Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Thermal Hall transport in Kitaev spin liquids

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-only Kitaev model with realistic off-diagonal interactions reproduces the overshooting thermal Hall hump observed in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$, and the paper attributes it to topological Majorana fermions.

desk verdict Careful numerics that find a finite-T overshoot of kappa_xy/T in the extended Kitaev model, but the overshoot magnitude rests on an edge-current formula with a factor-of-three finite-size spread, so the headline claim is suggestive, not secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16558 v2 pith:IIG7IOTT submitted 2025-07-22 cond-mat.str-el

Tsuyoshi Okubo , Joji Nasu , Takahiro Misawa , Yukitoshi Motome This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords KitaevspinliquidthermalHallconductivityMajoranafermionsGammainteractiontensornetworkalpha-RuCl3Chernnumberenergycurrent
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 argues that the finite-temperature thermal Hall response of the Kitaev honeycomb spin model, with the off-diagonal $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ interactions and a magnetic field, is carried by topological Majorana fermions, and that this alone produces the overshooting hump in $\kappa_{xy}/T$ seen in experiments on $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$. Using a position-dependent definition of the energy current on open-boundary clusters, the authors find that $\kappa_{xy}/T$ rises well above the half-integer quantized value at intermediate temperatures before returning toward it at low temperature. The sign of the response follows the sign of the Majorana Chern number as the field direction is rotated, and positive $\Gamma$ with negative $\Gamma'$ enhance the hump. Because the effect survives far beyond the quantum critical field and is absent in classical simulations for $\Gamma$, the authors conclude that the overshoot is a quantum topological effect intrinsic to the spin model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the position-dependent energy polarization $P_E$ of Eq. (5), whose commutator with the Hamiltonian defines the energy current $J_E=i[H,P_E]$. The thermal Hall conductivity is then obtained from the equilibrium edge current by $\kappa_{xy}=\frac{2}{L'}\frac{d\langle J_E^\parallel\rangle_T}{dT}$ on open-boundary clusters, a definition that includes position dependence neglected in earlier local-Hamiltonian current definitions. The current decomposes into a three-spin term $L^{\gamma\gamma'}_{ijk}$, which matches the effective magnetic field that opens the Majorana gap and produces the chiral edge current, and a two-spin term $M^\gamma_{ij}$, which is subdominant. The numerical machinery is exponential tensor renormalization on 72-site clusters, benchmarked against thermal pure quantum states and exact diagonalization.

What would settle it

Compute $\kappa_{xy}/T$ for the same $K=-1$ model at $h=0.04$ on a periodic cluster using a bulk Kubo formula with the full spin Hamiltonian; if the result does not show a hump rising above the half-integer quantized value near $T\simeq 0.03$, the edge-current definition in Eq. (10) is not giving the true bulk thermal Hall conductivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the extended Kitaev model ($K=-1$) in a magnetic field, computed without assuming any quasiparticle picture, exhibits a thermal Hall conductivity $\kappa_{xy}/T$ that at intermediate temperature significantly exceeds the half-integer quantized value $\pi/12$ (with $k_B=\hbar=1$) and forms a hump before decreasing; the overshoot grows with field up to $h\simeq 0.04$ and persists into the polarized regime beyond the critical field $h_c\simeq 0.024$. The paper further claims that the sign of $\kappa_{xy}/T$ switches with the sign of the Majorana Chern number when the field is rotated from $[111]$ to $[11\bar{2}]$, vanishes for $[1\bar{1}0]$, and that adding positive $\Gamma$ or negative $\Gamma'$ enhances the hump, with the $\Gamma$ effect dominated by quantum fluctuations and the $\Gamma'$ effect captured classically. The authors identify the three-spin part of the energy current as the dominant contribution and link it to the effective field that opens the topological gap in the Majorana fermion bands. Their conclusion is that the experimentally observed overshoot in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ can be explained within a spin-only model by topological Majorana fermions, without invoking phonons or visons.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative results rest on the definition of the heat current as the temperature derivative of the equilibrium edge current obtained from the position-dependent energy polarization; if that definition is not the physically correct one, the overshoot hump could be an artifact of the boundary setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the overshoot hump observed in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ does not require phonon or vison contributions; a spin-only Kitaev model with realistic $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ terms reproduces it.
  • The field-direction sign change of $\kappa_{xy}/T$ becomes a direct probe of the Majorana Chern number, even at fields well above the putative quantum critical point.
  • The peak of $\kappa_{xy}/T$ lining up with the low-temperature specific-heat peak gives an experimental fingerprint: where the two coincide, the heat is carried by fractional excitations rather than by phonons.
  • Positive $\Gamma$ and negative $\Gamma'$ act as tunable knobs that enhance the thermal Hall response, with the $\Gamma$ effect requiring quantum fluctuations that classical spin models miss.
  • Topological magnon predictions of the opposite sign would be ruled out in the studied parameter regime, since the full spin calculation gives positive (negative) $\kappa_{xy}/T$ for $[111]$ ($[11\bar{2}]$) fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test would be a bulk Kubo-formula calculation of $\kappa_{xy}/T$ on a periodic cluster for the same Hamiltonian; agreement would confirm the edge-current route, disagreement would point to a boundary artifact.
  • The $\Gamma$-versus-$\Gamma'$ quantum/classical contrast suggests that candidate materials with comparable $\Gamma$ but different $\Gamma'$ signs should show systematically different overshoot sizes, a comparison experiments could make.
  • The same position-dependent polarization construction could be exported to other frustrated magnets where the heat-carrying quasiparticles are unknown, as a bias-free way to assign thermal Hall signals.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the thermal Hall conductivity κ_xy/T of the extended Kitaev model (K = -1, with Γ and Γ′ interactions) under a magnetic field, using the XTRG tensor-network method benchmarked against cTPQ and exact diagonalization. The central finding is that κ_xy/T overshoots the half-integer quantized value π/12 and develops a pronounced hump at intermediate temperatures across a wide range of fields, including in the polarized regime beyond the quantum critical point. The sign of the response follows the sign of h_x h_y h_z, consistent with the perturbative Majorana Chern number, and positive Γ with negative Γ′ are reported to enhance the response. A classical Monte Carlo comparison attributes the Γ′ effects largely to classical physics while the Γ effects appear genuinely quantum. The paper interprets the overshoot as evidence for the persistence of topological Majorana fermions.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, the paper offers a spin-only explanation for the overshooting thermal Hall conductivity observed in α-RuCl_3 and provides a non-perturbative framework for thermal transport in Kitaev magnets. The strengths are the unbiased calculation (no quasiparticle spectrum, Chern number, or fitted parameter is used as input), the direct evaluation of the energy current from the Hamiltonian, and the careful benchmarking of XTRG against cTPQ and ED, including bond-dimension and cluster-shape checks. These features make the paper a valuable methodological contribution. However, the central quantitative claim, especially the magnitude of the overshoot, rests on a specific edge-current formula whose validation is not yet complete, and the abstract’s claim about the effect of positive Γ is not uniformly supported by the presented data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (10); App. A; App. E] The abstract and Sec. V state that positive Γ and negative Γ′ lead to a remarkable enhancement of κ_xy/T. Yet Fig. 10(d) shows that at h = 0.04 positive Γ strongly suppresses κ_xy/T and even drives it negative at Γ = 0.02, whereas the enhancement appears only at h = 0.08 (Fig. 11(d)). Section IV C similarly states that “positive Γ enhances the peaks, whereas negative Γ suppresses them,” which contradicts the h = 0.04 data. The text should qualify the effect of Γ by field strength and reconcile the summary statements with the figures.
  2. [Sec. IV A 1 and Sec. V] The interpretation that the overshoot is due to topological Majorana fermions is based on the dominance of the three-spin term κ_xy^(L) and on the field-direction sign change. However, the paper itself notes in Sec. IV A 1 that L_ijk^{γγ′} is closely related to the scalar spin chirality S_i·(S_j × S_k). The sign change with the sign of h_x h_y h_z is also expected for any chiral mechanism, including magnons or chirality-based contributions, so the presented evidence does not uniquely single out Majorana fermions. The authors should either soften the claim of uniqueness or provide an additional discriminating test (e.g., a direct comparison of the edge-current spectrum with the Majorana edge mode).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A 2] In the paragraph on field-direction dependence, the text says “κ_xy/T is vanishingly small for the [¯111] field,” but the three directions considered are [111], [11¯2], and [¯110]. The correct direction with vanishing h_x h_y h_z is [¯110]; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [App. C] The caption of Fig. 24 contains the typo “calcluated” instead of “calculated.”
  3. [Sec. IV D] The sentence beginning “However, similar to the case with Γ′, we again observe that the Γ and temperature dependencies…” contains the typo “tranport” in the preceding paragraph (“thermal Hall tranport”).
  4. [Fig. 19 caption] The caption reads “classica Kitaev model” and should be “classical Kitaev model.”
  5. [Sec. IV B 1] The phrase “two orders of magnitude smaller than the Kitaev interaction” is not precise: the largest |Γ′|/|K| considered is 0.02, which is a factor of 50, not 100. Please rephrase to “a few percent of the Kitaev interaction strength.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermal Hall conductivity is computed directly from the Hamiltonian via the energy-polarization commutator, with no fitted parameters or quasiparticle spectrum used as input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the energy current J_E is obtained from the exact commutation relation between the Hamiltonian and the energy polarization P_E in Eqs. (5)-(6), and the thermal Hall conductivity is obtained by Eq. (10) as the temperature derivative of the edge energy current. No Chern number, Majorana spectrum, or experimental value is used as an input; the Majorana interpretation is inferred ex post from the dominance of the three-spin term, the edge localization, and the field-direction sign change, which are checked against external perturbative predictions (Kitaev's h_x h_y h_z criterion). The edge-current relation Eq. (10) is imported from an independent source (Ref. [80]) and is tested for edge localization in Fig. 7 and Appendix D. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [54] for the polarization definition, which is also cited to the independent Ref. [79]) are contextual and not load-bearing. The finite-size sensitivity in Appendix A and the edge spin-canting caveat in Appendix E are accuracy and assumption concerns, not circularity.

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

No parameters are fitted to experimental or synthetic data; K, Gamma, Gamma-prime, and h are model inputs scanned across a range, with K=-1 fixing the energy scale. No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are postulated: the Majorana fermions are the known emergent excitations of the Kitaev model. The main assumptions are the energy-current definition, the edge-current formula, finite-cluster convergence, and the restriction to a spin-only Hamiltonian.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The energy current is correctly obtained from the commutator of H with the position-dependent energy polarization P_E in Eq. (5), rather than from a local-Hamiltonian current.
    The central value of kappa_xy depends on this definition; Sec. III A explicitly contrasts it with Ref. [62].
  • domain assumption Eq. (10), kappa_xy = (2/L') d<J_E^parallel>/dT, with J_E evaluated on half of the open-boundary cluster, equals the thermal Hall conductivity; this requires the equilibrium edge current to be localized.
    Sec. III A notes that the formula assumes edge localization; Appendix D tests the exponential decay of the current.
  • domain assumption A 72-site (L,L')=(6,6) cluster with XTRG bond dimension D=500 captures the thermodynamic-limit behavior in the temperature and field ranges where the main claims are made.
    Supported by D-dependence and cluster-shape benchmarks in Appendices A and C, but not by a controlled infinite-size extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Phonons, visons, and other non-spin heat carriers do not contribute to the calculated kappa_xy; the model is the spin-only extended Kitaev Hamiltonian in Eq. (2).
    The paper argues that the overshoot has a purely magnetic origin and compares with phonon proposals, but the calculation itself excludes phonons.
  • standard math Spin commutation relations [S_i^alpha, S_j^beta] = i delta_ij epsilon_alpha_beta_gamma S_i^gamma underlie the derivation of the energy current in Eq. (6).
    Standard quantum spin algebra; no evidence of error in the commutation step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Hall transport in Kitaev spin liquids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIG7IOTT

@misc{pith2026250716558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Hall transport in Kitaev spin liquids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIG7IOTT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16558}
}
abstract

We investigate the thermal Hall conductivity in the Kitaev model with additional interactions under a magnetic field, employing a finite-temperature tensor network method benchmarked by a thermal pure quantum state technique. We find that the thermal Hall conductivity divided by temperature, $\kappa_{xy}/T$, significantly overshoots the value of the half-integer quantization and exhibits a pronounced hump while decreasing temperature. Moreover, we show that the field-direction dependence of $\kappa_{xy}/T$ is consistent with the sign of the Chern number associated with the Majorana fermions across a wide range of magnetic fields. We also demonstrate that the additional off-diagonal interactions, known as the $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^{\prime}$ terms, considerably affect $\kappa_{xy}/T$. In particular, we show that positive $\Gamma$ and negative $\Gamma^{\prime}$ lead to a remarkable enhancement in the intermediate temperature region. From the comparison with the classical counterpart, we reveal that the effects of the $\Gamma$ term go beyond the classical picture, indicating significant quantum fluctuation effects, while those of the $\Gamma^\prime$ term are well captured at the classical level. These comprehensive analyses indicate that the enhanced thermal Hall response is consistently explained by dominant contributions from topological Majorana fermions, even within the polarized regime beyond the critical field. Our approach not only establishes a robust theoretical framework for understanding the thermal Hall transport in Kitaev materials such as $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$, but also offers a promising pathway to bridge the gap between theories and experiments across a wide range of strongly correlated materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic view of the extended Kitaev model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Graphical representations of the three-spin ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Tensor network diagram for the density operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temperature dependence of the energy current of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Semi-log plot of the position ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Corresponding plots to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Color maps of the specific heat for the pure Kitaev model on the field-temperature plane with (a)-(e) Γ = 0 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Color maps of the magnetization, corresponding to Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Color maps of the flux density, corresponding to Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Color maps of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Corresponding plots to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Color maps of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_23.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Semi-log plot of the position ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: (b). This indicates that this magnetic modula￾tion may contribute to the energy current localized at the edge. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 M[111], M[112] (a) M[111] M[112] T ' 0.0186 T ' 0.0373 T ' 0.0745 T ' 0.1490 T ' 0.0186 T ' 0.0373 T ' 0.0745 T ' 0.1490 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 10…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    Takikawa and S

    D. Takikawa and S. Fujimoto, Topological phase tran- sition to Abelian anyon phases due to off-diagonal ex- change interaction in the Kitaev spin liquid state, Phys. Rev. B 102, 174414 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    In this setup, we expect κxy/T to be quantized at a positive value of π/12 for small magnetic fields in the zero temperature limit [9]

    Magnetic field along [111] direction We begin with the model with only the ferromagnetic Kitaev interaction ( K = −1 and Γ = Γ ′ = 0) in an applied magnetic field along the [111] direction ( hx = hy = hz = h/ √ 3). In this setup, we expect κxy/T to be quantized at a positive value of π/12 for small magnetic fields in the zero temperature limit [9]. Figure...

  3. [2]

    Field-direction dependence 0.0 0.2 0.4 C (a) □ = 0.00, □′= 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 M‖ (b) 0.0 0.5 1.0 W (c) □2.5 0.0 2.5 κxy/T/(π/6) (d) □5 0 κ(L) xy/T/(π/6) (e) 0.01 0.1 1.0 T 0 1 2 κ(M) xy /T/(π/6) (f) h = 0.04 h = 0.08 h‖[111] h‖[11¯2] h‖[¯110] h‖[111] h‖[11¯2] h‖[¯110] FIG. 8. Temperature dependence of (a) the specific heat, (b) the magnetization, (c) the...

  4. [3]

    Fig- ure 9 displays the representative results at h = 0.04 for −0.02 ≤ Γ′ ≤ 0.02

    Symmetric off-diagonal interaction Γ′ First, we consider the effects of the Γ′ interaction. Fig- ure 9 displays the representative results at h = 0.04 for −0.02 ≤ Γ′ ≤ 0.02. Here, we set Γ = 0 to isolate the in- fluence of the Γ′ term. As shown in Fig. 9(a), Γ ′ does not significantly change the overall temperature dependence of the specific heat, althoug...

  5. [4]

    Here, we consider two representative magnetic fields, h = 0.04 (Fig

    Symmetric off-diagonal interaction Γ Next, we investigate the effects of the Γ interaction. Here, we consider two representative magnetic fields, h = 0.04 (Fig. 10) and h = 0.08 (Fig. 11). Figures 10(a)– 10(c) and 11(a)–11(c) show the temperature dependence of the specific heat, the magnetization, and the flux den- sity for −0.02 ≤ Γ ≤ 0.02. Although the ...

  6. [5]

    Kitaev and J

    A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Topological entanglement en- tropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006)

    2006

  7. [6]

    magnetic field with h = 0 .04 and 0 .08 on the (L, L′) = (6 , 6) cluster. For h = 0 .04, while the data remain well converged across different values of D down to T ∼ 0.05, we observe noticeable deviations at lower temperatures in the specific heat and the thermal Hall conductivity. However, the data for D = 400 and 500 dis- play consistent behaviors with...

  8. [7]

    R. B. Laughlin, Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

Show all 107 references
  1. [8]

    Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders and edge excitations in fractional quantum Hall states, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  3. [10]

    Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B 04, 239 (1990)

    X.-G. Wen, Topological orders in rigid states, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics B 04, 239 (1990)

    1990

  4. [11]

    Senthil and M

    T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Z2 gauge theory of electron fractionalization in strongly correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850 (2000)

    2000

  5. [12]

    Levin and X.-G

    M. Levin and X.-G. Wen, Detecting topological order in a ground state wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110405 (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973)

    P. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973)

    1973

  7. [14]

    X. G. Wen, Mean-field theory of spin-liquid states with finite energy gap and topological orders, Phys. Rev. B 44, 2664 (1991)

    1991

  8. [15]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann. Phys. (N. Y). 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  9. [16]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  10. [17]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A field guide to spin liquids, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  12. [19]

    Wen, Quantum orders in an exact soluble model, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders in an exact soluble model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 016803 (2003)

    2003

  13. [20]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott Insulators in the Strong Spin-Orbit Coupling Limit: From Heisenberg to a Quantum Compass and Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

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

    2017

  15. [22]

    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

  16. [23]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Magnetic order in α-RuCl3: A honeycomb-lattice quantum mag- net with strong spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 91, 144420 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Janssen and M

    L. Janssen and M. Vojta, Heisenberg–kitaev physics in magnetic fields, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 423002 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    Motome and J

    Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Hunting Majorana Fermions in Kitaev Magnets, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 012002 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Trebst and C

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

    2022

  20. [27]

    Rousochatzakis, N

    I. Rousochatzakis, N. B. Perkins, Q. Luo, and H.-Y. Kee, Beyond kitaev physics in strong spin-orbit coupled magnets, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Majorana quanti- zation and half-integer thermal quantum Hall effect in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nature 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Half- integer quantized anomalous thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev material candidate α-RuCl3, Science 373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Singleton, 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

  24. [31]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chak- oumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Low-temperature crystal and magnetic structure of α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, et al., Excitations in the field-induced quantum spin liquid state of α-RuCl3, npj Quantum Materials 3, 8 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Yamashita, J

    M. Yamashita, J. Gouchi, Y. Uwatoko, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, Sample dependence of half-integer quantized thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev spin-liquid candidate α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 102, 220404 (2020)

    2020

  27. [34]

    Bruin, R

    J. Bruin, R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, Robustness of the thermal Hall effect close to half-quantization in α-RuCl3, Nature Physics 18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic Spin Model for the Honeycomb Iridates beyond the Kitaev Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  29. [36]

    M. Ye, G. B. Hal´ asz, L. Savary, and L. Balents, Quanti- zation of the Thermal Hall Conductivity at Small Hall Angles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 147201 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Vinkler-Aviv and A

    Y. Vinkler-Aviv and A. Rosch, Approximately Quan- tized Thermal Hall Effect of Chiral Liquids Coupled to Phonons, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031032 (2018)

    2018

  31. [38]

    A. P. Joy and A. Rosch, Dynamics of Visons and Ther- mal Hall Effect in Perturbed Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041004 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev- Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium Oxides A2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 027204 (2010)

    2010

  33. [40]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Zigzag Magnetic Order in the Iridium Oxide Na 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 097204 (2013)

    2013

  34. [41]

    E. Z. Zhang, L. E. Chern, and Y. B. Kim, Topological magnons for thermal hall transport in frustrated mag- nets with bond-dependent interactions, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174402 (2021)

    2021

  35. [42]

    J. G. Rau and H.-Y. Kee, Trigonal distortion in the hon- eycomb iridates: Proximity of zigzag and spiral phases in Na2IrO3, arXiv:1408.4811

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Challenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic in- teractions from competing energy scales, Phys. Rev. B 25 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. Ong, Oscillations of the thermal conductivity in the spin-liquid state of α-RuCl3, Nature Physics 17, 915 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Planar thermal Hall effect of topological bosons in the Kitaev magnet α-RuCl3, Nature Materials 22, 36 (2023)

    2023

  39. [46]

    L. E. Chern, E. Z. Zhang, and Y. B. Kim, Sign Structure of Thermal Hall Conductivity and Topological Magnons for In-Plane Field Polarized Kitaev Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 147201 (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    G. B. Hal´ asz, Geometry dependence of the thermal hall effect in chiral spin liquids, arXiv:2505.03879

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    P. A. McClarty, X.-Y. Dong, M. Gohlke, J. G. Rau, F. Pollmann, R. Moessner, and K. Penc, Topological magnons in Kitaev magnets at high fields, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060404 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    D. G. Joshi, Topological excitations in the ferromagnetic Kitaev-Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060405 (2018)

    2018

  43. [50]

    Hentrich, M

    R. Hentrich, M. Roslova, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, W. Brenig, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, Large thermal Hall effect in α-RuCl3: Evidence for heat transport by Kitaev-Heisenberg paramagnons, Phys. Rev. B 99, 085136 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    Lefran¸ cois, G

    E. Lefran¸ cois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Evidence of a Phonon Hall Effect in the Kitaev Spin Liquid Candidate α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021025 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    Oh and N

    T. Oh and N. Nagaosa, Spin-phonon coupling and ther- mal hall effect in kitaev spin liquid, arXiv:2501.11272

    arXiv

  46. [53]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, and Y. Motome, Tempera- ture evolution of spin dynamics in two- and three- dimensional Kitaev models: Influence of fluctuating Z2 flux, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064433 (2017)

    2017

  47. [54]

    Zhang, G

    H. Zhang, G. B. Halasz, S. Ghosh, S. Jesse, T. Z. Ward, D. A. Tennant, M. McGuire, and J. Yan, Evidence of chiral fermion edge modes through geometric engineer- ing of thermal Hall in α-RuCl3, arXiv:2505.05417

    arXiv

  48. [55]

    J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Vaporization of Kitaev Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197205 (2014)

    2014

  49. [56]

    J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Thermal frac- tionalization of quantum spins in a Kitaev model: Temperature-linear specific heat and coherent transport of Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115122 (2015)

    2015

  50. [57]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, and Y. Motome, Fractional Spin Fluctuations as a Precursor of Quantum Spin Liquids: Majorana Dynamical Mean-Field Study for the Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 157203 (2016)

    2016

  51. [58]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Majo- rana dynamical mean-field study of spin dynamics at finite temperatures in the honeycomb Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024438 (2017)

    2017

  52. [59]

    Suzuki and S.-i

    T. Suzuki and S.-i. Suga, Effective model with strong Ki- taev interactions for α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134424 (2018)

    2018

  53. [60]

    J. Nasu, J. Yoshitake, and Y. Motome, Thermal Trans- port in the Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 127204 (2017)

    2017

  54. [61]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Majorana-magnon crossover by a magnetic field in the Kitaev model: Continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo study, Phys. Rev. B 101, 100408 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    M. G. Yamada and S. Fujimoto, Quantum liquid crystals in the finite-field KΓ model for α-RuCl3, arXiv:2107.03045

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. Go, J. Jung, and E.-G. Moon, Vestiges of Topologi- cal Phase Transitions in Kitaev Quantum Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 147203 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Yamaji, T

    Y. Yamaji, T. Suzuki, T. Yamada, S.-i. Suga, N. Kawashima, and M. Imada, Clues and criteria for designing a Kitaev spin liquid revealed by thermal and spin excitations of the honeycomb iridate Na 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174425 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Laurell and S

    P. Laurell and S. Okamoto, Dynamical and thermal magnetic properties of the Kitaev spin liquid candidate α-RuCl3, npj Quantum Materials 5, 1 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinking α−RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033011 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Kumar and V

    A. Kumar and V. Tripathi, Thermal Hall conductiv- ity near field-suppressed magnetic order in a Kitaev- Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 107, L220406 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Yamaji, Y

    Y. Yamaji, Y. Nomura, M. Kurita, R. Arita, and M. Imada, First-Principles Study of the Honeycomb- Lattice Iridates Na2IrO3 in the Presence of Strong Spin- Orbit Interaction and Electron Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 107201 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Okubo, K

    T. Okubo, K. Shinjo, Y. Yamaji, N. Kawashima, S. Sota, T. Tohyama, and M. Imada, Ground-state properties of Na 2IrO3 determined from an ab initio Hamiltonian and its extensions containing Kitaev and extended Heisenberg interactions, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054434 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Zhang, G

    S.-S. Zhang, G. B. Hal´ asz, W. Zhu, and C. D. Batista, Variational study of the Kitaev-Heisenberg-Gamma 26 model, Phys. Rev. B 104, 014411 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Catuneanu, Y

    A. Catuneanu, Y. Yamaji, G. Wachtel, Y. B. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, Path to stable quantum spin liquids in spin- orbit coupled correlated materials, npj Quantum Mate- rials 3, 23 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Yamada, T

    T. Yamada, T. Suzuki, and S.-i. Suga, Ground-state properties of the K-Γ model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024415 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Gohlke, G

    M. Gohlke, G. Wachtel, Y. Yamaji, F. Pollmann, and Y. B. Kim, Quantum spin liquid signatures in Kitaev- like frustrated magnets, Phys. Rev. B97, 075126 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    H.-Y. Lee, R. Kaneko, L. E. Chern, T. Okubo, Y. Ya- maji, N. Kawashima, and Y. B. Kim, Magnetic field in- duced quantum phases in a tensor network study of Ki- taev magnets, Nature communications 11, 1639 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Zhang, S

    X.-Y. Zhang, S. Liang, H.-J. Liao, W. Li, and L. Wang, Differentiable programming tensor networks for Kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. B 108, 085103 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    J. S. Gordon, A. Catuneanu, E. S. Sørensen, and H.- Y. Kee, Theory of the field-revealed Kitaev spin liquid, Nature communications 10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    R. L. Smit, S. Keupert, O. Tsyplyatyev, P. A. Mak- simov, A. L. Chernyshev, and P. Kopietz, Magnon damping in the zigzag phase of the Kitaev-Heisenberg- Γ model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054424 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Rayyan, Q

    A. Rayyan, Q. Luo, and H.-Y. Kee, Extent of frustra- tion in the classical Kitaev-Γ model via bond anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B 104, 094431 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Q. Luo, P. P. Stavropoulos, J. S. Gordon, and H.-Y. Kee, Spontaneous chiral-spin ordering in spin-orbit coupled honeycomb magnets, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 013062 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    Luo and H.-Y

    Q. Luo and H.-Y. Kee, Interplay of magnetic field and trigonal distortion in the honeycomb Γ model: Occur- rence of a spin-flop phase, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174435 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Rusnaˇ cko, D

    J. Rusnaˇ cko, D. Gotfryd, and J. c. v. Chaloupka, Kitaev-like honeycomb magnets: Global phase behavior and emergent effective models, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064425 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    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

  76. [84]

    L. E. Chern, R. Kaneko, H.-Y. Lee, and Y. B. Kim, Magnetic field induced competing phases in spin-orbital entangled Kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013014 (2020)

    2020

  77. [85]

    Katsura, N

    H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and P. A. Lee, Theory of the Thermal Hall Effect in Quantum Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 066403 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    W. Tang, X. C. Xie, L. Wang, and H.-H. Tu, Quantized thermal hall conductance from edge current calculations in lattice models, Phys. Rev. B 100, 155112 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    B. B. Chen, L. Chen, Z. Chen, W. Li, and A. Weichsel- baum, Exponential Thermal Tensor Network Approach for Quantum Lattice Models, Phys. Rev. X 8, 31082 (2018)

    2018

  80. [88]

    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

  81. [89]

    Kawamura, K

    M. Kawamura, K. Yoshimi, T. Misawa, Y. Yamaji, S. Todo, and N. Kawashima, Quantum lattice model solver HΦ, Computer Physics Communications217, 180 (2017)

    2017

  82. [90]

    Sugiura and A

    S. Sugiura and A. Shimizu, Canonical Thermal Pure Quantum State, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 010401 (2013)

    2013

  83. [91]

    Imada and M

    M. Imada and M. Takahashi, Quantum Transfer Monte Carlo Method for Finite Temperature Properties and Quantum Molecular Dynamics Method for Dynami- cal Correlation Functions, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55, 3354 (1986)

    1986

  84. [92]

    Jakliˇ c and P

    J. Jakliˇ c and P. Prelovˇ sek, Lanczos method for the cal- culation of finite-temperature quantities in correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 49, 5065 (1994)

    1994

  85. [93]

    Hams and H

    A. Hams and H. De Raedt, Fast algorithm for finding the eigenvalue distribution of very large matrices, Phys. Rev. E 62, 4365 (2000)

    2000

  86. [94]

    Lloyd, Pure state quantum statistical mechanics and black holes, arXiv:1307.0378

    S. Lloyd, Pure state quantum statistical mechanics and black holes, arXiv:1307.0378

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Koyama and J

    S. Koyama and J. Nasu, Thermal hall effect incorporat- ing magnon damping in localized spin systems, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174442 (2024)

    2024

  88. [96]

    K. Ido, M. Kawamura, Y. Motoyama, K. Yoshimi, Y. Yamaji, S. Todo, N. Kawashima, and T. Misawa, Update of HΦ: Newly added functions and methods in versions 2 and 3, Comp. Phys. Commun. 298, 109093 (2024)

    2024

  89. [97]

    https://github.com/issp-center-dev/HPhi/releases

  90. [98]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo Method and Application to Spin Glass Simulations, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  91. [99]

    H. Li, E. Lv, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Y. Qi, W. Li, and G. Su, Magnetocaloric effect of topological excitations in Ki- taev magnets, Nature Communications 15, 7011 (2024)

    2024

  92. [100]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Dynamical and topological properties of the kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 98, 014418 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    L. S. Blackford, J. Choi, A. Cleary, E. D’Azevedo, J. Demmel, I. Dhillon, J. Dongarra, S. Hammarling, G. Henry, A. Petitet, K. Stanley, D. Walker, and R. C. Whaley, ScaLAPACK Users’ Guide (Society for In- dustrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 1997)

    1997

  94. [102]

    Sela, H.-C

    E. Sela, H.-C. Jiang, M. H. Gerlach, and S. Trebst, Order-by-disorder and spin-orbital liquids in a distorted Heisenberg-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 90, 035113 (2014)

    2014

  95. [103]

    Suzuki and Y

    T. Suzuki and Y. Yamaji, Thermal properties of spin-S Kitaev-Heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys- ica B: Condensed Matter 536, 637 (2018)

    2018

  96. [104]

    Koyama and J

    S. Koyama and J. Nasu, Flavor-wave theory with quasi- particle damping at finite temperatures: Application to chiral edge modes in the Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 108, 235162 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    Habel, A

    J. Habel, A. Mook, J. Willsher, and J. Knolle, Break- down of chiral edge modes in topological magnon insu- lators, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024441 (2024)

    2024

  98. [106]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P. A. Maksimov, A. L. Cherny- shev, A. Honecker, and R. Valent ´ ı, Breakdown of magnons in a strongly spin-orbital coupled magnet, Na- ture Communications 8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  99. [111]

    tinct from that of the quantum system in Figs

    magnetic field with h = 0.04. tinct from that of the quantum system in Figs. 10(d)- 10(f). A key feature of the quantum system is substan- tial changes of both κ(L) xy and κ(M ) xy , which nearly can- cel each other out in the total thermal Hall conductivity κxy. This feature ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.