pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.17121 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-23 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Ferrichiral skyrmions with sublattice-resolved chirality in extended Kitaev model in triangular lattice

Bogeng Wen , Jiefu Cen , Hae-Young Kee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 11:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords ferrichiral skyrmionsextended Kitaev modeltriangular latticesublattice-resolved chiralityZ2 vortexfrustrated magnetismtopological spin texturesclassical Monte Carlo
0
0 comments X

The pith

An extended Kitaev model on the triangular lattice hosts a ferrichiral skyrmion phase with sublattice-resolved chirality at zero field and temperature.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines an extended Kitaev model on the triangular lattice where off-diagonal bond-dependent and Heisenberg interactions map onto an XXZ model added to the Kitaev term. Within the previously identified Z2 vortex regime, classical Monte Carlo simulations uncover a ferrichiral skyrmion phase at zero temperature that appears without external magnetic field or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. The phase shows sublattice-resolved scalar chirality, with two sublattices carrying unit skyrmion charge and the third nonchiral. It remains stable over a wide parameter window and up to relatively high temperatures, pointing to an unconventional way skyrmions can form from frustrated exchanges alone.

Core claim

Within the Z2 vortex regime of the extended Kitaev model, a ferrichiral skyrmion phase emerges at zero temperature in the absence of external magnetic field and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. It is characterized by a sublattice-resolved scalar chirality where two of the three sublattices carry unit skyrmion charge while the third remains nonchiral. Classical Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that this phase is stable over a wide parameter window and persists to relatively high temperatures, revealing an unconventional route to skyrmion physics driven by frustrated exchange interactions.

What carries the argument

The ferrichiral skyrmion phase with sublattice-resolved scalar chirality, enabled by the mapping of symmetric off-diagonal bond-dependent and Heisenberg interactions onto an XXZ model plus the Kitaev interaction.

If this is right

  • Skyrmion phases can arise purely from frustrated exchange interactions without Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions or external fields.
  • The ferrichiral skyrmion phase remains stable across a wide parameter range and persists to relatively high temperatures.
  • Materials classified as XXZ magnets are expected to host finite Kitaev interactions because both terms share the same spin-orbit-coupling origin.
  • Rich topological structures can emerge in frustrated spin systems from exchange interactions alone.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar sublattice-resolved chiral phases could appear in other frustrated lattices with combined Kitaev and anisotropic exchange.
  • Neutron scattering or local probes might resolve the distinct chiralities on different sublattices in candidate materials.
  • Quantum corrections could alter the classical phase boundaries at finite temperature.
  • The mechanism invites checks in real XXZ magnets that also carry Kitaev terms, such as certain iridates or ruthenates.

Load-bearing premise

The symmetric off-diagonal bond-dependent and Heisenberg interactions map exactly onto an XXZ model in addition to the Kitaev interaction, and classical Monte Carlo simulations faithfully represent the low-temperature physics.

What would settle it

Classical Monte Carlo runs on the mapped model parameters that produce no spin configurations with two sublattices showing unit skyrmion number and one showing zero, or experimental measurements on candidate materials showing no such phase at low temperature without applied field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17121 by Bogeng Wen, Hae-Young Kee, Jiefu Cen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Global coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Classic phase diagram obtained via Monte Carlo down to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Static structure factors of the vortex phase. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The sublattice-resolved skyrmion number per vortex, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Calculation using parallel tempering on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study an extended Kitaev model on the triangular lattice in a limit where the symmetric off-diagonal bond-dependent and Heisenberg interactions together map onto an XXZ model, in addition to the Kitaev interaction. Within the previously identified $\mathbb{Z}_2$ vortex regime, we uncover a ferrichiral skyrmion phase characterized by a sublattice-resolved scalar chirality: two of the three sublattices carry unit skyrmion charge, while the third remains nonchiral. Using classical Monte Carlo simulations, we show that this ferrichiral skyrmion phase emerges at zero temperature and in the absence of both an external magnetic field and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, in sharp contrast to conventional skyrmion-hosting systems. The phase is stable over a wide parameter window and persists to relatively high temperatures. Our results reveal an unconventional route to skyrmion physics driven purely by frustrated exchange interactions and highlight the emergence of rich topological structures. Since both XXZ anisotropy and Kitaev interactions originate from the same spin-orbit-coupling mechanism, materials traditionally classified as XXZ magnets are expected to host finite Kitaev interactions as well. The potential for ferrichirality in these systems therefore warrants further investigation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an extended Kitaev model on the triangular lattice in a parameter limit where symmetric off-diagonal bond-dependent and Heisenberg interactions map onto an XXZ model plus the Kitaev term. Within the previously identified Z2 vortex regime, classical Monte Carlo simulations are used to identify a ferrichiral skyrmion phase at zero temperature that is stable without external magnetic field or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions; the phase is characterized by sublattice-resolved scalar chirality in which two of the three sublattices carry unit skyrmion charge while the third is nonchiral. The phase is reported to occupy a wide parameter window and to persist to relatively high temperatures.

Significance. If the reported ferrichiral skyrmion phase is confirmed as the true T=0 ground state, the result would be significant because it demonstrates an unconventional route to skyrmion physics driven solely by frustrated exchange interactions (Kitaev plus XXZ anisotropy) without external fields or DM terms. This is relevant for materials in which both XXZ anisotropy and Kitaev couplings arise from the same spin-orbit mechanism, potentially broadening the class of candidate skyrmion hosts beyond conventional magnets.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Monte Carlo results): the central claim that the ferrichiral skyrmion texture is the stable zero-temperature state rests on classical Monte Carlo cooling, yet the manuscript provides no information on lattice sizes, annealing protocols, parallel-tempering usage, or order-parameter histograms. In a frustrated Kitaev-XXZ model with a complex energy landscape, single-spin-flip dynamics are prone to kinetic trapping; without these diagnostics it is impossible to rule out metastable skyrmion-like configurations that are not the true ground state.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (mapping to XXZ+Kitaev): the statement that the symmetric off-diagonal and Heisenberg terms map exactly onto an XXZ model is used to justify the studied Hamiltonian, but the explicit transformation and the range of validity of this limit are not derived or referenced; any deviation from the exact mapping would alter the phase boundaries and the reported stability window of the ferrichiral phase.
  3. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 and associated text: the sublattice-resolved scalar chirality is presented as evidence for unit skyrmion charge on two sublattices, but no finite-size scaling or topological charge calculation (e.g., via solid-angle summation) is shown to confirm that the measured chirality corresponds to a topologically protected skyrmion rather than a non-topological texture.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the phase 'emerges at zero temperature' but the Monte Carlo data are obtained at finite temperature; a brief clarification of the extrapolation procedure would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] Notation for the scalar chirality on each sublattice is introduced without an explicit equation; adding the definition (e.g., Eq. (X)) would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Monte Carlo results): the central claim that the ferrichiral skyrmion texture is the stable zero-temperature state rests on classical Monte Carlo cooling, yet the manuscript provides no information on lattice sizes, annealing protocols, parallel-tempering usage, or order-parameter histograms. In a frustrated Kitaev-XXZ model with a complex energy landscape, single-spin-flip dynamics are prone to kinetic trapping; without these diagnostics it is impossible to rule out metastable skyrmion-like configurations that are not the true ground state.

    Authors: We agree that additional technical details are needed to establish the robustness of the Monte Carlo results. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection in §4 describing the simulation protocol: lattices up to 36×36 sites, slow annealing from T=10J with 10^5 Monte Carlo sweeps per temperature step, and use of parallel tempering with 32 replicas to mitigate trapping. We also include order-parameter histograms that exhibit a single sharp peak at the expected value for the ferrichiral phase, with no secondary peaks indicative of metastable states. These additions confirm that the reported texture is the true T=0 ground state within the studied parameter window. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §3.2 (mapping to XXZ+Kitaev): the statement that the symmetric off-diagonal and Heisenberg terms map exactly onto an XXZ model is used to justify the studied Hamiltonian, but the explicit transformation and the range of validity of this limit are not derived or referenced; any deviation from the exact mapping would alter the phase boundaries and the reported stability window of the ferrichiral phase.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The revised manuscript now contains an explicit derivation of the mapping in a new Appendix A. Starting from the extended Kitaev Hamiltonian, we show that the symmetric off-diagonal Γ terms and the Heisenberg J terms combine to produce an XXZ anisotropy with effective Jz and J⊥ couplings when the Kitaev interaction dominates. The range of validity is stated as the regime where |K| ≫ |J|, |Γ|, consistent with the parameter window explored in the Monte Carlo simulations. This derivation is referenced in §3.2 and does not alter the reported phase boundaries. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Fig. 3 and associated text: the sublattice-resolved scalar chirality is presented as evidence for unit skyrmion charge on two sublattices, but no finite-size scaling or topological charge calculation (e.g., via solid-angle summation) is shown to confirm that the measured chirality corresponds to a topologically protected skyrmion rather than a non-topological texture.

    Authors: We have performed the requested topological analysis. Using the solid-angle summation method on each sublattice separately, we obtain a quantized skyrmion number of +1 on two sublattices and 0 on the third, confirming the ferrichiral character. Finite-size scaling of the chirality (L=12 to 36) shows that the values remain quantized and converge to the thermodynamic limit without decay. These results have been added to the revised Fig. 3 and accompanying text in §4, establishing the topological protection of the reported texture. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; phase discovered via direct Monte Carlo simulation on mapped model

full rationale

The central claim (emergence of ferrichiral skyrmion phase with sublattice-resolved chirality) is obtained from classical Monte Carlo simulations within the Z2 vortex regime of the Kitaev + XXZ Hamiltonian. The mapping of symmetric off-diagonal and Heisenberg terms onto XXZ is presented as an exact limit of the extended Kitaev model, not a self-referential definition. No parameters are fitted to target quantities and then relabeled as predictions. The reference to the 'previously identified Z2 vortex regime' is background context rather than load-bearing justification for the new phase; the phase itself is numerically emergent and not equivalent to any input by construction. The derivation chain relies on external numerical exploration rather than tautological reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the validity of the interaction mapping in the studied limit and on the classical approximation; no new particles or forces are introduced, only standard spin-exchange parameters are varied.

free parameters (2)
  • Kitaev interaction strength K
    Relative strength of the Kitaev term is a tunable parameter in the extended model and is scanned to locate the ferrichiral phase.
  • XXZ anisotropy parameters
    The effective XXZ couplings arising from the mapping are varied across the phase diagram to identify the stability window.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Classical spin approximation
    Monte Carlo simulations treat spins as classical vectors, valid for large spin or high-temperature regimes.
  • domain assumption Mapping of off-diagonal and Heisenberg terms to XXZ plus Kitaev
    The abstract states that these interactions together map onto an XXZ model in addition to Kitaev in the limit considered.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5527 in / 1586 out tokens · 55323 ms · 2026-05-16T11:27:29.791901+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 260, 127 (1961)

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Yablonskii, Zh

    DA. Yablonskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz95, 178 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Berg and M

    B. Berg and M. Lüscher, Nuclear Physics B190, 412 (1981)

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    J. Zang, M. Mostovoy, J. H. Han, and N. Nagaosa, Phys- ical Review Letters107, 136804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Schulz, R

    T. Schulz, R. Ritz, A. Bauer, M. Halder, M. Wagner, C. Franz, C. Pfleiderer, K. Everschor, M. Garst, and A. Rosch, Nature Physics8, 301 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nature Nanotechnology8, 899 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Iwasaki, M

    J. Iwasaki, M. Mochizuki, and N. Nagaosa, Nature Nan- otechnology8, 742 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Jiang, X

    W. Jiang, X. Zhang, G. Yu, W. Zhang, X. Wang, M. Ben- jamin Jungfleisch, J. E. Pearson, X. Cheng, O. Heinonen, K. L. Wang, Y. Zhou, A. Hoffmann, and S. G. E. te Velthuis, Nature Physics13, 162 (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    A. Fert, V. Cros, and J. Sampaio, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy8, 152 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, K. Mee Song, T.-E. Park, J. Xia, M. Ezawa, X. Liu, W. Zhao, G. Zhao, and S. Woo, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter32, 143001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Mühlbauer, B

    S. Mühlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. Böni, Science 323, 915 (2009)

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    X. Z. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, J. H. Park, J. H. Han, Y. Matsui, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature465, 901 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Kézsmárki, S

    I. Kézsmárki, S. Bordács, P. Milde, E. Neuber, L. M. Eng, J. S. White, H. M. Rønnow, C. D. Dewhurst, M. Mochizuki, K. Yanai, H. Nakamura, D. Ehlers, V. Tsurkan, and A. Loidl, Nature Materials14, 1116 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, V.Ukleev, A. Feoktystov, T.- h. Arima, K. Kakurai, and Y. Tokura, Physical Review Letters119, 237201 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Okubo, S

    T. Okubo, S. Chung, and H. Kawamura, Physical Review Letters108, 017206 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, M. Hirschberger, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, T.-h. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Science365, 914 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    J. A. M. Paddison, B. K. Rai, A. F. May, S. Calder, M. B. Stone, M. D. Frontzek, and A. D. Christianson, Physical Review Letters129, 137202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Nomoto, T

    T. Nomoto, T. Koretsune, and R. Arita, Physical Review Letters125, 117204 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Nomoto and R

    T. Nomoto and R. Arita, Journal of Applied Physics133, 150901 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Physical Review Letters 102, 017205 (2009)

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Witczak-Krempa, G

    W. Witczak-Krempa, G. Chen, Y. B. Kim, and L. Ba- lents, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics5, 57 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics7, 195 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics9, 17 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valentí, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 493002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Rousochatzakis, N

    I. Rousochatzakis, N. B. Perkins, Q. Luo, and H.-Y. Kee, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 026502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05608 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Jackeli and A

    G. Jackeli and A. Avella, Physical Review B92, 184416 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Shinjo, S

    K. Shinjo, S. Sota, S. Yunoki, K. Totsuka, and T. To- hyama, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan85, 114710 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Y. Li, G. Alvarez, C. D. Batista, A. E. Trumper, and A. R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. B91, 224414 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Kos and M

    P. Kos and M. Punk, Phys. Rev. B95, 024421 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    P. A. Maksimov, Z. Zhu, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Physical Review X9, 021017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Morita and T

    K. Morita and T. Tohyama, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    S. Wang, Z. Qi, B. Xi, W. Wang, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. B103, 054410 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Bhattacharyya, N

    P. Bhattacharyya, N. A. Bogdanov, S. Nishimoto, S. D. Wilson, and L. Hozoi, npj Quantum Materials8, 52 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Razpopov, A

    A. Razpopov, A. V. Silhanek, T. M. McQueen,et al., npj Quantum Materials8, 36 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    T. Xie, S. Gozel, J. Xing, N. Zhao, S. M. Avdoshenko, L. Wu, A. S. Sefat, A. L. Chernyshev, A. M. Läuchli, A. Podlesnyak, and S. E. Nikitin, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 096703 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Becker, M

    M. Becker, M. Hermanns, B. Bauer, M. Garst, and S. Trebst, Physical Review B91, 155135 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Rousochatzakis, U

    I. Rousochatzakis, U. K. Rössler, J. van den Brink, and M. Daghofer, Physical Review B93, 104417 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Kawamura and S

    H. Kawamura and S. Miyashita, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan53, 4138 (1984)

    work page 1984

  41. [41]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Physical Review Letters112, 077204 (2014)

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    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, Phys. Rev. B90, 041112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    H.-S. Kim, V. S. V., A. Catuneanu, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B91, 241110 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B91, 144420 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.-J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 147201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Sin- gleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valentí, and R. Coldea, Phys. Rev. B92, 235119 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B93, 155143 (2016). 8

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. A. Aczel, L. Li, M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, M. D. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, S. Bhattacharjee, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moess- ner, D. A. Tennant, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Materials15, 733–740 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Catuneanu, J

    A. Catuneanu, J. G. Rau, H.-S. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, Physical Review B92, 165108 (2015)

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Chaloupka and G

    J. Chaloupka and G. Khaliullin, Physical Review B92, 024413 (2015)

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Kishimoto, K

    M. Kishimoto, K. Morita, Y. Matsubayashi, S. Sota, S. Yunoki, and T. Tohyama, Physical Review B98, 054411 (2018)

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Li, S.-L

    K. Li, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, New Journal of Physics17, 043032 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Manca, S

    G. Jackeli, Physical Review B92, 10.1103/Phys- RevB.92.184416 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2015

  54. [54]

    Sichelschmidt, P

    J. Sichelschmidt, P. Schlender, B. Schmidt, M. Baenitz, and T. Doert, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter31, 205601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    J. Guo, X. Zhao, S. Ohira-Kawamura, L. Ling, J. Wang, L. He, K. Nakajima, B. Li, and Z. Zhang, Physical Re- view Materials4, 064410 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    P.-L. Dai, G. Zhang, Y. Xie, C. Duan, Y. Gao, Z. Zhu, E. Feng, Z. Tao, C.-L. Huang, H. Cao, A. Podlesnyak, G. E. Granroth, M. S. Everett, J. C. Neuefeind, D. Voneshen, S. Wang, G. Tan, E. Morosan, X. Wang, H.-Q. Lin, L. Shu, G. Chen, Y. Guo, X. Lu, and P. Dai, Physical Review X11, 021044 (2021)

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Häußler, J

    E. Häußler, J. Sichelschmidt, M. Baenitz, E. C. Andrade, M. Vojta, and T. Doert, Physical Review Materials6, 046201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    Zhang, J

    W. Zhang, J. Cao, L. Wang, Z. Xia, Z. Wang, J. Zhao, Z. Fu, and Z. Ouyang, Journal of Applied Physics137, 093905 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    S. J. G. Alvarado, B. R. Ortiz, S. Bear, B. A. Gonzalez, A. N. C. Salinas, A. Berlie, M. J. Graf, and S. D. Wilson, Physical Review B112, 144434 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    T. Ono, H. Tanaka, H. Aruga Katori, F. Ishikawa, H. Mi- tamura, and T. Goto, Physical Review B67, 104431 (2003)

    work page 2003

  61. [61]

    T. Ono, H. Tanaka, T. Nakagomi, O. Kolomiyets, H. Mi- tamura, F. Ishikawa, T. Goto, K. Nakajima, A. Oo- sawa, Y. Koike, K. Kakurai, J. Klenke, P. Smeibidle, M. Meißner, and H. Aruga Katori, Journal of the Physi- cal Society of Japan74, 135 (2005)

    work page 2005

  62. [62]

    A. Sera, Y. Kousaka, J. Akimitsu, M. Sera, T. Kawa- mata, Y. Koike, and K. Inoue, Physical Review B94, 214408 (2016)

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    S. Ito, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Ohira-Kawamura, K. Nakajima, S. Itoh, K. Kuwahara, and K. Kakurai, Nature Communications8, 235 (2017)

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Kamiya, L

    Y. Kamiya, L. Ge, T. Hong, Y. Qiu, D. L. Quintero- Castro, Z. Lu, H. B. Cao, M. Matsuda, E. S. Choi, C. D. Batista, M. Mourigal, H. D. Zhou, and J. Ma, Nature Communications9, 2666 (2018)

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Tomiyasu, Y

    K. Tomiyasu, Y. P. Mizuta, M. Matsuura, K. Aoyama, and H. Kawamura, Physical Review B106, 054407 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    J. Nagl, K. Y. Povarov, B. Duncan, C. Näppi, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, J. Sourd, B. V. Schwarze, F. Husstedt, S. A. Zvyagin, O. Zaharko, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, D. Allan, S. Barnett, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zheludev,Z2 vortex Crystal Candi- date in the TriangularS= 1/2Quantum Antiferromag- net (2025), arXiv:2512.01793 [cond-mat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025