Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Emergent WZW criticality found in spin chain with no continuous symmetry

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 08:51 UTC pith:G5MHFIWN

load-bearing objection Solid DMRG study of crossover/changeover in spin-1 Kitaev-Gamma chain; WZW identification is well-supported but marginal-flow story needs quantitative backing the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07501 v1 pith:G5MHFIWN submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.str-el

Crossover and Changeover in Spin-1 Kitaev-Gamma Chain with Uniaxial Single-ion Anisotropy

Qiang Luo , Shijie Hu , Wang Yang , Yuhai Liu , Jinbin Li , Jize Zhao , Xiaoqun Wang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords chainchangeovercontinuouscrossovergammakitaev-anisotropyphase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper studies a one-dimensional spin-1 chain with bond-directional Kitaev and Gamma interactions plus a tunable single-ion anisotropy (SIA). The authors establish two main results. First, for positive SIA, the system undergoes a smooth crossover from the Kitaev phase (characterized by spin-nematic order and a double-peak specific heat) to a conventional large-D phase, with no thermodynamic phase transition. Second, for negative SIA, the transition between a spontaneously dimerized phase and the Haldane (topological) phase changes character from first-order to continuous as the anisotropy strength increases. The continuous transition is identified as belonging to the SU(2)_2 Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) universality class, with central charge c=3/2, despite the microscopic Hamiltonian possessing no continuous spin-rotation symmetry. The authors support this identification with entanglement entropy scaling (c=1.51(2)) and a spin correlation exponent (eta=0.77(3)) matching the WZW prediction of 3/4. They attribute deviations in other critical exponents (nu, beta/nu) to a marginal operator whose strength varies along the critical line, with the pristine WZW fixed point reached only at a specific anisotropy value. A bosonization analysis in a six-sublattice rotated frame provides theoretical grounding: at long distances, adjacent sites become indistinguishable and the smeared Hamiltonian acquires an emergent SU(2) symmetry, explaining why WZW criticality can appear without microscopic SU(2) symmetry.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a spin-1 Kitaev-Gamma chain with single-ion anisotropy exhibits SU(2)_2 WZW universality-class criticality (central charge c=3/2) at a continuous dimer-Haldane transition, even though the microscopic Hamiltonian has only discrete symmetries. This emergent conformal criticality arises because, in a six-sublattice rotated frame, the low-energy smeared Hamiltonian becomes SU(2)-invariant. The authors further show that the Kitaev-to-large-D evolution is a crossover (not a phase transition) and that the dimer-Haldane transition undergoes a changeover from first-order to continuous as the anisotropy is tuned. The marginal operator renormalizing critical exponents away

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the six-sublattice rotation U_6 that recasts the Hamiltonian into a form with three-site periodicity and a nonsymmorphic octahedral symmetry group. In this rotated frame, the low-energy continuum limit yields a smeared Hamiltonian that is manifestly SU(2)-invariant, providing the mechanism for emergent WZW criticality. Bosonization in this frame expresses spin operators as WZW currents plus primary fields, yielding predictions for correlation function exponents. Numerically, DMRG calculations extract the central charge from entanglement entropy scaling, critical exponents from Binder cumulant finite-size scaling and boundary conformal field theory fits, and the spin-corr

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the transition as SU(2)_2 WZW rests primarily on the central charge c=1.51(2) and the correlation exponent eta=0.77(3), while the independently extracted exponents nu=0.80 and beta/nu=0.291 deviate from WZW fixed-point predictions (nu=1, beta/nu=3/8). The authors attribute this to a marginal operator whose strength is tuned by the anisotropy parameter D, with the pristine fixed point reached only at D approximately -2.5. This marginal-flow explanation is

What would settle it

If the deviations of nu and beta/nu from WZW predictions do not arise from a marginal flow but instead indicate that the transition is not truly WZW (with c=3/2 being coincidental), the central claim of emergent WZW universality would weaken substantially. A decisive test would be to extract the full operator content of the critical theory at D=-2.5 and verify that all exponents converge to WZW predictions simultaneously.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the spin-1 Kitaev-Gamma chain with uniaxial single-ion anisotropy (SIA) using DMRG and bosonization. It reports two main findings: (1) a crossover from the Kitaev phase to the large-D phase for positive SIA, characterized by gap evolution, order parameter coexistence, and specific heat signatures; and (2) a changeover from first-order to continuous dimer-Haldane transitions for negative SIA, with the continuous transition identified as SU(2)_2 WZW universality class (c=3/2) despite the absence of microscopic continuous symmetry. The WZW identification rests on central charge c=1.51(2) and correlation exponent eta=0.77(3), while critical exponents nu and beta/nu deviate from WZW fixed-point values and are attributed to a marginal operator flow.

Significance. The paper presents a substantive numerical study with well-executed DMRG (2000-4000 states, truncation errors below 1e-7) and a bosonization framework. The identification of SU(2)_2 WZW criticality in a system without continuous symmetry is a genuinely interesting result, and the crossover characterization via multiple independent probes (gap, order parameters, specific heat) is thorough. The data repository on Zenodo is a positive step for reproducibility. The marginal-flow hypothesis along the critical line, while not fully verified, is a falsifiable prediction that adds value.

major comments (4)
  1. The central claim of SU(2)_2 WZW universality rests on two consistent observables (c=1.51(2), eta=0.77(3)) while two independently extracted exponents (nu=0.80, beta/nu=0.291) deviate from WZW predictions (nu=1, beta/nu=3/8). The marginal-flow explanation is load-bearing: the paper states that the pristine WZW fixed point is reached at D~-2.5 (based on d crossing 3/8 in Fig. 4(d)), but does not independently verify that nu->1 at that point. Without at least a check of c or nu near D=-2.5, the claim that the deviations are due to a marginal flow rather than a different critical theory remains circumstantial. The authors should either provide numerical evidence at D~-2.5 or substantially soften the WZW identification claim.
  2. Fig. 4(d) and surrounding text: the scaling dimension d is tracked along the critical line and crosses 3/8 at D~-2.5, but the error bars on d at each D value are not reported. Given that d=0.291(1) at D=-1.0 and the WZW value is 0.375, the crossing at D~-2.5 needs uncertainty quantification to assess whether d actually reaches 3/8 within error. Please add error bars to Fig. 4(d) and discuss whether the crossing is statistically significant.
  3. The entanglement entropy extraction of c=1.51(2) uses system sizes L=48, 72, 96 (Fig. 6, End Matter). These are relatively modest sizes for distinguishing c=3/2 from nearby values (e.g., c=1 with logarithmic corrections, or a product of minimal models summing to 3/2). The finite-size values c_L=1.509, 1.503, 1.497 show a downward trend; a more careful finite-size analysis, or at minimum a discussion of whether the trend is consistent with c=3/2 versus alternatives (including possible logarithmic corrections from the marginal operator), would strengthen the claim. The marginal operator lambda_2 J_L·J_R in Eq. (4) is known to produce logarithmic corrections to the entanglement entropy; these are not discussed.
  4. The scaling relation beta/nu = eta/2 is mentioned but the paper does not confront the quantitative tension directly: eta=0.77(3) gives eta/2=0.385(15), while the independently extracted beta/nu=0.291(1). These differ by ~0.09, well outside the combined error bars. The paper attributes this to the marginal flow but does not explain why eta (extracted from correlation functions) and beta/nu (extracted from finite-size scaling of the order parameter) would be affected differently by the same marginal operator. This discrepancy needs a more substantive discussion, as it bears on the self-consistency of the WZW identification.
minor comments (6)
  1. In Eq. (3) and the surrounding text, the logarithmic factor appears as ln^{1/2}(r/r0) in the main text but as ln^{rho}(r/r0) with rho unspecified in the End Matter (Eq. 6). Please clarify the value of rho and ensure consistency.
  2. The phase diagram in Fig. 1 uses symbols (crosses, pentagrams, open circles) whose meanings are described in the caption but could be more clearly distinguished in the figure itself, perhaps with a legend inset.
  3. The Binder cumulant analysis in Fig. 3 uses system sizes up to L=192, but the scaling dimension extraction in Fig. 4 uses L up to 256. It would be helpful to use consistent system size ranges across the critical-point analyses, or at least explain why different size ranges were chosen.
  4. Reference [53] cites a Zenodo data repository dated 2026. Please ensure the repository is publicly accessible and contains the data referenced in the paper at the time of publication.
  5. In the End Matter bosonization section, the smeared Hamiltonian argument (Eq. S4) is described as 'intuitive' but the step from the three-site periodic Hamiltonian (Eq. S2) to the SU(2)-invariant smeared form is stated without rigorous justification. A brief comment on the conditions under which this smearing approximation is valid would improve clarity.
  6. The abstract states 'a rare instance in a system without continuous symmetry.' Given that emergent SU(2) symmetry in Kitaev-Gamma chains has been discussed in prior work (e.g., Ref. [29] for spin-1/2), please clarify what is specifically new here versus the spin-1/2 case, or contextualize this claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee's four major comments all concern the self-consistency and rigor of the SU(2)_2 WZW identification, particularly the role of the marginal flow. We agree that these points require strengthening and, in some cases, new numerical evidence. Below we address each comment in turn. We will perform additional DMRG calculations near D ≈ -2.5, add error bars to Fig. 4(d), extend the entanglement entropy analysis to larger system sizes with a discussion of logarithmic corrections, and provide a more substantive discussion of the η vs. β/ν discrepancy.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of SU(2)_2 WZW universality rests on two consistent observables (c=1.51(2), eta=0.77(3)) while two independently extracted exponents (nu=0.80, beta/nu=0.291) deviate from WZW predictions (nu=1, beta/nu=3/8). The marginal-flow explanation is load-bearing: the paper states that the pristine WZW fixed point is reached at D~-2.5 (based on d crossing 3/8 in Fig. 4(d)), but does not independently verify that nu->1 at that point. Without at least a check of c or nu near D=-2.5, the claim that the deviations are due to a marginal flow rather than a different critical theory remains circumstantial. The authors should either provide numerical evidence at D~-2.5 or substantially soften the WZW identification claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the marginal-flow hypothesis would be substantially strengthened by independent evidence at D ≈ -2.5, where the scaling dimension d crosses the WZW value 3/8. We will perform additional DMRG calculations at this parameter point, including: (i) extraction of the central charge c from entanglement entropy scaling at the critical point near D = -2.5, and (ii) finite-size scaling of the Binder cumulant to extract ν at the same point. If c remains 3/2 and ν moves closer to 1 (or ideally reaches 1 within error bars), this would provide direct support for the marginal-flow scenario. If, on the other hand, ν does not approach 1, we will soften the WZW identification accordingly, framing it as a tentative identification based on c and η, with the marginal-flow hypothesis as a falsifiable prediction rather than an established result. We agree that the current manuscript overstates the certainty of the WZW identification given that only two of four observables match the fixed-point values at D = -1.0. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly state that the WZW identification is supported primarily by c and η, that ν and β/ν deviate, and that the marginal-flow explanation is a hypothesis requiring verification at D ≈ -2.5. We will report the results of the D = -2.5 calculations in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Fig. 4(d) and surrounding text: the scaling dimension d is tracked along the critical line and crosses 3/8 at D~-2.5, but the error bars on d at each D value are not reported. Given that d=0.291(1) at D=-1.0 and the WZW value is 0.375, the crossing at D~-2.5 needs uncertainty quantification to assess whether d actually reaches 3/8 within error. Please add error bars to Fig. 4(d) and discuss whether the crossing is statistically significant.

    Authors: We agree that error bars on d(D) in Fig. 4(d) are essential for assessing whether the crossing of 3/8 at D ≈ -2.5 is statistically meaningful. The error bars arise from two sources: (i) the fitting uncertainty in extracting d from the conformal distance scaling at each system size, and (ii) the extrapolation uncertainty from finite-size values (d_{128}, d_{192}, d_{256}) to the thermodynamic limit. At D = -1.0, the three system sizes give d = 0.297, 0.294, 0.293, which are remarkably consistent, yielding d_∞ = 0.291(1). We will compute analogous error bars at each D value along the critical line and add them to Fig. 4(d). We will also explicitly discuss whether d = 3/8 is reached within error bars at D ≈ -2.5. If the error bars at D = -2.5 are too large to distinguish d = 3/8 from nearby values, we will state this clearly and note that the crossing is suggestive but not definitive, further motivating the additional calculations described in our response to the first comment. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The entanglement entropy extraction of c=1.51(2) uses system sizes L=48, 72, 96 (Fig. 6, End Matter). These are relatively modest sizes for distinguishing c=3/2 from nearby values (e.g., c=1 with logarithmic corrections, or a product of minimal models summing to 3/2). The finite-size values c_L=1.509, 1.503, 1.497 show a downward trend; a more careful finite-size analysis, or at minimum a discussion of whether the trend is consistent with c=3/2 versus alternatives (including possible logarithmic corrections from the marginal operator), would strengthen the claim. The marginal operator lambda_2 J_L·J_R in Eq. (4) is known to produce logarithmic corrections to the entanglement entropy; these are not discussed.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. The system sizes L = 48, 72, 96 are indeed modest, and the downward trend in c_L (1.509 → 1.503 → 1.497) warrants careful analysis. We will address this in two ways. First, we will extend the entanglement entropy calculations to larger system sizes (L = 128, 192, and ideally 256) at the D = -1.0 critical point, which is computationally feasible with our DMRG setup (2000–4000 states). Second, we will add a discussion of logarithmic corrections to the entanglement entropy arising from the marginal operator λ₂ J_L·J_R. It is well established that marginally irrelevant operators in SU(2)_k WZW models produce logarithmic corrections to the entanglement entropy of the form S(L) = (c/3) ln L + const + α/√(ln L) + ..., where α is a nonuniversal coefficient. The observed downward trend in c_L is in fact consistent with such a logarithmic correction: the effective c_L extracted from a two-point fit at finite L overestimates the asymptotic value when the correction is positive, and the approach to the asymptotic value from above is a known signature. We will include this discussion explicitly and fit the extended data to the form including the logarithmic correction term. If the larger-size data continue to support c = 3/2, this will substantially strengthen the claim; if not, we will report the discrepancy honestly. revision: yes

  4. Referee: The scaling relation beta/nu = eta/2 is mentioned but the paper does not confront the quantitative tension directly: eta=0.77(3) gives eta/2=0.385(15), while the independently extracted beta/nu=0.291(1). These differ by ~0.09, well outside the combined error bars. The paper attributes this to the marginal flow but does not explain why eta (extracted from correlation functions) and beta/nu (extracted from finite-size scaling of the order parameter) would be affected differently by the same marginal operator. This discrepancy needs a more substantive discussion, as it bears on the self-consistency of the WZW identification.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. The discrepancy between η/2 = 0.385(15) and β/ν = 0.291(1) is significant—roughly 6σ in combined error bars—and the current manuscript does not adequately explain why the same marginal operator would affect these two quantities differently. We will provide a more substantive discussion based on the following reasoning. The two quantities are extracted in fundamentally different ways: η is obtained from the real-space decay of staggered spin correlations at a fixed (finite) system size L = 144, while β/ν is extracted from finite-size scaling of the dimer order parameter across system sizes L = 128, 192, 256. The marginal operator λ₂ J_L·J_R produces multiplicative logarithmic corrections to correlation functions, i.e., ⟨S_i S_{i+r}⟩ ∝ r^{-η} [ln(r/r₀)]^{ρ}, where ρ depends on the marginal coupling. At the finite distances accessible in our DMRG calculations (r up to ~48), the logarithmic factor can shift the effective η extracted from a power-law fit. In contrast, β/ν from finite-size scaling of the order parameter is affected by the marginal operator through the scaling of the order parameter amplitude, which involves a different combination of the marginal coupling. The key point is that η and β/ν are not required to be equal away from the fixed point; the scaling relation β/ν = η/2 holds exactly only at the conformally invariant fixed point. Along the critical line with a marginal perturbation, the scaling relations are modified, and the two quantities can differ. We note that this is analogous to the situation in the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain, where the marginally irrelevant operator causes η extracted from finite-distance correlations to deviate from its asymptotic value. We will add this discussion to the revised manuscript, and— revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; WZW identification tested against external Affleck-Haldane predictions with independently extracted DMRG data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the continuous dimer-Haldane transition belongs to the SU(2)₂ WZW universality class—is tested against external theoretical predictions from the Affleck-Haldane conjecture (Ref. [51], Affleck and Haldane, 1987, no author overlap). The two key observables (c ≈ 1.51(2) from entanglement entropy scaling, η ≈ 0.77(3) from spin correlation decay) are extracted independently from DMRG calculations and compared to the WZW fixed-point values c = 3/2 and η = 3/4. The bosonization analysis (Eqs. 4–8) uses standard WZW theory from textbooks (Refs. [46, 47]) and the Affleck-Haldane framework, with the six-sublattice rotation and symmetry analysis following Ref. [29] (Yang et al., 2020, co-author overlap via W. Yang). However, Ref. [29] itself grounds its bosonization in the external Affleck-Haldane theory (Ref. [51]) and standard bosonization; it does not assume the WZW conclusion for the spin-1 chain. The self-citations [32] and [37] provide prior context (phase diagram, Kitaev phase properties) but are not load-bearing for the WZW identification itself. The marginal-flow explanation for the deviations of ν and β/ν from WZW values is a physical hypothesis (correctness risk) rather than a circular argument—it does not reduce the central claim to its own inputs. The smeared-Hamiltonian argument (Eq. S4) is heuristic but not circular. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or postulated entities. The marginal operator λ₂ in the bosonization Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) is a standard ingredient of WZW field theory, not an invention of this paper. The 'smeared Hamiltonian' (Eq. S4) is a heuristic construct used for intuition, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (3)
  • D (single-ion anisotropy) = varied across [-3, 2]
    D is the control parameter tuned to map the phase diagram. It is a physical parameter of the Hamiltonian, not a fitting parameter, but its specific values at critical points (e.g., D_c=-0.6551(2), D≈-2.5 for pristine WZW) are extracted from data.
  • ϑ (exchange coupling angle) = varied, critical point ϑ_c/π=-0.475898(2) at D=-1.0
    ϑ parametrizes the ratio K/Γ. Critical values are extracted from Binder cumulant crossings and finite-size scaling.
  • r₀ (nonuniversal length scale in bosonization) = not explicitly given
    Appears in Eq. (3) and Eq. (6) as a cutoff scale for the logarithmic correction. Not fitted explicitly; the exponent η is extracted via a derivative method (Eq. 8) that eliminates r₀.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The Affleck-Haldane conjecture: continuous dimer-Haldane transitions in spin-1 chains are described by SU(2)ₖ WZW with k=2S.
    Invoked in the main text to predict c=3/2, ν=1, d=3/8 for the WZW fixed point. This is a well-established theoretical framework from Ref. [51], not an ad-hoc assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The smeared Hamiltonian (Eq. S4) is SU(2) invariant, justifying emergent SU(2) symmetry at low energies.
    The Supplemental Material argues that at long distances, adjacent sites become indistinguishable and the Hamiltonian reduces to an SU(2)-invariant form. This is a heuristic argument, not a rigorous derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The deviation of ν and β/ν from WZW values is caused by a marginal operator whose strength varies with D.
    The paper invokes a marginal flow (λ₂ in Eq. 4) to explain why ν≈0.80 and β/ν≈0.291 at D=-1.0 instead of ν=1 and β/ν=3/8. The existence of the marginal operator is grounded in the bosonization analysis, but the claim that it fully accounts for the observed deviations is not quantitatively verified.
  • domain assumption DMRG faithfully captures the ground-state and low-energy properties of the chain at the system sizes used.
    Standard assumption in the field. The truncation errors below 1e-7 and use of up to 4000 states support this, but finite-size effects are visible in the data (e.g., c_L varies from 1.509 to 1.497).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 20286 in / 3496 out tokens · 372707 ms · 2026-07-09T08:51:04.510265+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in bond-directional spin chains have revealed extensive emergent phenomena and unconventional criticality. Here we investigate the spin-1 Kitaev-$\Gamma$ chain with uniaxial single-ion anisotropy (SIA) using large-scale density-matrix renormalization group calculations and bosonization analysis. Tuning the SIA strength reveals a crossover from the Kitaev phase to the large-$D$ phase, evidenced by the excitation gap changing from quadratic to linear, the coexistence and smooth evolution of spin-nematic and string order parameters, and the suppression of the double-peak specific heat. For negative SIA, we uncover a changeover from a first-order transition to a continuous one between the dimerized and Haldane phases. The continuous transition belongs to the \textrm{SU(2)$_2$} Wess-Zumino-Witten universality class with central charge $c=3/2$, a rare instance in a system without continuous symmetry. Our results establish the Kitaev-$\Gamma$ chain as a minimal platform for controlling crossover and changeover phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07501 by Jinbin Li, Jize Zhao, Qiang Luo, Shijie Hu, Wang Yang, Xiaoqun Wang, Yuhai Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Quantum phase diagram of the spin-1 Kitaev-Γ chain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Analysis of the crossover between the Kitaev phase and the large- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Binder cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Dimer order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Von Neumann entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metastabil- ity and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.6, 1181 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Nonlinear Field Theory of Large-Spin Heisenberg Antiferromagnets: Semiclassically Quantized Solitons of the One-Dimensional Easy-Axis N´ eel State, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 1153 (1983)

    work page 1983

  3. [3]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined Quantum Critical Points, Science 303, 1490 (2004). 7

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev quan- tum spin liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Belitz and T

    D. Belitz and T. R. Kirkpatrick, Quantum Triple Point and Quantum Critical End Points in Metallic Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 267202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Chepiga and F

    N. Chepiga and F. Mila, Floating Phase versus Chiral Transition in a 1D Hard-Boson Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 017205 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiang, J

    S. Jiang, J. Romh´ anyi, S. R. White, M. E. Zhitomirsky, and A. L. Chernyshev, Where is the Quantum Spin Ne- matic?, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 116701 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Bonkhoff, K

    M. Bonkhoff, K. J¨ agering, S. Hu, A. Pelster, S. Eggert, and I. Schneider, Anyonic Phase Transitions in the 1D Ex- tended Hubbard Model with Fractional Statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 036601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    K. Zhao, H. Deng, H. Chen, N. Ma, N. Oefele, J. Guo, X. Cui, C. Tang, M. J. Gutmann,et al., Three-Dimensional XY Universality and Nonlinear Magnetic Susceptibility in a Kagome Ice Compound, Phys. Rev. X16, 021043 (2026)

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Chen, Z.-C

    X. Chen, Z.-C. Gu, Z.-X. Liu, and X.-G. Wen, Symmetry- Protected Topological Orders in Interacting Bosonic Sys- tems, Science338, 1604 (2012)

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Pollmann, A

    F. Pollmann, A. M. Turner, E. Berg, and M. Oshikawa, Entanglement spectrum of a topological phase in one di- mension, Phys. Rev. B81, 064439 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    W. Chen, K. Hida, and B. C. Sanctuary, Ground-state phase diagram ofS= 1XXZchains with uniaxial single- ion-type anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B67, 104401 (2003)

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    S. Hu, B. Normand, X. Wang, and L. Yu, Accurate deter- mination of the Gaussian transition in spin-1 chains with single-ion anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B84, 220402(R) (2011)

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Tzeng, H

    Y.-C. Tzeng, H. Onishi, T. Okubo, and Y.-J. Kao, Quan- tum phase transitions driven by rhombic-type single-ion anisotropy in theS= 1 Haldane chain, Phys. Rev. B96, 060404(R) (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    C. A. R. S´ a de Melo and S. Van Loon, Evolution from Bardeen–Cooper–Schrieffer to Bose–Einstein Condensa- tion in Two Dimensions: Crossovers and Topological Quantum Phase Transitions, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.15, 109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    J. Jin, A. Biella, O. Viyuela, C. Ciuti, R. Fazio, and D. Rossini, Phase diagram of the dissipative quantum Ising model on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 241108(R) (2018)

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Satoshi Ejima, Tomoki Yamaguchi, Fabian H. L. Essler, Florian Lange, Yukinori Ohta and Holger Fehske, Exotic criticality in the dimerized spin-1XXZchain with single- ion anisotropy, SciPost Phys.5, 059 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    S.-K. Jian, C. Liu, X. Chen, B. Swingle, and P. Zhang, Measurement-Induced Phase Transition in the Monitored Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140601 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    J. H. Pixley, A. Shashi, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Frus- tration and multicriticality in the antiferromagnetic spin-1 chain, Phys. Rev. B90, 214426 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Frus- tration and multicriticality in the antiferromagnetic spin-1 chain

    N. Chepiga, I. Affleck, and F. Mila, Comment on “Frus- tration and multicriticality in the antiferromagnetic spin-1 chain”, Phys. Rev. B94, 136401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Chepiga, I

    N. Chepiga, I. Affleck, and F. Mila, Dimerization transi- tions in spin-1 chains, Phys. Rev. B93, 241108(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Chepiga, I

    N. Chepiga, I. Affleck, and F. Mila, Spontaneous dimer- ization, critical lines, and short-range correlations in a frustrated spin-1 chain, Phys. Rev. B94, 205112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

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

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

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

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

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    J. Wang, B. Normand, and Z.-X. Liu, One proximate Kitaev spin liquid in theK-J-Γ model on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 197201 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Q. Luo, J. Zhao, H.-Y. Kee, and X. Wang, Gapless quan- tum spin liquid in a honeycomb Γ magnet, npj Quantum Mater.6, 57 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    C. E. Agrapidis, J. van den Brink, and S. Nishimoto, Ordered states in the Kitaev-Heisenberg model: From 1D chains to 2D honeycomb, Sci. Rep.8, 1815 (2018)

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    W. Yang, A. Nocera, T. Tummuru, H.-Y. Kee, and I. Affleck, Phase Diagram of the Spin-1/2 Kitaev-Gamma Chain and Emergent SU(2) Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 147205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    W. Yang, A. Nocera, E. S. Sørensen, H.-Y. Kee, and I. Affleck, Classical spin order near the antiferromagnetic Kitaev point in the spin- 1 2 Kitaev-Gamma chain, Phys. Rev. B103, 054437 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Q. Luo, J. Zhao, X. Wang, and H.-Y. Kee, Unveiling the phase diagram of a bond-alternating spin- 1 2 K-Γ chain, Phys. Rev. B103, 144423 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Q. Luo, S. Hu, and H.-Y. Kee, Unusual excitations and double-peak specific heat in a bond-alternating spin-1K-Γ chain, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033048 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    E. S. Sørensen, A. Catuneanu, J. Gordon, and H.-Y. Kee, Heart of Entanglement: Chiral, Nematic, and Incommen- surate Phases in the Kitaev-Gamma Ladder in a Field, Phys. Rev. X11, 011013 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    R. A. Macˆ edo, F. B. Ramos, and R. G. Pereira, Contin- uous phase transition from a chiral spin state to collinear magnetic order in a zigzag chain with Kitaev interactions, Phys. Rev. B105, 205144 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    E. S. Sørensen, J. Gordon, J. Riddell, T. Wang, and H.- Y. Kee, Field-induced chiral soliton phase in the Kitaev spin chain, Phys. Rev. Res.5, L012027 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    E. S. Sørensen, J. Riddell, and H.-Y. Kee, Islands of chiral solitons in integer-spin Kitaev chains, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013210 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Q. Luo, S. Hu, J. Li, J. Zhao, H.-Y. Kee, and Xiao- qun Wang, Spontaneous dimerization, spin-nematic order, and deconfined quantum critical point in a spin-1 Kitaev chain with tunable single-ion anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B 107, 245131 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Z. Wei, Z. Du, X. Cao, W.-L. You, and Y. Lu, Quan- tum criticality and emergent order in the spin-1 bilinear- biquadratic Kitaev chain, Phys. Rev. B112, 214434 (2025)

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Saito and C

    H. Saito and C. Hotta, Exact Matrix Product States at the Quantum Lifshitz Tricritical Point in a Spin-1/2 Zigzag-Chain Antiferromagnet with Anisotropic Γ Term, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 166701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Reja and S

    S. Reja and S. Nishimoto, Competing magnetic and topo- logical orders in the spin-1 Kitaev-Heisenberg chain with single-ion anisotropy, arXiv:2512.20912 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    A. J. Raja and R. Ganesh, Exact fractionalized ground states in an extended spin-1 Kitaev chain, arXiv:2510.12880 (2025), Phys. Rev. Lett. (accepted)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalization groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2863 (1992). 8

    work page 1992

  43. [43]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    work page 2005

  44. [44]

    R. J. Bursill, T. Xiang, and G. A. Gehring, The density matrix renormalization group for a quantum spin chain at non-zero temperature, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8, L583 (1996)

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    Wang and T

    X. Wang and T. Xiang, Transfer-matrix density-matrix renormalization-group theory for thermodynamics of one- dimensional quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B56, 5061 (1997)

    work page 1997

  46. [46]

    A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsve- lik,Bosonization and Strongly Correlated Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, New York, 1998)

    work page 1998

  47. [47]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    den Nijs and K

    M. den Nijs and K. Rommelse, Preroughening transitions in crystal surfaces and valence-bond phases in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B40, 4709 (1989)

    work page 1989

  49. [49]

    H. Shao, W. Guo, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum critical- ity with two length scales, Science352, 213 (2016)

    work page 2016

  50. [50]

    Y. Liu, Z. Wang, T. Sato, M. Hohenadler, C. Wang, W. Guo, and F. F. Assaad, Superconductivity from the con- densation of topological defects in a quantum spin-Hall insulator, Nat. Commun.10, 2658 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Affleck and F

    I. Affleck and F. D. M. Haldane, Critical theory of quan- tum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B36, 5291 (1987)

    work page 1987

  52. [52]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2004) P06002

    work page 2004

  53. [53]

    Crossover and Changeover in Spin-1 Kitaev-Γ Chain with Uniaxial Single-ion Anisotropy

    Q. Luo, S. Hu, W. Yang, Y. Liu, J. Li, J. Zhao, and X. Wang, Data repository for “Crossover and Changeover in Spin-1 Kitaev-Γ Chain with Uniaxial Single-ion Anisotropy”, Zenodo (2026). 1 Supplemental Material for “Crossover and Changeover in Spin-1 Kitaev-ΓChain with Uniaxial Single-ion Anisotropy” Qiang Luo,1,2 Shijie Hu,3 Wang Yang,4 Yuhai Liu,5 Jinbin ...

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    R( 1√ 3(1,1,1), 2π 3 )Ta : ( ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i )→( ˜Sz i+1, ˜Sx i+1, ˜Sy i+1)

    work page

  55. [55]

    R( 1√ 2(1,0,−1))I: ( ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i )→(− ˜Sz 4−i,− ˜Sy 4−i,− ˜Sx 4−i)

    work page

  56. [56]

    R(ˆx, π) : ( ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i )→( ˜Sx i ,− ˜Sy i ,− ˜Sz i )

    work page

  57. [57]

    R(ˆy, π) : ( ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i )→(− ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i ,− ˜Sz i )

    work page

  58. [58]

    The symmetry group Gis generated by the operations in Eq

    R(ˆz, π) : ( ˜Sx i , ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i )→(− ˜Sx i ,− ˜Sy i , ˜Sz i ),(S3) in whichTis time reversal,T a is the spatial translation operator by one lattice site,Iis spatial inversion with inversion center at site 2, andR(ˆn, φ) is the global spin rotation around ˆn-axis by an angleφ. The symmetry group Gis generated by the operations in Eq. (S3), which has bee...

    work page

  59. [59]

    W. Yang, A. Nocera, T. Tummuru, H.-Y. Kee, and I. Affleck, Phase Diagram of the Spin-1/2 Kitaev-Gamma Chain and Emergent SU(2) Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 147205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Chepiga, I

    N. Chepiga, I. Affleck, and F. Mila, Dimerization transitions in spin-1 chains, Phys. Rev. B93, 241108(R) (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Affleck and F

    I. Affleck and F. D. M. Haldane, Critical theory of quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. B36, 5291 (1987)

    work page 1987