Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Spiral Phase and Phase Diagram of the $S$=1/2 XXZ Model on the Shastry-Sutherland Lattice

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-1/2 XXZ model on the Shastry-Sutherland lattice hosts a previously unreported incommensurate spiral phase at small anisotropy.

desk verdict A new spiral phase in the XXZ Shastry-Sutherland model is plausible but rests on Ly=6 DMRG without width extrapolation; worth refereeing with concrete requests for wider checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.22924 v2 pith:XHUA35A4 submitted 2026-01-30 cond-mat.str-el

Zhengpeng Yuan , Muwei Wu , Dao-Xin Yao , Han-Qing Wu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Shastry-SutherlandlatticeXXZmodelspiralphaseincommensuratemagneticorderfrustratedmagnetismquantumdiagramDMRGplaquette
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 aims to settle the ground-state phase diagram of the S=1/2 XXZ model on the Shastry-Sutherland lattice—a frustrated two-dimensional magnet built from orthogonal dimers—and to identify the nature of each phase. Combining exact diagonalization, cluster mean-field theory, and cylinder DMRG, the authors argue that the intermediate plaquette phase is the empty-plaquette state at isotropy, that this phase narrows and vanishes as the XXZ anisotropy Δ moves away from 1, and that a new incommensurate coplanar spiral phase appears at small Δ (roughly Δ≲0.72) between the dimer phase and the xy-plane antiferromagnet. If correct, the model has five ground-state phases, and the proximity of the spiral, empty-plaquette, and xy-AFM orders near their boundaries offers a mechanism for the spin-liquid-like behavior observed in rare-earth Shastry-Sutherland compounds such as RE2Be2GeO7. A sympathetic reader should care because this adds a new phase to a model that has been studied for decades, and it gives a concrete, testable target for experiments on anisotropic Shastry-Sutherland materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a three-method numerical protocol. Exact diagonalization on a 32-site torus with level spectroscopy identifies first-order and continuous transition candidates through ground-state and excited-state level crossings. Cluster mean-field theory with DMRG as a solver on up to 8×8 clusters measures dimer, plaquette, and magnetic order parameters, distinguishing the empty-plaquette from the full-plaquette pattern. The decisive tool for the spiral phase is DMRG on Lx=24, Ly=6 cylinders with open boundary along the long direction and periodic boundary around the circumference; the identification of the spiral uses the static spin structure factor's magnetic Bragg peaks

What would settle it

Compute the spin structure factor for the Δ=0 model at g≈0.65 on an Ly=8 (or wider) cylinder, or with an infinite tensor network; if the two incommensurate Bragg peaks either collapse to M=(π,π) or disappear, the spiral phase is a finite-width artifact. A second check is the decay of spin correlations along the cylinder: quasi-power-law oscillatory decay on Ly=8 would support the spiral, while exponential decay would rule it out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ground-state phase diagram of the S=1/2 XXZ Shastry-Sutherland model contains five distinct phases: a dimer phase, an empty-plaquette (EP) valence-bond-solid phase, a z-axis antiferromagnet, an xy-plane antiferromagnet, and a previously unreported incommensurate coplanar spiral phase at small anisotropy (Δ≲0.72) and intermediate coupling g=J/J'. The EP phase, found to be the stable plaquette phase at Δ=1, narrows as Δ deviates from unity and eventually vanishes; at Δ=0 the system passes directly from the dimer phase to the spiral phase through a first-order transition, then to the xy-AFM phase. The spiral is identified in DMRG calculations on long cylinders: the

Load-bearing premise

The spiral phase is inferred from DMRG on 6-site-wide cylinders using a fixed plaquette-order threshold and the position of the magnetic Bragg peak, rather than a systematic extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit; if the incommensurate order melts or becomes commensurate on wider cylinders, the new phase and the boundaries around it would shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the spiral phase is correct, the XXZ Shastry-Sutherland model has five ground-state phases, and the small-Δ intermediate region is not a plaquette phase but a coplanar incommensurate magnet.
  • At Δ=0, the dimer-to-spiral transition is first-order, and the spiral's pitch continuously evolves until the magnetic Bragg peaks reach (π,π), where the xy-AFM order takes over.
  • The empty-plaquette phase is restricted to a narrowing window around Δ=1; for Δ≳1.5 it disappears, giving way directly to z-AFM order.
  • The proximity of EP, spiral, and xy-AFM boundaries near Δ≈0.7–1 offers a plausible explanation for the spin-liquid-like behavior in RE2Be2GeO2-type materials, as the competing orders can suppress long-range order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that other Shastry-Sutherland-like magnets with easy-plane anisotropy may host incommensurate spiral order rather than a quantum spin liquid; a neutron-scattering experiment on an XXZ-type Shastry-Sutherland material could look for magnetic Bragg peaks at incommensurate wavevectors.
  • Because the authors' EP-spiral boundary is based on a fixed plaquette-order threshold on Ly=6 cylinders, a systematic width scaling (Ly=8, 10) or an infinite tensor-network calculation could confirm whether the spiral phase survives the thermodynamic limit; this is a direct testable extension of their criterion.
  • The reported vanishing of the spiral at Δ≈0.72 with a possible nearby deconfined quantum critical point suggests the anisotropy axis is a natural tuning knob to search for a DQCP in this model, which the authors leave for future work.
  • A classical or semiclassical analysis of the same Hamiltonian could predict the spiral pitch as a function of g and Δ; comparing the DMRG pitch angle to that prediction would clarify how quantum fluctuations renormalize the classical ordering wavevector.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the ground-state phase diagram of the S=1/2 XXZ model on the Shastry-Sutherland lattice using ED (32-site torus), cluster mean-field theory (CMFT) with DMRG as an impurity solver, and DMRG on Lx=24, Ly=4,6 cylinders. The main claims are: (i) at Δ=1 the intermediate plaquette phase is an empty plaquette (EP) phase, which narrows and eventually disappears as Δ deviates from 1; (ii) a previously unreported incommensurate coplanar spiral phase exists at small Δ (Δ≲0.72) between the dimer phase and the xy-AFM phase; and (iii) competition among EP, spiral, and xy-AFM phases near their boundaries may explain spin-liquid-like behavior in RE2Be2GeO7-type materials. The spiral is identified from DMRG structure factors showing two incommensurate Bragg peaks near (π,π), quasi-power-law real-space correlations, and an elongated-cluster CMFT vector-order plot.

Significance. If the central spiral claim holds, this is a substantive addition to the phase diagram of a canonical frustrated quantum magnet: a new coplanar incommensurate phase in the S=1/2 XXZ Shastry-Sutherland model, with plausible relevance to rare-earth Shastry-Sutherland compounds. The paper is methodologically ambitious, combining ED, CMFT, and DMRG, and it is candid about known limitations, including the difficulty of Ly≥8 DMRG and the mean-field artifact in CMFT dimer-to-EP boundaries. The existence of the spiral is supported by multiple independent signatures (structure-factor peaks, correlation decay, CMFT vector order) and the paper explicitly lists its own limitations in Sec. III.D. However, the thermodynamic-limit statement rests on Ly=6 cylinders without systematic width extrapolation, and key phase boundaries are set by an ad hoc plaquette threshold and a Bragg-peak criterion. The significance is therefore conditional: the phase is plausible and well motivated, but the current evidence is not yet at the standard needed to firmly establish a new phase in the 2D thermodynamic limit.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.C and Fig. 5] The central new claim—a spiral phase at small Δ—is established almost entirely from DMRG on Ly=6 cylinders with Lx=24. There is no systematic cylinder-width extrapolation of the incommensurate wavevector Q, the Bragg-peak intensity, or the correlation exponent. The single Ly=8 point in Fig. 5(c) is at one (g,Δ) and is not a width scan. Since periodic boundary conditions along y can pin helical order in quasi-1D, and the paper itself reports non-negligible Ly effects near Δ=1 (DMRG gives g≈0.72 vs the literature 0.77–0.828), the thermodynamic stability of the spiral needs a width-dependence check at a representative point such as Δ=0, g=0.65, or corroboration from an infinite-PEPS/other 2D method. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Sec. IV highlight the spiral as a previously unreported phase.
  2. [Sec. III.C, plaquette-order threshold] The EP–spiral and EP–xy-AFM boundaries are determined using the criterion m_p ≥ 5.0×10^-3, adopted because Ly≥8 DMRG is not well converged. This threshold is described as 'practical' without a finite-size scaling justification; a threshold of 5×10^-3 is small compared to typical DMRG truncation errors and edge effects on a 24×6 cylinder. The inferred boundaries in Fig. 6(h) could shift substantially if the threshold were varied. The cited Refs. [67–71] use similar criteria in other models, but they do not establish the validity of this specific threshold for this model. Please provide either a scaling analysis of m_p with Ly, a sensitivity test showing that the boundaries are stable over a range of thresholds, or a statement of the resulting uncertainty in the phase diagram.
  3. [Sec. III.C, ICM-to-xy-AFM transition] The transition from the incommensurate phase to the xy-AFM phase is identified by the condition that the magnetic Bragg peak reaches the M=(π,π) point (Fig. 5(c)). For a genuine incommensurate-to-commensurate transition one would expect a characteristic locking behavior or an order-parameter change, but no second-derivative feature is seen in Fig. 5(a), and the authors attribute its absence to finite-size effects. The value g_c2≈0.69 is therefore not strongly pinned. The paper should quantify the accuracy of this criterion, for example by showing how the structure-factor peak moves with Lx and Ly and by estimating the error bar on g_c2. This is directly relevant to the phase diagram in Fig. 6(h) and Fig. 1(b).
  4. [Sec. III.D, CMFT vector-order confirmation] The CMFT confirmation of the spiral uses a 12×4 cluster at a single point (Δ=0, g=0.65) and is explicitly 'informed by the DMRG results.' While the independent CMFT calculation does reproduce coplanar spiral order, its width (Ly=4) is smaller than the DMRG cylinders used for the phase diagram, and the cluster boundary can bias the spiral pitch. This does not invalidate the result, but it is weaker corroboration than, say, a CMFT width scan or a 2D tensor-network calculation. Please clarify how sensitive the spiral pitch and the vector-order magnitude are to the cluster dimensions in CMFT.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II] Typo: 'renomalization' should be 'renormalization' in the DMRG paragraph.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The expression for m_F^d appears malformed: '⟨Sr2 Sr4 >−< S r1 Sr3 ⟩' mixes angle-bracket conventions. Please rewrite with consistent notation.
  3. [Sec. III.C, Fig. 5(d)] The claim of 'quasi-power-law decay' is central to identifying the spiral as a quasi-long-range ordered phase, but no fit details, exponents, or error bars are given. Please provide the fitted algebraic decay form and, if possible, compare with the exponential decay seen at g=0.70 quantitatively.
  4. [Sec. III.A and Fig. 2(f)] The ED phase diagram suggests a plaquette phase at Δ=0, but later DMRG shows this is a finite-size effect. Consider adding a note in the Fig. 2 caption or the main text to prevent readers from interpreting the ED Δ=0 point as a physical plaquette phase.
  5. [Sec. III.B] The statement that the FP phase has higher energy than the EP phase in their coexistence region is not backed by a quantitative energy comparison in the text. A plot or table of the CMFT energies would make this more convincing.
  6. [Sec. IV] The sentence 'The competition between the EP, spiral, and xy-AFM phases near their boundaries provides a plausible explanation...' is framed as a conjecture, but the abstract states it more assertively. Please soften the abstract to match the Discussion's cautious tone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spiral-phase claim is produced by independent DMRG and CMFT calculations with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Eq. (1) is the untuned Hamiltonian, and the phase diagram is obtained by scanning g and Δ with ED, CMFT, and DMRG; no parameter is fitted to the quantities later called predictions. The spiral phase is identified from DMRG quantities that are not inputs to the calculation: the position of the magnetic Bragg peak in S(q) (Fig. 5(b,c)), oscillatory quasi-power-law real-space correlations (Fig. 5(d)), and the near-zero plaquette order (Fig. 5(c) inset). The CMFT vector plot in Fig. 7(b) is an independent self-consistent solution of the same Hamiltonian; the statement "Informed by the DMRG results" refers only to choosing a 12×4 cluster at g=0.65, not to injecting the DMRG output into the mean-field equations, so there is no reduction of the conclusion to an input. Phase-boundary criteria (m_p ≥ 5×10^-3; Bragg peak reaching M) are operational definitions, not fitted parameters, and the paper supports the ICM-to-xy-AFM assignment with real-space decay behavior at g=0.70,0.72. Self-citations [62,63] are cited only as examples of ED level-spectroscopy methodology alongside many external refs [57-61] and are not load-bearing. The paper's own caveats about Ly≤6, lack of a systematic width extrapolation, and the Δ=1 boundary shift are robustness/finite-size concerns for the central claim, but they are not circularity: the claim is generated by forward calculations, not by an equation equivalent to its own input.

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

The central claim depends on the assumed model, the finite-size DMRG inference, and the CMFT approximation. The only fitted parameter is the hand-chosen plaquette-order threshold; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • plaquette order threshold m_p = 5.0e-3
    Hand-chosen criterion to decide long-range plaquette order on finite Ly=6 cylinders; influences the EP phase boundary width. Not a fitted constant of the model.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The S=1/2 XXZ model (Eq. 1) captures the magnetic interactions of Shastry-Sutherland materials of interest.
    The entire phase diagram is computed for this model; transfer to materials like RE2Be2GeO7 assumes the model is applicable.
  • domain assumption Ground-state phases on the infinite 2D lattice can be inferred from finite cylinders with Ly=6 and truncation error <1e-6.
    DMRG results are the decisive evidence for the spiral phase; the authors acknowledge Ly=8 is hard and Ly=6 finite-size effects remain near Δ=1.
  • domain assumption Cluster mean-field theory with boundary Weiss field approximates inter-cluster correlations adequately for phase identification.
    CMFT is used to confirm the coplanar spiral; mean-field treatment of strong dimer bonds is known to shift the dimer-EP transition, acknowledged by authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spiral Phase and Phase Diagram of the $S$=1/2 XXZ Model on the Shastry-Sutherland Lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHUA35A4

@misc{pith2026260122924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spiral Phase and Phase Diagram of the $S$=1/2 XXZ Model on the Shastry-Sutherland Lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHUA35A4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22924}
}
abstract

We investigate the ground-state phase diagram of the $S$=1/2 XXZ model on the two-dimensional Shastry-Sutherland lattice using exact diagonalization (ED), density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG), and cluster mean-field theory (CMFT) with DMRG as a solver. In the isotropic case ($\Delta=1$), CMFT results reveal an intermediate empty plaquette (EP) phase that has a lower energy than the full plaquette (FP) phase. However, due to mean-field artifacts, CMFT alone is not suitable for accurately determining phase boundaries. Therefore, we combined three methods to map out the reliable phase diagram. Our calculations show that the EP phase narrows as $\Delta$ deviates from unity and eventually vanishes. More importantly, we identify a spiral phase at small $\Delta$, which has not been reported in previous studies. This phase is clearly captured by DMRG simulations on long cylindrical geometries. The competition between the EP, spiral, and $xy$-AFM phases near their boundaries provides a plausible explanation for the emergent spin-liquid-like behavior in RE$_2$Be$_2$GeO$_2$, while shedding new light on the role of XXZ anisotropy in the Shastry-Sutherland XXZ model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22924 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Shastry-Sutherland lattice and three clusters used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-e) Exact diagonalization (ED) energy spectra for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) and (d) illustrate the bond energy and magnetic order strength on each site for the E-type and F-type 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a-c) The order parameter as a function of g for E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Logarithm of the absolute second derivative of the ground-state energy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) First derivative of the ground-state energy with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Phase diagram obtained from ED, CMFT, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Spiral and Mixed Plaquette-Dimer Phases in the $S=1$ and $3/2$ Shastry-Sutherland Heisenberg Model

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    DMRG and CMFT calculations reveal intermediate spiral and mixed plaquette-dimer phases for S=1 and S=3/2 on the Shastry-Sutherland lattice, with a global S-g phase diagram constructed from known limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sriram Shastry and B

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

    1981

  2. [2]

    Kageyama, K

    H. Kageyama, K. Yoshimura, R. Stern, N. V. Mushnikov, K. Onizuka, M. Kato, K. Kosuge, C. P. Slichter, T. Goto, and Y. Ueda, Exact Dimer Ground State and Quan- tized Magnetization Plateaus in the Two-Dimensional Spin System SrCu 2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3168 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Exact Dimer Ground State of the Two Dimensional Heisenberg Spin System SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3701 (1999)

    1999

  4. [4]

    T. Waki, K. Arai, M. Takigawa, Y. Saiga, Y. Uwatoko, H. Kageyama, and Y. Ueda, A Novel Ordered Phase in SrCu2(BO3)2 under High Pressure, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan76, 073710 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    Haravifard, A

    S. Haravifard, A. Banerjee, J. C. Lang, G. Srajer, D. M. Silevitch, B. D. Gaulin, H. A. Dabkowska, and T. F. Rosenbaum, Continuous and discontinuous quan- tum phase transitions in a model two-dimensional mag- net, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 2286 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Takigawa, M

    M. Takigawa, M. Horvati´ c, T. Waki, S. Kr¨ amer, C. Berthier, F. L´ evy-Bertrand, I. Sheikin, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, and F. Mila, Incomplete Devil’s Staircase in the Magnetization Curve of SrCu 2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 067210 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    M. E. Zayed, C. R¨ uegg, T. Str¨ assle, U. Stuhr, B. Roessli, M. Ay, J. Mesot, P. Link, E. Pomjakushina, M. Stingaciu, K. Conder, and H. M. Rønnow, Correlated Decay of Triplet Excitations in the Shastry-Sutherland Compound SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 067201 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Theory of the orthogonal dimer Heisenberg spin model for SrCu 2(BO3)2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter15, R327 (2003)

    2003

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Haravifard, D

    S. Haravifard, D. Graf, A. E. Feiguin, C. D. Batista, J. C. Lang, D. M. Silevitch, G. Srajer, B. D. Gaulin, H. A. Dabkowska, and T. F. Rosenbaum, Crystallization of spin superlattices with pressure and field in the layered magnet SrCu2(BO3)2, Nature Communications7, 11956 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    J. Guo, G. Sun, B. Zhao, L. Wang, W. Hong, V. A. Sidorov, N. Ma, Q. Wu, S. Li, Z. Y. Meng, A. W. Sand- vik, and L. Sun, Quantum Phases of SrCu 2(BO3)2 from High-Pressure Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 206602 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    J. L. Jim´ enez, S. P. G. Crone, E. Fogh, M. E. Za- yed, R. Lortz, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder, A. M. L¨ auchli, L. Weber, S. Wessel, A. Honecker, B. Normand, C. R¨ uegg, P. Corboz, H. M. Rønnow, and F. Mila, A quantum magnetic analogue to the critical point of wa- ter, Nature5...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Z. Shi, S. Dissanayake, P. Corboz, W. Steinhardt, D. Graf, D. M. Silevitch, H. A. Dabkowska, T. F. Rosenbaum, F. Mila, and S. Haravifard, Discovery of quantum phases in the Shastry-Sutherland compound SrCu2(BO3)2 under extreme conditions of field and pres- sure, Nature Communi...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Y. Cui, L. Liu, H. Lin, K.-H. Wu, W. Hong, X. Liu, C. Li, Z. Hu, N. Xi, S. Li, R. Yu, A. W. Sandvik, and W. Yu, Proximate deconfined quantum critical point in SrCu2(BO3)2, Science380, adc9487 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    M. E. Zayed, C. R¨ uegg, J. Larrea J., A. M. L¨ auchli, C. Panagopoulos, S. S. Saxena, M. Ellerby, D. F. McMorrow, T. Str¨ assle, S. Klotz, G. Hamel, R. A. Sadykov, V. Pomjakushin, M. Boehm, M. Jim´ enez–Ruiz, A. Schneidewind, E. Pomjakushina, M. Stingaciu, K. Conder, and H. M...

    2017

  7. [15]

    J. Guo, P. Wang, C. Huang, B.-B. Chen, W. Hong, S. Cai, J. Zhao, J. Han, X. Chen, Y. Zhou, S. Li, Q. Wu, Z. Y. Meng, and L. Sun, Deconfined quantum critical point lost in pressurized SrCu 2(BO3)2, Communications Physics8, 75 (2025). 10

    2025

  8. [16]

    J. Lou, T. Suzuki, K. Harada, and N. Kawashima, Study of the shastry sutherland model using multi-scale entan- glement renormalization ansatz (2012), arXiv:1212.1999 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Koga and N

    A. Koga and N. Kawakami, Quantum Phase Transitions in the Shastry-Sutherland Model for SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 4461 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    C. H. Chung, J. B. Marston, and S. Sachdev, Quan- tum phases of the Shastry-Sutherland antiferromagnet: Application to SrCu 2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. B64, 134407 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    L¨ auchli, S

    A. L¨ auchli, S. Wessel, and M. Sigrist, Phase diagram of the quadrumerized Shastry-Sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B66, 014401 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    J. Y. Lee, Y.-Z. You, S. Sachdev, and A. Vishwanath, Sig- natures of a Deconfined Phase Transition on the Shastry- Sutherland Lattice: Applications to Quantum Critical SrCu2(BO3)2, Phys. Rev. X9, 041037 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Liu, X.-T

    W.-Y. Liu, X.-T. Zhang, Z. Wang, S.-S. Gong, W.-Q. Chen, and Z.-C. Gu, Quantum Criticality with Emergent Symmetry in the Extended Shastry-Sutherland Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 026502 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Corboz and F

    P. Corboz and F. Mila, Tensor network study of the shastry-sutherland model in zero magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B87, 115144 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    N. Xi, H. Chen, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Plaquette valence bond solid to antiferromagnet transition and deconfined quantum critical point of the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B107, L220408 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    C. Boos, S. P. G. Crone, I. A. Niesen, P. Corboz, K. P. Schmidt, and F. Mila, Competition between intermediate plaquette phases in SrCu 2(BO3)2 under pressure, Phys. Rev. B100, 140413 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    J. Yang, A. W. Sandvik, and L. Wang, Quantum crit- icality and spin liquid phase in the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B105, L060409 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and A. W. Sandvik, Quantum spin liquid phase in the shastry–sutherland model detected by an improved level spectroscopic method, Chin. Phys. Lett.39, 077502 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Kele¸ s and E

    A. Kele¸ s and E. Zhao, Rise and fall of plaquette or- der in the shastry-sutherland magnet revealed by pseud- ofermion functional renormalization group, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041115 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    L. L. Viteritti, R. Rende, A. Parola, S. Goldt, and F. Becca, Transformer wave function for two dimensional frustrated magnets: Emergence of a spin-liquid phase in the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B111, 134411 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Corboz, Y

    P. Corboz, Y. Zhang, B. Ponsioen, and F. Mila, Quan- tum spin liquid phase in the shastry-sutherland model revealed by high-precision infinite projected entangled- pair states (2025), arXiv:2502.14091 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    G. Duan, R. Yu, and C. Liu, Theory of magnetism for rare-earth magnets on the shastry-sutherland lattice with non-kramers ions, Phys. Rev. B110, 214410 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    J. Wang, H. Li, N. Xi, Y. Gao, Q.-B. Yan, W. Li, and G. Su, Plaquette singlet transition, magnetic barocaloric effect, and spin supersolidity in the shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 116702 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    H. Chen, G. Duan, C. Liu, Y. Cui, W. Yu, Z. Y. Xie, and R. Yu, Spin excitations of the shastry-sutherland model – altermagnetism and proximate deconfined quantum crit- icality (2024), arXiv:2411.00301 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zhang and P

    Z. Zhang and P. Sengupta, Generalized plaquette state in the anisotropic shastry-sutherland model, Phys. Rev. B92, 094440 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Senthil, A

    T. Senthil, A. Vishwanath, L. Balents, S. Sachdev, and M. P. A. Fisher, Deconfined quantum critical points, Sci- ence303, 1490 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Y. Cui, R. Yu, and W. Yu, Deconfined Quantum Critical Point: A Review of Progress, Chinese Physics Letters42, 047503 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Chen and Z.-X

    L. Chen and Z.-X. Liu, Deconfined gapless phases and criticalities in shastry-sutherland antiferromagnet (2025), arXiv:2503.20122 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025

  29. [37]

    Y. Cui, K. Du, Z. Wu, S. Li, P. Yang, Y. Chen, X. Xu, H. Chen, C. Li, J. Liu, B. Wang, W. Hong, S. Li, Z. Xie, J. Cheng, R. Yu, and W. Yu, Two plaquette-singlet phases in the Shastry-Sutherland com- pound SrCu 2(BO3)2 (2024), arXiv:2411.00302 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Moliner, I

    M. Moliner, I. Rousochatzakis, and F. Mila, Emergence of one-dimensional physics from the distorted shastry- sutherland lattice, Phys. Rev. B83, 140414 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Ashtar, Y

    M. Ashtar, Y. Bai, L. Xu, Z. Wan, Z. Wei, Y. Liu, M. A. Marwat, and Z. Tian, Structure and Magnetic Properties of Melilite-Type Compounds RE 2Be2GeO7 (RE = Pr, Nd, Gd–Yb) with Rare-Earth Ions on Shas- try–Sutherland Lattice, Inorganic Chemistry60, 3626 (2021), pMID: 33635649

    2021

  32. [40]

    M. Pula, S. Sharma, J. Gautreau, S. K. P., A. Kanigel, M. D. Frontzek, T. N. Dolling, L. Clark, S. Dunsiger, A. Ghara, and G. M. Luke, Candidate for a quantum spin liquid ground state in the Shastry-Sutherland lattice material Yb2Be2GeO7, Phys. Rev. B110, 014412 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    N. Li, A. Brassington, M. F. Shu, Y. Y. Wang, H. Liang, Q. J. Li, X. Zhao, P. J. Baker, H. Kikuchi, T. Masuda, G. Duan, C. Liu, H. Wang, W. Xie, R. Zhong, J. Ma, R. Yu, H. D. Zhou, and X. F. Sun, Spinons in a new Shastry-Sutherland lattice magnet Pr 2Ga2BeO7 (2024), arXiv:2405...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. Liu, J. Zhou, L. Wang, Y. Cao, F. Song, Y. Han, J. Li, W. Tong, Z. Xia, Z. Ouyang, J. Zhao, H. Guo, and Z. Tian, Large magnetocaloric effect in the shastry- sutherland lattice compound Yb 2Be2Geo7 with spin- disordered ground state, Phys. Rev. B110, 144445 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Flury, W

    S. Flury, W. J. Simeth, D. R. Yahne, M. Islam, I. Plokhikh, D. G. Mazzone, E. D. Bauer, P. F. S. Rosa, R. Sibille, O. Zaharko, D. J. Gawryluk, and M. Janoschek, Magnetic phase diagram of erb 4 as ex- plored by neutron scattering, Phys. Rev. B112, 224441 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    A. Liu, F. Song, Y. Cao, H. Ge, H. Bu, J. Zhou, Y. Qin, Q. Zeng, J. Li, L. Ling, W. Tong, J. Sheng, M. Yang, L. Wu, H. Guo, and Z. Tian, Distinct mag- netic ground states in shastry-sutherland lattice materi- als: Pr 2Be2Geo7 versus Nd2Be2Geo7, Phys. Rev. B109, 184413 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    C. Liu, G. Duan, and R. Yu, Theory of rare-earth Kramers magnets on a shastry-sutherland lattice: dimer phases in the presence of strong spin-orbit coupling, npj Quantum Materials (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Ren, N.-H

    Y.-Z. Ren, N.-H. Tong, and X.-C. Xie, Cluster mean- field theory study of J1-J2 Heisenberg model on a square lattice, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter26, 115601 (2014). 11

    2014

  39. [47]

    Yamamoto, G

    D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, Quantum phase diagram of the triangular-latticexxzmodel in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 127203 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Yamamoto, A

    D. Yamamoto, A. Masaki, and I. Danshita, Quantum phases of hardcore bosons with long-range interactions on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B86, 054516 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Yamamoto, T

    D. Yamamoto, T. Ozaki, C. A. R. S´ a de Melo, and I. Dan- shita, First-order phase transition and anomalous hys- teresis of bose gases in optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A88, 033624 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    A. Du, Y. Y¨ u, and H. Liu, Expanded bethe–peierls ap- proximation for the blume–capel model, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications320, 387 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Yamamoto, Correlated cluster mean-field theory for spin systems, Phys

    D. Yamamoto, Correlated cluster mean-field theory for spin systems, Phys. Rev. B79, 144427 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    S. R. Hassan, L. de Medici, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Su- persolidity, entropy, and frustration:t−t ′ −vmodel of hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 76, 144420 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Yamamoto, I

    D. Yamamoto, I. Danshita, and C. A. R. S´ a de Melo, Dipolar bosons in triangular optical lattices: Quantum phase transitions and anomalous hysteresis, Phys. Rev. A85, 021601 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    L¨ uhmann, Cluster gutzwiller method for bosonic lattice systems, Phys

    D.-S. L¨ uhmann, Cluster gutzwiller method for bosonic lattice systems, Phys. Rev. A87, 043619 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Fishman, S

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

    2022

  48. [56]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, Code- base release 0.3 for ITensor, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    H. Suwa, A. Sen, and A. W. Sandvik, Level spectroscopy in a two-dimensional quantum magnet: Linearly dispers- ing spinons at the deconfined quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. B94, 144416 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Wang and A

    L. Wang and A. W. Sandvik, Critical level crossings and gapless spin liquid in the square-lattice spin-1/2 J1−J2 heisenberg antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 107202 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Nomura and M

    Y. Nomura and M. Imada, Dirac-type nodal spin liq- uid revealed by refined quantum many-body solver using neural-network wave function, correlation ratio, and level spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X11, 031034 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    T. Tang, B. Moritz, and T. P. Devereaux, Spectra of a gapped quantum spin liquid with a strong chiral excita- tion on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B106, 064428 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Wietek, S

    A. Wietek, S. Capponi, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Quantum electrodynamics in 2 + 1 dimensions as the organizing principle of a triangular lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X14, 021010 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Zheng, M

    Y. Zheng, M. Wu, D.-X. Yao, and H.-Q. Wu, Exact di- agonalization study of the triangular heisenberg model with four-spin ring-exchange interaction, Phys. Rev. B 111, 195145 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Wu, S.-S

    M. Wu, S.-S. Gong, D.-X. Yao, and H.-Q. Wu, Phase diagram and magnetic excitations ofJ 1 − −J3 heisenberg model on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B106, 125129 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    P. W. Anderson, An approximate quantum theory of the antiferromagnetic ground state, Phys. Rev.86, 694 (1952)

    1952

  57. [65]

    Lhuillier, Frustrated quantum magnets (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0502464 [cond-mat.str-el]

    C. Lhuillier, Frustrated quantum magnets (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0502464 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2005 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wietek, M

    A. Wietek, M. Schuler, and A. M. L¨ auchli, Studying continuous symmetry breaking using energy level spec- troscopy (2017), arXiv:1704.08622 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Zhu and S

    Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Spin liquid phase of theS= 1 2 J1 −J 2 Heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B92, 041105 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

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

    2017

  61. [69]

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

    2018

  62. [70]

    P. A. Maksimov, Z. Zhu, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Anisotropic-Exchange Magnets on a Triangular Lattice: Spin Waves, Accidental Degeneracies, and Dual Spin Liquids, Phys. Rev. X9, 021017 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    C. A. Gallegos, S. Jiang, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Phase Diagram of the Easy-Axis Triangular-Lattice J1−J2 Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 196702 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.