Fluctuations of topological charges in two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model

Shan-Chang Tang; Yu Shi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Fluctuations of topological charges in two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the 2D Heisenberg model, the skyrmion charge fluctuation in a loop scales with the perimeter at low temperature and with the area at high temperature — the paper's evidence for binding and unbinding of skyrmion fragments.

desk verdict Numerically plausible but conceptually overloaded: the k(T) crossover is new, but a perimeter law for smooth fields does not prove skyrmion-fragment binding. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01051 v3 pith:FAUOCVHH submitted 2025-01-02 cond-mat.stat-mech

Shan-Chang Tang , Yu Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 75.10.Hk75.40.Mg05.50.+q

keywords two-dimensionalHeisenbergmodeltopologicalchargefluctuationskyrmionfragmentsKosterlitz-ThoulesstransitionMonteCarlosimulationperimeterlawareaO(3)nonlinearsigma

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 asks whether the two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model can undergo a Kosterlitz-Thouless-like transition driven by topological defects, even though true skyrmions cannot be stable in this model because spins can escape into the third dimension. To answer it, the authors define the fluctuation of the discretized topological (skyrmion) charge inside an embedded loop and measure how this fluctuation scales with the loop's linear size in Monte Carlo simulations of systems up to $512 \times 512$. The central numerical result is a clear crossover in the scaling exponent: roughly $k \approx 1$ at low temperature (perimeter law) versus $k \approx 2$ at high temperature (area law), with a crossover that becomes sharper as the lattice grows. A sympathetic reader takes this as evidence that at low temperature the 'skyrmion fragments' pair up into neutral composites while at high temperature they move freely, a mechanism similar to vortex binding and unbinding in the 2D XY model. If the paper is right, the charge-fluctuation diagnostic offers a new quantitative route into a long-standing controversy about the existence of a finite-temperature transition in this model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the discretized local topological charge density $Q_{ij}$, defined on each lattice plaquette as the sum of the solid angles subtended by spins on the two triangles of the elementary square, $Q_{ij} = \alpha(S_{ij}, S_{i+1,j}, S_{i+1,j+1}) + \alpha(S_{ij}, S_{i+1,j+1}, S_{i,j+1})$, following the standard lattice definition of the O(3) topological number. The total charge inside a $d \times d$ loop is $Q = \sum Q_{ij}$, and the object of study is the variance $\chi = \langle (Q - \langle Q \rangle)^2 \rangle$ as a function of $d$ at fixed temperature. The argument's logic is the analogy with the XY model: for free vortices the variance is an extensive quantity proportional to the loop area, while for bound neutral pairs only charges in a boundary belt of width equal to the pair size contribute, giving a variance proportional to the perimeter. Fitting $\ln \chi = k \ln d$ turns the two laws into a single temperature-dependent exponent $k(T)$, the concrete observable that crosses sharply from about 1 to about 2.

What would settle it

Run the same loop-charge variance measurement on artificially smooth low-temperature spin configurations with no local charge fluctuations, for example analytic spin textures with only tiny thermal noise: if the perimeter scaling $\chi \propto d$ reappears in these configurations, the perimeter law is a boundary effect of the topological-charge definition rather than evidence of bound skyrmion fragments. Alternatively, measure the two-point correlation function of the $Q_{ij}$ density across the crossover temperature: a genuine binding-unbinding transition should show neutral fragment pairs staying compact at low temperature and dissolving on the high-temperature side, whereas a purely boundary-dominated signal would show no such structural change in the charge density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports the following discovery: in the two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model at low temperature the variance of the total skyrmion charge inside a square loop of edge $d$ grows approximately as $d$ (fitted slope $k \approx 1.01769$ at $k_B T = 0.1J$), while at high temperature it grows approximately as $d^2$ ($k \approx 2.00114$ at $k_B T = 1.0J$). Because the perimeter of the loop is $4d$ and its area is $d^2$, the authors conclude that the charge fluctuation obeys a perimeter law in the low-temperature phase and an area law in the high-temperature phase. Drawing on Kosterlitz-Thouless reasoning for the XY model, where bound neutral pairs contribute only at the loop boundary while free charges accumulate over the enclosed area, they interpret the crossover as binding of skyrmion fragments of opposite charge at low temperature and unbinding at high temperature. The simulation also shows that no complete skyrmions exist; only fragments of the topological charge density survive, and these are visible as positive and negative sites in the $Q_{ij}$ density maps. The same simulations reproduce earlier results for magnetization, susceptibility, and specific heat, and the crossover in the exponent $k$ sharpens as the lattice size grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the discretized charge $Q_{ij}$ behaves like a gas of independent 'skyrmion fragments' whose pairing can be diagnosed from how the loop-charge variance scales with loop size; if the perimeter law instead comes from boundary dominance of a smooth spin field, and the area law from any short-range-correlated local density, the measured exponents $k \approx 1$ and $k \approx 2$ would not by themselves establish binding or unbinding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The exponent $k(T)$ from the log-log fit of charge fluctuation versus loop size provides a quantitative diagnostic that distinguishes the bound-defect phase from the free-defect phase without requiring individual defects to be identified by eye.
If the sharpening crossover in $k(T)$ survives the thermodynamic limit, it points to a genuine finite-temperature Kosterlitz-Thouless-like transition in the 2D Heisenberg model, a possibility debated since the model was introduced.
The reasoning transfers the KT charge-fluctuation test from topologically protected vortices in the XY model to unprotected skyrmion fragments in an O(3) model, showing that topological protection of the defects is not required for the binding-unbinding scenario.
Since only skyrmion fragments, not complete skyrmions, occur in the simulations, the diagnostic works in the regime where counting defects by visual inspection fails.

Reading between the lines

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

A caution the paper does not address: for a smooth continuum spin texture, the skyrmion charge inside a loop is a boundary integral, so a perimeter law at low temperature can arise from boundary dominance of a smooth field with no defect pairs at all; and the area law at high temperature is what any short-range-correlated local density would produce, so the scaling crossover alone underdetermines
A direct test that would separate the interpretations is to look for the structure of the $Q_{ij}$ density: bound neutral fragments should appear as dipolar clusters whose size stays compact at low temperature, whereas a boundary-dominated smooth field would show no such neutral cluster structure.
The crossover temperature read off from $k(T)$ could be compared with the temperature where the magnetic susceptibility peaks; a mismatch between the two would indicate that the charge fluctuation and the thermodynamic anomaly have different origins.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the take: the paper has a new numerical observable and a clean crossover, but the central inference that the perimeter law implies binding of skyrmion fragments doesn't survive contact with the continuum limit.

What's genuinely new: nobody has previously computed the loop-size dependence of the topological charge fluctuation in the 2D classical Heisenberg model, and the k(T) curve for L=32 to 512 (with k going from ~1 to ~2) is a concrete numerical fingerprint. The thermodynamic benchmarks (magnetization shift, susceptibility peak, specific heat plateau) agree with earlier work, and the discretized charge (Eq. 8) is the standard Berg-Lüscher construction. The authors are also upfront that complete skyrmions are unstable and that they are looking at fragments.

The soft spot is load-bearing. For smooth low-T configurations, the continuum density S·(∂S/∂x × ∂S/∂y) is, to linear order in spin-wave variables, ∂_x(a ∂_y b) − ∂_y(a ∂_x b), an exact derivative. So Q_loop is a boundary integral and its variance scales with perimeter even with zero defects. The paper's Eq. (5) transfers the XY bound-pair argument to Heisenberg by analogy, but no definition or identification of 'skyrmion fragments' is given. The high-T area law is likewise generic for any short-range-correlated local density. So the observed k≈1.02 and k≈2.00 at T=0.1 and 1.0 are consistent with smooth-field boundary scaling and short-range area scaling; they do not, by themselves, diagnose binding. There are also no error bars on the fitted exponents, the d ranges are narrow, and there is no finite-size scaling of the crossover beyond the raw L-dependence of k.

The paper is coherent and honestly written; it is not confused on its own terms. But the interpretative claim outruns the evidence. A referee should demand a control: a spin-wave-only ensemble at the same temperature, or a comparison with a model where defects are explicitly suppressed. Without that, the conclusion 'implying binding' should be rejected.

Who gets value: readers tracking the 2D Heisenberg transition controversy may want this as a cautionary example, and the observable itself could be reused. I would not cite it in my own work. It deserves peer review in the sense that the numerical observation is worth refereeing and the authors should be pushed to address the boundary-integral objection; a desk rejection would be defensible, but sending it out gives the community a chance to sharpen or refute the claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model by Monte Carlo simulation and computes the variance of a discretized skyrmion number Q inside square loops of various sizes d, for lattice sizes L=32,64,128,256,512. The authors report that at low temperature (kBT=0.1J) the variance scales as d^k with k≈1.02, while at high temperature (kBT=1.0J) k≈2.00, and they interpret these as perimeter and area laws, respectively. From this scaling behavior they conclude that low-temperature skyrmion fragments are bound in neutral pairs and high-temperature fragments are unbound, suggesting a Kosterlitz-Thouless-like transition. The paper also checks magnetization, susceptibility, and specific heat against previous work.

Significance. If the interpretation were correct, the paper would provide a new numerical diagnostic for topological-defect binding in the 2D O(3) Heisenberg model, a system whose finite-temperature transition question is long-standing and controversial. The raw scaling observation—that the loop variance crosses from approximately linear to approximately quadratic in loop size as temperature increases—is a potentially useful numerical fact. However, the central interpretive claim that this scaling implies binding/unbinding of skyrmion fragments is not supported by the present analysis. For smooth low-temperature spin configurations the continuum topological charge density is an exact derivative, so the charge inside a loop is a boundary integral and its variance can scale with perimeter even with no defects present. The paper's own admission that skyrmions are unstable and only uncharacterized 'fragments' exist makes the defect-counting interpretation particularly fragile.

major comments (4)

[Eqs. (7)-(9) and Fig. 5] The low-temperature perimeter law does not imply binding of topological defects, because for smooth low-T spin configurations the continuum charge density in Eq. (7) is, to leading order in spin-wave fluctuations, an exact derivative: writing S=(σ_x, σ_y, 1), the integrand becomes ∂_x(σ_x ∂_y σ_y) − ∂_y(σ_x ∂_x σ_y). Hence Q_loop is a boundary integral, and its variance scales with loop perimeter even in a completely defect-free Gaussian spin-wave ensemble. The measured k≈1.02 at T=0.1J is therefore exactly what one expects from smooth boundary-dominated fluctuations, not evidence of paired skyrmion fragments. The authors should test this alternative explicitly, for example by comparing the measured loop variance with the prediction from a linearized spin-wave ensemble or by subtracting a smooth coarse-grained field and showing that the remaining variance still exhibits a perimeter law.
[Eq. (5) and the Heisenberg-model analogy] The transfer of the XY bound-pair argument to the Heisenberg model is asserted rather than derived. In the XY case, Eq. (5) follows from a picture of discrete, countable vortices whose only contributions to the loop charge come from pairs crossing the boundary. For the Heisenberg model, the text correctly states that skyrmions are not stable topological defects and that only 'skyrmion fragments' exist, but no operational definition of a fragment is given, and Q in Eqs. (8)-(9) is a sum of local solid-angle contributions, not a count of independently identifiable particles. Without an independent identification of fragments (for instance, by cluster analysis of the Q_ij field or by locating singular regions) and without a check that their spatial correlations are consistent with pairing, the perimeter law cannot be used to conclude binding. The phrase 'skyrmion fragments' is introduced as if it were a well-defined entity, but the paper provides no criterion for distinguishing one fragment from another.
[Fig. 5 and Eq. (10)] The numerical evidence for a sharp transition between the two scaling regimes is weaker than claimed. The exponent k in Fig. 5 is presented without error bars, the fitted ranges of d are narrow (for example, for L=512 only d=240 to 500), and no finite-size scaling analysis of the crossover is provided. The statement that the transition 'becomes sharper as the lattice becomes larger' is not quantified. Since the exponents k≈1 and k≈2 are the entire quantitative basis for the central claim, uncertainty estimates and a systematic finite-size analysis are needed before the crossover can be interpreted as a phase transition rather than a smooth crossover of boundary versus bulk fluctuations.
[Eq. (3) and high-temperature area law] The high-temperature area law is generic for any local short-range-correlated density and does not require the existence of free topological defects. In a paramagnetic phase with exponentially decaying spin correlations, the variance of the summed local charge Q_loop automatically grows with the loop area. Thus the observation k≈2 at T=1.0J is fully consistent with an ordinary smooth disordered state and cannot by itself distinguish unbound skyrmion fragments from ordinary fluctuations of a local observable. The authors should either justify that Q is a genuine defect density or weaken the conclusion to a statement about the scaling of a specific lattice observable.

minor comments (5)

[Section 'Fluctuations of topological charges'] The phrase 'bounded as pairs' should read 'bound as pairs' or 'paired'; the same wording appears in the abstract's discussion of binding.
[Fig. 4] The panel labels in the text (a), (b), (c), (d) do not clearly match the panels in the figure; a clearer figure caption with explicit panel correspondence and axis labels would help.
[Eq. (3) derivation] The derivation in the paragraph following Eq. (3) introduces a grand canonical ensemble with chemical potentials for topological defects; the notation v_±, V, and S is used inconsistently and the thermodynamic relations are not fully explained. This section is not essential to the numerical results and could be shortened or moved to a supplementary discussion.
[References] Reference [20] is described as supporting both the presence and the absence of a transition; this is vague and should be clarified in the text or expanded to cite the specific conclusions.
[Simulation details] The simulation paragraph gives 10^5 steps per spin and 10^4 samples, but the autocorrelation time, the number of equilibration sweeps, and the statistical independence of samples are not quantified; error bars on all reported quantities, including Fig. 5, would be necessary to assess the scaling fits.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Measured d-scaling is independent, but the conclusion that it implies pairing of skyrmion fragments is circular: 'binding' is given no operational content beyond the same perimeter/area diagnostic.

self definitional [Hypotheses after Eq. (9); discussion of Fig. 6; concluding paragraph (p. 5-6)]
"Following the reasoning similar to that for the XY model, we can make the following hypotheses ... (2) Perimeter law: At low temperatures, if the defects of opposite topological charges are bound, the fluctuation of the total topological charge inside an arbitrary loop is proportional to the length of the loop. ... It is quite difficult to distinguish different topological phases from the patterns of these skyrmion fragments. In fact, our method provides a very useful quantitative way to describe well the binding and unbinding of the defects."

The XY derivation (Eq. 5) establishes only the forward implication 'bound neutral pairs ⇒ χ∝perimeter'. The paper then measures k≈1 (Eq. 10, Fig. 5) and concludes 'This discovery strongly indicates that at low temperatures, the defects with opposite topological charges are bound together', i.e. it uses the converse. No independent microscopic definition or detection of a 'skyrmion fragment' or of pairing is supplied; the text admits the Qij patterns alone do not distinguish the phases. Hence the phrase 'bound' has no operational meaning except the measured perimeter scaling, so the physical conclusion is a relabeling of the fitted exponent rather than a derived consequence. Moreover, for smooth low-T configurations, the continuum density in Eq.

full rationale

The raw numerical result is self-contained: Eq. (10) fits ln χH = k ln d, with k ≈ 1.02 at kBT = 0.1 J and k ≈ 2.00 at kBT = 1.0 J (Fig. 4), and the temperature dependence of k (Fig. 5) is a genuine Monte Carlo measurement with no parameter fitted from the binding hypothesis. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted input renamed as a prediction. The circularity is confined to the interpretive layer: the paper defines 'bound' and 'free' fragments through the same perimeter/area scaling that it then announces as evidence for binding and unbinding. Because the fragment patterns are explicitly said to be insufficient to distinguish phases, 'binding' is not an independently verified state of the spins; it is a label attached to the measured d-scaling. The boundary-integral structure of the continuum topological charge at low T further shows that perimeter scaling is generic for smooth spin-wave fields, so the measurement cannot logically force the defect-pair picture. This warrants a moderate circularity score rather than 0: the central scaling discovery has independent content, but the headline physical conclusion reduces to a restatement of that scaling.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on an unproven diagnostic transfer from XY to Heisenberg and on the existence of skyrmion fragments as independent objects. Neither is supported by an external benchmark, a control simulation, or direct observation.

assumptions (3)

ad hoc to paper The low-temperature perimeter scaling law for loop charge variance is a valid diagnostic of bound topological defects in the 2D Heisenberg model.
Transferred from XY model by analogy; the converse (perimeter law implies binding) is assumed, not derived. In the continuum, the skyrmion charge inside a loop is a boundary term, so perimeter scaling can arise without any defect gas.
ad hoc to paper The Berg-Luescher-style discretized charge Qij (Eq. 8) counts independent skyrmion fragments.
The paper conjectures 'skyrmion fragments' with nonzero charge despite noting skyrmions are not stable (Ref. 28). No independent evidence is given that the lattice charge density corresponds to localizable defects.
domain assumption Metropolis sampling at the stated parameters is equilibrated and decorrelated by 30 intermediate sweeps.
Standard Monte Carlo practice, but no autocorrelation analysis or error bars are provided to confirm stationarity of the measured variances.

invented entities (1)

Skyrmion fragments
purpose: Charged topological-defect-like objects in the 2D Heisenberg model whose binding and unbinding explains the observed scaling crossover.
No direct observation of paired fragments is given; the only evidence is the loop-charge scaling, which can be explained by smooth-field boundary terms at low T and local short-range fluctuations at high T. No experimental or independent numerical signature is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fluctuations of topological charges in two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAUOCVHH

@misc{pith2026250101051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fluctuations of topological charges in two-dimensional classical Heisenberg model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAUOCVHH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01051}
}

read the original abstract

Binding and unbinding of vortices drives Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition in two-dimensional XY model. Here we investigate whether similar mechanism works in two-dimensional Heisenberg model, by using the fluctuation of skyrmion number inside a loop to characterize the nature of binding versus unbinding of defects. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we find that the fluctuation is proportional to the perimeter of the loop at low temperatures while it is proportional to the area of the loop at high temperatures, implying binding of the defects at low temperatures and unbinding at high temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01051 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A sketch of the two-dimensional square lattice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) The magnetization. (b) The susceptibility. (c) The specific heat capacity as function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) The topological charge fluctuation versus the linear size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The slope k of the logarithm of the fluctuation as a linear function of the logarithm of d, as a function of temperature for different lattice sizes. The range of d for L = 32 is from 10 to 20; for L = 64 is from 20 to 50; for L = 128 is from 50 to 110; for L = 256 is …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of skyrmion density for various lattice sizes at various temperatures. A red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

work page 1966
[2]

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids. (application of dislocation theory). J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 5, L124 (1972)

work page 1972
[3]

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

work page 1973
[4]

J. M. Kosterlitz, The critical properties of the two-dimensional xy model. J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 7, 1046 (1974)

work page 1974
[5]

Kenna, Homotopy in statistical physics

R. Kenna, Homotopy in statistical physics. Condensed Matter Physics 9, 283 (2006)

work page 2006
[6]

H. E. Stanley and T. A. Kaplan. Possibility of a phase transition for the two-dimensional Heisenberg model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 913 (1966)

work page 1966
[7]

A. M. Polyakov, Interaction of goldstone particles in two dimensions. Applications to ferro- magnets and massive yang-mills fields. Phys. Lett. B 59, 79 (1975)

work page 1975
[8]

Br´ ezin and J

E. Br´ ezin and J. Zinn-Justin, Spontaneous breakdown of continuous symmetries near two dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 14, 3110 (1976)

work page 1976

Show all 29 references

[9]

Br´ ezin and J

E. Br´ ezin and J. Zinn-Justin, Renormalization of the nonlinear σ model in 2+ ϵ dimensions- application to the Heisenberg ferromagnets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 691 (1976)

1976
[10]

Nelson and Robert A

David R. Nelson and Robert A. Pelcovits, Momentum-shell recursion relations, anisotropic spins, and liquid crystals in 2+ ϵ dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 16, 2191 (1977)

1977
[11]

Shenker and Jan Tobochnik, Monte carlo renormalization-group analysis of the classical Heisenberg model in two dimensions

Stephen H. Shenker and Jan Tobochnik, Monte carlo renormalization-group analysis of the classical Heisenberg model in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 22, 4462 (1980). p-7 Shan-Chang Tang1,2 and Yu Shi43,1 3 2× 3 2, kB T = 0.1J (a)3 2× 3 2, kB T = 1.9J (b)6 4× 6 4, kB T = 0.1J (c)...

1980
[12]

Luca Biferale and Roberto Petronzio, Renormalisation group study of xy and Heisenberg models in two dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B 328, 677 (1989)

1989
[13]

Minoru Takahashi, Classical Heisenberg ferromagnet in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 36, 3791 (1987)

1987
[14]

All´ es, A

B. All´ es, A. Buonanno, and G. Cella, Perturbation theory predictions and monte carlo simu- lations for the 2d o(n) non-linear σ-models. Nucl. Phys. B 500, 513 (1997)

1997
[15]

All´ es, G

B. All´ es, G. Cella, M. Dilaver, and Y. G¨ und¨ u¸ c, Testing fixed points in the 2do(3) nonlinear σ model. Phys. Rev. D 59, 067703 (1999)

1999
[16]

Yusuke Tomita, Finite-size scaling analysis of pseudocritical region in two-dimensional continuous-spin systems. Phys. Rev. E 90, 032109 (2014)

2014
[17]

Adrian Patrascioiu and Erhard Seiler, Is the 2d o(3) nonlinear σ model asymptotically free? p-8 Fluctuations of topological charges in 2D classical Heisenberg model Phys. Lett. B 430, 314 (1998)

1998
[18]

arXiv:hep-th/0312015 (2003)

Erhard Seiler, The case against asymptotic freedom. arXiv:hep-th/0312015 (2003)

2003 arXiv
[19]

Kapikranian, B

O. Kapikranian, B. Berche, and Yu Holovatch, Quasi-long-range ordering in a finite-size 2d classical Heisenberg model. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40, 3741 (2007)

2007
[20]

SciPost Phys

Philipp Schmoll, Augustine Kshetrimayum, Jens Eisert, Rom´ an Or´ us and Matteo Rizzi, The classical two-dimensional Heisenberg model revisited: An SU(2)-symmetric tensor network study. SciPost Phys. 11, 098 (2021)

2021
[21]

M. A. Klenin, Evidence for glasslike ordering in the two-dimensional classical Heisenberg magnet. Phys. Rev. B 19, 4733 (1979)

1979
[22]

R. E. Watson, M. Blume, and G. H. Vineyard, Classical Heisenberg magnet in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 2, 684 (1970)

1970
[23]

Betsuyaku, Monte carlo investigation of magnetic properties of a two-dimensional classical Heisenberg magnet

H. Betsuyaku, Monte carlo investigation of magnetic properties of a two-dimensional classical Heisenberg magnet. Solid State Commun. 25, 185 (1978)

1978
[24]

R. G. Brown and M. Ciftan, The 2d/3D classical Heisenberg ferromagnet, in Computer Sim- ulation Studies in Condensed-Matter Physics V, edited by David P. Landau, K. K. Mon, and Heinz-Bernd Sch¨ uttle (Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg), pp. 150–154, 1993

1993
[25]

J. L. Colot, Heat capacity of two-dimensional o(n) spin systems by the monte carlo method. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 16, 4423 (1983)

1983
[26]

Kawabata and K

C. Kawabata and K. Binder, Evidence for vortex formation in Monte Carlo studies of the two-dimensional XY-model. Solid State Commun. 22, 705 (1977)

1977
[27]

Kawabata and A

C. Kawabata and A. R. Bishop, Monte carlo evidence for inhomogeneous states in the two- dimensional classical Heisenberg model. Solid State Commun. 33, 453 (1980)

1980
[28]

Toulouse and M

G. Toulouse and M. Kl´ eman, Principles of a classification of defects in ordered media. J. Phys. Lett. (Paris) 37 (1976) 149

1976
[29]

Berg and M

B. Berg and M. L¨ uscher, Definition and statistical distributions of a topological number in the lattice O(3) σ-model. Nucl. Phys. B 190, 412 (1981). p-9

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

work page 1966

[2] [2]

J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Long range order and metastability in two dimensional solids and superfluids. (application of dislocation theory). J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 5, L124 (1972)

work page 1972

[3] [3]

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

work page 1973

[4] [4]

J. M. Kosterlitz, The critical properties of the two-dimensional xy model. J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 7, 1046 (1974)

work page 1974

[5] [5]

Kenna, Homotopy in statistical physics

R. Kenna, Homotopy in statistical physics. Condensed Matter Physics 9, 283 (2006)

work page 2006

[6] [6]

H. E. Stanley and T. A. Kaplan. Possibility of a phase transition for the two-dimensional Heisenberg model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 913 (1966)

work page 1966

[7] [7]

A. M. Polyakov, Interaction of goldstone particles in two dimensions. Applications to ferro- magnets and massive yang-mills fields. Phys. Lett. B 59, 79 (1975)

work page 1975

[8] [8]

Br´ ezin and J

E. Br´ ezin and J. Zinn-Justin, Spontaneous breakdown of continuous symmetries near two dimensions. Phys. Rev. B 14, 3110 (1976)

work page 1976