Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Anyon polarons as a window into competing phases of the Kitaev honeycomb model under a Zeeman field

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model, visons, fermions, and a bosonic quasiparticle all become gapless at nearly the same Zeeman field, and the boson carries an in-plane Néel order parameter, suggesting the intermediate phase breaks spin-rotation symmetry.

desk verdict The most complete anyon-spectrum calculation for the Kitaev model in a [111] field, with a plausible but not yet established claim about the AFM intermediate phase; the κ dependence is the load-bearing soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08105 v2 pith:33PQ4FSQ submitted 2024-11-12 cond-mat.str-el

Chuan Chen , Inti Sodemann Villadiego This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords modelfermionsfieldintermediatevisonszeemananti-ferromagneticantiferromagnetic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The Kitaev honeycomb model is a special magnet whose excitations are not ordinary spins but exotic particles called anyons. In its spin-liquid ground state there are three kinds of anyons: visons (vortices of the spin pattern), fermions (spinons), and bosons (magnon-like bound states). Adding a magnetic field pushes the system out of the exactly solvable limit, and in the antiferromagnetic version of the model an unexplained intermediate phase appears between the spin liquid and the fully polarized state.

The authors compute how the energy gaps of all three anyon types shrink as the magnetic field grows. Their central finding is that in the antiferromagnetic model the three gaps close at almost the same critical field. The soft boson mode has the symmetry of an in-plane antiferromagnetic order parameter, meaning its condensation would spontaneously break a symmetry. The authors argue this points to the intermediate phase being a state with in-plane Néel order, rather than a different kind of spin liquid as previously proposed.

The calculation is perturbative: it is controlled only at small fields, while the predicted gap closings happen at larger fields. For the antiferromagnetic case the results also depend on a three-spin coupling κ chosen by hand rather than derived from the field. Nevertheless, the near-coincidence of three independent gap closings, and the symmetry analysis of the soft boson, make a concrete and testable proposal about the nature of the intermediate phase.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the AFM Kitaev model, the single vison, the fermionic vison pair, and the bosonic vison pair all close their gaps at nearly the same Zeeman field, and the soft boson carries the quantum numbers of an in-plane Néel order parameter (momentum Γ, orbital angular momentum 1 mod 3, odd under bond-center inversion), implying that the intermediate phase has spontaneously broken symmetry with this order. The paper states: 'In the anti-ferromagnetic model we also find that a bosonic quasiparticle becomes gapless at nearly the same critical field as the fermions and visons. This boson carries the quantum numbers of an anti-ferromagnetic order parameter, suggesting that the intermediate phase has spontaneously broken symmetry with this order.' (Abstract; see also Section V and Appendix C2).

Load-bearing premise

The leading-order-in-h effective Hamiltonians for single visons, fermionic vison pairs, and bosonic vison pairs, constructed around the unperturbed K-κ model, remain quantitatively predictive at the large fields (h ≈ 0.3-0.6|K|) where the AFM gap closings are predicted. This is fragile because the paper admits the calculation 'is controlled only at small Zeeman fields' (Introduction), and because the AFM vison and boson hoppings vanish to linear order at κ=0, forcing the authors to introduce a finite κ (Section III, Appendix D) without deriving its value from h. If the effective models break down at these fields, or if the physical κ differs from the chosen values, the near-coincidence of the three critical fields could disappear.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the Kitaev honeycomb model with a [111] Zeeman field and a three-spin coupling κ, constructing leading-order-in-h effective Hamiltonians for three low-energy quasiparticles: single visons (Eq. 2), fermionic vison pairs hybridized with itinerant c-Majoranas (Eq. 4), and bosonic vison pairs (Eq. 6). For the ferromagnetic model, the authors find that single visons and fermions become gapless at h≈0.04|K|, close to the numerically established transition to the polarized phase. For the antiferromagnetic model, they report that all three quasiparticles close their gaps at similar fields h≈0.3–0.6|K|, with the soft boson carrying momentum Γ and transforming as an in-plane Néel order parameter; they propose that the intermediate phase has spontaneously broken in-plane AFM symmetry. The paper also provides a comparison with the effective theory of Ref. [25] and a proof of ground-state degeneracies of the K+κ model in Appendix E.

Significance. The FM result is a controlled perturbative prediction that agrees with numerical critical fields, and the comparison with Ref. [25] improves the locality of the fermion-vison-pair couplings. The AFM claim, if correct, would resolve a long-standing puzzle about the intermediate phase and would show that fermion-only theories are incomplete because the vison gap also closes. The quantum-number analysis of the soft boson is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. The main limitation, acknowledged by the authors, is that the AFM gap-closing fields lie outside the perturbatively controlled regime; the additional dependence on a hand-set κ makes the three-gap coincidence a robust prediction only if the κ-dependence is shown to be mild. Strengths include transparent derivations, a clear reproduction of Ref. [25], and an explicit proof in Appendix E.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and Section III; Eqs. (2), (4), (6); Fig. 1(b)] The central AFM claim—that single visons, fermionic vison pairs, and bosonic vison pairs all become gapless at nearly the same Zeeman field—is made at h≈0.3–0.6|K| (Section V and Fig. 1(b)), although the Introduction states that the calculations 'are controlled only at small Zeeman fields.' The effective Hamiltonians in Eqs. (2), (4), and (6) are first-order in h, and no estimate of second-order corrections to t_v, t_χ, t_d, p_R, or λ_d is provided. Because the near-coincidence of three distinct gap closings is a quantitative claim, the authors should either estimate the leading omitted terms or benchmark the effective theories against exact diagonalization or DMRG results across the relevant field range, showing that the coincidence is not a truncation artifact.
  2. [Section III, Appendix D, Fig. 1(b)] The AFM single-vison and bosonic-pair hoppings vanish to linear order in h when κ=0 (Section III and Appendix D), so the finite value κ=0.05|K| used in the main phase diagram controls the vison and boson critical fields. The paper argues that a finite κ is justified because the three-spin coupling is generated at O(h^3) in the pure K-h model, but it does not derive κ_eff(h) or demonstrate that κ=0.05|K| is representative near h≈0.4|K|, where the AFM gap closings occur. The near-coincidence of the three gap closings in Fig. 1(b) could therefore be a tuning artifact. I recommend that the authors compute κ_eff(h) or, at minimum, display the three critical fields as a function of κ over a range (e.g., 0 < κ ≤ 0.1|K|) to establish whether the coincidence persists.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'all three super-selection sectors' is imprecise; the three quasiparticle types do not exhaust the four superselection sectors of the Z2 gauge theory. Consider phrasing 'three quasiparticle species' or defining the sectors explicitly.
  2. [Appendix E2] The sentence 'For FM Kitaev coupling, K = 1' should read 'For AFM Kitaev coupling, K = 1' (the FM case has K = −1, as correctly stated in Appendix E1).
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'gappless' (Section II), 'trasnlational' and 'non-trivail' (Appendix A1), 'seprating' (Fig. 5 caption), 'satistactory' (Appendix B1), 'numebr' and 'indluded' (Appendix E), 'sepcial' (Acknowledgments), and 'the the' (Appendix D).
  4. [Fig. 1 and Section V] The paper would benefit from stating the numerical values of the critical fields h_v, h_χ, and h_d for the representative κ used in the main text, since the 'nearly identical' claim is currently supported visually rather than numerically.
  5. [Section IV and Appendix B2] The discussion of the intermediate C=1 state notes it is 'beyond the closing of the vison gap' but leaves its physical significance unclear; a sentence connecting this to the proposed broken-symmetry phase would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the gap closings emerge from computed effective Hamiltonians, but the AFM vison sector relies on the authors' earlier vison-symmetry results and a hand-set κ.

full rationale

The paper's predictions are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The effective Hamiltonians (2), (4), and (6) have coefficients that are explicitly evaluated as Zeeman-perturbation matrix elements between eigenstates of the unperturbed K-κ model (e.g., Eqs. (B1), (B5), (C1)-(C3)), and the gap closings are read off from the resulting band structures; no parameter is fitted to the claimed near-coincident critical fields. The FM vison field h_v^FM ≈ 0.04|K| also matches independent numerics h_c^FM ≈ 0.03|K|, providing an external anchor. The AFM soft boson's quantum numbers (momentum Γ, orbital angular momentum 1 mod 3, odd under bond-center inversion) are derived from the computed eigenvector and Majorana transformation properties in Appendix C, not imposed. The main caveats are quantitative rather than circular: the calculation "is controlled only at small Zeeman fields" (Introduction), and for AFM single visons and bosonic vison pairs the leading-order-in-h hoppings vanish at κ = 0, so the finite κ = 0.05|K| used in the main phase diagrams (Appendix D) is doing real work and is not derived from h. That could shift or erase the AFM three-gap coincidence, but it does not make the output equal to the input. The only self-citation of note is the vison projective-translation/π-flux structure imported from Refs. [33,37]; however, this is also supported by the independent Ref. [36], and the related ground-state degeneracy statement is proven self-contained in Appendix E, so it does not constitute a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the truncation to a few anyon sectors and on treating κ as a free parameter; no new fundamental entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • κ (three-spin coupling) = 0.05|K| (representative; scanned 0 to ~0.1|K|)
    The AFM single-vison and bosonic-pair hoppings vanish to linear order in h at κ=0, so the paper introduces a finite κ, stating it is generated to cubic order in h but without computing its value from h. The predicted critical fields for vison and boson gap closings depend on κ.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The low-energy Hilbert space of the perturbed Kitaev model is truncated to single visons, one fermionic vison pair per bond, and one bosonic vison pair per bond; multi-vison or multi-Bogolon states are neglected.
    Used throughout Sections III-V to construct effective Hamiltonians; the justification relies on the two-vison binding energy being lowest (Appendix A2), but other channels are not systematically checked.
  • domain assumption The Zeeman perturbation is treated to leading order in h for the hopping and hybridization couplings; higher-order terms are neglected.
    The effective Hamiltonians in Eqs. (2), (4), (6) keep only terms linear in h in the hoppings, yet the gap-closing predictions are made at h ~ 0.3-0.6|K|.
  • ad hoc to paper A finite three-spin coupling κ is present and treated as an independent parameter, even though in the pure K-h model it is generated perturbatively at O(h^3).
    Section III and Appendix D state that the AFM phase diagram is restricted to finite κ because the single-vison hopping vanishes at κ=0. The value of κ is not derived from h, so the phase diagram in (κ,h) does not directly map to the physical model.
  • domain assumption The bosonic vison pair d† is defined using the lowest-energy odd-parity Bogolon of the c-Majorana sector; other Bogolons are assumed not to alter the low-energy physics.
    Eq. (5) and Appendix C; the choice is justified by energy, but no convergence check is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anyon polarons as a window into competing phases of the Kitaev honeycomb model under a Zeeman field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33PQ4FSQ

@misc{pith2026241108105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anyon polarons as a window into competing phases of the Kitaev honeycomb model under a Zeeman field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33PQ4FSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08105}
}
read the original abstract

We compute the spectra of anyon quasiparticles in all three super-selection sectors of the Kitaev model (i.e., visons, fermions and bosons), perturbed by a Zeeman field away from its exactly solvable limit, to gain insights on the competition of its non-abelian spin-liquid with other nearby phases, such as the mysterious intermediate state observed in the antiferromagnetic model. Both for the ferro- and antiferro-magnetic models we find that the fermions and visons become gapless at nearly identical critical Zeeman couplings. In the ferromagnetic model this is consistent with a direct transition into a polarized state. In the anti-ferromagnetic model this implies that previous theories of the intermediate phase viewed as a spin liquid with a different fermion Chern number are inadequate, as they presume that the vison gap does not close. In the antiferromagnetic model we also find that a bosonic quasiparticle becomes gapless at nearly the same critical field as the fermions and visons. This boson carries the quantum numbers of an anti-ferromagnetic order parameter, suggesting that the intermediate phase has spontaneously broken symmetry with this order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fermion Chern number (color plot) and the critical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Honeycomb lattice. Visons are centered in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fermion and boson bands for the AFM model. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Single visons’ energy bands. (a) Vison band in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Schematic of two visons seprating from each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Real-space couplings (amplitude) between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the fermion sector results between this work and Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Fermion bands (only showing those with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Bosonic vison pair bands in (a) FM and (b) AFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Berry curvature for the lowest boson band in (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The phase diagram including small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) Schematic of the periodic system on a torus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [111]

    field, Phys. Rev. B.109, 174411 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [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)

    2014

  3. [1]

    Single-vison bands As discussed in Ref. [33], with FM Kitaev coupling, the Zeeman induced vison hopping preserves the transla- (a) (b) -4-20 2 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -4-20 2 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 Ek/|K| FIG. 4. Single visons’ energy bands. (a) Vison band in the FM Kitaev model (κ = 0.05|K|, hα = 0.01|K|). Here the band minimum is at the ...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Energy of two-vison states A pair of visons experience a weak attractive interac- tion between them. Fig. 5 shows the excitation energy of the lowest energy bosonic (E1) and fermionic (Eψ) 2- vison states as function of their separation. Here the data is generated for a 40× 40 torus, so the maximum sepa- ration between the two visons (with maximum∆E) is a...

    work page

  5. [3]

    3(b) (see also Appendix C)

    In fact, the softbosonmodeintheAFMcasetransformsasaNéelor- der parameter with spin moments orthogonal to the[111] direction, and thus we expect its condensation to drive true spontaneous symmetry breaking with spin moments given by ⟨σr⟩ ∝(cos(θ), cos(θ + 2π/3), cos(θ + 4π/3)) ⊥ (1, 1, 1) for r ∈ A, and opposite orientation for r ∈ B, as depicted in Fig. 3...

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    (4) of the main text

    Determining the coupling constants In this section, we discuss the determination of cou- pling constants tχ α,β and pR in Eq. (4) of the main text. Moreover, we will compare thepR defined in our conven- tion and that from Ref. [25]. The fermionic vison pair hopping is defined as the ma- trix transition amplitude for the Zeeman perturbation, Hh, between th...

    work page

  7. [5]

    As discussed in Ref

    F ermion pairty indices The parity indices of matter fermions at the four high- symmetry k-points, {ζΓ, ζM1 , ζM2 , ζM3 }, provide valu- able information for classifying QSLs [41, 48, 49]. As discussed in Ref. [33], the matter fermion’s parity indices for the FM and AFM KSL are{1, 0, 0, 0} and {0, 1, 1, 1}, respectively. In the Kitaev model under a Zeeman...

    work page

  8. [6]

    (C1) (a) (b) (c) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 FIG

    Band energy and topology Similar to the fermionic case, the hopping of bosonic vison pairs td α,β is defined as: td α,β ≡ ⟨Ω|dr,αHhd† r,β|Ω⟩. (C1) (a) (b) (c) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 FIG. 8. Fermion bands (only showing those with E > 0) for AFM Kitaev model at selected points withκ = 0.05|K| (represented...

    work page

Show all 76 references
  1. [7]

    angular momentum

    Boson condensation and induced magnetic order The bosonic vison pairs’ band (from the hopping and on-site potential parts) for both FM and AFM Kitaev coupling at selected(κ, h) values are shown in Fig. 9. As the dµ bosons are moving on a Kagome lattice (see illus- tration in F...

  2. [8]

    DGS for the FM Kitaev model For FM Kitaev coupling, K = −1, the matter fermions’ band dispersion at the four high-symmetry (unpaired) k-points (HSPs) has the following property: ϵΓ, ϵM1 , ϵM2 < 0 < ϵM3 (see the plot in Fig. 12(b))

  3. [9]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and the constraint Eq

    (even, even). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and the constraint Eq. (E1) requires an even total fermion parity. (a) (PBC, PBC). Since there is no χα-fermion, (−1)χ† r,αχr,α = 1 , so physical states should have an even number ofa-fermions. All the HSPs are included in the BdG Hami...

  4. [10]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = −1, and the constraint Eq

    (even, odd). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = −1, and the constraint Eq. (E1) requires an odd total fermion parity. (a) (PBC, PBC) In this case, the χα-fermions’ parity is even, so physical states should have an odd number of a-fermions. Only Γ and M1 are included in Ha, and both are ...

  5. [12]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and phys- ical states should have an even number of fermions

    (odd, odd). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and phys- ical states should have an even number of fermions. (a) (PBC, PBC) The χα-fermions’ number is even, so physical states should have an even a-parity. Only the Γ point is included inHa andoccupied, thereforethegroundstateof Ha is...

  6. [13]

    DGS for the AFM Kitaev model For FM Kitaev coupling,K = 1, the matter fermions’ band dispersion at the four high-symmetry (unpaired)k- points (HSPs) has the following property:ϵΓ, ϵM1 , ϵM2 > 0 > ϵM3 (see the plot in Fig. 12(c))

  7. [14]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and the constraint Eq

    (even, even). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and the constraint Eq. (E1) requires an even total fermion parity. (a) (PBC, PBC). The χα-fermions’ number is even, so physical states should have an even number of a-fermions. All the HSPs are in- cluded in the BdG Hamiltonian, and on...

  8. [15]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = −1, and the constraint Eq

    (even, odd). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = −1, and the constraint Eq. (E1) requires an odd total fermion parity. (a) (PBC, PBC) In this case, the χα-fermions’ parity is even, so physical states should have 13 an odd number ofa-fermions. Only Γ and M1 are included inHa, and both are...

  9. [16]

    The analysis of this case is simi- lar to the (even, odd) case, and DGS = 3 for an (odd, even) torus

    (odd, even). The analysis of this case is simi- lar to the (even, odd) case, and DGS = 3 for an (odd, even) torus

  10. [17]

    In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and phys- ical states should have an even number of fermions

    (odd, odd). In this case,(−1)N1+N2 = 1, and phys- ical states should have an even number of fermions. (a) (PBC, PBC) The χα-fermions’ number is even, so physical states should have an even a-parity. Only the Γ point is included inHa but empty, therefore the ground state ofHa i...

  11. [18]

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

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

    2006

  12. [19]

    F. J. Burnell and C. Nayak, SU(2) slave fermion solution of the kitaev honeycomb lattice model, Phys. Rev. B84, 125125 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott insulators in the strong spin-orbit coupling limit: from heisenberg to a quantum compass and kitaev models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Hwan Chun, J.-W

    S. Hwan Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, C. C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. F. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, Y. Singh, Y. Choi, T. Gog, A. Al-Zein, M. M. Sala, M. Krisch, J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Direct evidence for dominant bond-directional interact...

    2015

  15. [22]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of kitaev quantum spin liquids, Nature Reviews Physics1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Trebst and C

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

    2022

  17. [24]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev- heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice: possible exotic phases in iridium oxides A2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 027204 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the ki- taev model: Fractionalization, dynamic correlations, and material connections, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Czajka, T

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

    2021

  20. [28]

    J. A. N. Bruin, R. R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, J. Nuss, S. Laha, B. V. Lotsch, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Tak- agi, Origin of oscillatory structures in the magnetother- mal conductivity of the putative kitaev magnetα-RuCl3, APL Mater. 10, 10.1063/5.0101377 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. F. May, H. Miao, B. C. Sales, D. G. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, M. A. McGuire, and J. Yan, Sample- dependent and sample-independent thermal transport propertiesof α-rucl3,Phys.Rev.Mater. 7,114403(2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    I. S. Villadiego, Pseudoscalar u(1) spin liquids in α−rucl3, Phys. Rev. B104, 195149 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Y. Xing, R. Namba, K. Imamura, K. Ishihara, S. Suet- sugu, T. Asaba, K. Hashimoto, T. Shibauchi, Y. Mat- suda, and Y. Kasahara, Magnetothermal transport in ul- traclean single crystals of kitaev magnetα-RuCl3, arXiv [cond-mat.str-el] (2024), arXiv:2410.18342

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Several other probes have also been interpreted [56–59]as indicative ofproximity to spin liquid behavior in this intermediate field regime

    There are also reports of a quantized thermal Hall con- ductivity in this regime [52, 53] but this has not been ob- served in other experiments [10, 12, 54, 55] and remains experimentally contested. Several other probes have also been interpreted [56–59]as indicative ofproximi...

  25. [33]

    Z. Zhu, I. Kimchi, D. N. Sheng, and L. Fu, Robust non- abelian spin liquid and a possible intermediate phase in 14 the antiferromagnetic kitaev model with magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B.97, 241110 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Dynamical and topological properties of the kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B98, 014418 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Hickey and S

    C. Hickey and S. Trebst, Emergence of a field-driven U(1) spin liquid in the kitaev honeycomb model, Nat. Com- mun. 10, 530 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    N. D. Patel and N. Trivedi, Magnetic field-induced inter- mediate quantum spin liquid with a spinon fermi surface, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.116, 12199 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    D. C. Ronquillo, A. Vengal, and N. Trivedi, Signatures of magnetic-field-driven quantum phase transitions in the entanglement entropy and spin dynamics of the kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B99, 140413 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    P. Zhu, S. Feng, K. Wang, T. Xiang, and N. Trivedi, Emergentmajoranametalfromachiralspinliquid,arXiv [cond-mat.str-el] (2024), arXiv:2405.12278

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    K. Wang, S. Feng, P. Zhu, R. Chi, H.-J. Liao, N. Trivedi, and T. Xiang, Fractionalization signatures in the dy- namics of quantum spin liquids, arXiv [cond-mat.str-el] (2024), arXiv:2403.12141

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jiang, T

    Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Field- induced quantum spin liquid in the kitaev-heisenberg model and its relation to α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165123 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Holdhusen, D

    W. Holdhusen, D. Huerga, and G. Ortiz, Emergent mag- netic order in the antiferromagnetic kitaev model in a

  34. [42]

    However, it is noteworthy that it is reminiscent of the C = 1 parton state state from Ref.[26], which was ar- gued to lack topological order upon performing exact Gutzwiller projection

  35. [43]

    Zhang, G

    S.-S. Zhang, G. B. Halász, and C. D. Batista, Theory of the kitaev model in a [111] magnetic field, Nat. Commun. 13, 399 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Jiang, S

    M.-H. Jiang, S. Liang, W. Chen, Y. Qi, J.-X. Li, and Q.- H.Wang,Tuningtopologicalordersbyaconicalmagnetic field in the kitaev model, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 177203 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Yılmaz, A

    F. Yılmaz, A. P. Kampf, and S. K. Yip, Phase diagrams of kitaev models for arbitrary magnetic field orientations, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043024 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Ralko and J

    A. Ralko and J. Merino, Novel chiral quantum spin liq- uids in kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 217203 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    J. Das, A. Kumar, A. Maity, and V. Tripathi, Jordan- wigner fermionization of quantum spin systems on arbi- trary two-dimensional lattices: A mutual chern-simons approach, Phys. Rev. B.108, 085110 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Das and V

    J. Das and V. Tripathi, Microscopic theory of field tuned topological transitions in the kitaev honeycomb model, arXiv [cond-mat.str-el] (2024), arXiv:2401.12750

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. Nasu, Y. Kato, Y. Kamiya, and Y. Motome, Succes- sive majorana topological transitions driven by a mag- netic field in the kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B.98, 060416 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Zou and Y.-C

    L. Zou and Y.-C. He, Field-induced QCD3-chern-simons quantum criticalities in kitaev materials, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013072 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Chen and I

    C. Chen and I. S. Villadiego, Nature of visons in the per- turbed ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic kitaev hon- eycomb models, Phys. Rev. B.107, 045114 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    H. Li, E. Lv, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Y. Qi, W. Li, and G. Su, Magnetocaloric effect of topological excitations in kitaev magnets, Nat. Commun.15, 7011 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    A. P. Joy and A. Rosch, Gauge field dynamics in mul- tilayer kitaev spin liquids, Npj Quantum Mater. 9, 1 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    A. P. Joy and A. Rosch, Dynamics of visons and thermal hall effect in perturbed kitaev models, Phys. Rev. X.12, 041004 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    C. Chen, P. Rao, and I. Sodemann, Berry phases of vi- son transport in Z2 topologically ordered states from ex- act fermion-flux lattice dualities, Phys. Rev. Research4, 043003 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moess- ner, Dynamics of a two-dimensional quantum spin liquid: Signatures of emergent majorana fermions and fluxes, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 207203 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moess- ner, Dynamics of fractionalization in quantum spin liq- uids, Phys. Rev. B92, 115127 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Zhang, G

    S.-S. Zhang, G. B. Halász, W. Zhu, and C. D. Batista, Variationalstudyofthekitaev-heisenberg-gammamodel, Phys. Rev. B104, 014411 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Kou and X.-G

    S.-P. Kou and X.-G. Wen, Translation-symmetry- protected topological orders in quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. B80, 224406 (2009)

    2009

  52. [61]

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

    2018

  53. [62]

    D. G. Joshi, Topological excitations in the ferromag- netic kitaev-heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B.98, 060405 (2018)

    2018

  54. [63]

    L. E. Chern, E. Z. Zhang, and Y. B. Kim, Sign structure of thermal hall conductivity and topological magnons for in-plane field polarized kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 147201 (2021)

    2021

  55. [64]

    Zhang, S

    K. Zhang, S. Feng, Y. D. Lensky, N. Trivedi, and E.-A. Kim, Machine learning reveals features of spinon fermi surface, Communications Physics7, 1 (2024)

    2024

  56. [65]

    L. M. Robledo, Sign of the overlap of hartree-fock- bogoliubov wave functions, Phys. Rev. C Nucl. Phys.79, 021302 (2009)

    2009

  57. [66]

    Kou and X.-G

    S.-P. Kou and X.-G. Wen, Translation-invariant topologi- cal superconductors on a lattice, Phys. Rev. B82, 144501 (2010)

    2010

  58. [67]

    Rao and I

    P. Rao and I. Sodemann, Theory of weak symmetry breaking of translations in Z2 topologically ordered states and its relation to topological superconductivity from an exact lattice Z2 charge-flux attachment, Phys. Rev. Re- search 3, 023120 (2021)

    2021

  59. [68]

    F. L. Pedrocchi, S. Chesi, and D. Loss, Physical solutions of the kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B84, 165414 (2011)

    2011

  60. [69]

    Zschocke and M

    F. Zschocke and M. Vojta, Physical states and finite- size effects in kitaev’s honeycomb model: Bond disorder, spin excitations, and NMR line shape, Phys. Rev. B92, 014403 (2015)

    2015

  61. [70]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Majorana quanti- zation and half-integer thermal quantum hall effect in a kitaev spin liquid, Nature559, 227 (2018), 1805.05022

    2018 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Kurita, H

    T.Yokoi, S.Ma, Y.Kasahara, S.Kasahara, T.Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, C. Hickey, 15 S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Half-integer quantized anomalous thermal hall effect in the kitaev material can- didate α-RuCl3, Science 373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  63. [72]

    Lefrançois, G

    E. Lefrançois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Evidence of a phonon hall effect in the kitaev spin liquid candidate α−rucl3, Phys. Rev. X12, 021025 (2022)

    2022

  64. [73]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Planar thermal hall effect of topological bosons in the kitaev magnetα-RuCl3, Nat. Mater. 22, 36 (2023)

    2023

  65. [74]

    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, Proximate kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honey...

    2016

  66. [75]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Neutron scattering in the proximate quantum spin liquid α-RuCl3, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  67. [76]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, A. T. Savici, B. C. Chakoumakos, M. D. Lums- den, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Excitations in the field-induced quantum spin l...

    2018

  68. [77]

    C. Balz, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, Z. Lu, X. Hu, S. M. Yadav, Y. Takano, Y. Liu, D. A. Tennant, M. D. Lumsden, D. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Finite field regime for a quantum spin liquid inα-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 100, 060405 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.