pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24695 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Control of the N\'eel vector in the quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice

Asliddin Khudoyberdiev , Dag-Bj\"orn Hering , Vanessa Sulaiman , G\"otz S. Uhrig This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el
keywords Néel vector switchinghoneycomb latticeantiferromagnetic ordersublattice magnetizationthreshold fieldsSchwinger boson mean-field theoryspintronics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The time-dependent Schwinger boson mean-field theory permits reorientation of the Néel vector in the quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice above a threshold field.

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

The paper shows that sublattice magnetization can be switched in the honeycomb lattice by applying an external field once it exceeds a threshold value. It first checks the method against equilibrium calculations using continuous similarity transformations to confirm that the approach remains reliable for this lower-symmetry lattice. The study then tracks the full switching dynamics and compares the resulting threshold fields to those found earlier for square and simple-cubic lattices. A clear pattern emerges: the threshold changes systematically with the lattice coordination number. This matters for designing materials in which antiferromagnetic order can be flipped rapidly and efficiently.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that the Néel vector in the quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice can be reoriented by a time-dependent magnetic field once the field strength surpasses a lattice-specific threshold. Equilibrium properties computed with the Schwinger boson mean-field theory agree with independent continuous similarity transformation results, supporting use of the method for the driven dynamics. The calculated threshold fields for the honeycomb lattice (coordination number three) stand in clear correspondence to the values previously obtained for the square lattice (coordination four) and the simple cubic lattice (coordination six).

What carries the argument

Time-dependent Schwinger boson mean-field theory applied to the honeycomb antiferromagnet, which evolves the sublattice magnetization under an external field and identifies the minimal field strength needed for full Néel-vector reversal.

If this is right

  • The switching threshold decreases as the lattice coordination number is lowered from six to three.
  • The mean-field framework remains usable for antiferromagnets that lack the high symmetry of hypercubic lattices.
  • Lattice geometry can be chosen to tune the field strength needed for order reversal.
  • The same dynamical equations that work for hypercubic cases also yield concrete thresholds for the honeycomb case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed coordination-number trend suggests that other two-dimensional lattices with coordination three or less may switch at still lower fields.
  • Materials such as transition-metal dichalcogenides or artificial honeycomb spin arrays could be tested directly for the predicted thresholds.
  • Extending the drive protocol to include staggered or in-plane fields might reveal additional low-energy switching paths not captured in the present out-of-plane setup.

Load-bearing premise

Equilibrium agreement between the mean-field theory and continuous similarity transformations is enough to guarantee that the same theory correctly describes the non-equilibrium switching trajectory.

What would settle it

A numerical or experimental determination of the minimal field strength required to switch the Néel vector in a honeycomb-lattice antiferromagnet that differs substantially from the mean-field prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24695 by Asliddin Khudoyberdiev, Dag-Bj\"orn Hering, G\"otz S. Uhrig, Vanessa Sulaiman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This classical illustration shows how the sublattice mag view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Honeycomb lattice with two nonequivalent sites. The sub view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The spin gap vs. the anisotropy parameter. The blue cir view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The sublattice magnetization dependence on the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dynamics of the occupations of the bosons and the view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The uniform threshold field and the spin gap dependence view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The classical illustration of the exchange-enhanced view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The dynamics of the sublattice magnetization under view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The dynamics of the magnetization and the spin gap view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The switching of antiferromagnetic order and its efficient control promise to enable ultrafast manipulation of data and large storage capacity. Recently, the time-dependent Schwinger boson mean-field theory has been successfully developed to study the N\'eel vector switching in hypercubic antiferromagnetic lattices. In the present article, we aim at demonstrating that the approach is a well-justified framework to capture the essentials of the switching process, even in low-symmetry quantum antiferromagnets. To this end, we show the possibility of the sublattice magnetization reorientation in the quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice. First, equilibrium properties of the honeycomb lattice are analyzed using the Schwinger boson mean-field theory and compared to the continuous similarity transformation method to justify the applicability of the approach. Then, the Schwinger boson mean-field theory is employed for switching process. We provide a comprehensive answer to the question what the threshold switching fields are when the coordination number of the lattice is varied. Indeed, the results of the study reveal a correspondence between lattice structures and the threshold fields by comparing them for the square and the simple cubic lattices and the honeycomb lattice. The findings of the present article extend the foundation for future theoretical and computational advancements in the field of antiferromagnetic switching. These advancements are of particular relevance for the development of ultrafast spintronic or magnonic devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies time-dependent Schwinger boson mean-field theory (SBMFT) to demonstrate Néel vector reorientation via sublattice magnetization switching in the quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice. Equilibrium properties are first benchmarked against the continuous similarity transformation method to justify the approach, after which the time-dependent formalism is used to extract switching threshold fields; these are compared to results on square and simple-cubic lattices to establish a correspondence between threshold values and lattice coordination number.

Significance. If the dynamic extension of SBMFT is reliable, the work usefully broadens the method beyond hypercubic lattices and supplies a systematic, coordination-number-based trend for switching thresholds across three lattices. The equilibrium benchmark against an independent technique (continuous similarity transformation) is a positive feature that strengthens the static foundation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section on switching process (following equilibrium analysis)] The justification for applying the time-dependent SBMFT (including equations of motion and mean-field decoupling under external drive) to the honeycomb lattice rests solely on the equilibrium comparison; no independent check is provided for the driven regime, which is load-bearing for the reported threshold fields.
  2. [Comparison of thresholds across lattices] The honeycomb lattice has coordination number z=3 and a Dirac-like magnon spectrum, implying stronger quantum fluctuations than on the square (z=4) or simple-cubic (z=6) lattices; the manuscript does not quantify how this affects the accuracy of the mean-field decoupling in the dynamic case or provide error estimates on the thresholds.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that equilibrium properties were 'checked' and thresholds 'obtained' but supplies no numerical values, error bars, or figure references; adding these would improve clarity.
  2. [Method section] Notation for the time-dependent constraint and the external-field term should be defined explicitly when first introduced, rather than carried over from prior hypercubic-lattice papers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the positive assessment of the work's significance. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The justification for applying the time-dependent SBMFT (including equations of motion and mean-field decoupling under external drive) to the honeycomb lattice rests solely on the equilibrium comparison; no independent check is provided for the driven regime, which is load-bearing for the reported threshold fields.

    Authors: We agree that the primary support for the time-dependent application comes from the equilibrium benchmark. The time-dependent formalism follows from the Heisenberg equations of motion under the identical mean-field decoupling used in the static case, with the external drive entering through the Zeeman term. This extension was previously validated on hypercubic lattices, and the equilibrium comparison to continuous similarity transformation confirms that the mean-field parameters are appropriate for the honeycomb lattice. We will revise the manuscript to include an explicit derivation of the driven equations of motion and a dedicated paragraph discussing the consistency of the approximation between static and dynamic regimes, while noting that a fully independent dynamical benchmark (e.g., via small-system numerics) lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The honeycomb lattice has coordination number z=3 and a Dirac-like magnon spectrum, implying stronger quantum fluctuations than on the square (z=4) or simple-cubic (z=6) lattices; the manuscript does not quantify how this affects the accuracy of the mean-field decoupling in the dynamic case or provide error estimates on the thresholds.

    Authors: We concur that z=3 and the Dirac magnon spectrum imply stronger quantum fluctuations on the honeycomb lattice relative to the square and simple-cubic cases. Within SBMFT these fluctuations are captured at the saddle-point level, which yields a consistent but approximate description across all lattices. Because the identical approximation is applied uniformly, the relative trend of threshold fields with coordination number remains meaningful. Quantitative error estimates would require a controlled expansion beyond mean-field (e.g., 1/S corrections or dynamical quantum Monte Carlo), which is outside the scope of this study. In the revised manuscript we will add a discussion paragraph that (i) recalls the known performance of SBMFT on lattices with varying z and (ii) states the expected limitations on absolute threshold values while preserving the reported coordination-number correspondence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: equilibrium validation against independent method supports extension to dynamics and new lattice

full rationale

The paper first computes equilibrium properties of the honeycomb lattice with Schwinger boson mean-field theory and directly compares them to results from the continuous similarity transformation method, an independent technique. This comparison is used to justify applying the same mean-field framework to the time-dependent switching dynamics. Threshold fields are then obtained as fresh computations for the honeycomb lattice and contrasted with prior results on square and cubic lattices. No equation reduces by construction to a fitted input, no self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claims, and the derivation remains self-contained against the external benchmark provided.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework relies on standard mean-field approximations whose validity is asserted via comparison to another method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1144 out tokens · 47564 ms · 2026-05-08T01:51:12.387965+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Introduction The ultrafast manipulation of magnetic order in spin- tronics has significance for the advancement of future terahertz data processing. Assuming precise control of the Néel vector, antiferromagnets are promising candi- dates in this respect because of their ultrafast spin dy- namics, while their potential for the high storage den- sity provid...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    sublattice magnetization

    Model and Method Our approach is based on the anisotropic quantum antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice with nearest neighbor interactions between the two magnetic sublattices. The Hamiltonian of the sys- tem reads ( ℏ = 1) ˆH0 = J X ⟨i, j⟩ χ 2 ( ˆS x i ˆS x j + ˆS y i ˆS y j) + ˆS z i ˆS z j , (1) where J is the exchange coupling co...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (19a) – (19c) and define the mean-field parameters

    Equilibrium state analysis 3.1 The system initialization First, we solve self-consistency Eqs. (19a) – (19c) and define the mean-field parameters. In order to ensure that we start from the correct initial state, we analyze the initial properties of the honeycomb lattice in terms of the Schwinger boson mean-field approach, i.e., the equilibrium properties....

    work page

  4. [5]

    75 ∆ /J SB-MFT Series expansions O(14) Second-order SW A CST with 0n generator DMRG DM-MFT Fig. 3. The spin gap vs. the anisotropy parameter. The blue cir- cles with dotted line are obtained by the SB-MFT as employed in this article. The orange line displays results of the plain series expansions around the Ising limit from Oitmaa et al. in Ref. 31. The g...

    work page

  5. [6]

    0 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0 χ

    work page

  6. [7]

    50 m SB-MFT Series expansions O(10) Second-order SW A CST with 0n generator DMRG DM-MFT Fig. 4. The sublattice magnetization dependence on the anisotropy parameter. The blue circles with dotted line depict the results of the SB-MFT. The orange line is generated from the results of the series expantions around the Ising limit from Oitmaa et al. in Ref. 31....

    work page

  7. [8]

    u” stands for “uniform

    Switching the sublattice magnetization via an exter- nal magnetic field The objective of this study is to invert the sublattice magnetization of honeycomb lattice, denoted by m, and transform it into its negative value −m. The claim is that this inversion can be attributed to the bit flip from 0 to 1 in storage devices. This process of flipping the anti- ...

    work page

  8. [9]

    Results and discussion of switching 5.1 Magnetization switching Figure 5 shows the result of the approach, namely suc- cessful switching of the sublattice magnetization in an anisotropic honeycomb lattice. The dynamics of the ex- pectation values of the occupation of bosons (blue and orange dashed lines) correspond to the temporal evo- lution of the magne...

    work page

  9. [10]

    0 χ =0.9 ⟨a† i ai⟩ ⟨b† i bi⟩ ⟨a† i ai⟩ + ⟨b† i bi⟩ m(t) ∆( t)/J − m(0) Fig. 5. The dynamics of the occupations of the bosons and the magnetization. The strength of the external magnetic field is hu = 0.645 J. The magenta colored dashed line shows the dynamics of the spin gap. The double-headed arrow shows the instant of the switching, i.e., the sign chang...

    work page

  10. [11]

    05 ·hthr u for t > 0 a) 0 20 40 60 80 t/J − 1 − 0

    4 m(t) hu = 1. 05 ·hthr u for t > 0 a) 0 20 40 60 80 t/J − 1 − 0. 4 − 0. 2

    work page

  11. [12]

    05 ·hthr u for 0 < t < t 1 t1: first minimum of m(t) b) 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 χ Fig

    4 m(t) hu = 1. 05 ·hthr u for 0 < t < t 1 t1: first minimum of m(t) b) 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 χ Fig. 6. The dynamics of the sublattice magnetization are shown for the range of anisotropies 0.8 ≤ χ < 1. Panel a) shows the dynam- ics for the case where the external field is applied at all times t > 0. In panel b), the field is turned...

    work page

  12. [14]

    exchange-enhanced switching

    0 ∆ /J, h thr u /J Tri markers - ∆ /J Triangle markers - hthr u /J simple cubic square honeycomb square root fits Fig. 7. The uniform threshold field and the spin gap dependence on the anisotropy parameter χ. The triangle markers indicate the values of hthr u while the tri markers show the value of the spin gap ∆. The solid lines are square root fits: hthr...

    work page

  13. [15]

    80 0 . 85 0 . 90 0 . 95 1 . 00 χ

    work page

  14. [16]

    3 hthr s /J simple cubic square honeycomb linear fits Fig. 9. The staggered threshold field dependence on the anisotropy parameter χ. The triangle markers correspond to the hthr s values while the solid lines are linear fits: hthr,α s,fit = zαdα(1 − χ), α ∈ { sc, sq, hc} where zα is the coordination number of the lattice and dα are the fit parameters with d...

    work page

  15. [17]

    05 ·hthr s for t > 0 a) 0 20 40 60 80 t/J − 1 − 0

    4 m(t) hs = 1. 05 ·hthr s for t > 0 a) 0 20 40 60 80 t/J − 1 − 0. 4 − 0. 2

    work page

  16. [18]

    05 ·hthr s for 0 < t < t 1 t1: first minimum of m(t) b) 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 χ Fig

    4 m(t) hs = 1. 05 ·hthr s for 0 < t < t 1 t1: first minimum of m(t) b) 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 χ Fig. 10. The dynamics of the sublattice magnetization under staggered switching field in the anisotropy range χ ∈ [0.8, 1). Panel a) shows the dynamics when the field is active at t > 0 whereas panel b) shows the dynamics for the case wh...

    work page

  17. [19]

    5 hs0 = 0.029 J m(t) ∆( t)/J h s(t)/J − 0. 04

    work page

  18. [20]

    04 χ =0.9 Fig. 11. The dynamics of the magnetization and the spin gap under a time-dependent pulse in Eq. (29). The shape of the pulse is shown by the blue solid line and the values of pulse amplitude are given on the y axis on the right-hand side. as reasonable compromise between short duration and efficient switching. 14) In Fig. 11, the dynamics of the ...

    work page

  19. [21]

    Previously, aforementioned switching has been shown in the square and simple cubic lattice using the time de- pendent SB-MFT

    Conclusion The aim of the paper was to show the possibility of the Néel vector switching in a quantum antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice by means of external magnetic fields. Previously, aforementioned switching has been shown in the square and simple cubic lattice using the time de- pendent SB-MFT. Here, we highlighted the applicability of the theory to...

    work page

  20. [22]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich: Nature Nanotechnology 11 (2016) 231

    work page 2016

  21. [23]

    Wadley, B

    P. Wadley, B. Howells, J. Železný, C. Andrews, V. Hills, R. P. Campion, V. Novák, K. Olejník, F. Maccherozzi, S. S. Dhesi, S. Y. Martin, T. Wagner, J. Wunderlich, F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, J. Kuneš, J. S. Chauhan, M. J. Grzybowski, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, B. L. Gallagher, and T. Jungwirth: Science 351 (2016) 587

    work page 2016

  22. [24]

    Meinert, D

    M. Meinert, D. Graulich, and T. Matalla-Wagner: Phys. Rev. Appl. 9 (2018) 064040

    work page 2018

  23. [25]

    Jourdan, J

    M. Jourdan, J. Bläßer, G. O. Gámez, S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, M. Fischer, Y. R. Niu, E. Golias, F. Maccherozzi, A. Kleibert, H. Stoll, and M. Kläui: Phys. Rev. B 112 (2025) 104408

    work page 2025

  24. [26]

    J. Zhou, S. Li, C. Wang, H. Jin, S. Xu, Z. Xiong, C. Jacobsen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Taufour, L. Zhao, H. Chen, C. R. Du, and H. Wang: Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 226701

    work page 2025

  25. [27]

    Behovits, A

    Y. Behovits, A. L. Chekhov, A. Ruge, R. Rouzegar, B. Rosinus Serrano, A. P. Fellows, B. John, M. Thämer, S. Reimers, F. Renner, T. Dannegger, U. Nowak, T. S. Seifert, M. Kläui, M. Jourdan, and T. Kampfrath: arXiv (2025). arXiv:2512.23397

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [28]

    Bolsmann, A

    K. Bolsmann, A. Khudoyberdiev, and G. S. Uhrig: PRX Quan- tum 4 (2023) 030332

    work page 2023

  27. [29]

    Yarmohammadi, P

    M. Yarmohammadi, P. M. Oppeneer, and J. K. Freericks: Phys. Rev. B 112 (2025) 094445

    work page 2025

  28. [30]

    Železný, H

    J. Železný, H. Gao, K. Výborný, J. Zemen, J. Mašek, A. Man- chon, J. Wunderlich, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth: Physical Review Letters 113 (2014) 157201

    work page 2014

  29. [31]

    H. V. Gomonay and V. M. Loktev: Phys. Rev. B 81 (2010) 144427

    work page 2010

  30. [32]

    Gomonay, T

    O. Gomonay, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova: Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 017202

    work page 2016

  31. [33]

    Y.-C. Liao, D. E. Nikonov, S. Dutta, S.-C. Chang, S. Mani- patruni, I. A. Young, and A. Naeemi: IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 56 (2020) 1

    work page 2020

  32. [34]

    Zhang, Z.-A

    S.-S. Zhang, Z.-A. Wang, B. Li, W.-J. Lu, M. Tian, Y.-P. Sun, H. Du, and D.-F. Shao: Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (2026) 096702

    work page 2026

  33. [35]

    Khudoyberdiev and G

    A. Khudoyberdiev and G. S. Uhrig: Phys. Rev. B 109 (2024) 174419

    work page 2024

  34. [36]

    Khudoyberdiev and G

    A. Khudoyberdiev and G. S. Uhrig: Phys. Rev. B 111 (2025) 064408

    work page 2025

  35. [37]

    Khudoyberdiev and G

    A. Khudoyberdiev and G. S. Uhrig: SciPost Phys. 19 (2025) 117

    work page 2025

  36. [38]

    Johannesmann, A

    F. Johannesmann, A. Khudoyberdiev, and G. S. Uhrig: Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [39]

    M. R. Walther, D.-B. Hering, G. S. Uhrig, and K. P. Schmidt: Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (2023) 013132

    work page 2023

  38. [40]

    Zhang and C

    H. Zhang and C. A. Lamas: Phys. Rev. B 87 (2013) 024415

    work page 2013

  39. [41]

    Mattsson, P

    A. Mattsson, P. Fröjdh, and T. Einarsson: Phys. Rev. B 49 (1994) 3997

    work page 1994

  40. [42]

    D. C. Cabra, C. A. Lamas, and H. D. Rosales: Phys. Rev. B 83 (2011) 094506

    work page 2011

  41. [43]

    Merino and A

    J. Merino and A. Ralko: Phys. Rev. B 97 (2018) 205112

    work page 2018

  42. [44]

    A. R. Moura and A. R. Pereira: Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 342 (2013) 11

    work page 2013

  43. [45]

    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach: Phys. Rev. B 38 (1988) 316

    work page 1988

  44. [46]

    Auerbach: Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism (Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics

    A. Auerbach: Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism (Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer, New York, 1994), Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics

    work page 1994

  45. [47]

    A. S. T. Pires: Theoretical Tools for Spin Models in Magnetic Systems (2053-2563. IOP Publishing, 2021), 2053-2563

    work page 2053

  46. [48]

    Zhang, E

    S.-S. Zhang, E. A. Ghioldi, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, and C. D. Batista: Physical Review B 105 (2022) 224404

    work page 2022

  47. [49]

    Auerbach and D

    A. Auerbach and D. P. Arovas: Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 617

    work page 1988

  48. [50]

    Ng and E

    R. Ng and E. S. Sørensen: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44 (2011) 065305

    work page 2011

  49. [51]

    Schuckert, A

    A. Schuckert, A. Piñeiro Orioli, and J. Berges: Phys. Rev. B 98 (2018) 224304

    work page 2018

  50. [52]

    Oitmaa, C

    J. Oitmaa, C. J. Hamer, and Z. Weihong: Phys. Rev. B 45 (1992) 9834

    work page 1992

  51. [53]

    Richter, J

    J. Richter, J. Schulenburg, and A. Honecker: in Quantum magnetism in two dimensions: From semi-classical Néel order to magnetic disorder, ed. U. Schollwöck, J. Richter, D. J. J. Farnell, and R. F. Bishop (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004), pp. 85–153

    work page 2004

  52. [54]

    Bena and G

    C. Bena and G. Montambaux: New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 095003

    work page 2009

  53. [55]

    Powalski, G

    M. Powalski, G. S. Uhrig, and K. P. Schmidt: Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 207202

    work page 2015

  54. [56]

    Powalski, K

    M. Powalski, K. P. Schmidt, and G. S. Uhrig: SciPost Physics 4 (2018) 001

    work page 2018

  55. [57]

    Hering, M

    D.-B. Hering, M. R. Walther, K. P. Schmidt, and G. S. Uhrig: Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 085115

    work page 2024

  56. [58]

    F. J. Dyson: Phys. Rev. 102 (1956) 1217

    work page 1956

  57. [59]

    S. V. Maleev: Soviet Physics JETP 6 (1958) 766

    work page 1958

  58. [60]

    Takahashi: Phys

    M. Takahashi: Phys. Rev. B 40 (1989) 2494

    work page 1989

  59. [61]

    Hida: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 59 (1990) 2230

    K. Hida: Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 59 (1990) 2230

    work page 1990

  60. [62]

    Wegner: Ann Phys 506 (1994) 77

    F. Wegner: Ann Phys 506 (1994) 77

    work page 1994

  61. [63]

    Mielke: Eur

    A. Mielke: Eur. Phys. J. B 5 (1998) 605

    work page 1998

  62. [64]

    Knetter and S

    C. Knetter and S. Uhrig: Eur. Phys. J. B 13 (2000) 209

    work page 2000

  63. [65]

    Knetter, K

    C. Knetter, K. P. Schmidt, and G. S. Uhrig: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 36 (2003) 7889

    work page 2003

  64. [66]

    Krämer, D.-B

    C. Krämer, D.-B. Hering, V. Sulaiman, M. R. Walther, G. S. Uhrig, and K. P. Schmidt: arXiv (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [67]

    Weihong, J

    Z. Weihong, J. Oitmaa, and C. J. Hamer: Phys. Rev. B 44 (1991) 11869

    work page 1991

  66. [68]

    Kadosawa, M

    M. Kadosawa, M. Nakamura, Y. Ohta, and S. Nishimoto: Phys. Rev. B 110 (2024) 134418

    work page 2024

  67. [69]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wil- son, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Polat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriks...

    work page 2020

  68. [70]

    Kittel: Phys

    C. Kittel: Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 565

    work page 1951

  69. [71]

    Shao, Y.-Y

    D.-F. Shao, Y.-Y. Jiang, J. Ding, S.-H. Zhang, Z.-A. Wang, R.- C. Xiao, G. Gurung, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, and E. Y. Tsymbal: Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 216702. Appendix A: Lattice and reciprocal lattice vectors of the honeycomb: Discretization of the lat- tice momentum The discretization of the Brillouin zone of a honeycomb lattice requires the considerati...

    work page 2023

  70. [72]

    = m0 Fig. B·1. The initial sublattice magnetization m of the isotropic system ( χ = 1) is shown as a function of a tiny auxiliary field hz at different system sizes. The lines are interpolated to determine the value of the optimal intersection point using cubic splines from the scipy.interpolate library. 48) The intersection solution is found at hz 0 = 0....

    work page

  71. [73]

    5 ω ± k /J ∆ + (π, π ) 0 1 × 10− 5 ∆ −ω + k ω − k Fig. B·2. Dispersion of α bosons ( ω− k ) and β bosons ( ω+ k ) from Eqs. (16) at χ = 0.9. ∆− and ∆+ correspond to the energy gaps of α and β bosons, respectively. The energy gap of the α bosons is very small as shown in the inset with a value of ∆− = 5.899 × 10−6 J. This is due to the finite size of the c...

    work page

  72. [74]

    0 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 . 0 hu/J , ∆ /J

    work page

  73. [75]

    5 ¯ω/J ∆ ∆ ∞ hu linear fits hu at t > 0 hu at 0 < t < t 1 hu at t > 0 hu at 0 < t < t 1 Fig. D·1. The frequency of the oscillations vs. external field and the spin gap for different anisotropies. Solid blue line ¯ωfit,1 = k1 · hu where k1 = 1.201 ± 0.011. Solid orange line ¯ωfit,2 = k2 · ∆, where k2 = 1.335 ± 0.012. Dashed blue line ¯ωfit,3 = k3 · hu, where k...

    work page

  74. [76]

    00 0 . 02 0 . 04 0 . 06 0 . 08 0 . 10 0 . 12 0 . 14 hs/J

    work page

  75. [77]

    5 ¯ω/J hs ¯ω fit,1 ¯ω fit,2

    work page

  76. [78]

    0 0 . 5 1 . 0 ∆ /J 0 1¯ω/J ∆ ¯ω fit,3 ∆ ∞ ¯ω fit,4 Fig. D·2. The average frequency of the oscillations vs. the externally applied staggered field in the interval 0 < t < t1 based on Fig. 10b). The fit functions are: ¯ωfit,1 = p1 · √Jhs with p1 = 4.8397 ± 0.027. ¯ωfit,2 = p2 · q J(hs − d2 · h2s ) with p2 = 5.144 ± 0.008 and d2 = (1.356 ± 0.027)J−1. The inset s...

    work page