Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 57 references

Exact eigenvalues and experimental signatures of Heisenberg-Kitaev interactions in spin-1/2 quantum clusters

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding Kitaev exchange to tiny spin clusters produces a second heat-capacity peak and repelled energy levels.

desk verdict A useful exact-diagonalization study of small Heisenberg-Kitaev clusters whose central experimental-signature claim needs a robustness check before it can be relied on. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06967 v1 pith:6ED6KD7Z submitted 2025-06-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

Evan M. Wilson , Jian-Xin Zhu , Jason T. Haraldsen This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el
keywords Heisenberg-Kitaevmodelspin-1/2clustersSchottkyanomalyheatcapacitylevelrepulsionquantumphasetransitionmolecularmagnetsexactdiagonalization
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 asks whether the anisotropic, bond-directional Kitaev exchange, a central ingredient in proposed Kitaev quantum spin liquids, leaves detectable fingerprints in the smallest possible magnets: spin-1/2 trimers, three-sided star tetramers, and tetrahedra. Solving the Heisenberg-Kitaev Hamiltonian exactly for each cluster, the authors claim that a Kitaev term with large K/J generates a second Schottky anomaly in the heat capacity in addition to the Heisenberg peak, and that the Kitaev exchange curves energy levels nonlinearly with magnetic field, producing level repulsion and shifted ground-state transitions. If true, these are concrete experimental handles: specific-heat double-hump structure, avoided crossings, and altered inelastic-neutron-scattering transition counts that distinguish Kitaev from Heisenberg physics in molecular magnets. The broader point is that tiny clusters can serve as controlled proxies for extended honeycomb or Kagome Kitaev systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bond-directional Kitaev operator added to the Heisenberg exchange: $K\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,\alpha}\sigma_i^\alpha\sigma_j^\alpha$, with a distinct spin component $\alpha=x,y,z$ assigned to each bond, giving for example $K(\sigma^x_2\sigma^x_3+\sigma^y_1\sigma^y_3+\sigma^z_1\sigma^z_2)$ for the trimer. Because the Kitaev term does not conserve total spin $S_{\mathrm{tot}}$, it mixes states of different spin and breaks degeneracies that the isotropic Heisenberg term preserves. The exact spectra of the 8- and 16-dimensional Hamiltonians are then fed through the partition function to obtain heat capacity and entropy, and the von Neumann-Wigner theorem is invoked to explain the avoided crossings that the coupled J-K-E_B terms produce. This machinery converts a microscopic exchange anisotropy into macroscopic observables.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic heat capacity of a trimer molecular magnet with a dominant Kitaev coupling (K/J > 1) as a function of field and temperature: the paper predicts a second low-temperature Schottky anomaly whose position and height track E_B/|K| below 1. Observing only the single Heisenberg peak at all fields, or finding that the predicted second peak moves oppositely to E_B/|K|, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Kitaev exchange K added to the Heisenberg Hamiltonian J on three small spin-1/2 clusters produces distinct, exactly computable thermodynamic signatures. For a large Kitaev-to-Heisenberg ratio K/J, the heat capacity develops a second Schottky anomaly alongside the Heisenberg one; in the trimer this second low-temperature peak appears once a magnetic field lifts degeneracies, while in the three-sided star tetramer two anomalies emerge and merge under field. The Kitaev term also makes some eigenvalues nonlinear functions of the magnetic field, pushing the clusters into a regime resembling the incomplete Paschen-Back effect and causing energy-level repulsion (anti-crossings) that forbids the crossover points seen in pure Heisenberg systems. These nonlinear states shift the magnetic-field values at which the ground state changes, and the authors identify corresponding changes in inelastic-neutron-scattering excitation counts. The paper's declared upshot is that these signatures can be used to infer Kitaev interactions in molecular magnets and to guide expectations for honeycomb- or Kagome-like extended systems.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on the assumption that a real molecular magnet's exchange bonds have Kitaev components oriented exactly as the paper assigns them (for example, the trimer's x-x, y-y, and z-z pairing); with a different bond orientation or extra off-diagonal Gamma exchange, the level-repulsion and heat-capacity signatures would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For K/J large, a second, low-temperature Schottky anomaly appears in the heat capacity of the trimer under magnetic field, while the original anomaly shrinks as the new one grows.
  • Kitaev energy levels are nonlinear in magnetic field below about E_B/|K| = 1, entering an incomplete Paschen-Back-like regime, and level repulsion removes crossings that a pure Heisenberg cluster would show.
  • The Kitaev term increases the magnetic field required for ground-state transitions in the trimer and tetramer, and in the tetrahedron an intermediate heat-capacity peak appears between the two transitions.
  • Inelastic neutron scattering should show extra or altered transitions because spin mixing splits S_z = 0 levels and mixes the |2, -2> and |0, 0> states.
  • In the tetrahedron, frustration between NN1 and NN2 interactions obscures a clean Schottky anomaly, so the absence of a sharp anomaly is not evidence against Kitaev exchange.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the predicted double-hump heat-capacity structure is likely sensitive to the precise orientation of Kitaev bonds, so a real molecular magnet with different bond assignments may show the same qualitative feature shifted in field and temperature.
  • Inference: the finite-cluster quantum phase transitions are ground-state level crossings in an exact diagonalization; interpreting them as thermodynamic phase transitions requires a thermodynamic limit and should be treated as a label rather than a proven statement.
  • Inference: the same exact-diagonalization route could be applied to mixed J-K-Gamma models to test whether the second Schottky anomaly survives off-diagonal exchange terms; that is a direct extension the paper does not carry out.
  • Inference: the cluster-level second anomaly may serve as a finite-size precursor of the heat-capacity double structure in extended honeycomb systems, but the cluster results alone cannot establish long-range order or a spin-liquid phase.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies three finite spin-1/2 clusters—a trimer, a three-sided star tetramer, and a tetrahedron—described by Heisenberg exchange J, bond-directional Kitaev exchange K, and a Zeeman field E_B. For each cluster the authors construct the Hamiltonian, present eigenvalues (in closed form for the trimer and symmetric tetrahedron, and via the 16x16 matrices in the Appendix for the tetramer and asymmetric tetrahedron), and compute the partition function, heat capacity, and entropy. The central claims are that adding a Kitaev interaction produces a second Schottky anomaly in the heat capacity at large K/J, that the Kitaev coupling induces nonlinear, repelled energy levels versus magnetic field, and that ground-state level crossings can be interpreted as first- and second-order quantum phase transitions. The intended implications are for inelastic neutron scattering and magnetic heat-capacity measurements on molecular magnets.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the paper provides useful exact reference data for finite Heisenberg-Kitaev clusters. Its strengths are that the diagonalizations are exact for the stated Hamiltonians, the trimer matrix passes spot checks, the entropy sum rule is used as a consistency check, and no parameter is fitted to the predicted signatures. The closed-form eigenvalues and the K/J and E_B/J scans in Fig. 7 are a convenient catalog for future studies of molecular magnets. However, the manuscript's experimental-signature claim is currently tied to one idealized bond-directional assignment with a global spin axis, and the paper does not demonstrate stability against the local-axis rotations and off-diagonal Gamma terms that are generic in real Kitaev materials. The total-spin labeling and quantum-phase-transition terminology also need clarification. With those gaps addressed, the work would be a solid contribution to the molecular-magnetism and Kitaev-model literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) defines the Zeeman term as E_B sum_{i≠j} sigma_i^z. For an N-site cluster this equals (N-1)E_B sum_i sigma_i^z, whereas every matrix in the paper (for example the first diagonal entry of Eq. (5), 3J/4 + K/4 + 3E_B/2, for the all-aligned trimer) is consistent with (E_B/2) sum_i sigma_i^z. The general Hamiltonian therefore does not define the operator that is actually diagonalized. Please correct Eq. (1) to use (E_B/2) sum_i sigma_i^z, or state explicitly that E_B is the Zeeman energy per spin-1/2 flip, and verify that this convention is used consistently in Eqs. (8) and (9).
  2. [Secs. III-V, Tables I-IV] The eigenstates are labeled by |S_tot, S_z> even for the pure-Kitaev and Heisenberg-Kitaev cases, although the Kitaev terms in Eqs. (4), (6), and (7) do not commute with S_tot. The text acknowledges spin mixing and 'flipping', but then reports transitions such as 'from S_tot = 1/2 to S_tot = 3/2' (Sec. III) and assigns S_tot labels to rows in Tables I, III, and IV. Such labels are not good quantum numbers; please define them as adiabatic continuations from the K=0 limit or use conserved cluster symmetries. As written, the central statement that Kitaev interactions 'trigger first- and second-order quantum phase transitions' between total-spin sectors is not well-defined.
  3. [Secs. IV-VI, Eqs. (4), (6), (7), Fig. 7] The experimental-signature claim rests on a single idealized Kitaev assignment with a common global x/y/z axis for all bonds, and no off-diagonal Gamma exchange. In real Kitaev materials the bond axes are local and Gamma terms are generically of order K; the paper itself cites Refs. [15,18,23] on Gamma effects and Refs. [20-24] on Heisenberg dominance. No calculation or argument is given that the second Schottky anomaly or the level-repulsion features survive local-axis rotations or moderate Gamma. Since no specific molecular cluster is identified, the title and abstract overstate the generality of the 'experimental signatures'. Please add explicit robustness checks, such as Gamma scans or random local-axis rotations, or restrict the claimed signatures to the specific Hamiltonians in Eqs. (4), (6), and (7).
  4. [Abstract and Secs. III-V] The paper calls ground-state level crossings in 8- and 16-dimensional Hilbert spaces 'first- and second-order quantum phase transitions'. In a finite cluster the ground-state energy is analytic in E_B except at exact level crossings, and the Kitaev tetrahedron's 'second-order transition' is described as a gradual curvature without a degeneracy. If this language is retained, please define precisely what 'first-order' and 'second-order' mean for finite systems and state that these are finite-size level crossings rather than thermodynamic phase transitions.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The notation sigma_i · sigma_j and sigma_i^alpha · sigma_j^alpha uses a dot product between Pauli matrices; the Heisenberg term should be the scalar product of vector operators, and the Kitaev term should be a simple product sigma_i^alpha sigma_j^alpha. Please also clarify whether sigma denotes Pauli matrices or spin-1/2 operators, since the text switches between these notations.
  2. [Sec. III, paragraph after Fig. 2] A three-spin-1/2 trimer has total-spin sectors 3/2 and 1/2 only; the sentence referring to 'two S_tot = 0 states' should read 'two S_tot = 1/2 states'.
  3. [Sec. III, Paschen-Back analogy] The incomplete Paschen-Back effect is an atomic-physics phenomenon involving separate precession of orbital (m_L) and spin (m_S) angular momenta. The spin-only clusters in this paper have no m_L; please either define the analogy for spin clusters or remove it.
  4. [Tables II and IV] The column headers 'Eigenvalues Eigenvalues K=0 EB=0' are ambiguous; label the two columns explicitly as 'K=0' and 'E_B=0' and state which limit each eigenvalue corresponds to.
  5. [Table III] The factor 'I' in the definition of C1 is the imaginary unit; define this notation and check that the displayed eigenvalues are real, for example by expressing the cube root in trigonometric form.
  6. [Sec. V A heading] The heading 'symmetric tetrahedon' contains a typo and should read 'symmetric tetrahedron'.
  7. [Appendix, Eqs. (8) and (9)] The 16x16 matrices are difficult to read in the current formatting; consider providing row and column labels and a machine-readable version as supplemental material.
  8. [Reference list] Reference [47] appears unrelated to the statement that Kitaev NN2 interactions do not affect the symmetry of the tetrahedron; please verify the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all predictions are derived by exact diagonalization of explicitly stated Hamiltonians, with scanned parameters and no fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is fully self-contained: it starts from explicit Hamiltonians (Eqs. 4, 6, 7), constructs the corresponding matrix representations (Eqs. 5, 8, 9), diagonalizes them to obtain exact eigenvalues, and computes the partition function and heat capacity from those eigenvalues via Eqs. (2) and (3). The inputs J, K, and E_B are scanned parameters, not fitted to the predicted Schottky anomalies, level repulsions, or transition fields. The central claims—that a large K/J ratio produces a second Schottky anomaly, and that the Kitaev term creates nonlinear energy levels and repulsion under a magnetic field—are mathematical consequences of the stated model, not definitions of the model's outputs. The Kitaev bond-directional assignment is a modeling assumption, but it is explicit rather than smuggled in or defined in terms of the predicted signatures. The manuscript's self-citations (Refs. 24, 36, 38, 40, 41, 48) are used for background, prior spin-cluster thermodynamic methodology, and inelastic neutron scattering selection rules; none of these is load-bearing for the central Heisenberg-Kitaev diagonalization result, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The experimental-signature interpretation is conditional and potentially fragile with respect to local bond axes or Gamma terms, but that is a robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

All coupling constants (J, K, E_B, J1/J2/K1/K2) are inputs to the model and are scanned over, not fitted to data, so the ledger lists no free parameters. The only ad hoc modeling choices are the bond-directional Kitaev assignment and the use of 'quantum phase transition' terminology for finite clusters.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spin operators obey SU(2) algebra and the Heisenberg-Kitaev Hamiltonian is a valid effective model for these clusters.
    The paper assumes that the bond-directional Kitaev interaction (Eq. 1) is the correct description of spin-orbit-coupled magnetic moments in these geometries.
  • standard math The von Neumann-Wigner theorem guarantees level repulsion in the parameter space.
    Invoked in Section III to explain avoided crossings between energy levels as the magnetic field varies.
  • standard math The partition function and heat capacity formulas (Eqs. 2 and 3) apply to these finite systems.
    Standard statistical mechanics for discrete spectra; used unmodified.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-state level crossings in finite systems are interpreted as first- and second-order quantum phase transitions.
    This is a non-standard use of 'quantum phase transition' for finite clusters, adopted without qualification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact eigenvalues and experimental signatures of Heisenberg-Kitaev interactions in spin-1/2 quantum clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ED6KD7Z

@misc{pith2026250606967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact eigenvalues and experimental signatures of Heisenberg-Kitaev interactions in spin-1/2 quantum clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ED6KD7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06967}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermodynamics and energy eigenstates of a spin-1/2 coupled trimer, tetramer in a star configuration, and tetrahedron. Using a Heisenberg Hamiltonian with additional Kitaev interactions, we explore the thermodynamic signatures of the Kitaev interaction. Our results show that introducing a Kitaev interaction generates a second Schottky anomaly in the heat capacity for systems with a large K/J ratio. The Kitaev term also introduces nonlinear eigenvalues with respect to a magnetic field, pushing the clusters toward a regime similar to the incomplete Paschen-Back effect and triggering first and second-order quantum phase transitions along with robust thermodynamic behavior. Through this approach, we provide exact analytical solutions that offer insights into Kitaev interactions, both in molecular magnets and in extended systems such as honeycomb or Kagome lattices. Furthermore, we provide insight into experimental measurements for detecting Kitaev interactions in clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagram of a quantum spin coupled trimer, three-sided star tetramer, and tetrahedron cluster. Sites 1-4 represent spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The exact energy eigenvalues with respect to the magnetic field and their corresponding temperature-dependent heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The exact energy eigenvalues with respect to the magnetic field and their corresponding temperature-dependent heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The energy eigenvalues with respect to the magnetic field and their corresponding temperature-dependent heat capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The energy eigenvalues with respect to the magnetic field and their corresponding temperature-dependent heat capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The energy eigenvalues with respect to the magnetic field and their corresponding temperature-dependent heat capacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Energy eigenvalues are shown as a function of the Kitaev term, corresponding to their temperature-dependent Kitaev [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Srinivasan, S

    S. Srinivasan, S. Khatua, G. Baskaran, and R. Ganesh, Order by singularity in kitaev clusters, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023212 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    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

  3. [2]

    Roslova, J

    M. Roslova, J. Hunger, G. Bastien, D. Pohl, H. M. Haghighi, A. U. B. Wolter, A. Isaeva, U. Schwarz, B. Rellinghaus, K. Nielsch, B. B¨ uchner, and T. Doert, Detuning the honeycomb of the alpha-rucl3 kitaev lat- tice: A case of cr3+ dopant, Inorganic Chemistry 58, 6659 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Nasu and Y

    J. Nasu and Y. Motome, Nonequilibrium majorana dy- namics by quenching a magnetic field in kitaev spin liq- uids, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033007 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    W. M. H. Natori and J. Knolle, Dynamics of a two- dimensional quantum spin-orbital liquid: Spectroscopic signatures of fermionic magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 067201 (2020)

    2020

  6. [5]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the ki- taev model: Fractionalization, dynamic correlations, and material connections, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 9, 17 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Khatua, B

    J. Khatua, B. Sana, A. Zorko, M. Gomilˇ sek, K. Sethu- pathi, M. R. Rao, M. Baenitz, B. Schmidt, and P. Khuntia, Experimental signatures of quantum and topological states in frustrated magnetism, Physics Re- ports 1041, 1 (2023), experimental signatures of quan- tum and topological states in frustrated magnetism

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    M. G. Yamada, H. Fujita, and M. Oshikawa, Designing kitaev spin liquids in metal-organic frameworks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 057202 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    H. Liu, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev spin liquid in 3d transition metal compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 047201 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Kitaev materials, Physics Re- ports 950, 1 (2022), kitaev materials

    2022

  3. [10]

    Li, D.-W

    H. Li, D.-W. Qu, H.-K. Zhang, Y.-Z. Jia, S.-S. Gong, Y. Qi, and W. Li, Universal thermodynamics in the ki- taev fractional liquid, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043015 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quan- tum spin liquids, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aay0668

    2020 doi

  5. [12]

    N. F. Chilton, Molecular magnetism, Annual Review of 14 Materials Research 52, 79 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Sin- gleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent ´ ı, and R. Coldea, Monoclinic crystal structure of α − rucl3 and the zigzag antiferromagnetic ground state, Phys. Rev. B 92, 235119 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    K. Ran, J. Wang, W. Wang, Z.-Y. Dong, X. Ren, S. Bao, S. Li, Z. Ma, Y. Gan, Y. Zhang, J. T. Park, G. Deng, S. Danilkin, S.-L. Yu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Spin-wave ex- citations evidencing the kitaev interaction in single crys- talline α−rucl3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107203 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    I. Lee, F. G. Utermohlen, D. Weber, K. Hwang, C. Zhang, J. van Tol, J. E. Goldberger, N. Trivedi, and P. C. Hammel, Fundamental spin interactions underlying the magnetic anisotropy in the kitaev ferromagnet cri 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 017201 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Churchill and H.-Y

    D. Churchill and H.-Y. Kee, Transforming from kitaev to disguised ising chain: Application to conb 2o6, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 056703 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    W. Yang, A. Nocera, T. Tummuru, H.-Y. Kee, and I. Af- fleck, Phase diagram of the spin-1/2 kitaev-gamma chain and emergent su(2) symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 147205 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gohlke, J

    M. Gohlke, J. C. Pelayo, and T. Suzuki, Proximate tomonaga-luttinger liquid in an anisotropic kitaev- gamma model, Phys. Rev. B 109, L220410 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Y.-D. Li, X. Yang, Y. Zhou, and G. Chen, Non-kitaev spin liquids in kitaev materials, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205119 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Samanta, F

    S. Samanta, F. Cossu, and H. S. Kim, Spin-orbit en- tangled moments and magnetic exchange interactions in cobalt-based honeycomb magnets baco2(xo4)2 (x = p, as, sb), npj Quantum Materials 9, 98 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    S. K. Pandey and J. Feng, Spin interaction and mag- netism in cobaltate kitaev candidate materials: An ab initio and model hamiltonian approach, Phys. Rev. B 106, 174411 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    H. Liu, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Exchange interactions in d5 kitaev materials: From na 2iro3 to α−rucl3, Phys. Rev. B 105, 214411 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    E. M. Wilson and J. T. Haraldsen, Effects of frustration on the spin dynamics of the zigzag honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064429 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Schollw¨ ock, J

    U. Schollw¨ ock, J. Richter, D. J. J. Farnell, and R. F. Bishop, eds., Quantum Magnetism(Springer, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Paired states of fermions in two dimensions with breaking of parity and time-reversal symmetries and the fractional quantum hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    P. M. Cˆ onsoli, L. Janssen, M. Vojta, and E. C. Andrade, Heisenberg-kitaev model in a magnetic field: 1 /s expan- sion, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155134 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Janssen, E

    L. Janssen, E. C. Andrade, and M. Vojta, Honeycomb- lattice heisenberg-kitaev model in a magnetic field: Spin canting, metamagnetism, and vortex crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 277202 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer, New York, 1994)

    A. Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer, New York, 1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Leumer, M

    N. Leumer, M. Marganska, B. Muralidharan, and M. Gri- foni, Exact eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the fi- nite kitaev chain and its topological properties (2020), arXiv:1909.10971 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Dynamics of the kitaev-heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 157203 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Von Neumann and E

    J. Von Neumann and E. Wigner, On some peculiar dis- crete eigenvalues, Phys. Z 30, 465 (1929)

    1929

  26. [34]

    N. R. Bernier, L. D. T´ oth, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kip- penberg, Level attraction in a microwave optomechanical circuit, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023841 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    K. W. Plumb, K. Hwang, Y. Qiu, L. W. Harriger, G. E. Granroth, A. I. Kolesnikov, G. J. Shu, F. C. Chou, C. R¨ uegg, Y. B. Kim, and Y.-J. Kim, Quasiparticle- continuum level repulsion in a quantum magnet, Nature Physics 12, 224 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    J. T. Haraldsen, Evolution of thermodynamic properties and inelastic neutron scattering intensities for spin- 1 2 an- tiferromagnetic quantum rings, Phys. Rev. B 94, 054436 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Barghathi, J

    H. Barghathi, J. Yu, and A. Del Maestro, Theory of non- interacting fermions and bosons in the canonical ensem- ble, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043206 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    J. T. Haraldsen, T. Barnes, and J. L. Musfeldt, Neutron scattering and magnetic observables for s=1/2 spin clus- ters and molecular magnets, Phys. Rev. B 71, 064403 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    G. L. Squires, Introduction to the theory of thermal neu- tron scattering (1978)

    1978

  32. [40]

    Brumfield and J

    A. Brumfield and J. T. Haraldsen, Thermodynamics and magnetic excitations in quantum spin trimers: Applica- tions for the understanding of molecular magnets, Crys- tals 9, 93 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    J. T. Haraldsen, T. Barnes, J. W. Sinclair, J. R. Thomp- son, R. L. Sacci, and J. F. C. Turner, Magnetic properties of a heisenberg coupled-trimer molecular magnet: Gen- eral results and application to spin- 1 2 vanadium clusters, Phys. Rev. B 80, 064406 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    C. A. Downing and D. Zueco, Non-reciprocal population dynamics in a quantum trimer, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 477, 20210507 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Mentrup, H.-J

    D. Mentrup, H.-J. Schmidt, J. Schnack, and M. Luban, Transition from quantum to classical heisenberg trimers: thermodynamics and time correlation functions, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 278, 214 (2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    Asensio Ramos and J

    A. Asensio Ramos and J. Trujillo Bueno, Theory and modeling of the zeeman and paschen-back effects in molecular lines, The Astrophysical Journal 636, 548–563 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    M. J. Stift, F. Leone, and E. L. Degl’Innocenti, Modelling the incomplete Paschen–Back effect in the spectra of magnetic Ap stars, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 385, 1813 (2008), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/385/4/1813/18228664/mnras0385-1813.pdf

    2008

  38. [46]

    Modugno, E

    M. Modugno, E. Y. Sherman, and V. V. Konotop, Macro- scopic random paschen-back effect in ultracold atomic gases, Phys. Rev. A 95, 063620 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Liu and Q.-Z

    S. Liu and Q.-Z. Hou, Uhlmann phases in the kitaev chain with nnn hopping interaction, Physica Scripta99, 015210 (2023). 15

    2023

  40. [48]

    J. T. Haraldsen, Heisenberg pentamer: Insights into in- elastic neutron scattering on magnetic clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 037205 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Drulis, K

    H. Drulis, K. Dyrek, K. P. Hoffmann, S. K. Hoff- mann, and A. Weselucha-Birczynska, Epr spectra of low-symmetry tetrahedral high-spin cobalt(ii) in a cin- choninium tetrachlorocobaltate(ii) dihydrate single crys- tal, Inorganic Chemistry 24, 4009 (1985)

    1985

  42. [50]

    Kornjaˇ ca, R

    M. Kornjaˇ ca, R. Samajdar, T. Macr ` ı, N. Gemelke, S.-T. Wang, and F. Liu, Trimer quantum spin liquid in a hon- eycomb array of rydberg atoms, Communications Physics 6, 358 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    B. S. Shivaram, E. Colineau, J. Griveau, P. Kumar, and V. Celli, The linear and non-linear magnetic response of a tri-uranium single molecule magnet, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 095805 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    J. G. C. Kragskow, J. Marbey, C. D. Buch, J. Nehrkorn, M. Ozerov, S. Piligkos, S. Hill, and N. F. Chilton, Anal- ysis of vibronic coupling in a 4f molecular magnet with firms, Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Z.-H. Liu, R. Li, X. Hu, and J. Q. You, Spin-orbit cou- pling and electric-dipole spin resonance in a nanowire double quantum dot, Scientific Reports 8, 1 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Vaclavkova, M

    D. Vaclavkova, M. Palit, J. Wyzula, S. Ghosh, A. Del- homme, S. Maity, P. Kapuscinski, A. Ghosh, M. Veis, M. Grzeszczyk, C. Faugeras, M. Orlita, S. Datta, and M. Potemski, Magnon polarons in the van der waals antiferromagnet feps 3, Physical Review B 104, 134437 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    A. N. Ponomaryov, E. Schulze, J. Wosnitza, P. Lampen- Kelley, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, D. G. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, A. K. Kolezhuk, and S. A. Zvyagin, Unconventional spin dynamics in the honeycomb-lattice material α-rucl3: High-field electron spin resonance stu...

    2017

  48. [56]

    Sichelschmidt, P

    J. Sichelschmidt, P. Schlender, B. Schmidt, M. Baenitz, and T. Doert, Electron spin resonance on the spin-1/2 tri- angular magnet naybs 2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 205601 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Li, H.-K

    H. Li, H.-K. Zhang, J. Wang, H.-Q. Wu, Y. Gao, D.-W. Qu, Z.-X. Liu, S.-S. Gong, and W. Li, Identification of magnetic interactions and high-field quantum spin liquid in α-rucl3, Nature Communications 12, 4007 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.