Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 92 references

Interplay of Kitaev Interaction and Off-diagonal Exchanges: Exotic Phases and Quantum Phase Diagrams

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 honeycomb $\Gamma$ model, containing only off-diagonal exchange, may host a gapless quantum spin liquid.

desk verdict A transparent self-review of the authors' own numerics on Kitaev-Gamma models; useful as a roadmap, but the flagship GammaSL claim is a numerical indication, not a settled result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17476 v1 pith:GMHGAMWF submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Qiang Luo , Jize Zhao , Xiaoqun Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 82B2082B2682B27 PACS 75.10.Jm75.30.Kz
keywords quantumspinliquidKitaevinteractionoff-diagonalexchangehoneycomblatticechiralstatenematicferromagnetphasediagramdensity-matrixrenormalizationgroup
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

Off-diagonal $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ exchanges are usually seen as perturbations that kill the Kitaev spin liquid. This review argues the opposite: they generate their own exotic phases, the leading example being a gapless $\Gamma$ spin liquid in the honeycomb $\Gamma$ model, supported by large-scale density-matrix renormalization group simulations on cylinders with up to 200 sites. The same numerical toolkit yields chiral-spin states with spontaneously broken time-reversal symmetry in the $\Gamma$-$\Gamma'$ model, chiral order and nematic ferromagnets in the spin-1 Kitaev-$\Gamma$ model, and seven-phase quantum phase diagrams in $S=1/2$ and $S=1$ anisotropic Kitaev-$\Gamma$ chains. If these results hold, the experimental search for spin liquids should not be restricted to materials tuned to a pure Kitaev point; dominant off-diagonal exchange can suffice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin Hamiltonian $$H = \sum_{\langle ij\rangle\parallel\gamma} \left[J S_i\cdot S_j + K S_i^\gamma S_j^\gamma + \Gamma(S_i^\$\alpha$ S_j^\$\beta$ + S_i^\$\beta$ S_j^\$\alpha$)\right] + \Gamma' \sum_{\langle ij\rangle\parallel\gamma} \left[(S_i^\$\alpha$ + S_i^\$\beta$) S_j^\gamma + S_i^\gamma (S_j^\$\alpha$ + S_j^\$\beta$)\right] - \sum_i h\cdot S_i,$$ whose bond-directional $\gamma$ axes encode the octahedral geometry of Kitaev materials. The argument is carried numerically by density-matrix renormalization group on finite-width cylinders, with three diagnostics: the static magnetic structure factor and order parameter to separate zigzag, stripy, and diffuse spin-liquid patterns; the finite-size collapse of low-energy excitation gaps; and the von Neumann entanglement entropy, whose logarithmic growth with cylinder length gives a central charge. On the classical side, the $\eta$-notation parameterizes the macroscopically degenerate ground-state manifold of the $\Gamma$ model by independent Ising variables on cubic spin directions, and the six-sublattice $T_6$ rotation maps the Kitaev-$\Gamma$ Hamiltonian to a Heisenberg-plus-refined-Kitaev form, exposing a hidden SU(2) point at $K=\Gamma$; that dual description is what turns counter-rotating spiral, chiral, and nematic orders into predictable descendants of Heisenberg physics.

What would settle it

Run an unbiased ground-state calculation on a cylinder or torus wider than the $n=10$ circumferences used in the review with a larger bond dimension, and check whether the magnetization at the M point extrapolates to zero and whether the von Neumann entropy's central charge is the same for different widths. The review's own data gives $c\approx 0$ on a three-leg cylinder and $c\approx 3$ on a four-leg cylinder, so a width-independent value would settle the question; a nonzero extrapolated magnetization would refute the gapless $\Gamma$ spin liquid claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phase diagram of the bond-directional $JK\Gamma\Gamma'$ model is much richer than a simple competition between Kitaev spin liquid and magnetic order. Concretely, the review claims that the honeycomb $\Gamma$ model, which contains only off-diagonal exchange, has a gapless $\Gamma$ spin liquid ground state: the magnetic order parameter extrapolates to zero, the lowest excitation gaps collapse with system size, and the entanglement entropy grows logarithmically on four-leg cylinders with a central charge around 3, even though a three-leg cylinder gives a flat entropy and hence a central charge near 0. The review reads this width dependence as evidence for either a spinon Fermi surface or a Dirac spin liquid with three Dirac cones near the M points, and it explicitly lists contradictory variational Monte Carlo (zigzag) and pseudofermion functional renormalization group (incommensurate) results as open tensions. The same framework yields a $\Gamma$-$\Gamma'$ phase diagram with a chiral-spin ordering that breaks time-reversal symmetry spontaneously, a spin-flop phase under a [111] field, a spin-1 Kitaev-$\Gamma$ diagram with chiral spin states and two nematic ferromagnets, and one-dimensional phase diagrams with seven phases for each of $S=1/2$ and $S=1$, including Haldane, odd-Haldane, dimerized, and Kitaev phases. The paper's purpose is to present these numerical phase diagrams as the working map for interpreting Kitaev candidate materials.

Load-bearing premise

The whole case for the gapless $\Gamma$ spin liquid rests on trusting density-matrix renormalization group results on cylinders up to 200 sites and extrapolating them to the thermodynamic limit, even though the entanglement signature changes with cylinder width and other numerical methods cited in the paper find magnetic order instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Materials whose dominant exchange is $\Gamma$ rather than $K$ become credible spin-liquid candidates; the search should broaden beyond the pure Kitaev point.
  • A zero-field chiral-spin phase with spontaneous time-reversal breaking gives a concrete honeycomb route to magnetically disordered but chiral ground states; its [111]-field neighbor, the spin-flop phase, maps at $\Gamma'=\Gamma$ to a superfluid phase of hard-core bosons, so magnetic and bosonic descriptions are interchangeable.
  • The predicted ratio $M(K)/M(\Gamma')=\sqrt{6}/3$ in the spin-1 chiral spin state is a quantitative signature that experiments on higher-spin Kitaev materials could test.
  • The one-dimensional phase diagrams supply seven distinct phases per spin size, and a continuous transition with central charge $c=1$ driven by single-ion anisotropy would mark the spin-1 Kitaev chain as a platform for deconfined quantum criticality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the width-dependent central charge is the decisive test of the gapless $\Gamma$ spin liquid: the review's own numbers ($c\approx 0$ on a three-leg cylinder, $c\approx 3$ on four legs) mean the gaplessness could be a property of the cut rather than the thermodynamic limit.
  • Beyond the paper, the $T_6$ hidden-SU(2) duality may extend to two-dimensional $\Gamma$-dominated models, which would make some phases accessible to sign-problem-free quantum Monte Carlo or exact constructions; the paper does not pursue that route.
  • If the spin-flop phase really is the bosonic superfluid of an easy-axis XXZ model, thermal-Hall and specific-heat measurements on $\Gamma$-dominated materials in a [111] field should show a characteristic low-temperature channel that ordinary magnon transport would not; that prediction is left implicit.
  • The classification of type-I and type-II Kitaev phases in the spin-1 chain by the degeneracy of the first excited state suggests that excited-state symmetry data, not just ground-state order, may be a useful general label for spin-liquid-like phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of numerical studies of spin-1/2 and spin-1 Kitaev-Γ and Γ-Γ′ models on honeycomb and chain lattices. It focuses on phases reported in the authors' prior work: the Γ spin liquid (ΓSL) in the honeycomb Γ model, chiral-spin states, nematic ferromagnets, spin-flop phases, and the phase diagrams of anisotropic Kitaev-Γ chains. The review presents the Kitaev exact solution and the classical Γ-model spin-liquid context, then summarizes DMRG and exact-diagonalization evidence for each phase. It explicitly discloses conflicting numerical results for the honeycomb Γ model, namely the VMC zigzag result [64] and the PFFRG incommensurate result [65], and it ends with open questions about field-induced phases and the spin-1 Kitaev honeycomb model.

Significance. The review provides a compact, accessible synthesis of a substantial body of numerical work on spin-orbit coupled models that are notoriously difficult to simulate, and the authors are transparent about methodological disagreements and unresolved issues. If the central ΓSL claim is correct, the honeycomb Γ model would be an important example of a gapless quantum spin liquid in a model without Heisenberg exchange, lending significance to the review beyond its survey value. However, the load-bearing evidence for this claim is the authors' own DMRG data, whose width-dependent central charge (c≈0 on a three-leg cylinder, c≈3 on a four-leg cylinder) is not independently confirmed, and the review does not provide a quantitative comparison with the conflicting VMC and PFFRG results. The overall value of the review will depend on how carefully this key conclusion is framed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph containing "The von Neumann entanglement entropy"] The claim that the honeycomb Γ model has a gapless ΓSL ground state is not supported by the evidence as presented. The central charge from the entanglement entropy is c≈0 on a three-leg cylinder and c≈3 on a four-leg cylinder, and the authors themselves offer two incompatible readings (a spinon Fermi surface or a Dirac QSL) without extracting either from the data. No numerical details are given for the DMRG runs, such as bond dimension, truncation error, or convergence with cylinder width. Given the conflicting VMC [64] and PFFRG [65] results that the review itself cites, the text should either provide a quantitative comparison (for example, ground-state energies or order parameters on matched clusters) showing why the DMRG result is preferred, or rephrase the conclusion as a candidate phase rather than an established ground state.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 1(a) and the magnetization extrapolation] The vanishing magnetization M(Q)→0 is obtained by linear extrapolation of the maximal structure-factor peaks over only four circumferences (n=4 to 10). The manuscript does not report error bars, bond-dimension convergence, or a stability check of the extrapolation against including a weak finite-size correction; without these, a weak ordered state that only becomes visible at larger widths cannot be excluded. Since this zero-magnetization result is used to place the Γ limit inside the QSL window in Fig. 1(b), the quoted phase boundaries ϑt,l≃0.50π and ϑt,r=0.66(1)π inherit a corresponding uncertainty that is not reflected in the text.
  3. [Section 2.2, final paragraph, and Section 3, final sentence] The review is internally inconsistent about the epistemic status of the ΓSL. In Section 2.2 it states that "the ground state is found to be a gapless ΓSL," while Section 3 concludes that the data "manifest the ground state of honeycomb Γ model is plausible a gapless QSL." In view of the conflicting numerical results disclosed in Section 2.2, the stronger phrasing is not justified, and the two statements should be harmonized to reflect the same, appropriately cautious level of certainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, first paragraph] The name of the method is misspelled as "Luttinger-Tisza" in the sentence beginning "At the classical level"; it should read "Luttinger-Tisza."
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on excitation gaps] The phrase "density of state" should be "density of states."
  3. [Reference [69]] Reference [69] cites an arXiv preprint (arXiv:2409.10439); if a peer-reviewed version has appeared by publication, it should be cited instead.
  4. [Section 5.1, closing paragraph] The sentence "The dynamic SSF calculation finds a broad continuous feature in the low-frequency region, which is likely the evidence of the QSL phase" is vague; the authors should clarify in what sense a broad continuum is evidence for a QSL rather than for a proximate critical phase, given that the modular S matrix is trivial.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the review's phase claims rest on published numerical computations, including the authors' own DMRG, but no claim reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a review of the authors' and collaborators' numerical work on Kitaev-Gamma and Gamma-Gamma-prime models. It does not present a new derivation whose output is equivalent to its input. The central Gamma-spin-liquid claim in Section 3 is supported by the DMRG study of Luo et al. [34], which is a controlled finite-size numerical calculation with stated cylinder circumferences and system sizes; it is not a parameter fitted to the conclusion, and it is in principle externally checkable. The review explicitly acknowledges conflicting variational Monte Carlo [64] and pseudofermion functional renormalization group [65] results, so it does not suppress independent evidence or invoke an authorially imposed uniqueness theorem. The width-dependent central charge (c about 0 on a three-leg cylinder versus c about 3 on a four-leg cylinder) and the linear extrapolation of the magnetic order parameter are evidence-quality and convergence concerns, not self-referential reasoning. No quantity in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The frequent self-citations reflect the stated scope, 'studied by us and our collaborators,' and each citation points to a separate numerical or analytical result rather than serving as an unverified authority that closes an argument. Therefore no significant circularity is present; the scientific weaknesses are real but belong to the category of numerical reliability and consensus, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new free parameters: the quoted α-RuCl3 couplings K = -6.8 meV and Γ = 9.5 meV (Section 4) are fitted values from the cited literature (Refs [51, 66]) and are context, not inputs to any derivation in this paper. All substantive claims are carried by the six axioms above, and the heaviest burden sits on the DMRG convergence premise for the ΓSL claim, which the review's own width-dependent central-charge data leave unresolved. No new particles, mediators, forces, conserved quantities, or dimensions are introduced; the exotic phases reviewed are characterizations of the existing J K Γ Γ′ Hamiltonians, each tied to published observables such as structure factors, excitation gaps, and central charges.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lieb's theorem fixes the Kitaev honeycomb-model ground state in the flux-free sector with all hexagonal plaquette eigenvalues W_p = +1.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to establish the exactly solvable Kitaev QSL as background; taken from Ref [13] without proof in this review.
  • domain assumption DMRG on XC cylinders with circumference n = 4 to 10, extrapolated in cylinder width, yields the thermodynamic-limit ground state of the honeycomb Γ model.
    Load-bearing for the ΓSL claim in Section 3. The review's own central charge is width-dependent (c ≈ 0 on three-leg, c ≈ 3 on four-leg cylinders), which makes this convergence premise fragile; this is the weakest assumption of the paper.
  • domain assumption The J K Γ Γ′ model (Eq. 1) is a legitimate low-energy description of α-RuCl3 and related Kitaev materials.
    Motivates the review in Sections 1 and 2. Section 4 concedes 'the convincing model to describe α-RuCl3 remains unclear [33]', so this premise is acknowledged to be uncertain.
  • domain assumption DMRG on the bond-alternating Kitaev-Γ chain (Eq. 9) with the parameters from Refs [38, 39] resolves all seven phases in each spin sector.
    Underpins the S = 1/2 and S = 1 phase diagrams in Section 6; the review quotes the phase boundaries and degeneracies without re-deriving them.
  • standard math The T6 six-sublattice rotation is an exact unitary mapping that exposes a hidden SU(2) point at K = Γ in the Kitaev-Γ model.
    Used in Section 4.1 to transform Eq. (5) into Eq. (6); an algebraic identity from Refs [68, 70].
  • domain assumption Second-order quantum fluctuations, via the energy correction in Eq. (7), select the collinear configuration among the classical degenerate manifold, producing the chiral spin state with saturated scalar chirality.
    Section 4.1 uses this order-by-disorder selection to argue the chiral spin state is the ground state; the review adds linear spin-wave support but no exhaustive proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interplay of Kitaev Interaction and Off-diagonal Exchanges: Exotic Phases and Quantum Phase Diagrams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMHGAMWF

@misc{pith2026241217476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interplay of Kitaev Interaction and Off-diagonal Exchanges: Exotic Phases and Quantum Phase Diagrams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMHGAMWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17476}
}
abstract

Aligning with the everlasting search for quantum spin liquids (QSLs), identifying the QSL in Kitaev magnets has garnered great research interest during the past decade and remains nevertheless an enormous challenge. One of the major difficulties lies in that Kitaev QSL is typically fragile against competing interactions like off-diagonal exchanges, which are ubiquitous in real materials due to spin-orbit coupling and crystal-field effect. This, in turn, gives rise to many intriguing field-induced novel phases and thermal Hall effect. In this review, we will focus on the interplay of Kitaev interaction and off-diagonal $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ exchanges from a numerical perspective. This review discusses some representative exotic phases such as $\Gamma$ spin liquid, nematic ferromagnet, spin-flop phase, and distinct chiral-spin states with spontaneously time-reversal symmetry breaking. It also presents quantum phase diagrams of anisotropic Kitaev-$\Gamma$ chains that exhibit kaleidoscopes of both ordered and disordered phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17476 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Magnetic order parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The flux-like density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum phase diagram of the Γ-Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Quantum phase diagram of the spin-1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [64]

    Rousochatzakis I, and Perkins N B 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 147204

    work page 2017

  2. [65]

    Chen K, Luo Q, Zhou Z, He S, Xi B, Jia C, Luo H G and Zhao J 2023 New J. Phys. 25 023006

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Introduction . Hitherto, experimental hunt for, and theoretical prediction of, exotic states of matter such as quantum spin liquid (QSL) remain a remarkable chal- lenge at the forefront of modern condensed-matter re- search [1–4]. Initiated by P. W. Anderson more than a half-century ago [5], the concept of QSL has garnered significant attention due to it ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  4. [2]

    Model and Relevant Materials . In the transition- metal compounds with edge-sharing octahedra, interplay of spin-orbit coupling and crystal-field effect conspires to bring about bond-directional Ising-type interactions, causing the formulation of a large family of Kitaev mate- rials on a honeycomb lattice [18]. Although these ma- terials have different ma...

  5. [3]

    To check for the tendency of zigzag ordering, Luo et al

    Gapless ΓSL Revealed in Bond-modulated Heisenberg-Γ model. To check for the tendency of zigzag ordering, Luo et al. proposed a bond-modulated Heisenberg-Γ model [34] whose Hamiltonian reads H = ˜J X ⟨ij⟩∥γ ηγSi · Sj + Γ X ⟨ij⟩∥γ (Sα i Sβ j + Sβ i Sα j ), (4) in which Sγ i (γ = x, y, z) is the γ-component of the spin operator, and α and β are the remaining...

  6. [4]

    The Kitaev-Γ model has captured massive attention both because of its relevance to real materials, and because of its ability to harbour exotic phases

    Spin-1 Kitaev- Γ model. The Kitaev-Γ model has captured massive attention both because of its relevance to real materials, and because of its ability to harbour exotic phases. By exerting the perturbation theory on a five-orbital Hubbard model and exploiting the energy bands via the ab initio calculation [66], it is proposed that the effective Hamiltonian...

  7. [5]

    Since there are merely three different ηs, the ground-state degeneracy is eight at any fixed choice of {a, b, c}

    Mean- while, the spins in counter-rotating spiral order rotate clockwise on one of the two sublattices while the remain- ing spins on the other sublattice rotate counter-clockwise around the [111] axis [67]. Since there are merely three different ηs, the ground-state degeneracy is eight at any fixed choice of {a, b, c}. Despite the many possibilities for ...

    2024

  8. [6]

    Γ-Γ′ Model: With and Without Magnetic Field . Since both Γ and Γ ′ interactions are off-diagonal ex- change couplings, the Γ-Γ′ model is thus expected to host exotic states of matter due to the interplay of exchange frustration and competing interactions. Although this model is rather anisotropic, it can be rewritten as an easy-axis XXZ model with a Z2 ⋉ ...

    2022

Show all 92 references
  1. [7]

    Landau-forbidden

    Anisotropic Kitaev- Γ chain. Confronted with the difficulties of deriving convincing phase diagrams of the honeycomb-lattice Kitaev-Γ model, research effort has also been applied to 1D physics in attempts to cap- ture referable hints. The full Hamiltonian of the bond- alternat...

    2021

  2. [8]

    Summary and Perspective. We have reviewed some numerical works related to exotic phases and quantum phase diagrams in Kitaev-Γ model and Γ-Γ ′ model, both of which are particular cases of the genericJ KΓΓ′ model. In contrast to the long-standing SU(2)-symmetric mod- els, these...

  3. [9]

    Balents L 2010 Nature (London) 464 199

    2010

  4. [10]

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

    2017

  5. [11]

    Wen J, Yu S L, Li S, Yu W, and Li J X 2019 npj Quantum Mater. 4 12

    2019

  6. [12]

    Broholm C, Cava R J, Kivelson S A, Nocera D G, Norman M R, and Senthil T 2020 Science 367 eaay0668

    2020

  7. [13]

    Anderson P W 1973 Mater. Res. Bull. 8 153

    1973

  8. [14]

    Wen X G 2017 Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 041004

    2017

  9. [15]

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

    2017

  10. [16]

    Zhang C, and Li T 2020 Phys. Rev. B 102 195106

    2020

  11. [17]

    Hu S, Zhu W, Eggert S, and He Y C 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 207203

    2019

  12. [18]

    Gong S S, Zheng W, Lee M, Lu Y M, and Sheng D N 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 241111(R)

    2019

  13. [19]

    Wang L, and Sandvik A W 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 107202

    2018

  14. [20]

    Liu W Y, Gong S S, Li Y B, Poilblanc D, Chen W Q, Gu Z C 2022 Sci. Bull. 67 1034-1041

    2022

  15. [21]

    Kitaev A 2006 Ann. Phys. (NY) 321 2

    2006

  16. [22]

    Hermanns M, Kimchi I, and Knolle J 2018 Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys. 9 17-33

    2018

  17. [23]

    Takagi H, Takayama T, Jackeli G, Khaliullin G, and Nagler S E 2019 Nat. Phys. Rev. 1 264-280

    2019

  18. [24]

    Trebst S, and Hickey C 2022 Phys. Rep. 950 1-37

    2022

  19. [25]

    Rousochatzakis I, Perkins N B, Luo Q, and Kee H Y 2024 Rep. Prog. Phys. 87 026502

    2024

  20. [26]

    Jackeli G, and Khaliullin G 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 017205

    2009

  21. [27]

    Singh Y, and Gegenwart P 2010 Phys. Rev. B 82 064412

    2010

  22. [28]

    Sears J A, Songvilay M, Plumb K W, Clancy J P, Qiu Y, Zhao 10 Y, Parshall D, and Kim Y J 2015 Phys. Rev. B 91 144420

    2015

  23. [29]

    Songvilay M, Robert J, Petit S, Rodriguez-Rivera J A, Ratcli W D, Damay F, Bal´ edent V, Jim´ enez-Ruiz M, jay P Le, Pa- choud E, Hadj-Azzem A, Simonet V, and Stock C 2020 Phys. Rev. B 102 224429

    2020

  24. [30]

    2021 Nat

    Lin G, Jeong J, Kim C et al. 2021 Nat. Commun. 12 5559

    2021

  25. [31]

    Li X, Gu Y, Chen Y, Garlea V O, Iida K, Kamazawa K, Li Y, Deng G, Xiao Q, Zheng X, Ye Z, Peng Y, Zaliznyak I A, Tranquada J M, and Li Y 2022 Phys. Rev. X 12 041024

    2022

  26. [32]

    Zhong R, Gao T, Ong N P, and Cava R J 2020 Science Ad- vances 6 eaay6953

    2020

  27. [33]

    Ji J, Sun M, Cai Y, Wang Y, Sun Y, Ren W, Zhang Z, Jin F, and Zhang Q 2021 Chin. Phys. Lett. 38 047502

    2021

  28. [34]

    Stavropoulos P P, Pereira D, and Kee H Y 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 037203

    2019

  29. [35]

    Zvereva E A, Stratan M I, Ovchenkov Y A, Nalbandyan V B, Lin J Y, Vavilova E L, Iakovleva M F, Abdel-Hafiez M, Silhanek A V, Chen X J, Stroppa A, Picozzi S, Jeschke H O, Valent ´ ı R, and Vasiliev A N 2015 Phys. Rev. B92 144401

    2015

  30. [36]

    2023 Nat

    Shangguan Y, Bao S, Dong Z Y, Xi N, Gao Y P, Ma Z, Wang W, Qi Z, Zhang S, Huang Z et al. 2023 Nat. Phys. 19 1883- 1889

    2023

  31. [37]

    Taddei K M, Garlea V O, Samarakoon A M, Sanjeewa L D, Xing J, Heitmann T W, Cruz C dela, Sefat A S, and Parker D 2023 Phys. Rev. Research 5 013022

    2023

  32. [38]

    Xu C, Feng J, Xiang H, and Bellaiche L 2018 npj Comput. Mater. 4 57

    2018

  33. [39]

    Xu C, Feng J, Kawamura M, Yamaji Y, Nahas Y, Prokhorenko S, Qi Y, Xiang H, and Bellaiche L 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 087205

    2020

  34. [40]

    Stavropoulos P P, Liu X, and Kee H Y 2021 Phys. Rev. Re- search 3 013216

    2021

  35. [41]

    Maksimov P A, and Chernyshev A L 2020 Phys. Rev. Research 2 033011

    2020

  36. [42]

    Luo Q, Zhao J, Kee H Y, and Wang X 2021 npj Quantum Mater. 6 57

    2021

  37. [43]

    Luo Q, Zhao J, Li J, and Wang X 2024 Phys. Rev. B 110 035121

    2024

  38. [44]

    Luo Q, Stavropoulos P P, Gordon J S, and Kee H Y 2022 Phys. Rev. Research 4 013062

    2022

  39. [45]

    Luo Q, and Kee H Y 2022 Phys. Rev. B 105 174435

    2022

  40. [46]

    Luo Q, Zhao J, Wang X, and Kee H Y 2021 Phys. Rev. B 103 144423

    2021

  41. [47]

    Luo Q, Hu S, and Kee H Y 2021 Phys. Rev. Research 3 033048

    2021

  42. [48]

    Luo Q, Hu S, Li J, Zhao J, Kee H Y, and Wang X 2023 Phys. Rev. B 107 245131

    2023

  43. [49]

    Rau J G, Lee E K H, and Kee H Y 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 077204

    2014

  44. [50]

    Kitagawa K, Takayama T, Matsumoto Y, Kato A, Takano R, Kishimoto Y, Bette S, Dinnebier R, Jackeli G, and Takagi H 2018 Nature 554, 341-345

    2018

  45. [51]

    Bahrami F, Lafargue-Dit-Hauret W, Lebedev O I, Movshovich R, Yang H Y, Broido D, Rocquefelte X, and Tafti F 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 237203

    2019

  46. [52]

    2016 Nat

    Banerjee A, Bridges C A, Yan J Q et al. 2016 Nat. Mater. 15 733-740

    2016

  47. [53]

    Sears J A, Zhao Y, Xu Z, Lynn J W, and Kim Y J 2017 Phys. Rev. B 95 180411(R)

    2017

  48. [54]

    Baek S H, Do S H, Choi K Y, Kwon Y S, Wolter A U B, Nishimoto S, van den Brink J, and B¨ uchner B 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 037201

    2017

  49. [55]

    Wolter A U B, Corredor L T, Janssen L, Nenkov K, Sch¨ onecker S, Do S H, Choi K Y, Albrecht R, Hunger J, Doert T, Vojta M, and B¨ uchner B 2017 Phys. Rev. B96 041405(R)

    2017

  50. [56]

    Wang Z, Reschke S, H¨ uvonen D, Do S H, Choi K Y, Gensch M, Nagel U, Room T, and Loidl A 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 227202

    2017

  51. [57]

    Zheng J, Ran K, Li T, Wang J, Wang P, Liu B, Liu Z X, Normand B, Wen J, and Yu W 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 227208

    2017

  52. [58]

    Do S H, Park S Y, Yoshitake J, Nasu J, Motome Y, Kwon Y S, Adroja D T, Voneshen D J, Kim K, Jang T H, Park J H, Choi K Y, and Ji S 2017 Nat. Phys. 13 1079

    2017

  53. [59]

    Ran K, Wang J, Wang W, Dong Z Y, Ren X, Bao S, Li S, Ma Z, Gan Y, Zhang Y, Park J T, Deng G, Danilkin S, Yu S L, Li J X, and Wen J 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 107203

    2017

  54. [60]

    Winter S M, Riedl K, Maksimov P A, Chernyshev A L, Ho- necker A, and Valenti R 2018 Nat. Commun. 8 1152

    2018

  55. [61]

    Ran K, Wang J, Bao S, Cai Z, Shangguan Y, Ma Z, Wang W, Dong Z-Y, ˇCerm´ ak P, Schneidewind A, Meng S, Lu Z, Yu S-L, Li J-X, and Wen J 2022 Chin. Phys. Lett. 39 027501

    2022

  56. [62]

    Panigrahi A, Coleman P, and Tsvelik A 2023 Phys. Rev. B 108 045151

    2023

  57. [63]

    Nasu J, Udagawa M, and Motome Y 2015 Phys. Rev. B 92 115122

    2015

  58. [66]

    Rayyan A, Luo Q, and Kee H Y 2021 Phys. Rev. B104 094431

    2021

  59. [67]

    Liu K, Sadoune N, Rao N, Greitemann J, and Pollet L 2021 Phys. Rev. Research 3 023016

    2021

  60. [68]

    Saha P, Fan Z, Zhang D, and Chern G W 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 257204

    2019

  61. [69]

    Catuneanu A, Yamaji Y, Wachtel G, Kim Y B, and Kee H Y 2018 npj Quantum Mater. 3 23

    2018

  62. [70]

    Gohlke M, Wachtel M, Yamaji Y, Pollmann F, and Kim Y B 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97 075126

    2018

  63. [71]

    Gohlke M, Chern L E, Kee H Y, and Kim Y B, 2020 Phys. Rev. Research 2 043023

    2020

  64. [72]

    Wang J, Normand B, and Liu Z X 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 197201

    2019

  65. [73]

    Buessen F L, and Kim Y B 2021 Phys. Rev. B 103 184407

    2021

  66. [74]

    Wang W, Dong Z Y, Yu S L, and Li J X 2017 Phys. Rev. B 96 115103

    2017

  67. [75]

    Stavropoulos P P, Catuneanu A, and Kee H Y 2018 Phys. Rev. B 98 104401

    2018

  68. [76]

    Chaloupka J, and Khaliullin G 2015 Phys. Rev. B 92 024413

    2015

  69. [77]

    Li X, Zhao J, Li J, and Luo Q 2024 arXiv:2409.10439 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Yang W, Nocera A, Tummuru T, Kee H Y, and Affleck I 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 147205

    2020

  71. [79]

    Yang W, Nocera A, Sørensen E S, Kee H Y, and Affleck I 2021 Phys. Rev. B 103 054437

    2021

  72. [80]

    Zhu Z, Kimchi I, Sheng D N, and Fu L 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97 241110(R)

    2018

  73. [81]

    Hickey C, and Trebst S 2019 Nat. Commun. 10 530

    2019

  74. [82]

    Patela N D, and Trivedia N 2019 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116 12199

    2019

  75. [83]

    Jiang M H, Liang S, Chen W, Qi Y, Li J X, and Wang Q H 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 177203

    2020

  76. [84]

    Zhang S S, Hal´ asz G B, and Batista C D 2022 Nat. Commun. 13 399

    2022

  77. [85]

    Wang K, Feng S, Zhu P, Chi R, Liao H J, Trivedi N, and Xiang T 2024 arXiv:2403.12141 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Koga A, Tomishige H, and Nasu J 2018 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87 063703

    2018

  79. [87]

    Oitmaa J, Koga A, and Singh R R P 2018 Phys. Rev. B 98 214404

    2018

  80. [88]

    Lee H Y, Kawashima N, and Kim Y B 2020 Phys. Rev. Re- search 2 033318

    2020

  81. [89]

    Chen Y H, Genzor J, Kim Y B, and Kao Y J 2022 Phys. Rev. B 105 L060403

    2022

  82. [90]

    Zhu Z, Weng Z Y, and Sheng D N 2020 Phys. Rev. Research 2 022047(R)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Hickey C, Berke C, Stavropoulos P P, Kee H Y, and Trebst S 2020 Phys. Rev. Research 2 023361

    2020

  84. [92]

    Khait I, Stavropoulos P P, Kee H Y, and Kim Y B 2021 Phys. Rev. Research 3 013160

    2021

Pith tools

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