pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22908 · v1 · pith:3UUTEXCGnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Fractionalization, emergent SU(N) symmetries, and fragmentation in layered quantum spin-orbital models

Pedro M. C\^onsoli , Aayush Vijayvargia , Onur Erten This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords spin-orbital modelsfractionalizationemergent SU(N) symmetrymagnetic fragmentationHubbard modelparton constructionstring orderquantum spin liquids
0
0 comments X

The pith

Layered spin-orbital models map via partons to multi-component Hubbard systems whose ground states fragment magnetically.

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

The authors construct families of layered models by stacking Kitaev-type spin-orbital layers and adding Ising interlayer couplings. A parton decomposition shows that the low-energy physics becomes that of an N-component Fermi-Hubbard model on the pi-flux square lattice at half filling. When the interlayer couplings are equal and all-to-all, an emergent SU(N) symmetry appears. Mean-field treatment of the N=3 case produces phases with intertwined orders and flavor-selective localization. Back in the original variables these phases correspond to magnetic fragmentation in which the orbital sector remains a quantum liquid while the spin sector acquires either conventional long-range order or nonlocal string order.

Core claim

Using a parton construction, the Hamiltonians of the stacked models are mapped to N-component Fermi Hubbard models on a pi-flux square lattice at half filling. The models acquire an emergent SU(N) symmetry in the limit of equal all-to-all interlayer couplings. For N=3 the mean-field phase diagram contains intertwined orders and flavor-selective localization. When these states are expressed in the original spin and orbital operators, the ground states realize distinct forms of magnetic fragmentation in which the orbitals remain in a quantum liquid while the spins exhibit either conventional long-range order or nonlocal order set by a nontrivial string order parameter.

What carries the argument

The parton construction that converts the layered spin-orbital Hamiltonian into an effective N-component Fermi Hubbard model on the pi-flux square lattice.

If this is right

  • For N greater than 2 the models sit near an emergent SU(N) symmetric point and therefore host an array of competing phases.
  • The ground states realize distinct forms of magnetic fragmentation with orbitals in a quantum liquid and spins in conventional or string-ordered states.
  • The construction supplies concrete microscopic models for different fractionalized quantum critical points.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same stacking procedure could be applied to other two-dimensional lattices to produce Hubbard models with different flux patterns or coordination numbers.
  • Materials with strong spin-orbit coupling and weak interlayer exchange might be engineered to realize the predicted string-ordered phases.
  • The flavor-selective localization found at N=3 suggests a route to studying orbital-selective Mott physics inside a fractionalized setting.

Load-bearing premise

The parton construction accurately captures the low-energy physics of the original spin-orbital Hamiltonian and mean-field theory on the effective Hubbard model correctly identifies the ground-state phases and fragmentation patterns.

What would settle it

A numerical or experimental measurement on the original layered Hamiltonian for N=3 that finds no regime in which the orbital sector stays disordered while the spin sector develops either conventional magnetization or a finite string order parameter would falsify the mapping.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22908 by Aayush Vijayvargia, Onur Erten, Pedro M. C\^onsoli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematics illustrating the spin-orbital model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic illustrating a set of singular order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Four different phases obtained as mean-field solu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mean-field results for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representative ordering patterns for the four mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a family of layered quantum spin-orbital models as a platform to study fractionalization, unconventional forms of symmetry-breaking order, and their possible coexistence. The models are built by stacking $N$ layers of a square-lattice system in which Kitaev-type interactions promote the formation of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ quantum spin-orbital liquid and coupling the different layers via Ising spin interactions. Using a parton construction, we show how, at low energies, these Hamiltonians can be mapped to $N$-component Fermi Hubbard models on a $\pi$-flux square lattice at half filling. We also demonstrate that the models acquire an emergent SU($N$) symmetry in the limit of equal all-to-all interlayer couplings and argue that, for $N>2$, the proximity to this limit offers the potential to realize an array of competing phases. To illustrate this point, we compute the zero-temperature phase diagram of the effective $N=3$ Hubbard model within mean-field theory and uncover rich phenomena, including intertwined orders and flavor-selective localization. Mapping back to the original degrees of freedom reveals that the ground states realize distinct forms of magnetic fragmentation, wherein the orbitals remain in a quantum liquid state whereas the spins can present conventional long-range order or nonlocal order characterized by a nontrivial string order parameters. We highlight possible extensions of our construction as well as its potential to provide concrete microscopic models for different fractionalized quantum critical points.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes layered quantum spin-orbital models obtained by stacking N layers of Kitaev-type square-lattice systems coupled by Ising interlayer interactions. A parton construction maps the low-energy physics to N-component Fermi-Hubbard models on the π-flux square lattice at half filling; equal all-to-all interlayer couplings yield an emergent SU(N) symmetry. For N=3 the zero-temperature phase diagram of the effective Hubbard model is obtained within mean-field theory, exposing intertwined orders and flavor-selective localization. Mapping the mean-field solutions back to the original variables produces distinct magnetic fragmentation patterns in which the orbital sector remains a quantum liquid while the spin sector exhibits either conventional long-range order or nonlocal order diagnosed by a nontrivial string order parameter.

Significance. If the mean-field phases survive beyond the approximation, the construction supplies concrete microscopic Hamiltonians realizing fractionalization, emergent SU(N) symmetry, and magnetic fragmentation, together with a potential route to fractionalized quantum critical points. The parton rewriting itself is a standard technique, but its application to this stacked geometry and the resulting emergent symmetry constitute the primary technical contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [N=3 mean-field phase diagram and subsequent mapping back to spin-orbital variables] The identification of the fragmentation phases (orbitals liquid, spins with conventional LRO or string order) rests entirely on the mean-field solution of the N=3 Hubbard model (abstract and the section describing the N=3 phase diagram). In two dimensions, especially on the π-flux lattice at half filling where Dirac points appear, gauge and spin fluctuations are known to be strong; no beyond-mean-field calculation, finite-size scaling, or comparison with exact diagonalization/DMRG is provided to establish that the reported orders remain stable once fluctuations are restored.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Mapping back to original degrees of freedom] The string order parameter used to diagnose the nonlocal spin order should be written explicitly (including the precise string operator and the sites it connects) rather than left at the level of a verbal description.
  2. [Parton construction paragraph] A brief statement on the expected range of validity of the parton mapping (e.g., when gauge fluctuations remain gapped) would help readers assess the low-energy equivalence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting both the potential significance of the construction and the limitations of the mean-field analysis. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [N=3 mean-field phase diagram and subsequent mapping back to spin-orbital variables] The identification of the fragmentation phases (orbitals liquid, spins with conventional LRO or string order) rests entirely on the mean-field solution of the N=3 Hubbard model (abstract and the section describing the N=3 phase diagram). In two dimensions, especially on the π-flux lattice at half filling where Dirac points appear, gauge and spin fluctuations are known to be strong; no beyond-mean-field calculation, finite-size scaling, or comparison with exact diagonalization/DMRG is provided to establish that the reported orders remain stable once fluctuations are restored.

    Authors: We agree that the reported phases are identified within mean-field theory and that fluctuations are expected to be strong on the π-flux lattice. The central contribution of the work is the microscopic construction of the layered spin-orbital models, the parton mapping to the N-component Hubbard model, and the demonstration of emergent SU(N) symmetry for all-to-all interlayer couplings. The mean-field treatment of the N=3 case is presented explicitly as an illustrative calculation to expose possible intertwined orders and fragmentation patterns that the models can host. We do not claim that these orders are stable against fluctuations; rather, the mean-field solutions provide concrete candidate states whose stability can be tested with more advanced techniques. We will revise the manuscript to add an explicit discussion of the mean-field limitations, the expected role of gauge and spin fluctuations, and the fact that the fragmentation patterns should be viewed as candidate phases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper derives the low-energy mapping from the microscopic layered spin-orbital Hamiltonian to the N-component Fermi-Hubbard model on the π-flux lattice via an explicit parton construction. The N=3 phase diagram is then obtained by direct mean-field decoupling of the resulting Hubbard interaction, after which the fragmentation patterns are read back into the original variables. No step equates a prediction to a fitted input by construction, invokes a load-bearing self-citation whose content is itself unverified, or renames a known result; the central claims remain independent of the target observables.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the parton construction being faithful to the microscopic model and on mean-field theory capturing the correct ordering tendencies; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Parton construction faithfully represents the low-energy sector of the Kitaev-Ising spin-orbital Hamiltonian
    Invoked to obtain the mapping to the N-component Hubbard model (abstract).
  • domain assumption Mean-field decoupling on the effective Hubbard model yields the correct zero-temperature phases and string-order signatures
    Used to compute the N=3 phase diagram and fragmentation patterns (abstract).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5803 in / 1449 out tokens · 22801 ms · 2026-05-25T05:38:59.843394+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

99 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (8) introduces a re- dundancy under localZ 2 gauge transformations (bα iℓ, cx iℓ, cy iℓ)7− → −(b α iℓ, cx iℓ, cy iℓ),(18) which preserve Eqs

    Gauge redundancy The parton representation in Eq. (8) introduces a re- dundancy under localZ 2 gauge transformations (bα iℓ, cx iℓ, cy iℓ)7− → −(b α iℓ, cx iℓ, cy iℓ),(18) which preserve Eqs. (8) and (9) as well as any physical observable, including the intralayer fluxes ˆWpℓ in Eq. (4). Due to this redundancy, when fixing a flux sector{W pℓ}, one can alw...

    work page

  2. [2]

    magnetizations

    Symmetries From the original form of the Hamiltonian, Eqs. (2) and (3), one can easily verify that each layerℓseparately conserves its spin magnetization along thezaxis, since all NoperatorsM z ℓ =P i σz iℓ commute withH. Using the identityσ z iℓ = 1−2f † iℓfiℓ, this translates to the conserva- tion of the total number of fermions of flavorℓ, which is tie...

    work page

  3. [3]

    As shown in Appendix B, this condition is equivalent toM having two degenerate eigenvalues

    is perpendicular to one of the three vectorsα 1 = (1,0),α 2 = (−1, √ 3)/2, orα 3 = (1, √ 3)/2 corresponding to the (positive) roots of SU(3) [70]. As shown in Appendix B, this condition is equivalent toM having two degenerate eigenvalues. IV. MEAN-FIELD RESULTS FORN= 3 We now focus on the solution of the half-filledN= 3 mean-field theory, which is the sim...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (33) and (34) to the thermodynamic limitL→ ∞, we found that the system realizesfivedifferent phases at temperatureT= 0

    Phases atT= 0 After carefully extrapolating the finite-size solutions of Eqs. (33) and (34) to the thermodynamic limitL→ ∞, we found that the system realizesfivedifferent phases at temperatureT= 0. The first phase is a Dirac semimetal, which is charac- terized by (∆nA,m) = (0,0) and has a total of six Dirac cones (two per flavorℓ). This is a maximally sym...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Phase diagram TheT= 0 phase diagram of theN= 3 mean-field theory is shown in Fig. 4(a). Starting in the noninteract- ing limitJ/K= 0 of the SU(3)-symmetric lineJ ′/J= 1 and increasing the interaction strength, we observe that the Dirac semimetal is destabilized at (J/K) c1 ≈1.55. The ensuing phase, which is represented by a dark red line (I) in the phase ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    color density wave

    Beyond mean-field theory To gauge the effect oflocalfluctuations that are be- yond the scope of our mean-field theory, we can com- 4 This is analogous to the first-order phase transition observed, e.g., in a two-dimensional Ising ferromagnet when the magnitude of a longitudinal external field,h, is scanned throughh= 0 below the critical temperatureT c. At...

    work page

  7. [7]

    magnetic fragmentation

    implies that the physical ground state|ψ⟩=P|ψ u⟩ obeysP i(−1)i ⟨ψ|S a i |ψ⟩= 0. However, as shown in Ap- pendix C, the order captured by Eq. (44) survives in the form of gauge-invariant string correlations, C a γ (ri,r j) =⟨ψ|S a i ˆBa γ (ri,r j)S a j |ψ⟩,(45) where ˆBa γ (ri,r j) = Y (mn)∈γ ˆuℓ,mnˆuℓ′,mn.(46) Here,γdenotes an arbitrary path between the p...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Generating symmetry-equivalent mean-field states Given a set of mean-field parameters{n i,m i}, one can generate a different set{n ′ i,m ′ i}by applying a transfor- mationU∈U(N) to the matricesO i in Eq. (A3). Con- cretely, O′ i =U †OiU≡ n′ i N 1+m ′ i ·η ⊤,(A6) where⊤is used to indicate the transpose of a matrix. IfUfurther belongs to the symmetry groupG...

    work page

  9. [9]

    R. P. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys.21, 467 (1982)

    work page 1982

  10. [10]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 153 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nat. Phys.8, 277 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Nat. Phys.8, 267 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Aspuru-Guzik and P

    A. Aspuru-Guzik and P. Walther, Nat. Phys.8, 285 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Semeghini, H

    G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kali- nowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vish- wanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 374, 1242 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    K. J. Satzingeret al., Science374, 1237 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    M. A. Cazalilla and A. M. Rey, Rep. Prog. Phys.77, 124401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    A. V. Gorshkovet al., Nat. Phys.6, 289 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    S. Taie, R. Yamazaki, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Phys.8, 825 (2012)

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Paganoet al., Nat

    G. Paganoet al., Nat. Phys.10, 198 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Bishof, S. L. Bromley, C. V. Kraus, M. S. Safronova, P. Zoller, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science345, 1467 (2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Hofrichter, L

    C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fer- nandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. X6, 021030 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    S. Taie, E. Ibarra-Garc´ ıa-Padilla, N. Nishizawa, Y. Takasu, Y. Kuno, H.-T. Wei, R. T. Scalettar, K. R. A. Hazzard, and Y. Takahashi, Nat. Phys.18, 1356 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    T. A. T´ oth, A. M. L¨ auchli, F. Mila, and K. Penc, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 265301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Corboz, A

    P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, M. Troyer, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 215301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Bauer, P

    B. Bauer, P. Corboz, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Messio, K. Penc, M. Troyer, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B85, 125116 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    P. M. Cˆ onsoli and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 196701 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    F. F. Assaad, Phys. Rev. B71, 075103 (2005)

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Hermele, V

    M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 135301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Hermele and V

    M. Hermele and V. Gurarie, Phys. Rev. B84, 174441 (2011)

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Nataf and F

    P. Nataf and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 127204 (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Affleck and J

    I. Affleck and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B37, 3774 (1988)

    work page 1988

  33. [33]

    J. B. Marston and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B39, 11538 (1989)

    work page 1989

  34. [34]

    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. B38, 316 (1988)

    work page 1988

  35. [35]

    K. I. Kugel and D. I. Khomskii, Sov. Phys. Usp.25, 231 (1982)

    work page 1982

  36. [36]

    Y. Q. Li, M. Ma, D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3527 (1998)

    work page 1998

  37. [37]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Science288, 462 (2000)

    work page 2000

  38. [38]

    Vernay, K

    F. Vernay, K. Penc, P. Fazekas, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B70, 014428 (2004)

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    W. M. H. Natori, E. C. Andrade, E. Miranda, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 017204 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    M. G. Yamada, M. Oshikawa, and G. Jackeli, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 097201 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    W. M. H. Natori, E. C. Andrade, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B98, 195113 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    W. M. H. Natori, R. Nutakki, R. G. Pereira, and E. C. Andrade, Phys. Rev. B100, 205131 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Kr¨ uger, S

    F. Kr¨ uger, S. Kumar, J. Zaanen, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B79, 054504 (2009)

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    J. W. F. Venderbos and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245103 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    N. F. Q. Yuan and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B98, 045103 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [47]

    Nussinov and J

    Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [48]

    W. M. H. Natori, Ann. Phys. (Berlin)538, e00559 (2026)

    work page 2026

  48. [49]

    H. A. Jahn and E. Teller, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 161, 220 (1937)

    work page 1937

  49. [50]

    Nakai, S

    R. Nakai, S. Ryu, and A. Furusaki, Phys. Rev. B85, 155119 (2012)

    work page 2012

  50. [51]

    Chulliparambil, U

    S. Chulliparambil, U. F. P. Seifert, M. Vojta, L. Janssen, and H.-H. Tu, Phys. Rev. B102, 201111 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [52]

    Vijayvargia, E

    A. Vijayvargia, E. M. Nica, R. Moessner, Y.-M. Lu, and O. Erten, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L022062 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [53]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys.321, 2 (2006)

    work page 2006

  53. [54]

    Fradkin, S

    E. Fradkin, S. A. Kivelson, and J. M. Tranquada, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 457 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [56]

    Yao and D.-H

    H. Yao and D.-H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 087205 (2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [57]

    Mandal and N

    S. Mandal and N. Surendran, Phys. Rev. B79, 024426 (2009)

    work page 2009

  56. [58]

    K. S. Tikhonov and M. V. Feigel’man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 067207 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [59]

    V. Chua, H. Yao, and G. A. Fiete, Phys. Rev. B83, 180412 (2011)

    work page 2011

  58. [60]

    Akram, E

    M. Akram, E. M. Nica, Y.-M. Lu, and O. Erten, Phys. Rev. B108, 224427 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [61]

    M. A. Keskiner, O. Erten, and M. O. Oktel, Phys. Rev. B108, 104208 (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [62]

    V. S. de Carvalho, H. Freire, E. Miranda, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B98, 155105 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [63]

    Poliakov, W.-H

    V. Poliakov, W.-H. Kao, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. B110, 054418 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [64]

    Corboz, M

    P. Corboz, M. Lajk´ o, A. M. L¨ auchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. X2, 041013 (2012)

    work page 2012

  63. [65]

    Keskiner, M

    M. Keskiner, M. Oktel, N. B. Perkins, and O. Erten, Materials Today Quantum6, 100038 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [66]

    Vijayvargia, E

    A. Vijayvargia, E. Day-Roberts, A. S. Botana, and O. Erten, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 166701 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [67]

    E. M. Nica, M. Akram, A. Vijayvargia, R. Moessner, and 15 O. Erten, npj Quantum Materials8, 9 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [68]

    Akram, A

    M. Akram, A. Vijayvargia, H.-Y. Kee, and O. Erten, Magnetically ordered yet topologically robust phases emerging in concurrent kitaev spin liquids (2025), arXiv:2507.21226 [cond-mat.str-el]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [69]

    Chulliparambil, L

    S. Chulliparambil, L. Janssen, M. Vojta, H.-H. Tu, and U. F. P. Seifert, Phys. Rev. B103, 075144 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [70]

    Yao, S.-C

    H. Yao, S.-C. Zhang, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 217202 (2009)

    work page 2009

  69. [71]

    C. Wu, D. Arovas, and H.-H. Hung, Phys. Rev. B79, 134427 (2009)

    work page 2009

  70. [72]

    Ryu, Phys

    S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. B79, 075124 (2009)

    work page 2009

  71. [73]

    E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 2158 (1994)

    work page 1994

  72. [74]

    Macris and B

    N. Macris and B. Nachtergaele, J. Stat. Phys.85, 745 (1996)

    work page 1996

  73. [75]

    D. P. Arovas, E. Berg, S. A. Kivelson, and S. Raghu, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 239 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [76]

    Honerkamp and W

    C. Honerkamp and W. Hofstetter, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 170403 (2004)

    work page 2004

  75. [77]

    Miyatake, K

    S.-y. Miyatake, K. Inaba, and S.-i. Suga, Phys. Rev. A 81, 021603 (2010)

    work page 2010

  76. [78]

    Zee,Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2016)

    A. Zee,Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2016)

    work page 2016

  77. [79]

    Del Re and M

    L. Del Re and M. Capone, Phys. Rev. A98, 063628 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [80]

    D. Tusi, L. Franchi, L. F. Livi, K. Baumann, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, L. Del Re, R. E. Barfknecht, T. W. Zhou, M. Inguscio, G. Cappellini, M. Capone, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Nat. Phys.18, 1201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  79. [81]

    Torres, L

    E. Torres, L. Weber, L. Janssen, S. Wessel, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  80. [82]

    Niemi, M

    L. Niemi, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171802 (2021)

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.