Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Phase Diagram of the Easy-Axis Triangular-Lattice $J_1\!-\!J_2$ Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper maps the easy-axis $S=1/2$ triangular-lattice $J_1$--$J_2$ phase diagram and finds that the spin liquid survives to large anisotropy, sitting between a supersolid and stripe order.

desk verdict A solid first map of the easy-axis J1–J2 triangular phase diagram whose large-Δ spin-liquid boundary needs more than one 36×6 scan to believe. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03648 v3 pith:CQMTIW5J submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.str-el

Cesar A. Gallegos , Shengtao Jiang , Steven R. White , A. L. Chernyshev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el MSC 82B2082B2682B27 PACS 75.10.Jm75.40.Mg75.50.Ee
keywords spinliquidtriangularlatticeJ1-J2modelXXZeasy-axisanisotropysupersoliddensity-matrixrenormalizationgroupfrustratedmagnetism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper maps the ground-state phase diagram of the spin-1/2 $J_1$--$J_2$ XXZ model on the triangular lattice for the entire easy-axis regime, from the Heisenberg point to the Ising limit. Its central finding is that the spin liquid known at the Heisenberg point does not die out as easy-axis anisotropy grows: at $\Delta=1.3$ it occupies a large interval of $J_2$ between the three-sublattice supersolid Y phase and the collinear stripe-z phase, and the liquid region persists to substantially larger $\Delta$. The paper also quantifies the Y phase's supersolid order parameters and argues that its in-plane superfluid component is much smaller than previously reported, vanishing continuously toward the Ising limit, while the ferromagnetic moment is essentially zero. This matters because it tells experimentalists searching rare-earth and Ising-like triangular magnets what phases to expect and which order parameters to measure.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three tools. DMRG scans and non-scans on open Y-cylinders directly measure local ordered moments and the structure factor $S(q)$, distinguishing the Y, spin-liquid, and stripe-z phases by the location and sharpness of peaks and by the decay of edge-induced order. Fixed-aspect-ratio $1/L$ extrapolations of the ordered moment and of $m_{uud}$, $m_{U(1)}$, and $m_F$, using $6\times3$ and $12\times6$ clusters with edges pinned to the classical Y state, convert finite-cylinder data into estimates of thermodynamic-limit order parameters. Minimally augmented spin-wave theory (MAGSWT), which stabilizes the otherwise unstable spin-wave spectrum of the Y state by adding a chemical potential, gives the quantum energy comparison between the Y, Y$'$, and stripe-z states and produces the linear Y-to-stripe boundary near the Ising limit, matching DMRG. The identity that explains the missing ferromagnetic moment is the rewriting of the $J_1$ Hamiltonian as a sum over triangles of $(S^\perp_\triangle)^2$ and $(S^z_\triangle)^2$, where $S^\alpha_\triangle = S^\alpha_A+S^\alpha_B+S^\alpha_C$: for $S=1/2$ the single-site term is constant, so a state with zero total spin on every triangle simultaneously minimizes every component.

What would settle it

Compute the same order parameters on at least three fixed-aspect-ratio cylinders (for example $18\times9$ and $24\times12$ alongside the existing $6\times3$ and $12\times6$) and test whether the extrapolated $m_{U(1)}$ stays non-negative at the claimed Y-to-SL boundary. If the $1/L$ extrapolation still produces negative values, or if the spin-liquid region shrinks below the reported $J_2$ range, the central phase diagram would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the easy-axis regime $\Delta>1$, the spin-liquid state previously identified in the isotropic $J_1$--$J_2$ triangular model survives the addition of easy-axis anisotropy: for $\Delta=1.3$, cylinders with $J_2$ between roughly 0.05 and 0.15 show a liquid with no magnetic Bragg peak, exponentially decaying edge-induced order with correlation length below $2a$, and no valence-bond or scalar-chiral order. The liquid's structure factor has broadened maxima at the $K$ points, making it a "molten $120^\circ$" state, and its spin-spin correlations likely retain $SU(2)$ symmetry even though the Hamiltonian is easy-axis. On the ordered side, the Y phase has a finite solid (up-up-down) order parameter $m_{uud}$ but a small in-plane superfluid order parameter $m_{U(1)}$ that extrapolates to zero before the transition, and the ferromagnetic moment $m_F$ is essentially zero throughout. The paper explains the vanishing $m_F$ by rewriting the nearest-neighbor exchange as a sum over triangles of the squared total spin components, $\frac{1}{2}\sum_\triangle[(S^\perp_\triangle)^2+\Delta(S^z_\triangle)^2]-(3/2)(\Delta-1)\sum_i(S^z_i)^2$, in which the last term is a constant for $S=1/2$ and the triangle sums $S^\alpha_\triangle=S^\alpha_A+S^\alpha_B+S^\alpha_C$ vanish in the natural ground-state sector, killing the net ferromagnetic moment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the linear extrapolation in $1/L_y$ from only the $6\times3$ and $12\times6$ fixed-aspect-ratio cylinders gives the true thermodynamic-limit values; near the transition the extrapolated in-plane superfluid order parameter turns negative, showing the premise is already under strain there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Materials described by the easy-axis $J_1$--$J_2$ triangular model can host a spin liquid even far from the Heisenberg point, so spin-liquid searches in rare-earth and transition-metal compounds should not be limited to isotropic or easy-plane parameters.
  • In the Y supersolid phase, the in-plane superfluid order $m_{U(1)}$ is much smaller than earlier numerical studies suggested and appears to vanish continuously as the Ising limit is approached, while the solid up-up-down order stays finite; experiments should see a nearly pure solid order near the Ising side.
  • The ferromagnetic moment of the $S=1/2$ Y phase should be zero, in sharp contrast to the classical value reaching $1/3$ in the Ising limit, so net magnetization measurements cannot be used to detect the Y phase.
  • The Y-to-stripe-z phase boundary is linear in $1/\Delta$ near the Ising limit, not quadratic as classical minimization gives, because quantum fluctuations restore the linear energy term; this changes which materials are predicted to order into stripes.
  • The spin-liquid correlations retain approximate $SU(2)$ symmetry even for easy-axis anisotropy, meaning the liquid's short-distance spin correlations look isotropic despite the Hamiltonian's explicit anisotropy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the spin liquid extends to large $\Delta$, then compounds such as $K_2Co(SeO_3)_2$ and $Na_2BaCo(PO_4)_2$ may have parameter regions currently labeled supersolid that are actually liquid; a test would be to search for broad excitation continua and the absence of magnetic Bragg peaks in those regions.
  • Inference: The triangle-local zero-total-spin mechanism for the missing ferromagnetic moment may be general: rewriting exchange as sums over simplex squared components should suppress local net moments in other $S=1/2$ frustrated lattices whenever the single-site term becomes a constant, which could predict which supersolid analogues are moment-free.
  • Inference: The apparently continuous vanishing of $m_{U(1)}$ near the Ising limit leaves open a thin pure up-up-down sliver between the supersolid and the stripe/SL phases; the paper itself says this layer cannot be ruled out, and targeted calculations at $J_2$ just below the transition for $\Delta\gtrsim5$ could settle it.
  • Inference: The abrupt appearance of the M-point peak in $S(q)$ at $\Delta=1.3$ suggests the SL-to-stripe transition is first order; if so, finite-size energy level crossings on wider cylinders should show an avoided crossing or a sharp kink in the ground-state energy, a signature a future DMRG study could look for.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the S=1/2 easy-axis triangular-lattice J1-J2 XXZ model by DMRG on YC cylinders, supplemented by a minimally augmented spin-wave-theory (MAGSWT) analysis. It maps the easy-axis (Delta>1) phase diagram and claims a substantial spin-liquid region between the Y (supersolid) and collinear stripe-z phases, with the SL surviving to rather large easy-axis anisotropy. It also analyzes supersolid order parameters (m_uud, m_U(1), m_F), proposes an explanation for the vanishing ferromagnetic moment, and compares the Y-to-stripe-z boundary with MAGSWT.

Significance. If the phase diagram is correct, the paper fills a largely unexplored easy-axis region of a canonical frustrated quantum magnet and provides concrete guidance for rare-earth and transition-metal triangular-lattice compounds. The strengths of the paper are real: multiple independent probes support the SL at moderate anisotropy (exponential decay of induced order, broadened S(q), absence of VBS and chiral order, consistency on Ly=6 and Ly=9 cylinders), the transition-point tables are explicit, and the MAGSWT calculation is presented with enough detail to be checked. The main quantitative claim about the large-Delta extent of the SL, however, is not yet supported at the same level as the moderate-Delta part of the phase diagram.

major comments (3)
  1. [Phase diagram and DMRG; Fig. 2(b); Table S.I; Fig. 8(b)] The claim that the SL region is 'surprisingly resilient' and extends to rather large Delta values rests on the Y-to-SL boundary points at Delta=1.6 and 1.9, which are determined solely by 36x6 J2 scans using the <S><0.05 cutoff. At Delta=1.9 the entire claimed SL window is J2 in [0.082, 0.099], a width of 0.017. Where an independent determination exists, at Delta=1.3, the 1/Ly non-scan extrapolation moves the Y-SL boundary from J2 approximately 0.062 (scan) to J2 approximately 0.076 (diamond in Fig. 8(b)), a shift of 0.014 that is comparable to the whole Delta=1.9 window. No S(q), correlation-length, or 1/Ly checks are reported for Delta=1.6 or 1.9, so the large-Delta portion of the phase diagram is not quantitatively established by the presented data.
  2. [End Matter, 'Conservative phase diagram'; Fig. 8(b); SM S9] The non-scan Y-SL boundary itself relies on a linear 1/Ly extrapolation from only two fixed-aspect-ratio clusters (6x3 and 12x6). With two points the linearity of the scaling cannot be tested, and the authors' own SM shows that the linear extrapolation yields negative m_infinity_U(1) values near the Y-SL boundary (SM Fig. S9), attributed to 'possible non-linear effects in the finite-size extrapolations for the already small values of mU(1)'. The blue 'conservative' boundary in Fig. 8(a) therefore carries an unquantified systematic error of the same order as the observed Delta=1.3 boundary shift (about 0.01 in J2).
  3. [Supersolid order parameters; Fig. 6; SM S8] The conclusion that m_U(1) vanishes continuously at the Ising limit, stated as 'contrary to previous works', is based on the same two-point linear extrapolation of m_U(1). In SM Fig. S8 the extrapolated values become small or negative near 1/Delta to 0, and the authors acknowledge that nonlinear effects make the extrapolation problematic in exactly this regime. The continuous-vanishing claim is therefore not established at the level of evidence used for the other order parameters; it should either be supported by additional data (for example, a Ly=9 check) or be presented as a tentative extrapolation with an explicit uncertainty estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Phase diagram and DMRG] The text states that the error bars for the transitions are the J2 steps in the scans, but it does not report the J2 step size used at each Delta; reporting these step sizes alongside Table S.I would allow readers to assess the boundary uncertainty directly.
  2. [Fig. 8(a) caption] The caption says 'Other symbols are as described in the text', but the stars, triangles, squares, and diamonds are introduced in several different paragraphs; a compact legend in the caption itself would improve readability.
  3. [SM Figs. S8 and S9] In the SM figure panels labeled with the vertical axis 'mu', the plotted quantity appears to be the tilt angle theta; please relabel the axis as theta or define mu in the caption to avoid confusion with the MAGSWT chemical potential mu.
  4. [Supersolid order parameters] The sentence stating that the level-crossing transition in the non-scans coincides with the inflection-point transition 'within the error bars' would be more useful with the numerical values or a pointer to the relevant SM table, since the main text alone does not quantify the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the easy-axis phase diagram is DMRG-derived, and self-citations are contextual rather than the argument.

full rationale

The paper's central phase diagram is produced by direct DMRG simulations on YC cylinders: order parameters ⟨S⟩, m_uud, m_U(1), m_stripe, and m_F are measured, and phase boundaries are located from J2-scans, S(q) features, 1/L_y extrapolations, and energy crossings. The ⟨S⟩<0.05 SL criterion is calibrated against the Heisenberg-limit boundaries at Δ=1, which are anchored by multiple external references plus the paper's own Δ=1 DMRG curve, so the threshold is not fitted to the easy-axis data it is used to classify. The MAGSWT boundary is a parameter-free 1/S calculation with a stability-ensuring chemical potential that is not adjusted to DMRG data, and it is compared, not fitted, to the DMRG transition points. Self-citations appear, e.g., for the molten-120° description and the fixed-aspect-ratio extrapolation method, but the supporting S(q), correlation-length, chiral/VBS checks, and order-parameter curves are new numerical evidence, so those citations are contextual rather than load-bearing. The paper's own caveats about nonlinear 1/L_y extrapolation near the Ising limit bear on robustness of the m_U(1) analysis, not on circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on DMRG numerics and on a set of standard modeling assumptions. The only hand-chosen threshold is the ⟨S⟩=0.05 spin-liquid criterion, and the only auxiliary theoretical device is the MAGSWT chemical potential. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Spin-liquid order-parameter cutoff = 0.05
    A state is classified as spin liquid if ⟨S⟩ < 0.05, calibrated at the Heisenberg limit where SL boundaries are well established (Refs. [37-40,46,47]). This threshold influences the Y-SL and SL-stripe boundary locations.
  • MAGSWT chemical potential μ = minimal value from Eq. (S12)
    Introduced to stabilize the spin-wave spectrum of the classically unstable Y state for J2>0; chosen as the smallest value ensuring positive-definite magnon energies, then used to compute O(S) energies and the Y-to-stripe boundary.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DMRG on open YC cylinders of width Ly=6,9 with bond dimensions up to 8000 captures the 2D thermodynamic limit.
    Invoked throughout for all measurements; supported by consistency across sizes and with conserved/non-conserved Sz, but not proven. See 'Phase diagram and DMRG' section.
  • domain assumption Spontaneous U(1) symmetry breaking in DMRG mimics the thermodynamic limit, allowing direct measurement of local order.
    Stated in Ref. [52] and used to extract ⟨S_i⟩, m_uud, m_U(1), m_F.
  • domain assumption MAGSWT, which adds a chemical potential to stabilize classically unstable states, yields valid 1/S quantum corrections for the Y state.
    Method from Refs. [55,64,65]; used to argue the Y state, not Y', is the ground state for J2>0 and to produce the linear phase boundary near the Ising limit. See 'Quasiclassical analysis'.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear 1/Ly scaling with only two cluster sizes (6×3 and 12×6) gives accurate thermodynamic-limit order parameters.
    Used in Fig. 8(b) and SM Figs. S8-S9; the extrapolated m_U(1) becomes negative near the phase boundary, indicating this assumption is fragile in the regime where it matters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Diagram of the Easy-Axis Triangular-Lattice $J_1\!-\!J_2$ Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQMTIW5J

@misc{pith2026241203648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Diagram of the Easy-Axis Triangular-Lattice $J_1\!-\!J_2$ Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQMTIW5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03648}
}
abstract

The phase diagram of the $S\!=\!1/2$ easy-axis triangular-lattice $J_1\!-\!J_2$ model is investigated using the density-matrix renormalization group and analytical insights. We find a significant spin-liquid region extending from the Heisenberg limit and residing between the Y phase-known as the magnetic analogue of the "supersolid"-and collinear stripe phase. The order parameters of the supersolid are analyzed and an understanding of its lack of ferromagnetic moment is suggested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03648 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The phase diagrams for the easy-plane and easy-axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c), with DMRG picking one of the stripe domains. The structure of S(q) in the SL state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Classical phase diagram of the model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The extrapolated supersolid and ferromagnetic order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Same as the easy axis panel in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    2010

  2. [2]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A Field Guide to Spin Liq- uids, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 451 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    R. Bag, S. Xu, N. E. Sherman, L. Yadav, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. A. Podlesnyak, E. S. Choi, I. da Silva, J. E. Moore, and S. Haravifard, Evidence of Dirac Quan- tum Spin Liquid in YbZn 2GaO5, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266703 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, and J. E. Moore, Spectral function of the J1−J2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 107, 165146 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Y. Li, H. Liao, Z. Zhang, S. Li, F. Jin, L. Ling, L. Zhang, Y. Zou, L. Pi, Z. Yang, J. Wang, Z. Wu, and Q. Zhang, Gapless quantum spin liquid ground state in the two-dimensional spin-1/2 triangular antiferromagnet YbMgGaO4, Sci. Rep. 5, 16419 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    A. O. Scheie, Y. Kamiya, H. Zhang, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, M. O. Ajeesh, M. G. Gonzalez, B. Bernu, J. W. Villanova, J. Xing, Q. Huang, Q. Zhang, J. Ma, E. S. Choi, D. M. Pajerowski, H. Zhou, A. S. Sefat, S. Okamoto, T. Berlijn, L. Messio, R. Movshovich, C. D. Batista, and D. A. Ten- nant, Nonlinear magnons and exchange Hamiltonians of the delafossite proxima...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A. O. Scheie, E. A. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. A. M. Paddison, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. D. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, D. Abernathy, D. M. Pajerowski, T. J. Williams, S.-S. Zhang, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. D. Pem- maraju, A. S. Sefat, D. S. Parker, T. P. Devereaux, R. Movshovich, J. E. Moore, C. D. Batista, and D. A. Tennant, Proximate spin liquid ...

    work page 2024

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    A. O. Scheie, M. Lee, K. Wang, P. Laurell, E. S. Choi, D. Pajerowski, Q. Zhang, J. Ma, H. D. Zhou, S. Lee, S. M. Thomas, M. O. Ajeesh, P. F. S. Rosa, A. Chen, V. S. Zapf, M. Heyl, C. D. Batista, E. Dagotto, J. E. Moore, and D. A. Tennant, Spectrum and low-energy gap in triangu...

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. Zhu, V. Romerio, N. Steiger, S. D. Nabi, N. Mu- rai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, K. Y. Povarov, Y. Skourski, R. Sibille, L. Keller, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zhe- ludev, Continuum Excitations in a Spin Supersolid on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 186704 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    T. Chen, A. Ghasemi, J. Zhang, L. Shi, Z. Tagay, L. Chen, E.-S. Choi, M. Jaime, M. Lee, Y. Hao, H. Cao, B. Winn, R. Zhong, X. Xu, N. P. Armitage, R. Cava, and C. Broholm, Phase Diagram and Spectroscopic Evidence of Supersolids in Quantum Ising Magnet K 2Co(SeO3)2 (2024), arXiv...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Y. Xu, J. Hasik, B. Ponsioen, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Simulating spin dynamics of supersolid states in a quan- tum Ising magnet, Phys. Rev. B 111, L060402 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Ulaga, J

    M. Ulaga, J. Kokalj, T. Tohyama, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Easy- axis Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice: from su- persolid to gapped solid (2024), arXiv:2408.05034 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhong, S

    R. Zhong, S. Guo, and R. J. Cava, Frustrated magnetism in the layered triangular lattice materials K 2Co(SeO3)2 and Rb2Co(SeO3)2, Phys. Rev. Mater. 4, 084406 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    N. Li, Q. Huang, X. Y. Yue, W. J. Chu, Q. Chen, E. S. Choi, X. Zhao, H. D. Zhou, and X. F. Sun, Possible itin- erant excitations and quantum spin state transitions in the effective spin-1/2 triangular-lattice antiferromagnet Na2BaCo(PO4)2, Nat. Commun. 11, 4216 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gao, Y.-C

    Y. Gao, Y.-C. Fan, H. Li, F. Yang, X.-T. Zeng, X.-L. Sheng, R. Zhong, Y. Qi, Y. Wan, and W. Li, Spin su- persolidity in nearly ideal easy-axis triangular quantum antiferromagnet Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, npj Quantum Mater. 7, 89 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sheng, L

    J. Sheng, L. Wang, A. Candini, W. Jiang, L. Huang, B. Xi, J. Zhao, H. Ge, N. Zhao, Y. Fu, J. Ren, J. Yang, P. Miao, X. Tong, D. Yu, S. Wang, Q. Liu, M. Kofu, R. Mole, G. Biasiol, D. Yu, I. A. Zaliznyak, J.-W. Mei, and L. Wu, Two-dimensional quantum universality in the spin-1/2...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Y. Gao, C. Zhang, J. Xiang, D. Yu, X. Lu, P. Sun, W. Jin, G. Su, and W. Li, Double magnon-roton excitations in the triangular-lattice spin supersolid, Phys. Rev. B 110, 214408 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Xiang, C

    J. Xiang, C. Zhang, Y. Gao, et al., Giant magnetocaloric effect in spin supersolid candidate Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, Na- ture 625, 270 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    J. Ma, Y. Kamiya, T. Hong, H. B. Cao, G. Ehlers, W. Tian, C. D. Batista, Z. L. Dun, H. D. Zhou, and M. Matsuda, Static and Dynamical Properties of the Spin-1/2 Equilateral Triangular-Lattice Antiferromagnet Ba3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 087201 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Zhong, S

    R. Zhong, S. Guo, G. Xu, Z. Xu, and R. J. Cava, Strong quantum fluctuations in a quantum spin liquid candidate with a Co-based triangular lattice, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 14505 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Macdougal, S

    D. Macdougal, S. Williams, D. Prabhakaran, R. I. Be- wley, D. J. Voneshen, and R. Coldea, Avoided quasi- particle decay and enhanced excitation continuum in the spin- 1 2 near-Heisenberg triangular antiferromagnet Ba3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. B 102, 064421 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    P. Park, E. A. Ghioldi, A. F. May, J. A. Kolopus, 6 A. A. Podlesnyak, S. Calder, J. A. M. Paddison, A. E. Trumper, L. O. Manuel, C. D. Batista, M. B. Stone, G. B. Hal´ asz, and A. D. Christianson, Anomalous continuum scattering and higher-order van Hove singularity in the stro...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Fazekas and P

    P. Fazekas and P. W. Anderson, On the Ground State Properties of the Anisotropic Triangular Antiferromag- net, Philos. Mag. 30, 423 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    G. H. Wannier, Antiferromagnetism. The Triangular Ising Net, Phys. Rev. 79, 357 (1950)

    1950

  18. [26]

    Miyashita and H

    S. Miyashita and H. Kawamura, Phase Transitions of Anisotropic Heisenberg Antiferromagnets on the Trian- gular Lattice, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 3385 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Miyashita, Magnetic Properties of Ising-Like Heisen- berg Antiferromagnets on the Triangular Lattice, J

    S. Miyashita, Magnetic Properties of Ising-Like Heisen- berg Antiferromagnets on the Triangular Lattice, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55, 3605 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    Kleine, E

    B. Kleine, E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, K. Frahm, and P. Fazekas, Spin-wave analysis of easy-axis quantum an- tiferromagnets on the triangular lattice, Z. Phys. B 87, 103 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Sheng and C

    Q. Sheng and C. L. Henley, Ordering due to disorder in a triangular Heisenberg antiferromagnet with exchange anisotropy, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 4, 2937 (1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    Wessel and M

    S. Wessel and M. Troyer, Supersolid Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127205 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    Boninsegni and N

    M. Boninsegni and N. Prokof’ev, Supersolid Phase of Hard-Core Bosons on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 237204 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    R. G. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. A. Burkov, A. Vish- wanath, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid Order from Disorder: Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lat- tice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127207 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Heidarian and K

    D. Heidarian and K. Damle, Persistent Supersolid Phase of Hard-Core Bosons on the Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127206 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    F. Wang, F. Pollmann, and A. Vishwanath, Extended Supersolid Phase of Frustrated Hard-Core Bosons on a Triangular Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017203 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    H. C. Jiang, M. Q. Weng, Z. Y. Weng, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid order of frustrated hard-core bosons in a triangular lattice system, Phys. Rev. B 79, 020409 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Heidarian and A

    D. Heidarian and A. Paramekanti, Supersolidity in the Triangular Lattice Spin-1/2 XXZ Model: A Variational Perspective, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 015301 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Zhu and S

    Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Spin liquid phase of the S = 1 2 J1 − J2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 92, 041105 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Iqbal, W.-J

    Y. Iqbal, W.-J. Hu, R. Thomale, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Spin liquid nature in the Heisenberg J1 − J2 triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 93, 144411 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hu, S.-S

    W.-J. Hu, S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, and D. N. Sheng, Com- peting spin-liquid states in the spin- 1 2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B92, 140403 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    S. N. Saadatmand and I. P. McCulloch, Symmetry frac- tionalization in the topological phase of the spin-1 2 J1−J2 triangular Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 94, 121111 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Dynamical Structure Factor of the J1 − J2 Heisenberg Model on the Triangular Lattice: Magnons, Spinons, and Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031026 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Drescher, L

    M. Drescher, L. Vanderstraeten, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Dynamical signatures of symmetry-broken and liquid phases in an S = 1 2 Heisenberg antiferromag- net on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 108, L220401 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Wietek, S

    A. Wietek, S. Capponi, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Quantum Electrodynamics in 2 + 1 Dimensions as the Organizing Principle of a Triangular Lattice Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021010 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, J.-X. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, and K. Yang, Global phase diagram and quantum spin liq- uids in a spin- 1 2 triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075116 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    S. Hu, W. Zhu, S. Eggert, and Y.-C. He, Dirac Spin Liq- uid on the Spin-1/2 Triangular Heisenberg Antiferromag- net, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 207203 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Oitmaa, Magnetic phases in the J1−J2 Heisenberg an- tiferromagnet on the triangular lattice, Phys

    J. Oitmaa, Magnetic phases in the J1−J2 Heisenberg an- tiferromagnet on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B101, 214422 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Jiang and H.-C

    Y.-F. Jiang and H.-C. Jiang, Nature of quantum spin liquids of the S = 1 2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice: A parallel DMRG study, Phys. Rev. B 107, L140411 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Z. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Disorder-Induced Mimicry of a Spin Liquid in YbMgGaO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 157201 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Iaconis, C

    J. Iaconis, C. Liu, G. B. Hal´ asz, and L. Balents, Spin Liq- uid versus Spin Orbit Coupling on the Triangular Lattice, SciPost Phys. 4, 003 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    PRL has institutionalized End Matter in a recent Edito- rial [69]

  43. [51]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Jiang, D

    The spontaneous breaking of the U (1) spin symmetry mimicks the thermodynamic limit of a 2D system in DMRG, see S. Jiang, D. J. Scalapino, and S. R. White, Ground-state phase diagram of the t-t′-J model, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Z. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Topography of Spin Liquids on a Triangular Lat- tice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 207203 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Z. Zhu, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Unexpected z- Direction Ising Antiferromagnetic Order in a Frustrated Spin-1/2 J1 − J2 XY Model on the Honeycomb Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 257201 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Jiang, S

    S. Jiang, S. R. White, and A. L. Chernyshev, Quan- tum phases in the honeycomb-lattice J1–J3 ferro- antiferromagnetic model, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180406 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    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)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Independence of the results from the initial DMRG state was ensured

  50. [58]

    P. A. Maksimov, Z. Zhu, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Anisotropic-Exchange Magnets on a Triangular Lattice: Spin Waves, Accidental Degeneracies, and Dual Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021017 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Budaraju, A

    S. Budaraju, A. Parola, Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, and D. Poil- blanc, Monopole excitations in the U (1) Dirac spin liq- uid on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 111, 125150 (2025). 7

    2025

  52. [60]

    S. R. White and A. L. Chernyshev, Ne´ el Order in Square and Triangular Lattice Heisenberg Models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 127004 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Sriram Shastry and B

    B. Sriram Shastry and B. Sutherland, Exact ground state of a quantum mechanical antiferromagnet, Physica B+C 108, 1069 (1981)

    1981

  54. [62]

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/..., for technical details on the additional DMRG and modified spin-wave theory results

  55. [63]

    Kleine, P

    B. Kleine, P. Fazekas, and E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, Pertur- bation theory for the triangular Heisenberg antiferromag- net with Ising-like anisotropy, Z. Phys. B 86, 405 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    Wenzel, T

    S. Wenzel, T. Coletta, S. E. Korshunov, and F. Mila, Evi- dence for Columnar Order in the Fully Frustrated Trans- verse Field Ising Model on the Square Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 187202 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Coletta, M

    T. Coletta, M. E. Zhitomirsky, and F. Mila, Quantum stabilization of classically unstable plateau structures, Phys. Rev. B 87, 060407 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    Specifically, the solid and superfluid order parameters are defined as m2 uud = S zz (K)/N2 and m2 U (1) = S ⊥(K)/N2, respectively

  59. [67]

    O. A. Starykh, Unusual ordered phases of highly frus- trated magnets: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    Baskaran, Novel local symmetries and chiral- symmetry-broken phases in S = 1 /2 triangular-lattice Heisenberg model, Phys

    G. Baskaran, Novel local symmetries and chiral- symmetry-broken phases in S = 1 /2 triangular-lattice Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2524 (1989)

    1989

  61. [69]

    regular,

    R. Garisto and H. Chat´ e, Editorial: Whither Letters?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 030001 (2024). End Matter Classical phase diagram.—The classical energies of the Y and Y′ states as a function of the canting angle θ mea- sured from the easy-axis, see Fig. 4, are EY cl = 1−2 cosθ+3...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Extrapolation with the truncation error For most of the DMRG calculations, we systematically increase the bond dimension m at every other DMRG sweep. To obtain local observables, such as the order parameters, we typically average their values at the center of the cluster and p...

  63. [71]

    Conservation of quantum numbers Since we have established that the ground state of the model (1) lies in theSz total = 0 sector, we performed additional non-scan calculations that conserve the quantum number Sz to verify the results presented in Fig. 3. Fig. S1(a) shows nearly...

  64. [72]

    S2(a) shows the 20 ×6 non-scan YC cylinder for ∆ = 1.2 and J2 = 0.1 from the SL phase, without the pinning fields and with Sz conserved

    VBS checks Fig. S2(a) shows the 20 ×6 non-scan YC cylinder for ∆ = 1.2 and J2 = 0.1 from the SL phase, without the pinning fields and with Sz conserved. For one vertical bond in the center of the cluster, the NN correlator ⟨SiSj⟩ is artificially enhanced by doubling the value ...

  65. [73]

    S2(b) for ∆ = 1 .2 and J2 = 0.1, the same 20 ×6 non-scan with the Sz conserved as before, to detect the signs of the scalar chiral order in the SL state

    Chirality checks An additional analysis is performed in Fig. S2(b) for ∆ = 1 .2 and J2 = 0.1, the same 20 ×6 non-scan with the Sz conserved as before, to detect the signs of the scalar chiral order in the SL state. We have biased the system towards the chiral-broken state by i...

  66. [74]

    Wider 20 × 9 non-scan YC cylinder 0.0 0.5 1.0 K M Γ (a) (b) (c) Δ=1.2 J2=0.1 0.02 −0.02 ° K M K0 °00 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 S(q) 20£6 20£9 KM Γ K′ Γ′ FIG. S3. All for ∆ = 1.2 and J2 = 0.1 in the 20 × 9 non-scan YC cylinder. (a) The NN correlators with subtracted average. (b) Same as ...

  67. [75]

    More S(q) 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 SL stripe J2=0.11 J2=0.12(a) (b) K M Γ Δ=1.3 K M Γ FIG. S4. S(q) intensity plots for ∆ = 1.3, same as Figs. 3(b) and 3(c), for (a) J2 = 0.11 and (b) J2 = 0.12. In Fig. S4, S(q) intensity plots for ∆ = 1 .3 and (a) J2 = 0.11 (SL phase) and (b) ...

  68. [76]

    Triangles in Fig

    Direct Y-to-stripe-z transition For the first-order Y-to-stripe-z transitions for ∆ ≳ 2.0, the transition points can be alternatively obtained from the crossings of the DMRG energies of the competing states using extrapolations based on the spin-spin correlations extracted fro...

  69. [77]

    Narrower J2-scan for the Y-to-stripe-z boundary 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 J2 0.0 0.2 0.4 muud mstripe muud mstripe FIG. S6. The muud and mstripe order parameters vs J2 for ∆ = 5 and two different ranges of the scan, c.f., Fig. 5(b). In Fig. S6, the results form...

  70. [78]

    J2-scan in the Ising limit (b) -0.02-0.010 0.010.02J2 UUD stripe-zΔ=∞(a) -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 J2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 hSi muud mstripe -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 J2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 hSi muud mstripe -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 J2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 hSi muud mstripe FIG. S...

  71. [79]

    Specifically, for the three-sublattice orders in the TL, one needs three species of bosons, aν,ℓ = {aℓ, bℓ, cℓ}, in the HP transformation

    Linear spin-wave theory The linear spin-wave theory (LSWT) order of the 1 /S-expansion about the classical ground state is obtained via the standard Holstein-Primakoff (HP) bosonization of the spin operators in the local reference frame: eSz ν,ℓ = S − nν,ℓ, with nν,ℓ = a† ν,ℓa...

  72. [80]

    However, for J2 > 0, the Y state is not the minimum of the classical energy, being overcome by the Y ′ state, as is shown by the dashed lines in Fig

    Minimally augmented spin-wave theory Using the LSWT magnon energies, the leading 1 /S quantum correction to the classical ground state energy is δE = 1 2 X q X ν ενq − tr ˆAq , (S11) so that the O(S) energy of a given state is E = Ecl + δE. However, for J2 > 0, the Y state is ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.