Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid

Gia-Wei Chern; Yang Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid

T0 review · 4 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 The paper claims that after a thermal quench, the gapless Kitaev honeycomb spin liquid relaxes through the diffusion and pair annihilation of visons, with three temperature regimes that end in frozen metastable √3×√3 vison crystals.

desk verdict Solid kMC study of Kitaev vison dynamics with a three-regime picture, but the rates use internal energy rather than free energy, so the quantitative scales need re-examination. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17774 v2 pith:IZE4UZ5K submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Yang Yang , Gia-Wei Chern This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

keywords KitaevhoneycombmodelvisondynamicsthermalquenchkineticMonteCarlodiffusion-limitedannihilationMajoranafermionsmetastablecrystalsZ3sublatticecoarsening

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 relaxation of the gapless Kitaev honeycomb model after a thermal quench is controlled by the quasi-stochastic diffusion and pair annihilation of visons, the gapped $\mathbb{Z}_2$ flux excitations of the emergent gauge field. The claim matters because it reduces a strongly fractionalized quantum system to classical annihilation universality classes, and because it predicts a low-temperature freeze that leaves the spin liquid trapped in metastable $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ vison crystals. According to the paper, all of this follows from effective vison dynamics in which the Majorana fermions are assumed to remain in thermal equilibrium with the instantaneous vison configuration.

What carries the argument

The kinetic Monte Carlo algorithm that simulates a Markov chain over vison configurations, with single-vison nearest-neighbor hops accepted by heat-bath transition probabilities $P(E_k) = e^{-E_k/T}/\sum_j e^{-E_j/T}$, and the energy $E(C)$ of each configuration computed by exact diagonalization of the quadratic Majorana Hamiltonian for that flux configuration. The argument also uses a parity-removal trick to keep only physical states, and rests on two time-scale separations: Majorana relaxation is fast enough that fermions stay equilibrated, and vison decoherence is fast enough that only diagonal vison probabilities survive.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be to repeat the same quench with a heat-bath coupling that makes the vison decoherence time comparable to the vison hop time; if the intermediate $t^{-2}$ decay and the low-temperature freeze plateau survive that change, the Markov-chain reduction is not the controlling mechanism, while if they disappear the paper's time-scale separation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a temperature-stratified relaxation law for vison density $\rho(t)$ after a quench from infinite temperature. For $T \gtrsim T_{\rm int} \approx 0.04|J|$, visons perform nearly unbiased random walks and annihilate with the $A+A\to\emptyset$ asymptotic behavior $\rho \sim t^{-1}\ln t$. For $T_{\rm int} \gtrsim T \gtrsim T_{\rm freezing} \approx 0.006|J|$, the long-range $1/r$ attraction turns the motion into a terminal-velocity-limited drift and the density falls as $\rho \sim t^{-2}$. For $T \lesssim T_{\rm freezing}$, the oscillatory short-range interaction traps visons in local minima; the frozen state is a fragmented $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ vison crystal with a broken $\mathbb{Z}_3$ sublattice symmetry whose large-scale domains coarsen only slowly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that in the open quantum system the Majorana fermions equilibrate almost instantly and the visons lose quantum coherence so quickly that the vison state can be represented by a classical probability distribution over flux configurations; if either time scale becomes comparable to the vison hop time, the predicted decay laws and the freeze may not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Above the interaction scale, vison relaxation belongs to the same universality class as two-dimensional single-species annihilation, so the late-time density decay carries a logarithmic correction to $t^{-1}$.
Between the interaction scale and the freezing scale, the attractive $1/r$ vison interaction produces a terminal-velocity-limited annihilation with an unusually fast $t^{-2}$ decay.
Below the freezing scale, the quenched system does not reach its equilibrium state but arrests at a nonzero vison density through self-generated trapping barriers.
The arrested state is a metastable $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ vison crystal, and the slow coarsening of its $\mathbb{Z}_3$ sublattice domains is a separate nonequilibrium ordering process.
The three crossover temperatures $T_{\rm pair}\sim0.26|J|$, $T_{\rm int}\sim0.04|J|$, and $T_{\rm freezing}\sim0.006|J|$ organize the full quench phase diagram.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond this paper, the same three-regime phenomenology should appear in any spin liquid whose defect interactions combine a $1/r$ attractive tail with short-period oscillations, not just the Kitaev honeycomb model.
If the trapping mechanism is right, the freezing temperature should scale with the nearest-neighbor to next-nearest-neighbor barrier height ($\Delta V \sim 0.035|J|$); future simulations could test this scaling directly.
A quantum master-equation calculation that lets the vison decoherence time approach the hop time is the natural next check; if the freeze and the $t^{-2}$ regime persist there, the classical Markov description is not the only cause, and if they vanish the time-scale separation is load-bearing.
The slow $\mathbb{Z}_3$ coarsening suggests that late-time snapshots have two length scales, frozen crystallite size and slowly growing sublattice domains, which could be separated by the structure factor in future simulations or experiments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First things first: this is a real paper, not a toy. Yang and Chern have done extensive kMC simulations of vison relaxation in the gapless Kitaev model and found three distinct post-quench regimes: a high-T diffusion-limited annihilation with the expected t^-1 ln t, an intermediate-T terminal-velocity-limited t^-2 decay, and a low-T freezing accompanied by metastable sqrt(3)x sqrt(3) vison crystals. The three-regime classification and the dynamical formation of these crystals are new; previous quench studies focused on Majorana dynamics or defect production, and vison crystals were only discussed in equilibrium with extra couplings. The structure factor showing K-point peaks and the Z3 coarsening of super-clusters are nice, concrete observations.

The soft spots are also concrete. The kMC transition rates (SM Eq. S13) use the internal energy E(C) = <-sum_k eps_k/2 tanh(eps_k/2T)> as the weight for vison configurations. But if the Majorana fermions are thermalized at each instantaneous C, the correct reduced weight for slow flux configurations is the Majorana partition function, i.e., exp[-F(C)/T] with F(C) = -T ln Z_M(C). The difference is the configuration-dependent Majorana entropy, which is not small at T = 0.1|J|. As a result, the stationary distribution of the Markov chain is not the Kitaev thermal distribution, and the barriers, Tint, Tfreezing, and the freezing scenario are not yet derived from the actual model. The qualitative regimes might survive the correction, but the paper doesn't show that.

Second, the power-law identifications are visual. The plots clearly show different behavior at the three temperatures, but there are no fitted exponents with error bars, and the t^-2 claim rests on the terminal-velocity argument plus an eyeball match. That's fixable with a log-log fit over the scaling window. Third, the work would be much easier to trust with released code and data. Finally, the time-scale separations (tau_M, tau_2 << tau_1) are assumed; that's standard for this kind of open-system treatment, but it's worth a sentence on when it would break.

Who's for: people working on nonequilibrium dynamics of spin liquids, fractionalized excitations, and phase ordering. It's a serious candidate for a peer-reviewed journal; the referee should push on the free-energy point above. My recommendation: send it to review, but with the expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the thermal quench dynamics of visons in the isotropic, gapless Kitaev honeycomb model by means of kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC) simulations. The authors start from a random high-temperature vison configuration and evolve the visons by nearest-neighbor hops with Glauber-type rates computed from the exact diagonalization of the Majorana fermion Hamiltonian for each instantaneous flux configuration, under the assumptions that the Majorana fermions equilibrate rapidly and that vison coherence is destroyed on a fast time scale. Three dynamical regimes are reported: at T/|J| = 0.1, a diffusion-limited annihilation with asymptotic density decay rho ~ t^{-1} ln t; at T/|J| = 0.01, an accelerated 'terminal-velocity limited' annihilation with rho ~ t^{-2} attributed to the long-range attractive vison interaction; and at T/|J| = 0.001, a dynamical freezing accompanied by the formation of metastable sqrt(3)xsqrt(3) vison crystals and slow coarsening of Z_3 super-clusters. The paper also proposes temperature scales T_pair ~ 0.26|J|, T_int ~ 0.04|J|, and T_freezing ~ 0.006|J| separating these regimes.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide one of the first comprehensive pictures of the out-of-equilibrium annihilation dynamics of fractionalized excitations in an exactly solvable quantum spin liquid, connecting vison dynamics to classical reaction-diffusion universality classes and to a dynamical crystallization mechanism without additional couplings. The simulations are extensive, including exact diagonalization at every Monte Carlo step, multiple system sizes, finite-size extrapolations of interaction barriers, and checks of the parity constraint for physical states. These are genuine strengths. However, the central kMC model is built on an assumed time-scale separation and on transition rates that are not derived from the Kitaev thermal distribution, so the specific exponents and freezing scale are only as reliable as that model. The paper also claims a coarsening behavior that is not quantitatively demonstrated. The subject is timely and the qualitative taxonomy is plausible, but the present version does not fully establish its quantitative conclusions.

major comments (4)

The kMC transition rates use the internal Majorana energy E(C,T) = -Sum_k (epsilon_k/2) tanh(epsilon_k/2T) defined in SM Eq. (S6), and SM Eq. (S13) weights each outcome by exp(-E_k/T), with SM Eq. (S11) stating that the Markov chain relaxes to rho_th(C) proportional to exp[-E(C,T)/T]. This stationary distribution is not the thermal distribution of the Kitaev model. In the exact solution, the reduced equilibrium weight of a flux sector is Z_M(C) = Tr_M exp[-H_M(C)/T] = exp[-F(C,T)/T], and the difference F - E = -T S_M(C) is configuration-dependent because visons modify the Majorana spectrum. At T up to 0.1|J| this entropy contribution is not negligible, and at T near 0.006|J| it can be comparable to the 0.035|J| energy barrier quoted for freezing. Consequently the barriers, the scales T_int and T_freezing, and the frozen-crystal scenario are outputs of a classical model with internal-energy rates, not derivations from the Kitaev thermal distribution. Please either replace Delta E by Delta F in the rates with a detailed-balance justification, or derive the rates from a concrete microscopic bath coupling, and then rerun the simulations to test whether the three regimes survive.
The central quantitative claims are the asymptotic laws rho ~ t^{-1} ln t and rho ~ t^{-2}. These are asserted from visual agreement with the curves in Fig. 1; no fitted exponents, confidence intervals, residuals, or fitting windows are provided. Since d = 2 is the critical dimension, the distinction between t^{-1} ln t and a pure power law is delicate, and the claimed t^{-2} should be tested against, e.g., t^{-1.8} or t^{-2} ln t. Please provide quantitative fits with error bars from the ensemble of runs, state the time window used, and show how the inferred exponents depend on system size.
The abstract lists a 'hidden coarsening of super-clusters associated with a broken Z3 symmetry' as a main result, but the only evidence is a snapshot in Fig. 4 together with a qualitative statement that the growth is 'rather slow'. No time-dependent domain-size data, correlation-function analysis, or growth-law exponent are given, and the Discussion itself describes this part as preliminary. Please either provide quantitative coarsening data (e.g., mean Z_3 domain size versus time, with system-size dependence) or remove this claim from the abstract and present it as an outlook.
The reduction to a classical Markov chain rests on the inequalities tau_M << tau_1 and tau_2 << tau_1. The authors state these assumptions but do not estimate them from any microscopic coupling; the only justification offered is the qualitative statement that the gapless Majorana continuum couples efficiently to the bath. If either time-scale separation fails, the diagonal Markov-chain description and the resulting freezing may not describe the actual quantum dynamics. Please provide estimates or a model calculation supporting these inequalities, and clearly state in the abstract that the results are conditional on this adiabatic Markovian regime.

minor comments (4)

The manuscript contains numerous OCR-type artifacts and typos, for example 'v isions' in the abstract, 'v ision' in the introduction, 'Ã flux' in the introduction, 'asscioated' in the Fig. 6 caption, and 'Diûusion' in the Fig. 1 caption. A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.
The main text quotes the NN/NNN barrier as Delta V ~ 0.035|J|, while SM Sec. S2 defines E_barrier = Delta V(r=2) - Delta V(r=3) and extrapolates it to 0.0403(5)|J|. Please reconcile these values and specify exactly which pair separation defines the barrier used for T_freezing.
It would greatly improve readability if the expected asymptotic forms t^{-1} ln t and t^{-2} were drawn as dashed lines over the fitting windows, and if the run-to-run spread were shown as shaded bands rather than only averaged curves.
The finite-size discussion of Dirac-point folding for system sizes not divisible by 3 is careful, but the main text should state explicitly whether the N = 60 x 60 results (which are divisible by 3) are representative of generic system sizes, since the SM shows the same behavior for 3L, 3L+1, and 3L+2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kMC simulation is parameter-free, its temperature scales are derived from the same explicitly stated Majorana-energy input rather than fitted, and the observed power laws are benchmarked against independent analytic results.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a kinetic Monte Carlo simulation whose only physical inputs are the Kitaev Majorana spectrum for each vison configuration (SM Eq. S6) and the explicitly stated time-scale-separation assumptions tau_M, tau_2 << tau_1. The Glauber-type rates (SM Eq. S13) are constructed from these energies, so the freezing and crossover scales are self-consistent consequences of the model, not parameters fitted to the simulated densities. The high-temperature rho ~ t^-1 ln t behavior is matched to the independent A+A -> empty reaction-diffusion result (refs 33-41), and the intermediate-temperature rho ~ t^-2 behavior is matched to a mean-field terminal-velocity rate equation (ref 42); neither exponent is obtained by fitting. Tint (~0.04|J|) is estimated from Kitaev's 0.3|J| creation cost minus the 0.26|J| pair-annihilation gain, and Tfreezing (~0.006|J|) is derived from the computed barrier ~0.035|J| with a stated 1% activation criterion; these are interpretations of the input energy landscape, not circular reductions. The only fitted quantity, tau0 ~ 2.0 for the initial transient, is explicitly labeled an effective lifetime and is not presented as a prediction. The self-citations (refs 40, 44, 49) are supporting analogies or computational methods and are not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. A substantive modeling caveat remains: the rates use the internal Majorana energy E(C) rather than the free energy F(C) = -T ln Z_M(C), so the simulated barriers and freezing scales may not be the exact ones of the Kitaev thermal distribution; this is a correctness or approximation risk, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on the standard Kitaev solution plus the stated dynamical approximations; there are no fitted parameters controlling the main physics, and no invented entities. The only empirical fit (tau0) is descriptive.

free parameters (1)

tau0, effective lifetime of initial pair annihilation = 2.0 +/- 0.2 (MC steps/N)
Obtained from an exponential fit of the early vison density decay; descriptive and not used to construct the regime classification.

assumptions (5)

standard math Kitaev model's exact solvability: the Hamiltonian maps to free Majorana fermions coupled to a static Z2 gauge field, with visons as fluxes.
Invoked in the main text and SM Eqs. S1-S3; the energy of each vison configuration is computed by diagonalizing the quadratic Majorana Hamiltonian.
domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer-like separation: Majorana fermions are in quasi-equilibrium at the instantaneous vison configuration (tau_M << tau_1, tau_2).
Stated in the 'Simulation method' section; required for the use of equilibrium Fermi-Dirac occupation and the energy formula Eq. S6.
domain assumption Fast decoherence keeps the vison density matrix diagonal, so vison dynamics is classical Markovian with single-vison nearest-neighbor hops.
Stated in 'Simulation method' and SM S1 B; justifies the kMC algorithm, Eq. S13.
domain assumption Vison pair production is negligible for the temperatures studied (T < T_pair = 0.26 |J|) and is excluded from the simulation.
Footnote 32 in the main text; limits the validity of the results to post-quench temperatures below the pair-production threshold.
standard math The A+A -> empty reaction-diffusion theory and the mean-field terminal-velocity argument validly describe the high- and intermediate-T regimes.
Used in the sections 'Diffusion limited annihilation' and 'Terminal-velocity limited annihilation' (Eqs. 1-2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZE4UZ5K

@misc{pith2026241217774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZE4UZ5K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17774}
}

abstract

The relaxation dynamics of the Kitaev honeycomb model under a thermal quench is dominated by the quasi-stochastic diffusion and pair annihilation of visions, which are gapped flux excitations of an emergent $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge field of the Kitaev spin liquid. Both the diffusion energy barrier as well as the effective interactions between visons are mediated by the Majorana fermions which are fractionalized quasiparticles of the spin liquid. Through extensive kinetic Monte Carlo simulations, we show that the interplay between the thermal diffusion and nonlocal multi-vision interactions leads to a variety of temperature-dependent dynamical behaviors ranging from diffusion-limited and terminal-velocity-limited annihilation to dynamical arresting and freezing. Notably, we show that the freezing phenomenon is intimately related to the formation of metastable $\sqrt{3}\times\sqrt{3}$ vison crystals and a hidden coarsening of super-clusters associated with a broken $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17774 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Effective interaction potential between two visons as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Visons are frozen into small clusters of crystals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The system is partitioned into three domains (A, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (b). While the reduced diffusivity prevents wandering visons to reach the central crystallite, thus limiting the size of vison crystals, the fact that they are trapped in the same sublattice nonetheless leads to the growth of the super-cluster and the coarsening of th…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Different low-energy scales asscioated with the ther [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

terminal velocity

When the vison density becomes very dilute, the ﬁnite-size eﬀect of the long-range inter- action comes to play (as shown in the inset of Fig . 2 [29]), reducing the strength of the interaction, so thermal ﬂuctuations gradually overcome the “terminal velocity” eﬀect at the low density limit, and hence we partially recover the t−1 ln t behavior toward the e...

work page
[2]

J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Vaporization of Kitaev Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197205 (2014)

2014
[3]

J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Thermal frac- tionalization of quantum spins in a Kitaev model: Temperature-linear speciﬁc heat and coherent transport of Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115122 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

A similar coarsening of super-clusters was observed in the relaxation dynamics of Falicov-Kimball model [ 44]

Our simulations found a rather slow growth of the Z3 domains, indicating a slow aggregation of vison crystals with their own species. A similar coarsening of super-clusters was observed in the relaxation dynamics of Falicov-Kimball model [ 44]. Interestingly, the inception of the vison crystals is also the source of the arrested dynamics of visons. This i...

work page
[5]

Y3lgBWMDwA/d/6+Bi1UEl0JO4ec=

0.02 0.04 0.06 <latexit sha1_base64="Y3lgBWMDwA/d/6+Bi1UEl0JO4ec=">AAACAnicbVDLSsNAFJ34rPUVdSVuBovgqiYi1WVBBHFVwT6gCWEynbRDZ5IwMxFLGtz4K25cKOLWr3Dn3zhps9DWAxcO59zLvff4MaNSWda3sbC4tLyyWlorr29sbm2bO7stGSUCkyaOWCQ6PpKE0ZA0FVWMdGJBEPcZafvDy9xv3xMhaRTeqVFMXI76IQ0oRkpLnrnvcKQGGLG0lXmpIzjk6CE7Gd+MPbNiVa0J4DyxC1IBBRqe+eX0IpxwEirMkJRd24qVmyKhKGYkKzuJJDHCQ9QnXU1DxI...

work page
[6]

Ki- taev paramagnet

Above the pair-production temperature Tpair = 0 .26|J|, the detailed balance between thermal activation and pair-annihilation leads to an equilibrium state with ﬁnite vison density, also known as the “Ki- taev paramagnet” [ 2, 45]. As temperature is further low- ered below Tpair, spontaneous creation of visons is ex- ponentially suppressed and the dynamic...

work page
[7]

Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

2006
[8]

K. Feng, N. B. Perkins, and F. J. Burnell, Further in- sights into the thermodynamics of the Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224402 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 67 references

[9]

Sengupta, D

K. Sengupta, D. Sen, and S. Mondal, Exact Results for Quench Dynamics and Defect Production in a Two- Dimensional Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 077204 (2008)

2008
[10]

A. A. Patel and A. Dutta, Sudden quenching in the Ki- taev honeycomb model: Study of defect and heat gener- ation, Phys. Rev. B 86, 174306 (2012)

2012
[11]

Bhattacharya, S

U. Bhattacharya, S. Dasgupta, and A. Dutta, Dynamical merging of Dirac points in the periodically driven Kitaev honeycomb model, Eur. Phys. J. B 89, 216 (2016)

2016
[12]

Sameti and M

M. Sameti and M. J. Hartmann, Floquet engineering in superconducting circuits: From arbitrary spin-spin in- teractions to the Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. A 99, 012333 (2019)

2019
[13]

Nasu and Y

J. Nasu and Y. Motome, Nonequilibrium Majorana dy- namics by quenching a magnetic ﬁeld in Kitaev spin liq- uids, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033007 (2019)

2019
[14]

Rademaker, Quenching the Kitaev honeycomb model, SciPost Phys

L. Rademaker, Quenching the Kitaev honeycomb model, SciPost Phys. 7, 071 (2019)

2019
[15]

Zhu and M

G.-Y. Zhu and M. Heyl, Subdiﬀusive dynamics and crit- ical quantum correlations in a disorder-free localized Ki- taev honeycomb model out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L032069 (2021)

2021
[16]

H.-K. Jin, J. Knolle, and M. Knap, Fractionalized Prethermalization in a Driven Quantum Spin Liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 226701 (2023)

2023
[17]

Roberts, M

W. Roberts, M. Vogl, and G. A. Fiete, Fidelity of the Kitaev honeycomb model under a quench, Phys. Rev. B 109, L220406 (2024)

2024
[18]

Motome and J

Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Hunting Majorana Fermions in Kitaev Magnets, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 012002 (2020)

2020
[19]

Jackeli and G

G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott insulators in the strong spin-orbit coupling limit: From heisenberg to a quantum compass and kitaev models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009) . 6

2009
[20]

Takagi, T

H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of kitaev quantum spin liquids, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

2019
[21]

Trebst and C

S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Kitaev materials, Physics Re- ports 950, 1 (2022)

2022
[22]

E. H. Lieb, Flux Phase of the Half-Filled Band, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2158 (1994)

1994
[23]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

1977
[24]

Bray, Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Advances in Physics 43, 357 (1994)

A. Bray, Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Advances in Physics 43, 357 (1994)

1994
[25]

Jeli´ c and L

A. Jeli´ c and L. F. Cugliandolo, Quench dynamics of the 2d XY model, J. Stat. Mech. 2011, P02032 (2011)

2011
[26]

Castelnovo, R

C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Ther- mal Quenches in Spin Ice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 107201 (2010)

2010
[27]

A. P. Joy and A. Rosch, Dynamics of Visons and Thermal Hall Eﬀect in Perturbed Kitaev Models, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041004 (2022)

2022
[28]

Chen and I

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

2023
[29]

E. C. G. Sudarshan, P. M. Mathews, and J. Rau, Stochas- tic dynamics of quantum-mechanical systems, Phys. Rev. 121, 920 (1961)

1961
[30]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computa- tion and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edi- tion (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[31]

Marx and J

D. Marx and J. Hutter, Ab initio molecular dynamics: basic theory and advanced methods (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2009)

2009
[32]

Kraus, A

K. Kraus, A. B¨ ohm, J. Dollard, and W. Wootters, States, Eﬀects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quan- tum Theory , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983)

1983
[33]

Details are provided in Supplemental Materials
[34]

Stoll, K

E. Stoll, K. Binder, and T. Schneider, Monte carlo in- vestigation of dynamic critical phenomena in the two- dimensional kinetic ising model, Phys. Rev. B 8, 3266 (1973)

1973
[35]

Binder and H

K. Binder and H. M¨ uller-Krumbhaar, Investigation of metastable states and nucleation in the kinetic ising model, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2328 (1974)

1974
[36]

26, it is expected that the system will exhibit pair-production of visons, giving rise to the high- temperature peak in the speciﬁc heat of the Kitaev model [ 2]

Above T / |J| = 0 . 26, it is expected that the system will exhibit pair-production of visons, giving rise to the high- temperature peak in the speciﬁc heat of the Kitaev model [ 2]. As we focus on temperatures well below this thresh- old, we exclude the pair-production of vis...
[37]

Toussaint and F

D. Toussaint and F. Wilczek, Particle–antiparticle an- nihilation in diﬀusive motion, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 2642 (1983)

1983
[38]

J. G. Amar and F. Family, Diﬀusion annihilation in one dimension and kinetics of the Ising model at zero tem- perature, Phys. Rev. A 41, 3258 (1990)

1990
[39]

Lindenberg, P

K. Lindenberg, P. Argyrakis, and R. Kopelman, Reaction-diﬀusion model for A+A reaction, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 99, 7542 (1995)

1995
[40]

V. V. Ginzburg, L. Radzihovsky, and N. A. Clark, Self-consistent model of an annihilation-diﬀusion reac- tion with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. E 55, 395 (1997)

1997
[41]

Sherrington, L

D. Sherrington, L. Davison, A. Buhot, and J. P. Garra- han, Glassy behaviour in simple kinetically constrained models: topological networks, lattice analogues and annihilation-diﬀusion, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14, 1673 (2002)

2002
[42]

P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and E. Ben-Naim, A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[43]

Yurke, A

B. Yurke, A. N. Pargellis, T. Kovacs, and D. A. Huse, Coarsening dynamics of the XY model, Phys. Rev. E 47, 1525 (1993)

1993
[44]

Shimizu and G.-W

K. Shimizu and G.-W. Chern, Crystallization dynamics of magnetic skyrmions in a frustrated itinerant magnet (2023), arXiv:2305.16182 [cond-mat.str-el]

2023 arXiv
[45]

P. L. Krapivsky, Reaction-diﬀusion processes with non- linear diﬀusion, Phys. Rev. E 86, 041113 (2012)

2012
[46]

O. Hart, M. Haroche, and C. Castelnovo, Long-range Coulomb interactions and nonhydrodynamic behavior in thermal quenches in spin ice, Phys. Rev. B 100, 184411 (2019)

2019
[47]

Zhang, Z

S.-S. Zhang, Z. Wang, G. B. Hal´ asz, and C. D. Batista, Vison Crystals in an Extended Kitaev Model on the Hon- eycomb Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 057201 (2019)

2019
[48]

Zhang, P

S. Zhang, P. Zhang, and G.-W. Chern, Anomalous phase separation in a correlated electron system: Machine- learning–enabled large-scale kinetic monte carlo simula- tions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2119957119 (2022)

2022
[49]

Do, S.-Y

S.-H. Do, S.-Y. Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.- H. Jang, J.-H. Park, K.-Y. Choi, and S. Ji, Majorana fermions in the Kitaev quantum spin system α -RuCl3, Nature Phys 13, 1079–1084 (2017)

2017
[50]

Behler and M

J. Behler and M. Parrinello, Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy sur- faces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146401 (2007)

2007
[51]

A. P. Bart´ ok, M. C. Payne, R. Kondor, and G. Cs´ anyi, Gaussian Approximation Potentials: The Accuracy of Quantum Mechanics, without the Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 136403 (2010)

2010
[52]

Zhang, J

L. Zhang, J. Han, H. Wang, R. Car, and W. E, Deep Potential Molecular Dynamics: A Scalable Model with the Accuracy of Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 143001 (2018)

2018
[53]

H. Suwa, J. S. Smith, N. Lubbers, C. D. Batista, G.-W. Chern, and K. Barros, Machine learning for molecular dynamics with strongly correlated electrons, Phys. Rev. B 99, 161107 (2019)

2019
[54]

E. K.-H. Lee, R. Schaﬀer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y. B. Kim, Heisenberg-kitaev model on the hyperhoneycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 89, 045117 (2014)

2014
[55]

Kimchi, J

I. Kimchi, J. G. Analytis, and A. Vishwanath, Three- dimensional quantum spin liquids in models of harmonic- honeycomb iridates and phase diagram in an inﬁnite- d approximation, Phys. Rev. B 90, 205126 (2014)

2014
[56]

Nahum and B

A. Nahum and B. Skinner, Entanglement and dynamics of diﬀusion-annihilation processes with majorana defects, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023288 (2020)

2020
[57]

Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid

C.-J. Lin and L. Zou, Reaction-diﬀusion dynamics in a ﬁbonacci chain: Interplay between classical and quantum behavior, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174305 (2021) . Supplemental Materials for “Thermal Quench Dynamics of Visons in Gapless Kitaev Spin Liquid” Yang Yang 1 and Gia-Wei Chern ...

2021
[58]

Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, A nnals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, A nnals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

2006
[59]

F. L. Pedrocchi, S. Chesi, and D. Loss, Physical solutions o f the Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165414 (2011)

2011
[60]

Zschocke and M

F. Zschocke and M. Vojta, Physical states and ﬁnite-size e ﬀects in Kitaev’s honeycomb model: Bond disorder, spin excitations, and NMR line shape, Phys. Rev. B 92, 014403 (2015)

2015
[61]

Zhang, Z

S.-S. Zhang, Z. Wang, G. B. Hal´ asz, and C. D. Batista, Viso n Crystals in an Extended Kitaev Model on the Honeycomb Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 057201 (2019)

2019
[62]

K. Feng, N. B. Perkins, and F. J. Burnell, Further insights in to the thermodynamics of the Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224402 (2020)

2020
[63]

Kraus, A

K. Kraus, A. B¨ ohm, J. Dollard, and W. Wootters, States, Eﬀects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quant um Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983)

1983
[64]

J. P. Cherian, S. Chakraborty, and S. Ghosh, On thermalizatio n of two-level quantum systems, Europhysics Letters 126, 40003 (2019)

2019
[65]

Bloch, Nuclear induction, Phys

F. Bloch, Nuclear induction, Phys. Rev. 70, 460 (1946)

1946
[66]

R. J. Glauber, Time-dependent statistics of the ising mod el, Journal of Mathematical Physics 4, 294 (1963)

1963
[67]

Besard, C

T. Besard, C. Foket, and B. De Sutter, Eﬀective Extensible P rogramming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 10.1109/TPDS.2018.287206 4 (2018), arXiv:1712.03112 [cs.PL]

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

terminal velocity

When the vison density becomes very dilute, the ﬁnite-size eﬀect of the long-range inter- action comes to play (as shown in the inset of Fig . 2 [29]), reducing the strength of the interaction, so thermal ﬂuctuations gradually overcome the “terminal velocity” eﬀect at the low density limit, and hence we partially recover the t−1 ln t behavior toward the e...

work page

[2] [2]

J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Vaporization of Kitaev Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197205 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Thermal frac- tionalization of quantum spins in a Kitaev model: Temperature-linear speciﬁc heat and coherent transport of Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115122 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

A similar coarsening of super-clusters was observed in the relaxation dynamics of Falicov-Kimball model [ 44]

Our simulations found a rather slow growth of the Z3 domains, indicating a slow aggregation of vison crystals with their own species. A similar coarsening of super-clusters was observed in the relaxation dynamics of Falicov-Kimball model [ 44]. Interestingly, the inception of the vison crystals is also the source of the arrested dynamics of visons. This i...

work page

[5] [5]

Y3lgBWMDwA/d/6+Bi1UEl0JO4ec=

0.02 0.04 0.06 <latexit sha1_base64="Y3lgBWMDwA/d/6+Bi1UEl0JO4ec=">AAACAnicbVDLSsNAFJ34rPUVdSVuBovgqiYi1WVBBHFVwT6gCWEynbRDZ5IwMxFLGtz4K25cKOLWr3Dn3zhps9DWAxcO59zLvff4MaNSWda3sbC4tLyyWlorr29sbm2bO7stGSUCkyaOWCQ6PpKE0ZA0FVWMdGJBEPcZafvDy9xv3xMhaRTeqVFMXI76IQ0oRkpLnrnvcKQGGLG0lXmpIzjk6CE7Gd+MPbNiVa0J4DyxC1IBBRqe+eX0IpxwEirMkJRd24qVmyKhKGYkKzuJJDHCQ9QnXU1DxI...

work page

[6] [6]

Ki- taev paramagnet

Above the pair-production temperature Tpair = 0 .26|J|, the detailed balance between thermal activation and pair-annihilation leads to an equilibrium state with ﬁnite vison density, also known as the “Ki- taev paramagnet” [ 2, 45]. As temperature is further low- ered below Tpair, spontaneous creation of visons is ex- ponentially suppressed and the dynamic...

work page

[7] [7]

Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

2006

[8] [8]

K. Feng, N. B. Perkins, and F. J. Burnell, Further in- sights into the thermodynamics of the Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224402 (2020)

work page 2020