified at non-zero temperatures by a sharp onset of coherent oscillation in its local spin correlation function. Using quantum Monte Carlo on the Kitaev model on the hyper-honeycomb lattice, the authors find that below a thermal transition temperature, the fitted amplitude Adyn(T) of the dominant oscillatory mode closely tracks the Wilson loop expectation value that theoretically defines the spin liquid phase. They propose that Adyn(T) acts as an order parameter for the otherwise featureless transition between the spin liquid and a trivial paramagnet, making the quantum spin liquid detectable through experimentally accessible spin dynamics such as neutron scattering or NMR.

What carries the argument

The key object is the exact Majorana-fermion expression for the dynamical local spin correlation function, obtained by extending the exact two-dimensional Kitaev-model result of reference [29] to the hyper-honeycomb lattice. This expression rewrites ⟨Szj(t)Szj(0)⟩ as a sum over Z2 gauge-field configurations of ratios of determinants of the free-Majorana matrix, allowing quantum Monte Carlo evaluation of real-time dynamics without analytic continuation. A four-parameter fit of the correlation function to Astat + Adyn e−t/tφ cos(φt) then extracts the dynamic-order amplitude Adyn(T); the paper also resolves the sign ambiguity of the square-root determinants using Pfaffian properties, which were previously a technical obstacle.

What would settle it

A finite-size scaling study of the fitted amplitude Adyn(T) across N=4,5,6,7,8 with the same Wilson-loop criterion would settle whether the sharp onset of oscillation survives in the thermodynamic limit; if the fitted Adyn(T) does not sharpen toward a step function as N grows, or remains nonzero above Tw in the thermodynamic limit, the dynamic-order claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Below the thermal transition temperature Tw, the local spin correlation function ⟨Szj(t)Szj(0)⟩ develops a persistent oscillation with a temperature-independent frequency, while above Tw it decays monotonically. Fitting these correlations to a damped cosine form, the extracted amplitude Adyn(T) vanishes at Tw and precisely follows the tendency of the non-local Wilson loop ⟨Ŵ⟩, which detects the condensation of string-type excitations. The authors therefore argue that Adyn(T) plays the role of an order parameter for the thermal transition and name it the dynamic order, providing a local and experimentally accessible probe of the quantum spin liquid phase.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the quantum Monte Carlo data for a small finite system (N=4, with the transition temperature fixed by the arbitrary criterion |⟨Ŵ⟩|=0.03) represent the thermodynamic limit, since no finite-size scaling or statistical error analysis is provided to show the sharp oscillation onset persists as N approaches infinity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A local, experimentally accessible spin response can identify the quantum spin liquid phase at finite temperature, replacing non-local probes like the Wilson loop.
  • The spin structure factor below Tw exhibits temperature-independent flat dispersions, giving a spectroscopic fingerprint that distinguishes the spin liquid from a trivial paramagnet.
  • The dynamic order can detect featureless thermal transitions without symmetry breaking, as reported in candidate materials such as β-Li2IrO3 and Sr2VO3FeAs.
  • The exact QMC method for dynamical spin correlations without analytic continuation can be extended to other exactly solvable spin models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the correspondence between Adyn(T) and ⟨Ŵ⟩ holds beyond the fitted system sizes, local spin dynamics may encode the thermal behavior of non-local flux excitations, suggesting that similar local dynamic markers could exist in other topologically ordered states.
  • In two-dimensional Kitaev spin liquids, where the thermal transition becomes a crossover, the same analysis may reveal a smeared but still detectable oscillation onset, giving a finite-temperature diagnostic in a regime where no true phase transition exists.
  • The single-moded cosine fit may under-report the dynamic order at lower temperatures; a multi-mode fit consistent with the spin structure factor's flat dispersions could reveal additional structure tied to fractionalized excitations.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Kitaev model on the hyper-honeycomb lattice at nonzero temperature and computes the real-time local spin correlation function using a Majorana representation combined with quantum Monte Carlo. The authors report that the correlation function develops a damped oscillatory component below a temperature Tw, which they identify with the thermal transition of the Z2 quantum spin liquid using the Wilson loop expectation value. They extract a fitted amplitude Adyn(T) from a four-parameter damped-cosine ansatz and propose that Adyn(T) acts as a "dynamic order parameter" for the featureless thermal transition. A spin structure factor calculation and a zero-temperature parton calculation are presented in support of the interpretation.

Significance. If established, the proposed dynamic order would be a practically valuable observable for detecting featureless thermal transitions in quantum spin liquids, since it is local, dynamical, and accessible in principle to neutron scattering and related probes. The paper also contains a genuine technical contribution: the exact finite-temperature Majorana determinant expression for the real-time correlation function and the Pfaffian-based resolution of the square-root sign ambiguity are nontrivial and enable QMC evaluation without analytic continuation. It is also fair that the Adyn-versus-Wilson-loop agreement is an empirical numerical comparison, not a circular definition. However, the central claim that Adyn(T) is an order parameter for the thermodynamic transition is currently supported only by a four-parameter fit to N=4 QMC data with no statistical uncertainties, no finite-size scaling, and no finite-temperature parton comparison, so the significance is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dynamic order, Eq. (6)] The central claim that Adyn(T) behaves as an order parameter rests on fits of the four-parameter damped-cosine ansatz in Eq. (6) to QMC time traces at N=4, but the paper reports no statistical uncertainty in Adyn(T), no fit-range sensitivity, no residuals, and no comparison with a null model such as a purely exponential decay without an oscillatory component. A four-parameter cosine can absorb noise in a short, noisy, monotonically decaying time series and return a nonzero Adyn even when no long-lived oscillation exists. Please provide bootstrap or jackknife error bars on Adyn(T), a test of the sensitivity of Adyn to the fitting window, and a goodness-of-fit comparison against a non-oscillatory model before asserting that Adyn 'precisely follows' the Wilson loop tendency.
  2. [Dynamic order, Tw identification] The identification of Tw via the criterion |<W>| = 0.03 for N=4, together with the authors' statement that this onset can differ from the specific-heat peak for finite size and coincides with it only in the thermodynamic limit, means that the apparent sharp onset of Adyn around Tw has not been shown to locate the thermodynamic transition. The authors state that calculations were performed for N=3, 4, and 5, but the main results and the Adyn extraction are shown only for N=4. A finite-size study of Adyn(T) for these sizes, with the same fitting procedure, and an analysis of how Tw converges to the specific-heat peak as N increases are needed before Adyn can be called an order parameter. The authors also note that the oscillation period varies with system size, which further suggests that the fitted frequency and amplitude may track finite-size Majorana levels rather than a thermodynamic order parameter.
  3. [Supplementary Material Sec. I, Fig. 4] The comparison with the parton analysis is performed at T=0, whereas the dynamic-order claim concerns a finite-temperature transition. The T=0 parton calculation, with N=5-8 and N=200, demonstrates that an oscillation exists in the zero-temperature spin-liquid ground state, but it does not test whether the oscillation appears only below Tw or whether Adyn vanishes above Tw. To support the finite-temperature dynamic-order scenario, the manuscript needs either a finite-temperature parton calculation near Tw or a clear finite-size scaling analysis of the QMC Adyn(T); the current 'adiabatic connection' argument is not sufficient because the transition itself is a finite-temperature phenomenon.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The figure caption refers to the dynamic order as 'Ap', while Eq. (6) and the text define 'Adyn'; please unify the notation.
  2. [Model and Dynamic order] The Wilson loop operator W is cited only as 'defined in [6]'; for self-containedness, please define it explicitly in the main text and state how its expectation value distinguishes the confined and deconfined phases.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The time-averaging cutoff T0 in Eq. (4) is easily confused with the temperature T; consider using a different symbol such as tau or t_cutoff.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The reported peak positions depend on the chosen broadening eta (0.09 in Fig. 2 and 0.01 in Fig. 3); please state how the peak frequencies shift with eta and why the chosen values do not affect the qualitative conclusion.
  5. [Supplementary Material Sec. III] In the text after Eq. (7), 'all the positive eigenvalues of the matrix Aj,alpha' appears to contain a typo; the matrix should be A or A' depending on the context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Adyn is independently fitted from local spin correlations and compared with, not derived from, the Wilson loop.

full rationale

The central identification of Adyn(T) as a dynamic order parameter is not circular. Equation (6) is a four-parameter fit to the independently computed QMC local spin correlation function; Adyn is not defined in terms of the Wilson loop ⟨W⟩, nor is ⟨W⟩ used as an input to the fit. The observed correspondence between Adyn(T) and ⟨W⟩ is an empirical numerical comparison, and the paper explicitly describes it as a "correspondence" rather than a derivation. The transition temperature Tw is set by the Wilson-loop criterion |⟨W⟩|=0.03, so the agreement does not independently predict the transition location, but that is a statistical or interpretive limitation, not a self-definitional reduction. The exact Majorana expression for the correlation function is derived from the model, and the T=0 parton comparison provides independent support for the low-temperature oscillation. Citations to prior work by the same group (Refs. [6], [11], [12], [29]) supply the Wilson-loop diagnostic and the known thermal transition, which are reproduced here; these are external published results rather than unverified premises whose content is the present claim. No circular step satisfying the quoted-equation test can be identified from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central new burden is modest: the exact Majorana solution supplies the partition functions, and the paper's additional claim rests mainly on a fitting ansatz and an arbitrary transition criterion. Finite-size effects and absent error bars mean the thermodynamic-extrapolation assumption is the main uncharged input.

free parameters (6)
  • Adyn(T), dynamic-order amplitude = Not reported numerically; described as tracking W
    Extracted by fitting Eq. 6 to QMC local spin correlation data; this is the central quantity of the paper.
  • Astat(T), constant offset = 0 for all cases
    Fourth fit parameter in Eq. 6; used for the Dz=0 sanity check.
  • t_phi(T), damping time = Not tabulated
    Fit parameter in Eq. 6 that controls the decay of the oscillation.
  • phi(T), oscillation frequency = Not tabulated; peak near 3Jt ~ 0.1 below Tw
    Fit parameter in Eq. 6 that determines the period of the local spin oscillation.
  • Tw identification threshold = Tw = 6.7e-3 for N=4 from |W|=0.03
    Hand-chosen criterion for the transition temperature; all below-Tw and above-Tw comparisons depend on it.
  • Lorentzian broadness eta = 0.09 in Fig. 2, 0.01 in Fig. 3
    Chosen broadening for Fourier transforms; affects apparent peak width and the reported peak positions.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kitaev model exact solubility: H = i/4 c^T A c in each flux sector via the Majorana representation.
    The determinant formulas and QMC sampling assume the standard exact solution of the Kitaev model.
  • domain assumption The periodic-boundary projector PF derived in SM Eq. 36 correctly selects physical Kitaev spin liquid states.
    If the fermion parity or the flux-sector phase factors are wrong, the QMC correlation values would be affected.
  • ad hoc to paper The single damped-oscillator ansatz in Eq. 6 approximates the local correlation well enough to define Adyn.
    The fitting form imposes a specific decomposition; the paper notes it can be improved by adding trigonometric functions.
  • ad hoc to paper The Wilson-loop criterion |W|=0.03 locates the thermodynamic transition, and Tw coincides with the specific-heat peak in the N to infinity limit.
    Stated as a belief rather than demonstrated; all below-Tw and above-Tw statements rely on this identification.
  • domain assumption QMC results at N=4 are representative of the thermodynamic limit for the dynamic onset.
    N=3 and N=5 are mentioned but not shown for the main observable, and the larger-N parton comparison is at T=0.
invented entities (1)
  • Dynamic order Adyn(T) independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed observable that characterizes the quantum spin liquid phase and its thermal transition through coherent spin dynamics.
    It is defined from the local spin correlation, which is in principle measurable by neutron scattering or NMR, and its sharp onset below Tw is falsifiable, though no independent experimental handle is provided yet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic orders of a Quantum Spin Liquid at Non-zero Temperatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLYY627I

@misc{pith2026241210542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic orders of a Quantum Spin Liquid at Non-zero Temperatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLYY627I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10542}
}
read the original abstract

A quantum spin liquid hosts massive quantum entanglement whose identification is one of the most significant problems in physics. Yet, its detection is known to be notoriously difficult because of featureless properties without a symmetry order parameter. Here, we demonstrate dynamic signatures of a quantum spin liquid state by investigating Kitaev's spin model on the hyper-honeycomb lattice, where a quantum spin liquid state is stabilized as a stable thermodynamic phase. The real-time dynamics of spin correlation function is obtained with the large-scale quantum Monte Carlo simulation. We find the onset of a characteristic oscillation in dynamic local spin correlation as entering the quantum spin liquid phase. Our results show that a quantum spin liquid may be characterized by a sharp growth of coherent spin dynamics of the system, which we name as a dynamic order. We further propose that a dynamic-order may naturally detect a featureless thermal phase transition, which has been reported in a class of strongly correlated materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) the graphical representation of the Kitaev model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dynamic local spin correlation functions with the pe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Numerical results of spin structure factor at 0.9 [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. (a) Real (blue) and Imaginary (red) parts of the local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2017

  2. [2]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review 5 of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218- 013401

    doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218- 2019

  4. [4]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003- 4916, january Special Issue

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003- 4916, january Special Issue

    2006

  5. [5]

    K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, L. J. Sandilands, V. V. Shankar, Y. F. Hu, K. S. Burch, H.-Y. Kee, and Y.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 90, 041112 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Physical review letters 113, 197205 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Koitzsch, C

    A. Koitzsch, C. Habenicht, E. M¨ uller, M. Knupfer, B. B¨ uchner, H. C. Kandpal, J. van den Brink, D. Nowak, A. Isaeva, and T. Doert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 126403 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.-J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147201 (2015)

    2015

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Jiang, Z.-C

    H.-C. Jiang, Z.-C. Gu, X.-L. Qi, and S. Trebst, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245104 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155143 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Smith, J

    A. Smith, J. Knolle, D. Kovrizhin, J. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Physical Review B 93, 235146 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. Kovrizhin, J. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Physical Review Letters 112, 207203 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. Kovrizhin, J. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Physical Review B 92, 115127 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Physical Review B 96, 024438 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, and Y. Motome, Physical review letters 117, 157203 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, and Y. Motome, Physical Review B 96, 064433 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Physical Review B 101, 100408 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Gohlke, G

    M. Gohlke, G. Wachtel, Y. Yamaji, F. Pollmann, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review B 97, 075126 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Physical Re- view B 98, 014418 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Physical review letters 119, 157203 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent ´ ı, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, D. Kaib, R. Coldea, and R. Va- lent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077203 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Scientific Reports 6, 37925 (2016), ISSN 2045-2322

    2016

  17. [25]

    Takeda, J

    H. Takeda, J. Mai, M. Akazawa, K. Tamura, J. Yan, K. Moovendaran, K. Raju, R. Sankar, K.-Y. Choi, and M. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042035 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Viciu, Q

    L. Viciu, Q. Huang, E. Morosan, H. Zandbergen, N. Greenbaum, T. McQueen, and R. Cava, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 180, 1060 (2007), ISSN 0022-4596

    2007

  19. [27]

    G. B. Hal´ asz, B. Perreault, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 097202 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Z.-X. Luo, E. Lake, J.-W. Mei, and O. A. Starykh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 037204 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Udagawa, Physical Review B 98, 220404 (2018)

    M. Udagawa, Physical Review B 98, 220404 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Udagawa and R

    M. Udagawa and R. Moessner, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.01545 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rousochatzakis, S

    I. Rousochatzakis, S. Kourtis, J. Knolle, R. Moessner, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045117 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V. Bal´ edent, M. Jim´ enez-Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, et al., Phys. Rev. B 102, 224429 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    G. Lin, J. Jeong, C. Kim, Y. Wang, Q. Huang, T. Ma- suda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, G. G¨ unther, M. Russina, et al., Na- ture Communications 12, 5559 (2021), ISSN 2041-1723

    2021

  26. [34]

    Wulferding, Y

    D. Wulferding, Y. Choi, S.-H. Do, C. H. Lee, P. Lem- mens, C. Faugeras, Y. Gallais, and K.-Y. Choi, Nature Communications 11, 1603 (2020), ISSN 2041-1723

    2020

  27. [35]

    Tanaka, Y

    O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Hwang, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Fujimoto, Y. Mat- suda, E. G. Moon, et al., Nature Physics 18, 429 (2022), ISSN 1745-2481

    2022

  28. [36]

    Y.-C. Wang, M. Cheng, W. Witczak-Krempa, and Z. Y. Meng, Nature Communications 12, 5347 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Singh and P

    Y. Singh and P. Gegenwart, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 82, 064412 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Singh, S

    Y. Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Physical review letters 108, 127203 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Plumb, J

    K. Plumb, J. Clancy, L. Sandilands, V. V. Shankar, Y. Hu, K. Burch, H.-Y. Kee, and Y.-J. Kim, Physical Review B 90, 041112 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.-J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Physical review letters 114, 147201 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. Aczel, L. Li, M. Stone, G. Granroth, M. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, et al., Nature materials 15, 733 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Kitagawa, T

    K. Kitagawa, T. Takayama, Y. Matsumoto, A. Kato, R. Takano, Y. Kishimoto, S. Bette, R. Dinnebier, G. Jackeli, and H. Takagi, Nature 554, 341 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    J. H. Roudebush, K. Ross, and R. Cava, Dalton Trans- actions 45, 8783 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Abramchuk, C

    M. Abramchuk, C. Ozsoy-Keskinbora, J. W. Krizan, K. R. Metz, D. C. Bell, and F. Tafti, Journal of the Amer- ican Chemical Society 139, 15371 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Bahrami, W

    F. Bahrami, W. Lafargue-Dit-Hauret, O. I. Lebedev, R. Movshovich, H.-Y. Yang, D. Broido, X. Rocque- felte, and F. Tafti, Physical Review Letters 123, 237203 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. Plumb, J. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Physical Review B 91, 144420 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    R. D. Johnson, S. Williams, A. Haghighirad, J. Single- ton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent ´ ı, et al., Physical Review B92, 235119 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Physical re- view letters 110, 097204 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Physical review letters 112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Banerjee, P

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

    2018

  44. [52]

    Majumder, M

    M. Majumder, M. Schmidt, H. Rosner, A. Tsirlin, H. Ya- suoka, and M. Baenitz, Physical Review B 91, 180401 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- 6 tome, et al., Nature 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Yamashita, J

    M. Yamashita, J. Gouchi, Y. Uwatoko, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, Physical Review B 102, 220404 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, C. Hickey, et al., Science 373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Wulferding, Y

    D. Wulferding, Y. Choi, S.-H. Do, C. H. Lee, P. Lem- mens, C. Faugeras, Y. Gallais, and K.-Y. Choi, Nature communications 11, 1603 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Ponomaryov, E

    A. Ponomaryov, E. Schulze, J. Wosnitza, P. Lampen- Kelley, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. Bridges, D. Mandrus, S. Nagler, A. Kolezhuk, et al., Physical Review B 96, 241107 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Z. Wang, S. Reschke, D. H¨ uvonen, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, M. Gensch, U. Nagel, T. R˜ o˜ om, and A. Loidl, Physical review letters 119, 227202 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. Ong, Nature Physics 17, 915 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    E. Z. Zhang, L. E. Chern, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Re- view B 103, 174402 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Bruin, R

    J. Bruin, R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, Nature Physics 18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Lefran¸ cois, G

    ´E. Lefran¸ cois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. Nagler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, et al., Physical Review X 12, 021025 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Nature Materials 22, 36 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Koitzsch, C

    A. Koitzsch, C. Habenicht, E. Mueller, M. Knupfer, B. Buechner, S. Kretschmer, M. Richter, J. van den Brink, F. Boerrnert, D. Nowak, et al., Physical Review Materials 1, 052001 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    B. Zhou, J. Balgley, P. Lampen-Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, and E. A. Henriksen, Physical Review B 100, 165426 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    Mashhadi, Y

    S. Mashhadi, Y. Kim, J. Kim, D. Weber, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, N. Park, B. Lotsch, J. H. Smet, M. Burghard, et al., Nano letters 19, 4659 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Weber, L

    D. Weber, L. M. Schoop, V. Duppel, J. M. Lippmann, J. Nuss, and B. V. Lotsch, Nano letters 16, 3578 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Gr¨ onke, P

    M. Gr¨ onke, P. Schmidt, M. Valldor, S. Oswald, D. Wolf, A. Lubk, B. B¨ uchner, and S. Hampel, Nanoscale 10, 19014 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    B. Zhou, Y. Wang, G. B. Osterhoudt, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. Mandrus, R. He, K. S. Burch, and E. A. Henrik- sen, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 128, 291 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Carrega, I

    M. Carrega, I. J. Vera-Marun, and A. Principi, Physical Review B 102, 085412 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Feldmeier, W

    J. Feldmeier, W. Natori, M. Knap, and J. Knolle, Phys- ical Review B 102, 134423 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    E. J. K¨ onig, M. T. Randeria, and B. J¨ ack, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 267206 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Udagawa, S

    M. Udagawa, S. Takayoshi, and T. Oka, Physical Review Letters 126, 127201 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    M. O. Takahashi, M. G. Yamada, M. Udagawa, T. Mizushima, and S. Fujimoto, Physical Review Letters 131, 236701 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Nagai, T

    Y. Nagai, T. Jinno, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, M. Itoh, and Y. Shimizu, Physical Review B 101, 020414 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Hwang, A

    K. Hwang, A. Go, J. H. Seong, T. Shibauchi, and E.-G. Moon, Nature communications 13, 323 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    A. Go, J. Jung, and E.-G. Moon, Physical Review Letters 122, 147203 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Imamura, S

    K. Imamura, S. Suetsugu, Y. Mizukami, Y. Yoshida, K. Hashimoto, K. Ohtsuka, Y. Kasahara, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, P. Noh, et al., Science Advances10, eadk3539 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    P. Noh, K. Hwang, and E.-G. Moon, Physical Review B 109, L201105 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    W. Choi, K. H. Lee, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review Letters 124, 117205 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Namba, K

    R. Namba, K. Imamura, R. Ishioka, K. Ishihara, T. Miyamoto, H. Okamoto, Y. Shimizu, Y. Saito, Y. Agarmani, M. Lang, et al., Physical Review Materials 8, 074404 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Tanaka, Y

    O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Hwang, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Fujimoto, Y. Mat- suda, E.-G. Moon, et al., Nature Physics 18, 429 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    J. M. Ok, S. H. Baek, C. Hoch, R. K. Kremer, S. Y. Park, S. Ji, B. B¨ uchner, J. H. Park, S. I. Hyun, J. H. Shim, et al., Nature Communications 8, 2167 (2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    Takayama, A

    T. Takayama, A. Kato, R. Dinnebier, J. Nuss, H. Kono, L. Veiga, G. Fabbris, D. Haskel, and H. Takagi, Physical review letters 114, 077202 (2015)

    2015

  77. [85]

    Majumder, F

    M. Majumder, F. Freund, T. Dey, M. Prinz-Zwick, N. B¨ uttgen, Y. Skourski, A. Jesche, A. A. Tsirlin, and P. Gegenwart, Physical Review Materials 3, 074408 (2019). 7 Supplemental Material for ”Dynamic Orders of Quantum Spin Liquids at non-zero Temperatures” I. Connection betwee...

    2019

  78. [86]

    R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Physical review letters 57, 2607 (1986)

    1986

  79. [87]

    L. M. Robledo, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 79, 021302 (2009)

    2009

  80. [88]

    Knolle, Dynamics of a Quantum Spin Liquid (Springer, 2016)

    J. Knolle, Dynamics of a Quantum Spin Liquid (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  81. [89]

    Udagawa, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 254001 (2021)

    M. Udagawa, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 254001 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    F. L. Pedrocchi, S. Chesi, and D. Loss, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 165414 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.