Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Schwinger boson theory for $S=1$ Kitaev quantum spin liquids

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the S=1 Kitaev model is a gapped quantum spin liquid, with a spinon gap of just 0.013|K|, and that the standard Wick-decoupling scheme for spin correlations produces a fictitious ferromagnetic peak that a new bond-oper

desk verdict A well-argued but not conclusive proposal to change how SBMFT spin correlators are evaluated; the new decoupling is a plausible fix, but the paper overstates the case and needs a projection test. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.25761 v2 pith:LFWFEXXW submitted 2025-09-30 cond-mat.str-el

Daiki Sasamoto , Joji Nasu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Schwingerbosonmean-fieldtheoryS=1Kitaevmodelbond-operatordecouplingspinstructurefactorquantumliquidspinongapfinite-temperaturedynamicsbosonicquasiparticles
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 studies the S=1 Kitaev model, a honeycomb-lattice spin model whose S=1/2 counterpart is exactly solvable but whose higher-spin versions are not. Using Schwinger boson mean-field theory with bond operators extended to handle anisotropic (Ising-type) interactions, the authors find a quantum spin liquid ground state with a small but nonzero spinon gap, stable up to S≈1.07. They then show that the conventional way of computing spin correlations—Wick decoupling in terms of spinons—produces a qualitatively wrong momentum dependence, suggesting ferromagnetic correlations in the antiferromagnetic model. They propose evaluating the spin correlator instead by decoupling with respect to the same bond operators used in the mean-field ansatz, which restores the expected antiferromagnetic structure and reproduces exact-diagonalization bond correlations and energy. This matters because it exposes an evaluation-scheme artifact in a widely used method and yields a consistent description of the spin dynamics of a higher-spin Kitaev model at zero and finite temperature.

What carries the argument

The central object is an extended bond-operator representation of the spin interaction: alongside the SU(2)-invariant operators A_ij and B_ij, the authors introduce SU(2)-breaking operators C^γ_ij and D^γ_ij, with D^γ_ij the only nonzero mean-field parameter on each γ-bond. The load-bearing step is the choice of decoupling for the four-boson spin correlator: decoupling I factorizes with respect to spinon operators (Wick's theorem), while decoupling II factorizes in terms of the bond operators Q^p_ij, the same operator basis in which the mean-field Hamiltonian is defined. The latter eliminates pairing channels not self-consistently determined by the mean-field solution, which are responsible

What would settle it

An unbiased numerical calculation of the S=1 antiferromagnetic Kitaev model on a cluster large enough to resolve momentum (e.g., exact diagonalization on a 24-site honeycomb cluster or a tensor-network simulation) that resolves the low-energy spin structure factor: if the dominant low-energy weight sits at the Γ point rather than the Γ' point, or if the nearest-neighbor spin correlations on the x and y bonds are measurably nonzero, the decoupling-II claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Schwinger-boson mean-field solution of the S=1 Kitaev model, only the bond operator ⟨D^γ_ij⟩ is nonvanishing on each γ-bond; the ground state is a quantum spin liquid with a tiny spinon gap ω_min/|K|=0.013. The paper's key discovery is that the spin structure factor evaluated with the conventional Wick decoupling of the four-boson spin correlator (decoupling I) shows a strong low-energy peak at the Γ point—signaling fictitious ferromagnetic correlations in the antiferromagnetic model—while a decoupling performed with the same bond operators that define the mean-field ansatz (decoupling II) removes this peak and produces a Γ'-point peak consistent with antiferromagnetic correlations, a

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that replacing the quartic spinon interactions by a free-boson mean-field Hamiltonian with only a global constraint on boson number faithfully represents the S=1 Kitaev model; if the true ground state is gapless or the mean-field underestimates the spinon gap, the computed spectra do not describe the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, previous Schwinger-boson mean-field calculations of spin structure factors for the S=1 (and other anisotropic) Kitaev models that used Wick decoupling contain an artifact: their ferromagnetic Γ-point weight is not physical.
  • The near-gapless spinon spectrum places the S=1 Kitaev model on the verge of magnetic order within SBMFT, consistent with tensor-network results and close to the density-matrix renormalization group suggestion of a gapless spin liquid.
  • The proposed decoupling scheme can be applied to other parton mean-field theories and to Kitaev-Heisenberg-type models, offering a consistent route to finite-temperature spin dynamics of frustrated magnets without a sign problem.
  • The predicted two-peak splitting of the continuum with increasing temperature is a concrete, falsifiable dynamical signature of gapped bosonic spinons with a temperature-dependent bandwidth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A general lesson extends beyond SBMFT: when a parton mean-field is defined by decoupling in a given operator basis, correlation functions should be evaluated by factorizing in that same basis; using a different factorization (e.g., Wick in the original partons) can introduce spurious symmetry-breaking correlations not controlled by the ansatz.
  • Because the spinon gap is so small, the mean-field QSL may be fragile; a more careful treatment of the local boson-number constraint or fluctuations beyond mean-field could close the gap entirely, in which case the S=1 Kitaev model would be a gapless spin liquid and the finite-temperature splitting would still occur but with a different low-energy form.
  • The relation between the Schwinger-boson spinons and the 'giant parton' (two Majorana composite) description of the same model is left open; comparing the two dynamical structure factors, especially their temperature evolution, would test whether the two fractionalization schemes describe the same low-energy physics.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Schwinger boson mean-field theory (SBMFT) for the S=1 Kitaev model on the honeycomb lattice, extending the bond-operator representation with SU(2)-breaking operators C^γ and D^γ. On a four-sublattice ansatz, self-consistent solutions find that only ⟨D^γ_ij⟩ is nonzero on the corresponding γ bond, with a small spinon gap ω_min/|K| = 0.013 and stability for S ≲ 1.07. The authors compute the dynamical and equal-time spin structure factors using two decoupling schemes: the conventional Wick decoupling of spinons (decoupling I) and a new bond-operator factorization (decoupling II). They report that decoupling I produces a spurious Γ-point ferromagnetic peak for the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model, whereas decoupling II yields a Γ′-point peak consistent with the sign of the exchange, and they use decoupling II to study finite-temperature spectra.

Significance. If the central methodological claim were established, the paper would resolve a puzzling discrepancy in SBMFT treatments of higher-spin Kitaev models and provide a tractable finite-temperature framework for bosonic spinon excitations. The algebraic derivations in Appendix A are careful, the distinction between the two decouplings is clearly articulated, and the authors are transparent about the global-constraint approximation and the possible underestimation of the spinon gap. The finite-temperature analysis includes a useful check of the spinon density. However, the main claim that decoupling II is the physically appropriate scheme rests on an uncontrolled factorization and insufficient validation, which prevents the paper from establishing its central conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II C, Eqs. (32)-(33), and Sec. V, Eq. (45)] The central methodological claim is unsupported. For the Gaussian mean-field state, Wick's theorem is exact, so the pairings in decoupling I are not 'channels not determined by SBMFT'; the anomalous averages ⟨bb⟩ and ⟨b†b†⟩ are precisely the ⟨D^γ_ij⟩ (and ⟨A_ij⟩) defining the ansatz. The nonzero ⟨S^z_i S^z_j⟩ on x/y bonds in Fig. 7(a) follow from those self-consistent averages. Decoupling II discards all connected parts of Q†Q and is an extra projection, not a systematic evaluation. It restores the local Z2 rule because the Gaussian state violates the local constraint; survival of the Γ′ peak under Gutzwiller projection is untested.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 7, and Sec. IV B, Fig. 3] The ED validation is too coarse. The cited checks are E0/N ≈ −0.71 vs −0.65 (≈9% error) and a single nearest-neighbor correlation component. These do not constrain the relative Γ vs Γ′ weight, which is the paper's central qualitative prediction. A comparison of the full S(q) with ED/DMRG or with a projected mean-field state is needed to show that the Γ′ peak is not an artifact of decoupling II.
  3. [Sec. II B, Eq. (18), and Sec. V] The QSL-stability claim rests on a mean-field state with only a global constraint; the authors concede that the quartic decoupling 'may underestimate the bosonic spinon gap, thereby rendering the QSL state unstable.' Since ω_min/|K| = 0.013 is central to the low-energy spectra and to the claimed S ≲ 1.07 stability window, the summary statement that a QSL is realized is stronger than the evidence supports. The conclusion should be conditional on the constraint approximation, and the conflict with DMRG (gapless QSL) should be addressed as a direct test rather than as an aside.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (33)] The expression contains a typographical artifact ('D A_{pq}^{αβ}') that should be corrected; the notation D for both a bond operator and the decoupling label is confusing.
  2. [Fig. 3] The color scales in panels (d), (e), and (f) differ (maximum 25.0 vs 2.25), which makes the suppression at Γ in (e) difficult to judge; a common scale would be more informative.
  3. [Sec. IV B] The coordinates of the Γ′ point are never defined; please specify them in the text or in Fig. 1(b).
  4. [Sec. V] The sentence 'Since two of them are ferromagnetic, the net nearest-neighbor spin correlation becomes positive' should clarify that it refers to decoupling I only.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: decoupling II builds the sign-consistent peak into the observable definition; ED checks keep the overall derivation independently anchored.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II C, Eq. (33); Sec. V, Eqs. (42)-(44); Sec. VI Summary]
    "To address this issue, we propose an alternative decoupling scheme, which is given by ... <S^α_i(t)S^β_j> = Σ_{p,q} A^{αβ}_{pq}<Q^{p†}_{ij}(t)><Q^q_{ij}(t)>. This approach is referred to as decoupling II in this paper."

    Decoupling II evaluates the spin correlator as a product of the same bond-operator expectation values that define the SBMFT ansatz. Given the self-consistent solution that only <D^γ> is nonzero on each γ bond, Eqs. (43)-(44) make the sign of <S^γ_i S^γ_j> and the zero of <S^z_i S^z_j> on x/y bonds algebraic identities: the observable is forced by the chosen factorization. The paper itself calls the scheme 'designed to be consistent with the mean-field ansatz' (Sec. VI), so the claimed removal of the unphysical Γ-point peak and emergence of the Γ′-point peak is partly a restatement of the ansatz rather than an independent prediction. External ED checks (ground-state energy, local-conserved-quantity zero pattern) prevent this from being fully circular.

full rationale

The mean-field parameters are obtained self-consistently from the Hamiltonian (Eqs. 17-18), not fit to the spin structure factor; the QSL ground state, small spinon gap, and finite-temperature spinon dynamics are legitimate model outputs with external benchmarks (ED energy E0/N ≈ -0.71 vs -0.65, zero x/y-bond z-correlations from the local conserved quantity, and tensor-network/DMRG comparisons). Self-citations such as Refs. [40, 46, 47] are not load-bearing: they are external numerical or model results, not a chain that defines the present predictions. The partial circularity is confined to the central methodological claim that decoupling II 'resolves' the sign inconsistency: Eq. (33) is constructed from the same <Q> mean fields, so the Γ′-point peak for the AFM model is built into the evaluation scheme. The paper acknowledges this design in the Summary and validates only low-order correlations and the energy against ED, not the full S(q) momentum structure. The admitted limitations in Sec. V (global rather than local number constraint, possible underestimated spinon gap, DMRG gapless QSL) are accuracy risks rather than circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is internally consistent and has independent external anchors, with one important by-construction element.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard SBMFT framework (global constraint, neglected fluctuations, chosen ansatz). The only free mean-field parameter is lambda (the Lagrange multiplier, whose value is determined self-consistently but not reported). The paper introduces no new physical entities. The instability of the ansatz for S > 1.07 and the discussion of the pi/2-flux alternative are explicit acknowledgments that the ansatz choice is a load-bearing assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (Lagrange multiplier) = not reported numerically
    A single uniform Lagrange multiplier enforces the global boson-number constraint <n_i> = 2S on average. Its value is determined self-consistently and is not stated explicitly, but it shifts the spinon dispersion and hence all results. It is a mean-field parameter, not a microscopic parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local constraint n_i = 2S can be relaxed to a global constraint via a single uniform lambda.
    Section II B: 'it is practically challenging to enforce the local constraint at each site... we introduce a uniform Lagrange multiplier term'. This is a standard SBMFT approximation; it weakens the representation at the mean-field level.
  • domain assumption The bond-operator representation of the Kitaev interaction, Eq. (12), holds for S=1 spin operators with the chosen mixed normal-ordering representation, Eq. (8).
    The representation of S^gamma_i S^gamma_j in terms of the eight bond operators relies on Pauli-matrix identities and the Schwinger-boson spin representation for general S. The completeness of the bond-operator set as a basis for all bilinear inter-site boson terms is assumed. This is a stated framework choice.
  • domain assumption The spinon approximation is valid: the interacting boson model can be approximated by a free-boson model (H' neglected in Eq. 16), and self-consistency of the mean fields closes the problem.
    This is the basic SBMFT approximation, made throughout Section II B. Its validity is explicitly discussed in Sections IV C and V, where the authors admit the mean-field treatment may underestimate the spinon gap.
  • ad hoc to paper The mean-field ansatz with only <D^gamma_{ij}> nonzero on the gamma bond is the correct/global minimum ansatz for the S=1 Kitaev model.
    The authors state in Sec. IV A that among the considered four mean-field parameters, only <D^gamma> is nonzero; they follow the convention phi_t = 0 of Ref. 63. They do not search over all possible PSG ansatze (e.g., the chiral pi/2-flux state is considered but not evaluated in this work). This assumption limits the claim that the S=1 Kitaev model is a QSL; the paper itself notes that alternative ansatze could be competitive for larger S.
invented entities (1)
  • SU(2)-breaking bond operators C^gamma_{ij} and D^gamma_{ij} independent evidence
    purpose: To represent bond-anisotropic (Ising-type) spin interactions such as the Kitaev interaction in the Schwinger-boson framework.
    These are not new physical entities but new mathematical operators within the established Schwinger-boson construction. The identity Eq. (12) relating them to S^gamma_i S^gamma_j is exact algebra (Appendix A), i.e., an externally verifiable mathematical handle. They do not postulate new physics. Hence independent_evidence is true in the sense that their algebraic relations are checkable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schwinger boson theory for $S=1$ Kitaev quantum spin liquids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFWFEXXW

@misc{pith2026250925761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schwinger boson theory for $S=1$ Kitaev quantum spin liquids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFWFEXXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.25761}
}
abstract

The Kitaev model is an exactly solvable model with a quantum spin liquid ground state. While this model was originally proposed as an $S=1/2$ spin model on a honeycomb lattice, extensions to higher-spin systems have recently attracted attention. In contrast to the $S=1/2$ case, such higher-$S$ models are not exactly solvable and remain poorly understood, particularly for spin excitations at finite temperatures. Here, we focus on the $S=1$ Kitaev model, which is proposed to host bosonic quasiparticles. We investigate this model using Schwinger boson mean-field theory, introducing bosonic spinons as fractional quasiparticles by extending bond operators to address anisotropic spin interactions. We determine the mean-field parameters that realize a quantum spin liquid in both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic Kitaev models. Based on this ansatz, we calculate dynamical and equal-time spin structure factors. We find that the conventional scheme based on Wick decoupling with respect to spinons to calculate spin correlations, the resultant spin structure factors exhibit a momentum dependence that is not consistent with the sign structure expected from the exchange interaction. To resolve this issue, we propose an alternative evaluation based on decoupling with respect to bond operators. We demonstrate that, in our scheme, this discrepancy is removed, and the momentum dependence of the spin structure factors is consistent with the sign of the exchange constant. We also compute the temperature evolution of the dynamical spin structure factor and find that the zero-temperature continuum splits into two distinct structures as temperature increases, which can be understood in terms of the bandwidth narrowing of spinons. Finally, we clarify why the two decoupling schemes result in different momentum dependences and discuss their relationship to previous studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic picture of the honeycomb lattice on which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mean-field pattern assumed in the present SBMFT for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamical (upper row) and equal-time (lower row) spin structure factors in the ground state of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Finite-temperature dynamical spin structure factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spinon number per site, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Spinon dispersions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependence of the spin correlations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Four-sublattice decomposition of the honeycomb lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamical spin correlations in kagome antiferromagnets: comparison of Abrikosov fermion and Schwinger boson approaches beyond mean field

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Schwinger-boson mean-field theory plus RPA yields a concave-down low-energy dynamical structure factor that closes the spin gap and matches herbertsmithite better than dome-shaped Abrikosov-fermion continua.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    gi- ant parton

    in Figs. 3(c) and 3(f), which are obtained by applying the sublattice-rotation mapping introduced in Sec. III to the AFM 8 K □ M □′ K M0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ω/ |K| (a) K >0 Antiferro : decoupling I K □ M □′ K M0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 (b) K >0 Antiferro : decoupling II K □ M □′ K M0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 (c) K <0 Ferro : decoupling II □3π □2π □π 0 π 2π 3π qx □3π □2π □π 0 π 2π 3...

  2. [2]

    Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insu- lator?, Mater

    P. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insu- lator?, Mater. Res. Bull.8, 153 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    A. P. Ramirez, Strongly Geometrically Frustrated Magnets, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.24, 453 (1994)

    1994

  5. [5]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

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

    2017

  7. [7]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A Field Guide to Spin Liquids, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Wen, S.-L

    J. Wen, S.-L. Yu, S. Li, W. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Experimental identification of quantum spin liquids, npj Quantum Mater.4, 12 (2019)

    2019

Show all 148 references
  1. [9]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Clark and A

    L. Clark and A. H. Abdeldaim, Quantum Spin Liquids from a Materials Perspective, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.51, 495 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys. (NY)321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    2006

  4. [12]

    Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys. (NY)303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev- Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium OxidesA2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 027204 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Singh and P

    Y . Singh and P. Gegenwart, Antiferromagnetic Mott insulat- ing state in single crystals of the honeycomb lattice material Na2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B82, 064412 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Comin, G

    R. Comin, G. Levy, B. Ludbrook, Z.-H. Zhu, C. N. Veen- stra, J. A. Rosen, Y . Singh, P. Gegenwart, D. Stricker, J. N. Hancock, D. van der Marel, I. S. Elfimov, and A. Damascelli, Na2IrO3 as a Novel Relativistic Mott Insulator with a 340-mev Gap, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 266406 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    C. H. Sohn, H.-S. Kim, T. F. Qi, D. W. Jeong, H. J. Park, H. K. Yoo, H. H. Kim, J.-Y . Kim, T. D. Kang, D.-Y . Cho, G. Cao, J. Yu, S. J. Moon, and T. W. Noh, Mixing between Jeff =1/2 and 3/2 orbitals in Na 2IrO3: A spectroscopic and density functional calculation study, Phys. ...

    2013

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Foyevtsova, H

    K. Foyevtsova, H. O. Jeschke, I. I. Mazin, D. I. Khomskii, and R. Valentí, Ab initio analysis of the tight-binding param- eters and magnetic interactions in Na 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B88, 035107 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, L. J. Sandilands, V . V . Shankar, Y . F. Hu, K. S. Burch, H.-Y . Kee, and Y .-J. Kim,α-RuCl 3: A spin-orbit assisted Mott insulator on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B90, 041112 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    V . M. Katukuri, S. Nishimoto, V . Yushankhai, A. Stoyanova, H. Kandpal, S. Choi, R. Coldea, I. Rousochatzakis, L. Ho- zoi, and J. van den Brink, Kitaev interactions betweenj=1/2 moments in honeycomb Na2IrO3 are large and ferromagnetic: insights from ab initio quantum chemistr...

    2014

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    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, Di- rect evidence for dominant bond-directional inte...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Kubota, H

    Y . Kubota, H. Tanaka, T. Ono, Y . Narumi, and K. Kindo, Successive magnetic phase transitions inα-RuCl 3: XY-like frustrated magnet on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B91, 094422 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V . M. Katukuri, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Kitaev exchange and field- induced quantum spin-liquid states in honeycombα-RuCl 3, Sci. Rep.6, 37925 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    S. M. Winter, Y . Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valentí, Challenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic interactions from competing energy scales, Phys. Rev. B93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    S. Sinn, C. H. Kim, B. H. Kim, K. D. Lee, C. J. Won, J. S. Oh, M. Han, Y . J. Chang, N. Hur, H. Sato, B.-G. Park, C. Kim, H.-D. Kim, and T. W. Noh, Electronic Structure of the Kitaev Materialα-RuCl 3 Probed by Photoemission and Inverse Pho- toemission Spectroscopies, Sci. Rep....

    2016

  20. [28]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y . Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valentí, Models and materials for generalized Kitaev magnetism, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 493002 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Haraguchi, C

    Y . Haraguchi, C. Michioka, A. Matsuo, K. Kindo, H. Ueda, and K. Yoshimura, Magnetic ordering with an XY-like anisotropy in the honeycomb lattice iridates ZnIrO 3 and MgIrO3 synthesized via a metathesis reaction, Phys. Rev. Mater.2, 054411 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liq- uids, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Haraguchi and H

    Y . Haraguchi and H. A. Katori, Strong antiferromagnetic in- teraction owing to a large trigonal distortion in the spin-orbit- coupled honeycomb lattice iridate CdIrO 3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 044401 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Motome, R

    Y . Motome, R. Sano, S. Jang, Y . Sugita, and Y . Kato, Materials design of Kitaev spin liquids beyond the Jackeli–Khaliullin mechanism, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter32, 404001 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Jang and Y

    S.-H. Jang and Y . Motome, Electronic and magnetic properties of iridium ilmenitesAIrO 3 (A=Mg,Zn,and Mn), Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 104409 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y . Kee, Spin-Orbit Physics Giving Rise to Novel Phases in Correlated Systems: Iridates and Related Materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys7, 195 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the Kitaev Model: Fractionalization, Dynamic Correlations, and Material Connections, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Motome and J

    Y . Motome and J. Nasu, Hunting Majorana Fermions in Kitaev Magnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89, 012002 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Kitaev materials, Phys. Rep.950, 1 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Rousochatzakis, N

    I. Rousochatzakis, N. B. Perkins, Q. Luo, and H.-Y . Kee, Be- yond Kitaev physics in strong spin-orbit coupled magnets, Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Baskaran, D

    G. Baskaran, D. Sen, and R. Shankar, Spin-SKitaev model: Classical ground states, order from disorder, and exact corre- lation functions, Phys. Rev. B78, 115116 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Ma,Z 2 Spin Liquids in the Higher Spin-SKitaev Honey- comb Model: An Exact DeconfinedZ 2 Gauge Structure in a Nonintegrable Model, Phys

    H. Ma,Z 2 Spin Liquids in the Higher Spin-SKitaev Honey- comb Model: An Exact DeconfinedZ 2 Gauge Structure in a Nonintegrable Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 156701 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    A. Koga, H. Tomishige, and J. Nasu, Ground-state and Ther- modynamic Properties of anS=1 Kitaev Model, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.87, 063703 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Interplay be- tween Kitaev interaction and single ion anisotropy in ferro- magnetic CrI3 and CrGeTe3 monolayers, npj Comput. Mater. 4, 57 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Oitmaa, A

    J. Oitmaa, A. Koga, and R. R. P. Singh, Incipient and well- developed entropy plateaus in spin-SKitaev models, Phys. Rev. B98, 214404 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Suzuki and Y

    T. Suzuki and Y . Yamaji, Thermal properties of spin-SKitaev- Heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. B536, 637 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    M. Kim, P. Kumaravadivel, J. Birkbeck, W. Kuang, S. G. Xu, D. G. Hopkinson, J. Knolle, P. A. McClarty, A. I. Berdyugin, M. Ben Shalom, R. V . Gorbachev, S. J. Haigh, S. Liu, J. H. Edgar, K. S. Novoselov, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. K. Geim, Micromagnetometry of two-dimensional f...

    2019

  38. [46]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, D. Pereira, and H.-Y . Kee, Microscopic Mechanism for a Higher-Spin Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 037203 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Minakawa, J

    T. Minakawa, J. Nasu, and A. Koga, Quantum and classical be- havior of spin-SKitaev models in the anisotropic limit, Phys. Rev. B99, 104408 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    A. Koga, T. Minakawa, Y . Murakami, and J. Nasu, Spin Trans- port in the Quantum Spin Liquid State in theS=1 Kitaev Model: Role of the Fractionalized Quasiparticles, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89, 033701 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Hickey, C

    C. Hickey, C. Berke, P. P. Stavropoulos, H.-Y . Kee, and S. Trebst, Field-driven gapless spin liquid in the spin-1 Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023361 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, M. Kawamura, Y . Yamaji, Y . Nahas, S. Prokhorenko, Y . Qi, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Possi- ble Kitaev Quantum Spin Liquid State in 2D Materials with S=3/2, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 087205 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    H.-Y . Lee, N. Kawashima, and Y . B. Kim, Tensor network wave function ofS=1 Kitaev spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033318 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    I. Lee, F. G. Utermohlen, D. Weber, K. Hwang, C. Zhang, J. van Tol, J. E. Goldberger, N. Trivedi, and P. C. Ham- mel, Fundamental Spin Interactions Underlying the Magnetic Anisotropy in the Kitaev Ferromagnet cri 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 017201 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Dong and D

    X.-Y . Dong and D. N. Sheng, Spin-1 Kitaev-Heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B102, 121102 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    Z. Zhu, Z.-Y . Weng, and D. N. Sheng, Magnetic field induced spin liquids inS=1 Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022047 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    A. M. Samarakoon, Q. Chen, H. Zhou, and V . O. Garlea, Static and dynamic magnetic properties of honeycomb lattice anti- ferromagnets Na2 M2TeO6,M=Co and Ni, Phys. Rev. B104, 184415 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Khait, P

    I. Khait, P. P. Stavropoulos, H.-Y . Kee, and Y . B. Kim, Charac- terizing spin-one Kitaev quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013160 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, X. Liu, and H.-Y . Kee, Magnetic anisotropy in spin-3/2 with heavy ligand in honeycomb Mott insulators: Application to CrI3, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013216 (2021). 15

    2021

  50. [58]

    H.-K. Jin, W. M. H. Natori, F. Pollmann, and J. Knolle, Un- veiling theS=3/2 Kitaev honeycomb spin liquids, Nat. Com- mun.13, 3813 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Fukui, Y

    K. Fukui, Y . Kato, J. Nasu, and Y . Motome, Ground-state phase diagram of spin-SKitaev-Heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. B106, 174416 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Bradley and R

    O. Bradley and R. R. P. Singh, Instabilities of spin-1 Kitaev spin liquid phase in presence of single-ion anisotropies, Phys. Rev. B105, L060405 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Y .-H. Chen, J. Genzor, Y . B. Kim, and Y .-J. Kao, Excitation spectrum of spin-1 Kitaev spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B105, L060403 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    K. M. Taddei, V . O. Garlea, A. M. Samarakoon, L. D. San- jeewa, J. Xing, T. W. Heitmann, C. dela Cruz, A. S. Sefat, and D. Parker, Zigzag magnetic order and possible Kitaev inter- actions in the spin-1 honeycomb lattice KNiAsO 4, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013022 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Georgiou, I

    M. Georgiou, I. Rousochatzakis, D. J. J. Farnell, J. Richter, and R. F. Bishop, Spin-SKitaev-Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice: A high-order treatment via the many-body coupled cluster method, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033168 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Ralko and J

    A. Ralko and J. Merino, Chiral bosonic quantum spin liquid in the integer-spin Heisenberg-Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B110, 134402 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Functional integral theories of low-dimensional quantum Heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. B 38, 316 (1988)

    1988

  58. [66]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Large-Nexpansion for frustrated quantum antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1773 (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    Sachdev and N

    S. Sachdev and N. Read, LARGE N EXPANSION FOR FRUSTRATED AND DOPED QUANTUM ANTIFERRO- MAGNETS, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B05, 219 (1991)

    1991

  60. [68]

    S. Sachdev, Kagomé - and triangular-lattice Heisenberg an- tiferromagnets: Ordering from quantum fluctuations and quantum-disordered ground states with unconfined bosonic spinons, Phys. Rev. B45, 12377 (1992)

    1992

  61. [69]

    C. J. Gazza and H. A. Ceccatto, A Schwinger boson ap- proach to Heisenberg antiferromagnets on a triangular lattice, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter5, L135 (1993)

    1993

  62. [70]

    Lefmann and P

    K. Lefmann and P. Hedegård, Neutron-scattering cross section of theS=1/2 Heisenberg triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B50, 1074 (1994)

    1994

  63. [71]

    Mattsson, Spin dynamics of the triangular Heisenberg anti- ferromagnet: A Schwinger-boson approach, Phys

    A. Mattsson, Spin dynamics of the triangular Heisenberg anti- ferromagnet: A Schwinger-boson approach, Phys. Rev. B51, 11574 (1995)

    1995

  64. [72]

    Misguich, B

    G. Misguich, B. Bernu, and C. Lhuillier, The Multiple- Spin Exchange Phase Diagram on the Triangular Lattice: Schwinger-Boson Analysis, J. Low Temp. Phys.110, 327 (1998)

    1998

  65. [73]

    Yoshioka and J

    D. Yoshioka and J. Miyazaki, Boson Mean Field Theory of the Triangular Lattice Heisenberg Model, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 60, 614 (1991)

    1991

  66. [74]

    Shen and F

    S.-Q. Shen and F. C. Zhang, Antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on an anisotropic triangular lattice in the presence of a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B66, 172407 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    Läuchli, F

    A. Läuchli, F. Mila, and K. Penc, Quadrupolar Phases of the S=1 Bilinear-Biquadratic Heisenberg Model on the Triangu- lar Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 087205 (2006)

    2006

  68. [76]

    P. Li, H. Su, H.-N. Dong, and S.-Q. Shen, Incommensurate phase of a triangular frustrated Heisenberg model studied via Schwinger-boson mean-field theory, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- ter21, 326005 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    S. V . Isakov, H.-C. Chien, J.-J. Wu, Y .-C. Chen, C.-H. Chung, K. Sengupta, and Y . B. Kim, Commensurate lock-in and incommensurate supersolid phases of hard-core bosons on anisotropic triangular lattices, Europhys. Lett.87, 36002 (2009)

    2009

  70. [78]

    Mezio, C

    A. Mezio, C. N. Sposetti, L. O. Manuel, and A. E. Trumper, A test of the bosonic spinon theory for the triangular antifer- romagnet spectrum, Europhys. Lett.94, 47001 (2011)

    2011

  71. [79]

    X.-Y . Feng, X. Dong, and J. Dai, Stabilizing the spiral order with spin-orbit coupling in an anisotropic triangular antiferro- magnet, Phys. Rev. B84, 212406 (2011)

    2011

  72. [80]

    Merino, M

    J. Merino, M. Holt, and B. J. Powell, Spin-liquid phase in a spatially anisotropic frustrated antiferromagnet: A Schwinger boson mean-field approach, Phys. Rev. B89, 245112 (2014)

    2014

  73. [81]

    Lima, Spin superfluidity in the anisotropic XY model in the triangular lattice, Solid State Commun.239, 5 (2016)

    L. Lima, Spin superfluidity in the anisotropic XY model in the triangular lattice, Solid State Commun.239, 5 (2016)

    2016

  74. [82]

    Pires, SU(N) Schwinger bosons and nematic phases in the bilinear–biquadratic S=1 triangular lattice antiferromag- net with third-nearest neighbor interactions, J

    A. Pires, SU(N) Schwinger bosons and nematic phases in the bilinear–biquadratic S=1 triangular lattice antiferromag- net with third-nearest neighbor interactions, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.421, 52 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Bauer and J

    D.-V . Bauer and J. O. Fjærestad, Schwinger-boson mean-field study of theJ 1-J2 heisenberg quantum antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B96, 165141 (2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    Lima, Effect of the phase transition to the ferroquadrupolar phase on spin transport in the biquadratic antiferromagnet of the triangular lattice, J

    L. Lima, Effect of the phase transition to the ferroquadrupolar phase on spin transport in the biquadratic antiferromagnet of the triangular lattice, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.428, 448 (2017)

    2017

  77. [85]

    Kos and M

    P. Kos and M. Punk, Quantum spin liquid ground states of the Heisenberg-Kitaev model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B95, 024421 (2017)

    2017

  78. [86]

    X.-C. Wu, A. Keselman, C.-M. Jian, K. A. Pawlak, and C. Xu, Ferromagnetism and spin-valley liquid states in moiré corre- lated insulators, Phys. Rev. B100, 024421 (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Zhang and T

    Q. Zhang and T. Li, Bosonic resonating valence bond theory of the possible chiral spin-liquid state in the triangular-lattice Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B104, 075103 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. J. Gazza, and H. A. Cecca- tto, Kagomé Heisenberg antiferromagnet: Elementary excita- tions and low-temperature specific heat, Phys. Rev. B50, 1313 (1994)

    1994

  81. [89]

    P. Li, H. Su, and S.-Q. Shen, Kagome antiferromagnet: A Schwinger-boson mean-field theory study, Phys. Rev. B76, 174406 (2007)

    2007

  82. [90]

    Messio, O

    L. Messio, O. Cépas, and C. Lhuillier, Schwinger-boson ap- proach to the kagome antiferromagnet with Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interactions: Phase diagram and dynamical structure factors, Phys. Rev. B81, 064428 (2010)

    2010

  83. [91]

    B. Fåk, E. Kermarrec, L. Messio, B. Bernu, C. Lhuillier, F. Bert, P. Mendels, B. Koteswararao, F. Bouquet, J. Ollivier, A. D. Hillier, A. Amato, R. H. Colman, and A. S. Wills, Kapel- lasite: A Kagome Quantum Spin Liquid with Competing In- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 037208 (2012)

    2012

  84. [92]

    Messio, B

    L. Messio, B. Bernu, and C. Lhuillier, Kagome Antiferromag- net: A Chiral Topological Spin Liquid?, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 207204 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    Messio, C

    L. Messio, C. Lhuillier, and G. Misguich, Time reversal sym- metry breaking chiral spin liquids: Projective symmetry group approach of bosonic mean-field theories, Phys. Rev. B87, 125127 (2013)

    2013

  86. [94]

    J. C. Halimeh and M. Punk, Spin structure factors of chiral quantum spin liquids on the kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B94, 104413 (2016)

    2016

  87. [95]

    Mondal and C

    K. Mondal and C. Kadolkar, Schwinger boson mean-field theory of the kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. B95, 134404 (2017). 16

    2017

  88. [96]

    L. E. Chern, K. Hwang, T. Mizoguchi, Y . Huh, and Y . B. Kim, Quantum spin liquid and magnetic order in a two-dimensional nonsymmorphic lattice: Considering the distorted kagome lat- tice of volborthite, Phys. Rev. B96, 035118 (2017)

    2017

  89. [97]

    Messio, S

    L. Messio, S. Bieri, C. Lhuillier, and B. Bernu, Chi- ral Spin Liquid on a Kagome Antiferromagnet Induced by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 267201 (2017)

    2017

  90. [98]

    Ghosh and B

    P. Ghosh and B. Kumar, Spontaneous dimerization and mo- ment formation in the Hida model of the spin-1 kagome anti- ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B97, 014413 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    J. C. Halimeh and R. R. P. Singh, Rapid filling of the spin gap with temperature in the Schwinger-boson mean-field theory of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg kagome model, Phys. Rev. B99, 155151 (2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    Mondal and C

    K. Mondal and C. Kadolkar, Ground state phase diagram of kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet with Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interaction, AIP Conf. Proc.2072, 020008 (2019)

  93. [101]

    Mondal and C

    K. Mondal and C. Kadolkar,Q=0 order in quantum kagome Heisenberg antiferromagnet, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter33, 145802 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Li and T

    H. Li and T. Li, Competing emergent Potts orders and possible nematic spin liquids in the kagomeJ 1-J3 heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B106, 035112 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Lugan, L

    T. Lugan, L. D. C. Jaubert, M. Udagawa, and A. Ralko, Schwinger boson theory of theJ 1,J 2 =J 3 kagome antifer- romagnet, Phys. Rev. B106, L140404 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    Rossi, J

    D. Rossi, J. Motruk, L. Rademaker, and D. A. Abanin, Schwinger boson study of theJ 1-J2-J3 kagome heisenberg an- tiferromagnet with dzyaloshinskii-moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. B108, 144406 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    Mattsson, P

    A. Mattsson, P. Fröjdh, and T. Einarsson, Frustrated honey- comb Heisenberg antiferromagnet: A Schwinger-boson ap- proach, Phys. Rev. B49, 3997 (1994)

    1994

  98. [106]

    Wang, Schwinger boson mean field theories of spin liq- uid states on a honeycomb lattice: Projective symmetry group analysis and critical field theory, Phys

    F. Wang, Schwinger boson mean field theories of spin liq- uid states on a honeycomb lattice: Projective symmetry group analysis and critical field theory, Phys. Rev. B82, 024419 (2010)

    2010

  99. [107]

    D. C. Cabra, C. A. Lamas, and H. D. Rosales, Quantum disor- dered phase on the frustrated honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 83, 094506 (2011)

    2011

  100. [108]

    Vaezi, M

    A. Vaezi, M. Mashkoori, and M. Hosseini, Phase diagram of the strongly correlated Kane-Mele-Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B85, 195126 (2012)

    2012

  101. [109]

    A. R. Moura and A. R. Pereira, Study of the bilinear bi- quadratic Heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice via Schwinger bosons, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.342, 11 (2013)

    2013

  102. [110]

    Zhang and C

    H. Zhang and C. A. Lamas, Exotic disordered phases in the quantumJ 1-J2 model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 87, 024415 (2013)

    2013

  103. [111]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Arlego, and C. A. Lamas, Quantum phases in the frustrated Heisenberg model on the bilayer honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B89, 024403 (2014)

    2014

  104. [112]

    Arlego, C

    M. Arlego, C. A. Lamas, and H. Zhang, Self consistent study of the quantum phases in a frustrated antiferromagnet on the bilayer honeycomb lattice, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.568, 042019 (2014)

    2014

  105. [113]

    Pires, Ferroquadrupolar phase of the bilinear–biquadratic Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice at zero tempera- ture, J

    A. Pires, Ferroquadrupolar phase of the bilinear–biquadratic Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice at zero tempera- ture, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.393, 265 (2015)

    2015

  106. [114]

    Pires, Quantum phase transition in the frustrated anisotropic honeycomb lattice, Physica B: Condens

    A. Pires, Quantum phase transition in the frustrated anisotropic honeycomb lattice, Physica B: Condens. Matter 479, 130 (2015)

    2015

  107. [115]

    Pires, Frustrated quantum antiferromagnet with third neigh- bor interactions and single ion anisotropy on the honeycomb lattice, J

    A. Pires, Frustrated quantum antiferromagnet with third neigh- bor interactions and single ion anisotropy on the honeycomb lattice, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.412, 217 (2016)

    2016

  108. [116]

    Lima, Spin conductivity of the two-dimensional anisotropic frustrated Heisenberg model in the honeycomb lattice, Solid State Commun.237-238, 19 (2016)

    L. Lima, Spin conductivity of the two-dimensional anisotropic frustrated Heisenberg model in the honeycomb lattice, Solid State Commun.237-238, 19 (2016)

    2016

  109. [117]

    Lima, Influence of quantum phase transition on spin trans- port in the quantum antiferromagnet in the honeycomb lattice, J

    L. Lima, Influence of quantum phase transition on spin trans- port in the quantum antiferromagnet in the honeycomb lattice, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.432, 169 (2017)

    2017

  110. [118]

    Jia, Q.-W

    S.-Q. Jia, Q.-W. Wang, X.-L. Yu, and L.-J. Zou, Anomalous spin disordered properties of strongly correlated honeycomb compound In3Cu2VO9, AIP Adv.7, 055825 (2017)

    2017

  111. [119]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. A. Lamas, M. Arlego, and W. Brenig, Nematic quantum phases in the bilayer honeycomb antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B97, 235123 (2018)

    2018

  112. [120]

    Merino and A

    J. Merino and A. Ralko, Role of quantum fluctuations on spin liquids and ordered phases in the Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B97, 205112 (2018)

    2018

  113. [121]

    L. S. Lima, Quantum Phase Transition and Quantum Correla- tion in the Two-dimensional Honeycomb-bilayer Lattice An- tiferromagnet, Journal of Low Temperature Physics205, 112 (2021)

    2021

  114. [122]

    Lima, Transport and spin Hall conductivity in two- dimensional XY model on honeycomb lattice, Solid State Commun.352, 114807 (2022)

    L. Lima, Transport and spin Hall conductivity in two- dimensional XY model on honeycomb lattice, Solid State Commun.352, 114807 (2022)

    2022

  115. [123]

    Kalmeyer and R

    V . Kalmeyer and R. B. Laughlin, Equivalence of the resonating-valence-bond and fractional quantum Hall states, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2095 (1987)

  116. [124]

    X. G. Wen, Vacuum degeneracy of chiral spin states in com- pactified space, Phys. Rev. B40, 7387 (1989)

    1989

  117. [125]

    Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and symmetric spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  118. [126]

    Wang and A

    F. Wang and A. Vishwanath, Spin-liquid states on the triangu- lar and Kagomé lattices: A projective-symmetry-group analy- sis of Schwinger boson states, Phys. Rev. B74, 174423 (2006)

    2006

  119. [127]

    Hwang, T

    K. Hwang, T. Dodds, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y . B. Kim, Three- dimensional nematic spin liquid in a stacked triangular lattice 6H-B structure, Phys. Rev. B87, 235103 (2013)

    2013

  120. [128]

    Yang and F

    X. Yang and F. Wang, Schwinger boson spin-liquid states on square lattice, Phys. Rev. B94, 035160 (2016)

    2016

  121. [129]

    Y .-D. Li, X. Yang, Y . Zhou, and G. Chen, Non-Kitaev spin liquids in Kitaev materials, Phys. Rev. B99, 205119 (2019)

    2019

  122. [130]

    Schneider, J

    B. Schneider, J. C. Halimeh, and M. Punk, Projective sym- metry group classification of chiralZ 2 spin liquids on the py- rochlore lattice: Application to the spin- 1 2 XXZ heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B105, 125122 (2022)

    2022

  123. [131]

    Kargarian, A

    M. Kargarian, A. Langari, and G. A. Fiete, Unusual magnetic phases in the strong interaction limit of two-dimensional topo- logical band insulators in transition metal oxides, Phys. Rev. B86, 205124 (2012)

    2012

  124. [132]

    Samajdar, M

    R. Samajdar, M. S. Scheurer, S. Chatterjee, H. Guo, C. Xu, and S. Sachdev, Enhanced thermal Hall effect in the square-lattice Néel state, Nat. Phys.15, 1290 (2019)

    2019

  125. [133]

    Flint and P

    R. Flint and P. Coleman, SymplecticNand time reversal in frustrated magnetism, Phys. Rev. B79, 014424 (2009)

    2009

  126. [134]

    M. G. Gonzalez, E. A. Ghioldi, C. J. Gazza, L. O. Manuel, and A. E. Trumper, One dimensionalization in the spin-1 Heisen- berg model on the anisotropic triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174423 (2017)

    2017

  127. [135]

    E. A. Ghioldi, M. G. Gonzalez, S.-S. Zhang, Y . Kamiya, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, and C. D. Batista, Dynamical struc- ture factor of the triangular antiferromagnet: Schwinger boson theory beyond mean field, Phys. Rev. B98, 184403 (2018). 17

    2018

  128. [136]

    Zhang, E

    S.-S. Zhang, E. A. Ghioldi, Y . Kamiya, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, and C. D. Batista, Large-Slimit of the large-N theory for the triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B100, 104431 (2019)

    2019

  129. [137]

    M. G. Gonzalez, E. A. Ghioldi, C. J. Gazza, L. O. Manuel, and A. E. Trumper, Interplay between spatial anisotropy and next-nearest-neighbor exchange interactions in the triangular Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B102, 224410 (2020)

    2020

  130. [138]

    Zhang and T

    Q. Zhang and T. Li, Why the Schwinger boson mean field the- ory fails to describe the spin dynamics of the triangular lat- tice antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model?, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter33, 375601 (2021)

    2021

  131. [139]

    E. A. Ghioldi, S.-S. Zhang, Y . Kamiya, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, and C. D. Batista, Evidence of two-spinon bound states in the magnetic spectrum of Ba3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. B 106, 064418 (2022)

    2022

  132. [140]

    I. L. Pomponio, E. A. Ghioldi, C. J. Gazza, L. O. Manuel, and A. E. Trumper, Thermal decay of two-spinon bound states in quasi-two-dimensional triangular antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 224402 (2024)

    2024

  133. [141]

    The result obtained in the present study corresponds to the ansatz withϕ t =0 in the notation of Ref. [63]

  134. [142]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Dy- namics of a Two-Dimensional Quantum Spin Liquid: Signa- tures of Emergent Majorana Fermions and Fluxes, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 207203 (2014)

    2014

  135. [143]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Dynamics of fractionalization in quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B92, 115127 (2015)

    2015

  136. [144]

    Yoshitake, J

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

    2016

  137. [145]

    Yoshitake, J

    J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y . Kato, and Y . Motome, Majorana dynamical mean-field study of spin dynamics at finite tem- peratures in the honeycomb Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B96, 024438 (2017)

    2017

  138. [146]

    Laurell and S

    P. Laurell and S. Okamoto, Dynamical and thermal magnetic properties of the Kitaev spin liquid candidateα-RuCl 3, npj Quantum Mater.5, 2 (2020)

    2020

  139. [147]

    Nasu and Y

    J. Nasu and Y . Motome, Spin dynamics in the Kitaev model with disorder: Quantum Monte Carlo study of dynamical spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and NMR relaxation rate, Phys. Rev. B104, 035116 (2021)

    2021

  140. [148]

    Takegami and T

    H. Takegami and T. Morinari, Static and dynamical spin corre- lations in the Kitaev model at finite temperatures via Green’s function equation of motion, Phys. Rev. B111, 054413 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.