Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Quantum geometry and RKKY in flat bands

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that RKKY exchange in flat bands is controlled by the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric, which sets the magnetic correlation length, spin stiffness, and finite-size ordering temperature.

desk verdict Correct and clean identification of the BZ-averaged quantum metric as the long-wavelength RKKY response; the finite-size Tc scaling is plausible but unverified, with the derivation in an absent Supplemental and a gap/T inconsistency in the Lieb model. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01363 v1 pith:F5ILK6TV submitted 2026-08-02 cond-mat.str-el

Chang-geun Oh , Makoto Shimizu , Youichi Yanase , Shuichi Murakami This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords RKKYinteractionflatbandsquantumgeometrymetricspinstiffnessMermin-Wagnertheoremfinite-sizescalingmagneticordering
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

This paper claims that the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction between localized magnetic moments survives in perfectly flat conduction bands, where the electron group velocity vanishes. The mediator is the quantum geometry of the Bloch states: the squared overlap between flat-band wavefunctions at nearby momenta controls the momentum dependence of the static spin susceptibility. In the flat-band limit, the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric $\bar{g}_{ab}$ plays the role of a squared magnetic correlation length and directly sets the spin stiffness, so the finite spatial spread of Wannier functions replaces electronic motion as the coupling channel. The authors further derive that in finite-size one- and two-dimensional samples the ferromagnetic ordering temperature scales as $\sqrt{\bar{g}/L}$ and $(\det \bar{g})^{1/4}/\sqrt{\ln L}$, respectively, so stronger quantum geometry raises the critical temperature even though thermodynamic-limit order is forbidden by the Mermin–Wagner theorem. A sympathetic reader would care because this makes quantum geometry a design parameter for magnetic order, tunable without changing the band structure.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the overlap form factor $|\langle u_f(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})|u_f(\mathbf{k})\rangle|^2$ and the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric $\bar{g}_{ab}$. Once dispersion is absent, the Lindhard factor collapses to $1/(4T)$ and the form factor becomes the entire source of $\mathbf{q}$ dependence in $\chi_0(\mathbf{q})$; its long-wavelength Taylor expansion defines $\bar{g}_{ab}$. The averaged quantum metric then does triple duty as the squared magnetic correlation length, the coefficient of the spin-stiffness tensor $D_{ab}$, and the geometric input to the finite-size $T_c$ formulas. Physically it encodes the finite spatial spread of the flat-band Wannier functions, which

What would settle it

Measure the static susceptibility $\chi_0(\mathbf{q})$ in a flat-band system at low temperature with localized moments weakly coupled: if its $\mathbf{q}=0$ peak curvature does not track the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric $\bar{g}$, or if $\chi_0(\mathbf{q})$ is $\mathbf{q}$-independent in a geometrically nontrivial flat band, the central formula fails. Alternatively, in the 1D toy model at fixed $L$, tune $d_m$ so the spectrum is unchanged but $\bar{g}$ changes; the predicted ratio $T_c(d_{m,1})/T_c(d_{m,2})=\sqrt{\bar{g}_1/\bar{g}_2}$ is a sharp, testable signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the flat-band limit of the RKKY susceptibility is an exact geometric object. When the chemical potential sits at the flat-band energy and the temperature is small compared with the gap to other bands, the static susceptibility reduces to $\chi_0(\mathbf{q}) = \frac{1}{4T}\int \frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\, |\langle u_f(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})|u_f(\mathbf{k})\rangle|^2$, so the $\mathbf{q}$ dependence comes entirely from the overlap of Bloch states, not from an energy denominator. Expanding around $\mathbf{q}=0$ gives $\chi_0(\mathbf{q}) \approx \frac{1}{4T} - \frac{1}{4T} q_a q_b \bar{g}_{ab}$, identifying the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric $\bar{g}_{ab}$ as th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-size $T_c$ formulas (derived only in the Supplemental Material) stay valid under linear spin-wave theory with a purely quadratic magnon dispersion $\omega(\mathbf{q})=D q^2$ down to the infrared cutoff $q_{\min}\sim 2\pi/L$, with $D(T)=SJ_K^2\bar{g}/(8T)$ evaluated self-consistently at $T_c$; for the 2D Lieb model, the flat band must remain thermally isolated ($\Delta\gg T$) as $\delta\to0$ closes the gap, but the numerical temperat

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • This paper implies that flat-band RKKY exchange does not vanish: a geometrically nontrivial flat band develops a peak in $\chi_0(\mathbf{q})$ at $\mathbf{q}=0$ that stabilizes ferromagnetic coupling between localized moments.
  • Because the spin stiffness is $D_{ab} \propto \bar{g}_{ab}$, increasing the averaged quantum metric enhances magnetic rigidity without changing the band dispersion.
  • In finite 1D and 2D samples, $T_c$ scales as $\sqrt{\bar{g}/L}$ and $(\det\bar{g})^{1/4}/\sqrt{\ln L}$, so quantum geometry converts finite-size effects into observable ordering temperatures that vanish only in the thermodynamic limit.
  • The same geometric form factor modulates susceptibility peaks in dispersive bands, so quantum geometry remains relevant for all bandwidths, including a possible geometry-driven antiferromagnetic-to-ferromagnetic crossover when the bandwidth is comparable to or below temperature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the same finite-size geometric-rigidity logic should apply to other flat-band orders whose stiffness is set by the quantum metric, such as superconductivity, suggesting a common geometric route to stabilizing order in mesoscopic samples.
  • If $T_c$ indeed scales as $(\det\bar{g})^{1/4}$ in 2D, then the logarithmic divergence of $\det\bar{g}$ as the flat-band gap closes implies that $T_c$ can remain appreciable even for very large $L$; this could be tested by tuning the gap in engineered lattices while tracking $T_c(L)$.
  • A practical extension would be to extract the averaged quantum metric from thermodynamic measurements of $\chi_0(\mathbf{q})$ in a flat-band magnet, providing a probe of wavefunction geometry complementary to optical and transport probes.
  • The quoted $T_c$ exponents could be checked against a one-loop renormalization of the spin stiffness; if the stiffness renormalizes strongly near $T_c$, the scaling laws may acquire logarithmic corrections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper studies the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida interaction mediated by a perfectly flat conduction band. The authors derive the static spin susceptibility in the flat-band limit, χ0(q) = (1/4T) ∫ dk |⟨u_f(k+q)|u_f(k)⟩|², show that its long-wavelength expansion is controlled by the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric gbar, and identify gbar as the square of the magnetic correlation length and as the prefactor of the spin stiffness. They then argue that in finite one- and two-dimensional systems the ordering temperature scales as Tc ∝ sqrt(gbar)/sqrt(L) (1D) and Tc ∝ (det gbar)^{1/4}/sqrt(ln L) (2D), thereby circumventing the Mermin-Wagner theorem for finite samples. The claim is tested on an isospectral 1D toy model and a 2D Lieb lattice model.

Significance. The central insight—that flat-band RKKY is governed by quantum geometry rather than vanishing group velocity—is compelling, and the derivation of Eqs. (4)-(6) is clean and standard. If the finite-size Tc formulas hold, the paper provides a concrete, experimentally relevant mechanism for magnetic ordering in flat bands and a design principle for enhancing Tc via quantum geometry. The strength of the paper is that the main qualitative result follows from a simple and transparent calculation. However, the quantitative finite-size predictions are not supported in the main text: their derivation is deferred to a Supplementary Material that was not provided, and the 2D Lieb example contains an apparent inconsistency between the small-δ limit and the asserted Δ≫T condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Dimensionality and geometric stabilization, Eqs. (7)-(10)] Equations (9)-(10), the paper's headline predictions for finite-size Tc, are stated with the derivation relegated to Supplemental Material [37], which is not included. The formulas depend on (i) a magnon dispersion exactly quadratic down to the infrared cutoff q_min∼2π/L, (ii) the temperature-dependent stiffness D(T)=S J_K² gbar/(8T) evaluated self-consistently at T_c, and (iii) absence of boundary/lattice corrections to the 1D/2D spin-wave density of states. None of these points is verified in the main text. Since the central claim of the paper is precisely the geometric scaling of Tc, the derivation must be made available or the assumptions stated and checked. Similarly, Eq. (7) for the spin stiffness is asserted via a Supplemental Material reference.
  2. [2D Lieb lattice model, Fig. 3] The paper asserts 'We consider the regime Δ≫T' but never specifies the temperature T used in Figs. 3(c)-(d). For small δ, Δ=√2 t0 δ approaches zero while det gbar ∼ [ln(1/δ)]² and the plotted Tc rises. Unless T is chosen extremely small and the plotted Tc remains below Δ, the flat-band isolation condition underlying Eq. (5) is violated, and the geometric enhancement of Tc shown in Fig. 3 is not justified. The authors should specify T, restrict δ to values where Δ≫max(T, Tc), or provide a calculation that includes interband transitions.
  3. [Flat band limit, Eq. (6)] The long-wavelength expansion χ0(q) ≈ 1/(4T) − (1/4T) q_a q_b gbar_ab is used to define the correlation length ξ² = gbar and the spin stiffness. However, for q ∼ 2π/L, the q⁴ (and higher) terms in the overlap |⟨u_f(k+q)|u_f(k)⟩|² can contribute. If their coefficients are large, the identification of the correlation length with sqrt(gbar) and the L-scaling in Eqs. (9)-(10) would not follow. The authors should estimate the next-order correction or verify the quadratic dominance in the numerical models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] Typo: 'sevaral' should be 'several'. Also, specify the temperature T and the values of L/a used in the plots; without T the consistency condition Δ≫T cannot be checked.
  2. [1D toy model, Hamiltonian] The expression for H_1D^c(k) is cramped and hard to parse; presenting the Hamiltonian as an explicit 2×2 matrix would improve readability.
  3. [Notation] The symbol T is used both for temperature and for the hopping parameter in H_1D. Using t0 for the hopping in the toy model would avoid confusion, especially in Eqs. (9)-(10) where T_c appears.
  4. [Supplemental Material] Reference [37] is cited for derivations, but the Supplemental Material is not included in the manuscript. Please clarify whether it accompanies the submission or move the key steps into the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the susceptibility–quantum-metric relation follows from a Taylor expansion of the band-overlap integral, and the finite-size T_c scalings are derived from spin-wave theory, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The central chain is self-contained. Equation (5) is obtained from the standard Lindhard susceptibility (4) in the flat-band limit with ε_f = μ, giving F_ff = 1/(4T). Equation (6) is a Taylor expansion of the overlap |⟨u_f(k+q)|u_f(k)⟩|²; by the standard definition g_ab(k) = Re[⟨∂_a u|∂_b u⟩ − ⟨∂_a u|u⟩⟨u|∂_b u⟩], the coefficient of −q_a q_b in that expansion is exactly the local quantum metric. Thus identifying the BZ-averaged metric gbar with the q² coefficient of χ0(q) is a mathematical identity, not a conclusion imported from the target result. The spin stiffness D_ab = S J_K² χ0(0) gbar_ab/2 and the 1D/2D T_c formulas follow from a spin-wave calculation (Supplemental) using that quadratic coefficient; the scaling T_c ∝ √gbar/√L in 1D and T_c ∝ (det gbar)^{1/4}/√ln L in 2D is an algebraic consequence of self-consistently equating the magnon depletion to S with D(T) ∝ gbar/T, not a fit. The toy-model parameters d_m and δ are tuning knobs that change the metric while preserving the band structure; they are not fitted to the computed T_c. Self-citations to [28,29] support Eq. (4), which is a standard RKKY susceptibility formula, and [29,30] are contextual; no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is imported from the authors' prior work. Caveat: the derivations of Eqs. (9)–(10) are deferred to the Supplemental Material [37], and the Lieb-model δ→0 limit raises a Δ≫T consistency question; these are completeness/correctness concerns, not circularity, because no quantity is fitted and no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The central derivation relies on standard second-order perturbation theory, the flat-band isolation assumption, and spin-wave theory; the toy-model parameters are illustrative tuning knobs rather than fitted data.

free parameters (2)
  • dm (1D toy model)
    Hand-chosen isospectral tuning parameter in [0,1] that controls the quantum metric while preserving band energies; used to demonstrate geometric enhancement of T_c.
  • delta (2D Lieb model)
    Tuning parameter that controls both the gap and the quantum metric; as delta decreases, det gbar diverges logarithmically, increasing T_c. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The RKKY effective spin-spin Hamiltonian is valid to second order in J_K (Eq. 2).
    Standard weak-Kondo-coupling approximation; higher-order terms are ignored.
  • domain assumption In the flat-band limit, the chemical potential is exactly at the flat-band energy and T << Δ, so only intraband transitions within the flat band contribute to the susceptibility.
    Used to obtain Eq. (5); if the gap is not large compared to T, interband terms contaminate the result.
  • standard math For a flat band at μ=ε_f, the Lindhard factor reduces to F_ff = 1/(4T).
    Follows from -f'(ε) = 1/(4T) at the Fermi level.
  • standard math The Bloch overlap |⟨u(k+q)|u(k)⟩|² expands to second order as 1 - q_a q_b g_ab(k), with g_ab the quantum metric.
    Standard quantum-distance expansion; used to derive Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory with stiffness D_ab and an infrared cutoff q_min ~ 2π/L describes finite-size magnets.
    Used to derive the finite-size T_c formulas (Eqs. 9-10).
  • domain assumption Orbital positions are fixed and define the physical quantum metric.
    The metric depends on orbital embedding; the paper fixes the two sublattices at distance a/2 in the toy models, citing ref. [48].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum geometry and RKKY in flat bands." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5ILK6TV

@misc{pith2026260801363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum geometry and RKKY in flat bands},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5ILK6TV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01363}
}
read the original abstract

Flat conduction bands quench the group velocity and thus challenge conventional, dispersion-driven pictures of the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interaction, where localized moments are coupled via an effective exchange mediated by conduction electrons. Here we show that RKKY interactions in the flat-band limit are not extinguished by the vanishing group velocity but are instead mediated by the quantum geometry of Bloch states. Starting from a microscopic RKKY derivation, we demonstrate that the Brillouin-zone-averaged quantum metric controls the long-wavelength structure of the static susceptibility, thereby determining the magnetic correlation length and the spin stiffness. As a result, the finite spatial spread of Wannier functions provides an effective long-range coupling channel even when single-particle dispersion is absent. Furthermore, we establish the general principle that the ordering temperature is governed by the quantum metric in finite and low-dimensional samples, effectively circumventing the thermodynamic-limit constraint of the Mermin-Wagner theorem. Specifically, our theoretical investigation reveals that increasing the quantum metric enhances magnetic rigidity and leads to a corresponding rise in the critical temperature within finite-sized systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01363 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c). This trend confirms that the magnetic stability is dic￾tated by the quantum metric tensor of the flat conduction band. Furthermore, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    P. C. Hohenberg, Existence of long-range order in one and two dimensions, Physical Review158, 383 (1967)

    work page 1967

  2. [1]

    (d)T c as a function ofLford m = 0.1, 0.5 and 1

    (c) Critical temperatureT c as a function ofd m for fixed system sizes (L= 10 4,10 5,10 6). (d)T c as a function ofLford m = 0.1, 0.5 and 1. Here, we fixed∆ = 0.3for (b-c) andT= 0.01for (b). Similarly, in two dimensions,T c is given by T (2D) c ≃ √πJKS(det ¯g)1/4 2a p ln[L/(2a)] .(10) WhileT c still vanishes in the thermodynamic limitL→ ∞, its logarithmic...

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    A. Gao, N. Nagaosa, N. Ni, and S.-Y . Xu, Quantum geom- etry phenomena in condensed matter systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00469 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    J. Yu, B. A. Bernevig, R. Queiroz, E. Rossi, P. T¨orm¨a, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geometry in quantum materials, npj Quantum Materials10, 101 (2025)

    2025

  5. [4]

    T ¨orm¨a, Essay: Where can quantum geometry lead us?, Phys

    P. T ¨orm¨a, Essay: Where can quantum geometry lead us?, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Provost and G

    J. Provost and G. Vallee, Riemannian structure on manifolds of quantum states, Commun. Math. Phys.76, 289 (1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [6]

    M. V . Berry, The quantum phase, five years after, inGeometric Phases in Physics, edited by F. Wilczek and E. Shapere (1989) pp. 3–28

    work page 1989

  8. [7]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on elec- tronic properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  2. [9]

    Peotta and P

    S. Peotta and P. T¨orm¨a, Superfluidity in topologically nontrivial flat bands, Nat. Commun.6, 8944 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    T ¨orm¨a, S

    P. T ¨orm¨a, S. Peotta, and B. A. Bernevig, Superconductivity, superfluidity and quantum geometry in twisted multilayer sys- tems, Nat. Rev. Phys.4, 528 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    C.-g. Oh, H. Watanabe, and N. Tsuji, Role of quantum geom- etry in the competition between higgs mode and quasiparticles in third-harmonic generation of superconductors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01200 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    S. A. Chen and K. Law, Ginzburg-landau theory of flat-band superconductors with quantum metric, Physical Review Letters 132, 026002 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Oh, S.-W

    C.-g. Oh, S.-W. Kim, K. W. Kim, B. Monserrat, and J.-W. Rhim, Mass-invariant universal optical conductivity from quantum ge- ometry, Science Advances12, eady2033 (2026)

    2026

  7. [14]

    Oh and S.-W

    C.-g. Oh and S.-W. Kim, Color and transparency from quantum geometry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20904 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A. M. Cook, B. M. Fregoso, F. De Juan, S. Coh, and J. E. Moore, Design principles for shift current photovoltaics, Nat. Commun.8, 14176 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    De Juan, A

    F. De Juan, A. G. Grushin, T. Morimoto, and J. E. Moore, Quan- tized circular photogalvanic effect in Weyl semimetals, Nat. Commun.8, 15995 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y . Guo, N. Nagaosa, and A. Vishwanath, Rieman- nian geometry of resonant optical responses, Nat. Phys.18, 290 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Morimoto and N

    T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Topological nature of nonlinear optical effects in solids, Science advances2, e1501524 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    J.-W. Rhim, K. Kim, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum distance and anomalous landau levels of flat bands, Nature584, 59 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Hwang, J.-W

    Y . Hwang, J.-W. Rhim, and B.-J. Yang, Geometric characteri- zation of anomalous landau levels of isolated flat bands, Nat. Commun.12, 6433 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Oh, J.-W

    C.-g. Oh, J.-W. Rhim, and B.-J. Yang, Revisiting the magnetic responses of bilayer graphene from the perspective of quantum 6 distance, Phys. Rev. B110, 155412 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    C.-g. Oh, K. W. Kim, and J.-W. Rhim, Thermoelectric trans- port driven by the hilbert–schmidt distance, Adv. Sci. , 2411313 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    J. Yu, C. J. Ciccarino, R. Bianco, I. Errea, P. Narang, and B. A. Bernevig, Non-trivial quantum geometry and the strength of electron–phonon coupling, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Han, J.-W

    S.-H. Han, J.-W. Rhim, and C.-g. Oh, Klein tunneling in quan- tum geometric semimetals, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12797 (2026)

    2026

  18. [25]

    Verma, D

    N. Verma, D. Guerci, and R. Queiroz, Geometric stiffness in interlayer exciton condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    C.-g. Oh, D. Cho, S. Y . Park, and J.-W. Rhim, Bulk-interface correspondence from quantum distance in flat band systems, Commun. Phys.5, 320 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Kim, C.-g

    H. Kim, C.-g. Oh, and J.-W. Rhim, General construction scheme for geometrically nontrivial flat band models, Commun. Phys.6, 305 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Wu and S

    F. Wu and S. Das Sarma, Quantum geometry and stability of moir ´e flatband ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B102, 165118 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Kitamura, A

    T. Kitamura, A. Daido, and Y . Yanase, Spin-Triplet Super- conductivity from Quantum-Geometry-Induced Ferromagnetic Fluctuation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036001 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    C.-g. Oh, T. Kitamura, A. Daido, J.-W. Rhim, and Y . Yanase, Magnetic phase transitions driven by quantum geometry, Phys- ical Review Research8, 023096 (2026)

    2026

  24. [31]

    Shimizu, C.-g

    M. Shimizu, C.-g. Oh, and Y . Yanase, Magnetic fluctuations driven by quantum geometry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14511 (2026)

    2026

  25. [32]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange coupling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction electrons, Physical Review96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  26. [33]

    Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro-and antiferromagnetism on Zener’s model, Progress of theoretical physics16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro-and antiferromagnetism on Zener’s model, Progress of theoretical physics16, 45 (1956)

    1956

  27. [34]

    Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Physical Re- view106, 893 (1957)

    K. Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Physical Re- view106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  28. [35]

    Friedel, Metallic alloys, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 287 (1958)

    J. Friedel, Metallic alloys, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 287 (1958)

    1955

  29. [36]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one-or two-dimensional isotropic heisenberg models, Physical Review Letters17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  30. [38]

    See Supplemental Material for details

  31. [39]

    Leykam, A

    D. Leykam, A. Andreanov, and S. Flach, Artificial flat band sys- tems: from lattice models to experiments, Advances in Physics: X3, 1473052 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Mielke, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard model on line graphs and further considerations, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General24, 3311 (1991)

    A. Mielke, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard model on line graphs and further considerations, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General24, 3311 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Tasaki, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard models with degen- erate single-electron ground states, Physical review letters69, 1608 (1992)

    H. Tasaki, Ferromagnetism in the hubbard models with degen- erate single-electron ground states, Physical review letters69, 1608 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally localized generalized wannier functions for composite energy bands, Physical review B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, The European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    R. Resta, The insulating state of matter: a geometrical theory, The European Physical Journal B79, 121 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    J. Kang, T. Oh, J. Lee, and B.-J. Yang, Quantum geo- metric bound for saturated ferromagnetism, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07171 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Goldenfeld,Lectures on phase transitions and the renormal- ization group(CRC Press, 2018)

    N. Goldenfeld,Lectures on phase transitions and the renormal- ization group(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Palle and D

    G. Palle and D. K. Sunko, Physical limitations of the hohenberg–mermin–wagner theorem, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical54, 315001 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Jenkins, L

    S. Jenkins, L. R ´ozsa, U. Atxitia, R. F. Evans, K. S. Novoselov, and E. J. Santos, Breaking through the mermin-wagner limit in 2d van der waals magnets, Nature Communications13, 6917 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Tomita, Finite-size scaling analysis of pseudocritical region in two-dimensional continuous-spin systems, Physical Review E90, 032109 (2014)

    Y . Tomita, Finite-size scaling analysis of pseudocritical region in two-dimensional continuous-spin systems, Physical Review E90, 032109 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Oh and S

    C.-g. Oh and S. Murakami, Orbital embedding and the physical definition of quantum geometry, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.21882 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.