Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Magnetic order through Kondo coupling to quantum spin liquids

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The commutation of spins with fluxes decides which magnetic order a spin liquid induces.

desk verdict Solid theory paper with a compelling organizing principle, but the step from two-impurity exchange to many-spin order needs work before the quantitative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07884 v1 pith:QINTOVI3 submitted 2025-02-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.other

M. A. Keskiner , M. Ö. Oktel , Natalia B. Perkins , Onur Erten This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.other
keywords quantumspinliquidsKitaevmodelYao-LeeMajoranafermionsRKKYinteractionKondolatticemagneticorderdimerizedparamagnet
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 asks whether local magnetic moments can order when they interact only through a nearby Kitaev-type spin liquid, with no direct exchange among themselves. It claims that the decisive property is how each spin component of the spin liquid commutes with the conserved flux operators. A single Majorana flavor (Kitaev) produces only short-range induced Kitaev couplings and keeps the spin liquid intact; three flavors on the honeycomb (Yao-Lee) produce a long-range $1/R^3$ Heisenberg antiferromagnet that gaps two of the three Majorana flavors; the two-flavor square-lattice model produces mostly a dimerized quantum paramagnet, tunable into an Ising antiferromagnet by a flux-gap term. A sympathetic reader would care because the result sketches a design rule: which fractionalized excitations mediate which magnetic order, and how to choose a spin liquid to engineer a desired ordered phase.

What carries the argument

The central object is the commutation relation between the spin operator $\sigma_i^\alpha$ on the Kondo-coupled site and the conserved plaquette flux operators $W_p$ of the Kitaev-type spin liquid. In the Kitaev model $\{\sigma_i^\alpha, u_{ij}^\alpha\}=0$, so a spin flip creates two visons and the induced exchange is short-ranged; in the Yao-Lee model $[\sigma_i^\alpha, W_p]=0$, so no flux is created and the itinerant Majorana fermions mediate long-range RKKY exchange; in the square-lattice model $\sigma^z$ commutes with $W_p$ while $\sigma^x,\sigma^y$ anticommute, producing the mixed short-range XY plus long-range Ising Hamiltonian. The second object that carries the argument is the two-impurity energy difference $J_{\mathrm{eff}}=(E_{\mathrm{FM}}-E_{\mathrm{AFM}})/2$ computed from aligned versus anti-aligned local moments in the Majorana representation, fitted to the graphene-neutrality form $J_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)\propto [1+\cos(2k_D\cdot R)]/|R|^3$.

What would settle it

The central claim would be settled by solving the full Kondo-lattice Hamiltonian with all local moments present, not just two impurities, in the perturbative regime $J_K/\Delta\ll 1$: if the ground state of the full system disagrees with the ground state of the pairwise-derived Hamiltonian (14) or (16), the pairwise-additivity assumption fails. For the square-lattice model specifically, exact diagonalization of Hamiltonian (16) on clusters larger than 16 sites would show whether the transition thresholds $J_{xy}/J_z\approx 1.5$ ($\pi$-flux) and $\approx 2.4$ (0-flux) persist; a shift larger than the finite-size scatter would refute the phase boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the range and sign structure of the induced exchange are controlled by the commutation of the spin operators with the flux (Wilson-loop) operators of the host spin liquid. When spin operators anticommute with flux operators, each Kondo term creates vison excitations, so the lowest-order induced interaction is short-ranged: for the Kitaev model it remains a Kitaev Hamiltonian with renormalized couplings, and the spin-liquid ground state survives higher-order terms. When spin operators commute with flux, the Majorana fermions act as the carriers and the induced interaction is RKKY-like: for the Yao-Lee model it is $J_{\mathrm{eff}}(R)\propto (J_K^2/K)\,[1+\cos(2k_D\cdot R)]/|R|^3$, ferromagnetic within a sublattice and antiferromagnetic between sublattices, so the local moments form a Heisenberg antiferromagnet and back-react on the spin liquid by gapping two of the three Majorana flavors. The square-lattice model mixes both behaviors: strong short-range XY couplings on one bond type together with long-range Ising interactions, giving a dimerized quantum paramagnet for $J_{xy}/J_z^{\max}\gtrsim 1.5$ ($\pi$-flux) or $\gtrsim 2.4$ (0-flux), with an Ising antiferromagnet outside a window set by the added flux-gap term $J_w$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the exchange between two local moments, extracted from the aligned versus anti-aligned energy difference, is pairwise additive and determines the many-moment ground state, without solving the full system of all coupled moments together; for the square-lattice model it also assumes the 16-site phase boundaries survive in the thermodynamic limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, coupling a Mott-insulating layer to a Yao-Lee spin liquid produces a Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the local moments, and the ordered moments partially gap the Majorana spectrum of the spin liquid.
  • For the Kitaev model, the local-moment layer remains a Kitaev spin liquid with renormalized couplings; higher-order terms preserve exact solvability and only renormalize the Fermi velocity without opening a gap.
  • For the square-lattice model, the default induced Hamiltonian sits deep in the dimerized quantum paramagnet phase ($J_{xy}/J_z\approx 44$ at $J_w=0$), with nearly perfect overlap with the dimer product state.
  • Adding a flux-gap term $J_w$ tunes the ratio $J_{xy}/J_z$ through a $\pi$-flux to 0-flux transition, so the same effective model can be switched between a dimerized paramagnet and an Ising antiferromagnet by changing flux-sector energetics.
  • Because both $J_{xy}$ and $J_z$ scale with $J_K^2/K$, their ratio is independent of the Kondo coupling at small $J_K$, making the phase assignment stable against the precise coupling strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the commutation-rule criterion is a four-flavor Kitaev-type model on the honeycomb lattice: the one-, two-, and three-flavor comparison in the paper suggests the induced exchange becomes richer, but the criterion alone does not predict which ground state wins.
  • An experimental consequence, if the Yao-Lee result is realized in a heterostructure with a spin-orbital liquid, is an antiferromagnetic response decaying as $1/R^3$ with Dirac-point oscillations, distinguishable from metallic RKKY by the absence of Fermi-surface nesting features and by the partial gapping of the Majorana spectrum.
  • A caution: the square-lattice phase diagram rests on pairwise $J_{\mathrm{eff}}$ values and a 16-site diagonalization, so larger clusters could shift the $J_{xy}/J_z$ thresholds and the $J_w$ window for the dimerized paramagnet.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies how local moments coupled by a Kondo term to three exactly solvable Kitaev-type spin liquids acquire effective exchange interactions. For the honeycomb Kitaev model, second-order perturbation theory gives a short-range Kitaev Hamiltonian for the local moments, and higher-order terms add plaquette interactions while preserving a gapless QSL. For the Yao-Lee model, exact diagonalization of two impurity spins in the Majorana representation gives a long-range 1/R^3 exchange with graphene-like oscillations; the authors conclude that the many-spin ground state is a Heisenberg antiferromagnet that partially gaps two of the three Majorana flavors. For a square-lattice gamma-matrix model, a short-range XY bond coexists with a long-range Ising 1/R^3 interaction; exact diagonalization of the effective model on 16 sites yields a dimerized quantum paramagnet in a window of the flux-tuning parameter Jw and an Ising antiferromagnet outside it. The paper's central organizing principle is that the range and sign structure of the induced exchange are controlled by whether the spin operators commute with the flux operators of the spin liquid.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a useful organizing principle: flux commutation distinguishes short-range Kitaev-like exchange from long-range Majorana-mediated RKKY exchange. The perturbative treatment of the Kitaev model is careful and benchmarked against 16-site exact diagonalization, and the idea that Yao-Lee Majorana fermions can mediate a graphene-like 1/R^3 interaction is falsifiable and potentially relevant to heterostructures. However, the decisive steps from two-impurity energy differences to many-spin order, and from the bare exchange kernel to the ordered state, are not fully controlled. As it stands, the paper is a promising proposal with strong numerical evidence for the two-impurity couplings, but the quantitative phase diagram and the partial-gapping claim require additional self-consistency and finite-size analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (14)] The central step from two-impurity energy differences to the many-spin Hamiltonian H_eff = sum_ij J_eff(R_i-R_j) S_i dot S_j assumes pairwise additivity. The paper computes J_eff from exact diagonalization of the Majorana Hamiltonian with exactly two impurity spins (Fig. 4) and never checks whether three- and four-spin terms generated by the Kondo coupling are negligible when all local moments are present. Since J_eff itself is approximately two orders of magnitude weaker than the Kitaev short-range exchange, there is no explicit small parameter that guarantees multi-spin terms are subdominant. A three-impurity calculation, or a controlled estimate of the next-order multi-spin corrections, is needed before the Heisenberg-antiferromagnet ground-state claim can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. III.B, final paragraph] The claim that the antiferromagnetic state partially gaps two of the three Majorana flavors is not self-consistent with the RKKY kernel used to predict that state. The 1/R^3 graphene form of Eq. (13) is the static susceptibility of gapless Dirac fermions; once the staggered field J_K(-1)^n sigma^z opens a gap in two of the Majorana flavors, the same susceptibility is suppressed at long distances, so the bare two-impurity J_eff is not obviously the correct interaction kernel in the ordered phase. The paragraph asserts a one-way back action but does not solve the coupled order-parameter/gap problem. A self-consistent mean-field treatment, or an estimate showing that the induced gap is negligible on the relevant length scales, is required to support the AFM and partial-gapping claims.
  3. [Sec. III.C.3, Fig. 7 and Table I] The DQP-to-Ising-AFM boundaries at Jxy/Jz of approximately 1.5 (pi-flux) and 2.4 (0-flux) are obtained from a single 16-site cluster with the long-range Jz truncated at fourth-nearest-neighbor distances, and the quoted Jw interval [-2.81, 0.79] in Table I inherits these values without any estimate of finite-size or truncation error. Critical ratios in frustrated quantum paramagnets can shift significantly with cluster size, and the thermodynamic-limit phase diagram is not established. The authors should either provide finite-size scaling on larger clusters or state explicitly that the interval is a cluster-size-dependent estimate rather than a thermodynamic-limit result.
  4. [Sec. III.B and Appendix C] The identification of the Yao-Lee J_eff with the charge-neutrality graphene RKKY form, Eq. (13), is not fully derived. Appendix C maps the z-component Kondo problem to the two graphene-like Hamiltonians H_p and H_h of Eqs. (C2)-(C3), which contain chemical-potential terms of +/-J_K, whereas Eq. (13) is the mu equals 0 result of Ref. [38]. The paper neither shows that the J_K chemical potential is negligible for the fitted distances nor derives the 1/R^3 form directly from the mapped Hamiltonian; it fits the overall prefactor C. The prefactor is therefore a fit parameter, not a prediction, and the statement that the YL result is identical to graphene RKKY up to prefactors is stronger than the presented derivation supports.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (12) and Appendix B] The text after Eq. (12) defines k1 = k dot b1 and then k1 = k dot b2; the second should read k2 = k dot b2.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The sentence 'The SU(2) symmetry in Heff energes from...' contains a typo; 'energes' should be 'emerges'.
  3. [Sec. III.C.1] The phrase 'even tough the z-component has long-ranged unfrustrated interactions' contains a typo; 'tough' should be 'though'.
  4. [Table I] The Jw interval in Table I should specify its units (presumably |K|) and use consistent notation for 'not in' rather than the TeX fragment shown in the table.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption and Sec. III.C.3] The main text states that at the fixed value Jxy/Jz = 44 the dimer overlap is 0.9997, while the Fig. 7 caption quotes Jxy/Jz = 17 for |<psi_D|psi>|^2 >= 0.99; the relation between these two numbers should be clarified.
  6. [Sec. II, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The relabeling of the b^4 and b^5 Majorana operators into the c^z and c^x flavors is described only in words; a small table or explicit substitution would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective exchanges are computed microscopically, the graphene-like RKKY form is justified by an explicit mapping, and the fitted prefactor is a non-load-bearing overall scale.

full rationale

The paper does not reduce its central derivation to its own inputs. The Kitaev-model exchange is obtained from a genuine perturbative calculation using external exact results for the vison gap and nearest-neighbor spin correlations, and the resulting effective Kitaev Hamiltonian is then diagonalized in the Majorana representation rather than assumed. The Yao-Lee and square-lattice long-range interactions are computed by exact diagonalization of the Majorana Hamiltonian for two fixed impurity spins, with Jeff defined as half the energy difference between aligned and anti-aligned configurations. The use of the graphene RKKY form in Eq. (13) is not an unexamined ansatz: Appendix C explicitly maps the z-coupled sector of the Yao-Lee model to a graphene-like complex-fermion model, so the 1/R^3 decay and the sublattice sign structure are anchored to an independent external result rather than to the fitted prefactor. The fitted constant C merely sets the overall amplitude; it is not a parameter whose fitted value controls the sign structure, the AFM versus DQP ground state, or the partial gapping of two Majorana flavors. Those conclusions follow from the signs and decay of the directly computed exchange data and from the structure of the effective Hamiltonian. The paper's self-citations are limited to conventions and background for the Gamma-matrix representation and to a caveat about bilayer Kitaev stability; none is load-bearing for the central claims. The pairwise-additive and finite-size assumptions behind the many-spin phase diagram are real robustness concerns, but they are correctness risks rather than circular reductions: the two-impurity Jeff is not defined in terms of the predicted ground state, and the many-spin Hamiltonian is not fitted to the phase it is used to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on known exact solutions, the weak-Kondo-coupling assumption, and the assumption that pair-wise effective exchanges determine many-spin order. Two prefactor constants C are fitted to numerical data. The flux-coupling term J_w is a model extension rather than a new entity.

free parameters (2)
  • C (Yao-Lee model prefactor) = 0.0092
    Overall prefactor of the RKKY-like interaction in Eq. (13), fit to the Majorana exact-diagonalization results in Fig. 4. The paper notes it is about four times the graphene value.
  • C (square-lattice π-flux prefactor) = 3.4e-2
    Prefactor fit to the square-lattice π-flux ED results in Fig. 5(a,b), using Eq. (13).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Local moments are non-interacting except through the QSL-mediated exchange.
    The microscopic Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) starts with independent S_j spins, so any direct exchange is neglected. This is stated in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The Kondo coupling V is treated as a small perturbation (J_K < Δ).
    The effective exchange is derived from perturbation theory, Eq. (9), and the comparison with ED in Fig. 3 is for J_K/Δ < 1.
  • standard math Known exact solutions and flux sectors of the Kitaev, Yao-Lee, and square-lattice models are assumed.
    Sec. II uses the Majorana representations and Lieb's theorem to fix the ground-state flux sectors; these are standard results from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption The effective exchange in the YL and SqL models is computed from two-impurity energy differences and assumed to be pairwise additive.
    Jeff = (EFM - EAFM)/2 is evaluated for a single pair, then the many-spin Hamiltonian is written as a sum of pair terms (Eq. 14) without checking multi-spin corrections.
  • domain assumption The 16-site exact diagonalization results for the phase diagram of Eq. (16) represent the thermodynamic limit.
    Fig. 7 shows ED results on a single 16-site cluster, and the DQP/AFM boundaries are inferred from these finite-size data.
  • domain assumption The graphene RKKY functional form (Eq. 13) with a fitted C is valid for the Majorana-mediated interactions.
    The paper maps the two-flavor Majorana model to graphene in Appendix C and borrows Eq. (13); the prefactor C is then fit to numerical data (Sec. III.B).
  • domain assumption The 6-spin plaquette term in Eq. (11) can be ignored because J6 << J2.
    Appendix B states 'since J6 ≪ J2, the fluxes do not change, so we can ignore this term'; this is an uncontrolled approximation, though plausible for small J_K/Δ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic order through Kondo coupling to quantum spin liquids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QINTOVI3

@misc{pith2026250207884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic order through Kondo coupling to quantum spin liquids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QINTOVI3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07884}
}
read the original abstract

We study the emergence of magnetic order in localized spins that interact solely through their coupling to a Kitaev-type spin liquid. Using three toy models -- the Kitaev model, the Yao-Lee model, and a square-lattice generalization of the Kitaev model -- we calculate the effective exchange Hamiltonians mediated by the fractionalized excitations of these spin liquids. This setup is analogous to a Kondo lattice model, where conduction electrons are replaced by itinerant Majorana fermions. In the Kitaev model, our results show that the lowest-order perturbation theory generates short-range interactions with modified couplings and extending to sixth order introduces longer-range interactions while preserving the quantum spin-liquid ground state. Models involving more Majorana flavors on honeycomb and square lattices exhibit more complex behavior. The honeycomb Yao-Lee model with three flavors of itinerant Majorana fermions generates long-range RKKY-type interactions, leading to antiferromagnetic order and partial gapping of the Majorana fermion spectrum. In contrast, the square-lattice model produces a combination of anisotropic short- and long-range interactions, which can give rise to either a dimerized quantum paramagnetic state or an Ising antiferromagnet, depending on the parameters. These results illustrate the rich variety of magnetic orders that can be mediated by Kitaev-type spin liquids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of our setup. Local moments in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The Kitaev and Yao-Lee models on the hon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the perturbation theory and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Induced long-range interactions Jeff among local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Induced long-range interactions Jeff (blue stars) between local moments in the square lattice (SqL) model for both π-flux and 0-flux cases. (a) and (b) correspond to the π￾flux square lattice, where (a) shows interactions between mo￾ments on the same sublattice (AA) an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The π-flux square lattice features Dirac points, whereas the 0-flux square lattice exhibits a Fermi surface. (b) Dependence of the vison gap energy ∆ and the ratio Jxy/Jmax z on Jw/|K|. At Jw = 0.0738|K|, we observe the change in the ground state from π to 0-flux. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Phase diagram of the induced Hamiltonian in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In Kitaev model, applying the σ α operator to the ground state wave function creates two π-fluxes. To return the ground state flux sector, σ operators can be placed on plaquette sites in distinct ways as depicted in (a)-(e). The ground state of the square lattice model…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liquids, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  2. [38]

    Poliakov, W.-H

    V. Poliakov, W.-H. Kao, and N. B. Perkins, Topological transitions in the Yao-Lee spin-orbital model and effects of site disorder, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054418 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    (4) has similarities to both the Kitaev and the YL model

    Derivation of the couplings The SqL model as given in Eq. (4) has similarities to both the Kitaev and the YL model. As in the Kitaev model, σx and σy operators anticommute with the flux operators, resulting in short-range interactions. Yet, σz commutes with Wp, leading to a long-range z-component of the induced interaction, similar to the behavior ob- ser...

    work page

  4. [2]

    This can be achieved by adding a flux-coupling term, −Jw P p,q(W SqL p + W SqL q ), to Eq.(4)

    Tuning the effective couplings Jxy and Jz in Eq.(16) Since the ratio Jxy/Jz determines the ground state of the effective model Eq.(16), it is useful to intro- duce an additional term that directly controls this ratio. This can be achieved by adding a flux-coupling term, −Jw P p,q(W SqL p + W SqL q ), to Eq.(4). While this term does not modify the Hamilton...

    work page

  5. [3]

    # #" ) <latexit sha1_base64=

    Ground state phase diagram of the tunable model (16): ED results on the 16-site cluster In Fig. 7(a), we present exact diagonalization results for the effective Hamiltonian (16) on a 16-site cluster, considering both the π-flux and 0-flux sectors. The long- range part of the Jz term is retained up to the fourth nearest neighbor, as permitted by system siz...

    work page

  6. [4]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect Exchange Cou- pling of Nuclear Magnetic Moments by Conduction Elec- trons, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954)

    work page 1954

  7. [5]

    Yosida, Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn Alloys, Phys

    K. Yosida, Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn Alloys, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

    work page 1957

  8. [6]

    Kasuya, A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Antifer- romagnetism on Zener’s Model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Antifer- romagnetism on Zener’s Model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 16, 45 (1956)

    work page 1956

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  2. [8]

    C. G. Ayani, M. Pisarra, I. M. Ibarburu, M. Garnica, R. Miranda, F. Calleja, F. Mart ´ ın, and A. L. V´ azquez de Parga, Probing the Phase Transition to a Coherent 2D Kondo Lattice, Small 20, 2303275 (2024). 11

    2024

  3. [9]

    M. Liu, J. Leveillee, S. Lu, J. Yu, H. Kim, C. Tian, Y. Shi, K. Lai, C. Zhang, F. Giustino, and C.-K. Shih, Monolayer 1T-NbS2 as a 2D-correlated magnetic insulator, Science Advances 7, eabi6339 (2021)

    2021

  4. [10]

    W. Wan, R. Harsh, A. Meninno, P. Dreher, S. Sajan, H. Guo, I. Errea, F. de Juan, and M. M. Ugeda, Evidence for ground state coherence in a two-dimensional Kondo lattice, Nature Communications 14, 7005 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Vaˇ no, M

    V. Vaˇ no, M. Amini, S. C. Ganguli, G. Chen, J. L. Lado, S. Kezilebieke, and P. Liljeroth, Artificial heavy fermions in a van der Waals heterostructure, Nature 599, 582 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

    V. Leeb, K. Polyudov, S. Mashhadi, S. Biswas, R. Va- lent ´ ı, M. Burghard, and J. Knolle, Anomalous Quan- tum Oscillations in a Heterostructure of Graphene on a Proximate Quantum Spin Liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 097201 (2021)

    2021

  7. [13]

    Akif Keskiner, Mehmet and Ghaemi, Pouyan and Ok- tel, Mehmet ¨Ozg¨ ur and Erten, Onur, Theory of moir´ e magnetism and multidomain spin textures in twisted mott insulator–semimetal heterobilayers, Nano Letters 24, 8575 (2024)

    2024

  8. [14]

    Das and O

    J. Das and O. Erten, Moir´ e-mediated phases in synthetic Kondo superlattices, arXiv , 2408.05324 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Hwan Chun, J.-W

    S. Hwan Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, C. C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. F. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, Y. Singh, Y. Choi, T. Gog, A. Al-Zein, M. M. Sala, M. Krisch, J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Direct evidence for dominant bond-directional interact...

    2015

  10. [17]

    Kitagawa, T

    K. Kitagawa, T. Takayama, Y. Matsumoto, A. Kato, R. Takano, Y. Kishimoto, S. Bette, R. Dinnebier, G. Jackeli, and H. Takagi, A spin–orbital-entangled quan- tum liquid on a honeycomb lattice, Nature 554, 341 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    S. Lee, Y. S. Choi, S.-H. Do, W. Lee, C. H. Lee, M. Lee, M. Vojta, C. N. Wang, H. Luetkens, Z. Guguchia, and K.- Y. Choi, Kondo screening in a Majorana metal, Nature Communications 14, 7405 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Dhochak, R

    K. Dhochak, R. Shankar, and V. Tripathi, Magnetic Im- purities in the Honeycomb Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 117201 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Vojta, A

    M. Vojta, A. K. Mitchell, and F. Zschocke, Kondo Impu- rities in the Kitaev Spin Liquid: Numerical Renormaliza- tion Group Solution and Gauge-Flux-Driven Screening, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 037202 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    S. D. Das, K. Dhochak, and V. Tripathi, Kondo route to spin inhomogeneities in the honeycomb Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 94, 024411 (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    H. F. Legg and B. Braunecker, Spin liquid mediated RKKY interaction, Scientific Reports 9, 17697 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Zheng and A

    J.-H. Zheng and A. Brataas, Controlling the RKKY in- teraction and heat transport in a Kitaev spin liquid via Z2 flux walls, Phys. Rev. B 104, 064437 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    2006

  18. [25]

    Yao and D.-H

    H. Yao and D.-H. Lee, Fermionic Magnons, Non-Abelian Spinons, and the Spin Quantum Hall Effect from an Ex- actly Solvable Spin-1/2 Kitaev Model with SU(2) Sym- metry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 087205 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    Nakai, S

    R. Nakai, S. Ryu, and A. Furusaki, Time-reversal sym- metric kitaev model and topological superconductor in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 85, 155119 (2012)

    2012

  20. [27]

    C. Wu, D. Arovas, and H.-H. Hung, Γ-matrix generaliza- tion of the kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B79, 134427 (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Yao, S.-C

    H. Yao, S.-C. Zhang, and S. A. Kivelson, Algebraic Spin Liquid in an Exactly Solvable Spin Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 217202 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    V. S. de Carvalho, H. Freire, E. Miranda, and R. G. Pereira, Edge magnetization and spin transport in an SU(2)-symmetric Kitaev spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155105 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Chulliparambil, U

    S. Chulliparambil, U. F. P. Seifert, M. Vojta, L. Janssen, and H.-H. Tu, Microscopic models for Kitaev’s sixteen- fold way of anyon theories, Phys. Rev. B 102, 201111 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    U. F. P. Seifert, X.-Y. Dong, S. Chulliparambil, M. Vo- jta, H.-H. Tu, and L. Janssen, Fractionalized Fermionic Quantum Criticality in Spin-Orbital Mott Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 257202 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    Chulliparambil, L

    S. Chulliparambil, L. Janssen, M. Vojta, H.-H. Tu, and U. F. P. Seifert, Flux crystals, Majorana metals, and flat bands in exactly solvable spin-orbital liquids, Phys. Rev. B 103, 075144 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    E. Nica, M. Akram, A. Vijayvargia, R. Moessner, and O. Erten, Kitaev spin-orbital bilayers and their moir´ e superlattices, npj Quantum Mater. 8, 9 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Vijayvargia, E

    A. Vijayvargia, E. M. Nica, R. Moessner, Y.-M. Lu, and O. Erten, Magnetic fragmentation and fractionalized goldstone modes in a bilayer quantum spin liquid, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022062 (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    Akram, E

    M. Akram, E. M. Nica, Y.-M. Lu, and O. Erten, Vi- son crystals, chiral, and crystalline phases in the Yao-Lee model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 224427 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    M. A. Keskiner, O. Erten, and M. O. Oktel, Kitaev-type spin liquid on a quasicrystal, Phys. Rev. B 108, 104208 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    Majumder, O

    R. Majumder, O. Erten, and A. Mukherjee, Thermody- namics of vison crystals in an anisotropic quantum spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125155 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Churchill, E

    D. Churchill, E. Z. Zhang, and H.-Y. Kee, Micro- scopic Roadmap to a Yao-Lee Spin-Orbital Liquid (2024), arXiv:2410.21389 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    E. H. Lieb, Flux Phase of the Half-Filled Band, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2158 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    A. M. Black-Schaffer, RKKY coupling in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 81, 205416 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Baskaran, S

    G. Baskaran, S. Mandal, and R. Shankar, Exact Results for Spin Dynamics and Fractionalization in the Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 247201 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    U. F. P. Seifert, J. Gritsch, E. Wagner, D. G. Joshi, W. Brenig, M. Vojta, and K. P. Schmidt, Bilayer Kitaev models: Phase diagrams and novel phases, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155101 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Tomishige, J

    H. Tomishige, J. Nasu, and A. Koga, Low-temperature properties in the bilayer Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174424 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Vijayvargia, U

    A. Vijayvargia, U. F. P. Seifert, and O. Erten, Topologi- cal and magnetic phase transitions in the bilayer Kitaev- 12 Ising model, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024439 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    G lodzik and R

    S. G lodzik and R. ˇZitko, Higher order spin interactions mediated by the substrate, Phys. Rev. B 110, 045414 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    M. O. Takahashi, W.-H. Kao, S. Fujimoto, and N. B. Perkins, Z2 flux binding to higher-spin impurities in the Kitaev spin liquid, npj Quantum Materials I (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.