Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Spin dynamics of an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid in a frustrated XY model: Application to honeycomb cobaltates

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 This paper claims that an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid is the proximate parent of the weakly ordered honeycomb cobaltates, with spinon response reproducing their THz and neutron spectra.

desk verdict Honest, useful proximate-DSL study for honeycomb cobaltates: VMC parent-state evidence is solid, but the RPA dynamics are fitted rather than predicted, so the experimental agreement is suggestive, not conclusive. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04544 v1 pith:43CBXHLM submitted 2024-12-05 cond-mat.str-el

Anjishnu Bose , Arun Paramekanti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.25.aj75.40.Gb75.70.Tj
keywords easy-planeDiracspinliquidhoneycombcobaltatesJ1-J3XYmodelfrustratedmagnetismpartonRPAdynamicsBaCo2(AsO4)2THzspectroscopy
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 argues that the spin dynamics of weakly ordered honeycomb cobaltates, specifically BaCo2(AsO4)2, are best understood by starting from an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid (DSL) rather than from magnons. In a spin-1/2 J1-J3 XY model on the honeycomb lattice, variational Monte Carlo shows that between J3/J1 ≈ 0.32 and 0.37 a pure DSL and DSL-plus-weak-order states are within 1-2% of each other in energy. A modified parton theory, in which the Hamiltonian is split into a classical Weiss-field piece and a quantum spin-liquid piece with the spinon gauge fluctuations frozen, produces RPA instabilities toward ferromagnetic, zig-zag, and incommensurate spiral order. The same RPA-corrected susceptibility reproduces the qualitative features of THz and neutron scattering on BaCo2(AsO4)2 at zero field and in an in-plane field, including a sharp-mode-plus-continuum spectrum and easy polarization. If right, this makes the magnet's low-energy response a window onto proximate-DSL physics rather than pure magnon physics.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a modified parton theory: rewrite the spin operators as fermionic spinons, split the Hamiltonian on every bond as $(1-\alpha)$ times a classical Weiss-field channel plus $\alpha$ times a spinon hopping channel, and assume the hopping fields are condensed around their mean-field values so gauge fluctuations are suppressed. Integrating out the spinons leaves a quadratic action for the Weiss fields whose RPA susceptibility is $\chi = (1 - J\chi_0)^{-1}\chi_0$, where $J$ is the rescaled exchange and $\chi_0$ is the bare spinon bubble. The easy-plane Dirac spin liquid is the mean-field state with opposite-signed spin-$\uparrow$ and spin-$\downarrow$ hoppings $t_1 \approx 0.13J_1$, $t_3/t_1 \approx 0.1$, which has Dirac nodes at $K$ and $K'$ and a nearly flat band edge whose van Hove peak near $0.1J_1$ generates the enhanced low-energy THz response. The RPA formula turns spinon fluctuations into both the sharp low-energy modes and the continuum seen in experiment.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would settle the claim: measure the THz absorption of BaCo2(AsO4)2 below 0.2 THz, the range the paper identifies as experimentally unexplored (Sec. V A). At $J_3/J_1 \approx 0.35$ the RPA-corrected model predicts an enhanced low-energy peak near $\Omega/J_1 \approx 0.1$; a spectrum with no such peak, or with a purely magnon-like gapped onset, would rule out the proximate-DSL RPA description.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid is a viable parent state for the competing magnetic orders of the honeycomb J1-J3 XY model, and that this parent state, once perturbed by residual interactions at RPA level, explains the observed dynamics of honeycomb cobaltates. The evidence is variational: optimized Gutzwiller-projected wavefunctions place the pure DSL within 1-2% of the best DSL-plus-order states (ferromagnet, zig-zag, double zig-zag, spiral) in the window 0.32 < J3/J1 < 0.37, with ordered moments of order 25-50% of the full moment. The theoretical mechanism is a Hamiltonian split $H = (1-\alpha)H + \alpha H$, with the hopping channel condensed and the Weiss-field channel treated to quadratic order; the resulting RPA instabilities of the DSL give the same ferromagnet/zig-zag/incommensurate-spiral sequence as DMRG, and the RPA-corrected spin response shows sharp spinon-bound-state modes plus a spinon continuum that reproduce the shape of the THz and neutron data on BaCo2(AsO4)2. The paper does not claim a controlled calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on a tunable knob that mixes a classical spin picture with an atomic-scale quantum spin-liquid picture while freezing the internal fluctuations of the quantum picture; if those frozen fluctuations are actually important, the predicted phases and spectra are not reliable, a limitation the paper acknowledges by saying the calculation is not controlled (Sec. I).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At intermediate frustration $0.32 < J_3/J_1 < 0.37$, the pure DSL and the weakly ordered states (FM, zig-zag, double zig-zag, spiral) lie within 1-2% in energy, so the DSL is the natural parent and the observed order is a weak instability of it.
  • The sharp modes seen in neutron scattering along $\Gamma\to M$ and $\Gamma\to K$, coexisting with a continuum at the zone center, emerge from RPA-corrected spinon dynamics, so they do not require strong magnon interactions to be explained.
  • The easy polarization of the ordered moments in an in-plane field (fields of order $0.5$ T given $J_1\approx 7$ meV and $g\approx 3$) follows because the Zeeman field gaps the Dirac nodes and flattens the $\Gamma\to M$ mode, matching the field-dependent neutron response.
  • A low-temperature $T^3$ power law in the NMR relaxation rate $1/T_1$ is a direct Dirac-spinon signature that the calculation predicts for honeycomb cobaltates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • (Editorial inference) If the proximate-DSL picture is correct, the same RPA-corrected spinon machinery should transfer to other weakly ordered easy-plane cobaltates—such as the triangular-lattice Na2BaCo(PO4)2 and K2Co(SeO3)2, which the paper names as future candidates—and would predict continuum-dominated spectra there too.
  • (Editorial inference) The authors fix the ratio of the third-neighbor to nearest-neighbor mixing parameters ($\alpha_3/\alpha_1 = 0.6$) to match DMRG; a natural extension is to determine the optimal mixing parameters from the free energy in Eq. (7), which would turn the phase diagram and spectra from fitted into predictive.
  • (Editorial inference) Because the calculation deliberately freezes the internal gauge-field fluctuations of the spin liquid, the decisive test is whether including those fluctuations shifts the predicted ordering wavevectors; if it does, the observed magnetic states would not be a direct fingerprint of the Dirac spin liquid.
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. This manuscript proposes a phenomenological parton theory for the spin-1/2 J1-J3 easy-plane XY model on the honeycomb lattice, aiming to describe the weakly ordered honeycomb cobaltates such as BaCo2(AsO4)2. The Hamiltonian is split as H = (1-alpha)H + alpha H, with the first piece decoupled via Weiss/magnetization Hubbard-Stratonovich fields and the second via condensed spinon-hopping fields; after integrating out the spinons, the Weiss-field effective action is truncated at quadratic order (RPA), giving the susceptibility chi = (chi0^{-1} - (1-alpha)J)^{-1} (Sec. II and App. A). The paper contains two kinds of results. First, variational Monte Carlo with Gutzwiller-projected parton states and Jastrow factors shows that in the intermediate regime 0.32 < J3/J1 < 0.37 the pure easy-plane Dirac spin liquid and DSL+weak-order ansatzes (FM, zig-zag, double zig-zag, spiral) lie within 1-2% in energy, with in-plane ordered moments of about 0.2 Bohr magneton. Second, with alpha3/alpha1 fixed at 0.6 and alpha1 tuned so that the instability lines roughly match earlier DMRG/VMC phase diagrams, the RPA instabilities of the DSL give FM, zig-zag, and incommensurate spiral orders, and the RPA-corrected dynamical spin response qualitatively reproduces THz and neutron-scattering features, including the spin continuum, sharp Gamma-to-M modes, and easy in-plane polarization.

Significance. The value of the paper, if its claims hold, is twofold. The VMC study is an independent numerical assessment supporting the idea that the J1-J3 XY model sits near a proximate Dirac spin liquid in the intermediate coupling window; this is a genuine calculation with optimized variational parameters, and the narrow (1-2%) energy spread among competing states provides a concrete, checkable basis for the parent-state scenario. The RPA-response framework also offers a useful qualitative template for interpreting continuum-plus-sharp-mode spectra in weakly ordered magnets at a time when the experimental phenomenology of BaCo2(AsO4)2 is actively debated. The paper is commendably explicit about its limitations: it states in Sec. I that it does not aim for a controlled calculation, in Sec. IV that the RPA phase diagram is matched to previous numerics by construction, and in Secs. I and VII that monopole proliferation and gauge fluctuations are not treated. The honesty of these statements is a strength, but it also means that the headline dynamical results (Figs.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The headline RPA phase diagram is calibrated rather than predicted. The text fixes alpha3/alpha1 = 0.6 and tunes alpha1 'such that the obtained RPA phase diagram roughly matches the results of previous numerics'; because the same {alpha} set the effective interaction kernel J(Q;{alpha}) in Eq. (A20) and hence both the instability lines and the RPA response functions, the agreement of Fig. 3 with DMRG [55, 59] is in part enforced by construction. This is a legitimate phenomenological strategy, and the manuscript states it honestly in Sec. IV, but the abstract's claim of a 'phase diagram which is consistent with VMC and DMRG studies' and Sec. VII's 'reproduce the full many-body phase diagram' overstate what was done. The fix is to (i) explicitly label which results are calibrated and which are predictions, and (ii) provide a robustness check of the response functions (Figs. 5-6, 11-12) over the full range alpha3/alpha1 = 0.5-0.8 and alpha1 = 0.6-0.7 for which the instability lines agree with previous numerics, rather than at the single star point.
  2. [App. A, Eqs. (A20)-(A22); Secs. II and V] The RPA truncation and gauge-field suppression have no small parameter at the working point. At the response-calculation point (Sec. V: alpha1 ~ 0.7, J3/J1 ~ 0.35), the residual interaction (1-alpha1)J1 ~ 0.3J1 is several times the spinon hopping scale t1 ~ 0.13 alpha1 J1 ~ 0.09J1, so truncating the Weiss-field action at quadratic order and treating the magnetization field as weak in App. A are not justified by any obvious expansion parameter; vertex corrections and spinon self-energies are expected to be comparable to the terms kept. In addition, Eq. (5) drops the spatial gauge field by assuming the w fields are condensed, a significant step for a compact U(1) DSL, and the paper itself notes the danger of monopole proliferation (Sec. I). Since exactly these truncations are used for the central experimental comparisons (THz and INS, Figs. 5-6 and 11-12), the manuscript should provide a quantitative diagnostic of the truncation error (for example, a one-loop self-energy or vertex-correction estimate at the star point) or explicitly restrict the central claims to a qualitative demonstration.
  3. [Secs. I and VI] The partonic interpretation of the in-field response is undermined by the confinement argument made in the same paper. The applied in-plane field gaps the Dirac nodes (Sec. VI C and App. C, Fig. 16b), and Sec. I states that in symmetry-broken phases that gap out the partons 'the monopoles of the gauge field will proliferate and lead to confinement'. The field-induced ordered regime of Figs. 10-12 is precisely such a gapped phase, so by the authors' own reasoning the sharp Gamma-to-M mode in Fig. 12 is better viewed as a magnon of the magnetically ordered state than as a two-spinon bound state. The paper should state explicitly what its calculation adds in this regime relative to linear spin-wave theory, or should limit the parton-RPA interpretation to the zero-field proximate-DSL region.
  4. [Fig. 1 and App. B] The parent-state claim rests on 1-2% energy differences among the pure DSL and the DSL+order ansatzes, and on the claim that several order patterns compete in the intermediate window, but the VMC energy curves are shown without statistical error bars or optimization-convergence information. Appendix B reports 10,000 thermalization plus 10,000 measurement sweeps and 250 stochastic-reconfiguration steps, but no uncertainty estimate for the energies (or for the ordering moments in Fig. 2) is given. Given that the intermediate-window statement is load-bearing for the proximate-DSL scenario and that different DMRG studies disagree within this window [55, 59], the manuscript should report the statistical errors and, if available, a check that the variational optimization has converged at the J3/J1 values shown in Fig. 1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV, first paragraph] The sentence 'starting in the pure quantum limit at alpha1 = 0, the DSL is stable as alpha1 is decreased towards the classical limit' conflicts with the definitions in Sec. II, where alpha = 1 is the quantum limit and alpha = 0 the classical limit, and also with the parallel sentence in Sec. VI B, which correctly says 'at alpha1 = 1'. This appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. V, Figs. 5-6] The comparison with the THz and INS data of Refs. [41, 14] is qualitative ('slightly different energies', 'good agreement'), but the experimental energy values and constant-energy slices are never quoted; giving the experimental energy ranges (for example, the THz frequency window and the INS energy slices) would allow the reader to judge the size of the claimed discrepancies.
  3. [Sec. VI A, Figs. 8-9] The mean-field polarization field (Bx/J1 ~ 0.1-0.15) exceeds the VMC result (Bx/J1 ~ 0.02) by about an order of magnitude; since both are computed with similar alpha-based parameters, the brief comment that mean-field theory underestimates internal Weiss fields should be expanded into a quantitative discussion, otherwise the alpha framework appears internally inconsistent across the two methods.
  4. [Secs. II and V] There are several presentation issues: 'limitα = 0' in Sec. II should read 'the limit α = 0'; the alpha_ij notation is introduced in Sec. II but only defined on bonds in App. A; and the sublattice indices on the Green's functions in Eq. (10) are not defined before first use.
  5. [Sec. V C] The 1/T1 result is computed at the bare mean-field level, not with RPA corrections; this should be stated in the main text rather than only being implicit from the calculation description, so that the T^3 power law is not attributed to the full RPA framework.
  6. [Captions of Figs. 6 and 12] The statement that the color-bar scales are 'in arbitrary units but consistent between the different plots' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the same relative scale is used across all panels and whether the intensities of different panels can be compared quantitatively.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The RPA phase diagram is fitted to prior DMRG/VMC results via alpha3/alpha1 and alpha1, so its agreement is imposed by construction; the response functions are computed at that fitted point but retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, RPA Instabilities, Fig. 3 and surrounding text]
    "For simplicity, we shall fix the ratio alpha3/alpha1 in our analysis such that the obtained RPA phase diagram roughly matches the results of previous numerics, and tune alpha1 along with the physical exchange parameter J3/J1 to obtain Fig.3."

    The RPA phase diagram is not an independent output: the ratio alpha3/alpha1 is fixed, and alpha1 is tuned, explicitly 'such that the obtained RPA phase diagram roughly matches the results of previous numerics.' Since the fermion hopping scale is t1 approx 0.13 alpha1 J1 and the RPA interaction strength is (1-alpha1)J1, both controlled by alpha1, choosing alpha1 in the range 0.6-0.7 fixes the FM/zig-zag/intermediate boundaries. The abstract's claim that the phase diagram is 'consistent with VMC and DMRG' and Section VII's claim that the method 'reproduce[s] the full many-body phase diagram' therefore rest partly on parameters adjusted to make those boundaries match. The dynamical response in Figs.

full rationale

The clearest circular step is the construction of the RPA phase diagram in Section IV: alpha3/alpha1 = 0.6 is fixed and alpha1 is tuned 'such that the obtained RPA phase diagram roughly matches the results of previous numerics,' and then this phase diagram is cited in the abstract and discussion as being consistent with VMC and DMRG. That consistency is partly imposed by construction, matching the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The VMC energy competition in Fig. 1 is genuinely independent: projected DSL and DSL+order wavefunctions are optimized directly for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (9), and the finding that the pure DSL is within 1-2% of competing ordered states is a real numerical result. The mean-field DSL state is also re-derived in Appendix C, so reliance on the authors' prior paper [60] is not load-bearing. The lack of a small parameter in the RPA/gauge-fluctuation truncation is acknowledged in Sections I and VII and is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. Because one central consistency claim reduces to fitted parameters while the dynamical response retains independent content, a score of 6 is appropriate.

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

The central claim rests on two kinds of unpaid inputs: the alpha-decomposition weights, chosen by hand and tuned to match DMRG, and the suppression of gauge fluctuations with neglect of monopoles. The VMC wavefunction also depends on optimized but unreported variational parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the DSL, partons, and Weiss fields are standard or prior constructions.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_1 (RPA decomposition weight for J1) = approx 0.6-0.7 near the instability
    Introduced to interpolate between classical and quantum limits; fixed in Sec. IV so the RPA phase diagram matches DMRG.
  • alpha_3/alpha_1 ratio = 0.6, with 0.5-0.8 said to be qualitatively similar
    Chosen 'such that the obtained RPA phase diagram roughly matches the results of previous numerics' (Sec. IV).
  • t3/t1 ratio = approx 0.1-0.2
    Variational parameter optimized in VMC (Fig. 14) and used in RPA response calculations; not fixed by a first-principles constraint.
  • Weiss field strengths h_i for ordered ansatzes = not reported numerically; ordered moments approx 0.2-0.45
    Variational parameters in VMC that set the size and pattern of magnetic order; their optimal values are fitted by energy minimization and lack reported error bars.
  • Jastrow factors g_ij = not reported
    Spatially dependent variational parameters in the Gutzwiller-projected wavefunction, optimized by stochastic reconfiguration; values are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling in magnetic and hopping channels, and integration over quadratic fermions, are valid.
    Standard path-integral manipulations used to derive the effective Weiss-field action in Eq. (6) and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The parton representation S = (1/2) f^dagger sigma f with single-occupancy constraint is exact, but the constraint is handled only at mean-field or projection level and gauge fluctuations are dropped.
    Hopping HS fields are assumed condensed around their mean-field values (Sec. II and Appendix A), an uncontrolled approximation for spin-1/2 systems; the paper acknowledges this.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact partition function is independent of alpha, so choosing alpha to reproduce known numerics is a valid variational route.
    Sec. II states an approximate calculation can depend on alpha and says it will 'simply fix an optimal alpha* to recover salient features'; this motivates tuning alpha to DMRG and weakens predictive content.
  • domain assumption The J1-J3 XY model with lambda=0 is the relevant model for honeycomb cobaltates.
    Taken from ab initio and prior neutron work (Refs. 14, 52, 54); the paper does not derive this model here.
  • domain assumption RPA truncation of the Weiss-field action to quadratic order captures the leading spin dynamics.
    The effective action in Eq. (6) is second order in Weiss fields; higher-order terms, vertex corrections, and spinon self-energy are omitted, acknowledged as future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin dynamics of an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid in a frustrated XY model: Application to honeycomb cobaltates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/43CBXHLM

@misc{pith2026241204544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin dynamics of an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid in a frustrated XY model: Application to honeycomb cobaltates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/43CBXHLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04544}
}
abstract

Recent work has shown that the honeycomb lattice spin-$1/2$ $J_1$-$J_3$ XY model, with nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic exchange $J_1$ and frustration induced by third-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange $J_3$, may be relevant to a wide range of cobaltate materials. We explore a variational Monte Carlo study of Gutzwiller projected wavefunctions for this model and show that an easy-plane Dirac spin liquid (DSL) is a viable `parent' state for the competing magnetic orders observed in these materials, including ferromagnetic, zig-zag, spiral, and double zig-zag orders at intermediate frustration, and show that such broken symmetry states can be easily polarized by a weak in-plane magnetic field consistent with experiments. We formulate a modified parton theory for such frustrated spin models, and explore the potential instabilities of the DSL due to residual parton interactions within a random phase approximation (RPA), both at zero magnetic field and in a nonzero in-plane field. The broken symmetry states which emerge in the vicinity of this Dirac spin liquid include ferromagnetic, zig-zag, and incommensurate spiral orders, with a phase diagram which is consistent with VMC and density matrix renormalization group studies. We calculate the dynamical spin response of the easy-plane DSL, including RPA corrections, near the boundary of the ordered states, and present results for THz spectroscopy and inelastic neutron scattering, at zero field as well as in an in-plane magnetic field, and discuss experimental implications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Optimized Gutzwiller projected wavefunction ener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The ordered moment in the optimized VMC wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Self-consistent mean-field energies of symmetry bro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The imaginary part of the magnetic susceptibil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mean-field in-plane magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The net in-plane magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Zeeman field dependence of the THz response near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) The imaginary part of the magnetic suscepti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The various spin-rotation symmetry broken states considered in the VMC ansatzes. (a) A simple in-plane ferromagnet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The ratio of third-neighbour hopping to first neighbour hopping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) nearest neighboring in-plane spin correlation, and (b) third-nearest neighbour in-plane spin correlation, measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (a) Mean-field band structure of the DSL state with the Dirac nodes at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Mean-field hoppings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Z$_2$ topological orders in kagom\'e dipolar systems: Feedback from Rydberg quantum simulator

    cond-mat.str-el 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dipolar kagome systems are proposed as platforms for Z2 topological order, with a parton-gauge mean-field phase diagram and spectroscopic signatures for spinons and visons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    For J3/J1 ≲ 0.32, the RPA instability encountered is just a ferromagnet, while for J3/J1 ≳ 0.37 the system transi- tions into the zig-zag ordered state

    Be- yond this, the system enters a symmetry broken mag- netically ordered state with some wave-vector Qc. For J3/J1 ≲ 0.32, the RPA instability encountered is just a ferromagnet, while for J3/J1 ≳ 0.37 the system transi- tions into the zig-zag ordered state. In the intermediate regime, 0 .32 ≲ J3/J1 ≲ 0.37, the DSL first transitions into an incommensurate...

  2. [2]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    being the two sub- lattice positions. A. THz FIG. 5. Temperature dependence of the THz response in- cluding RPA corrections near the instability towards incom- mensurate order (point marked with a star in Fig.3). The shaded region is the experimentally unexplored region in [41]. Compared to the bare mean-field response of the DSL [60], the RPA corrections...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A field guide to spin liq- uids, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Sourounis and A

    K. Sourounis and A. Manchon, Impact of magnon in- teractions on transport in honeycomb antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054429 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    J. R. Chamorro, T. M. McQueen, and T. T. Tran, Chem- istry of quantum spin liquids, Chemical Reviews, Chem- ical Reviews 121, 2898 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A. V. Chubukov, S. Sachdev, and T. Senthil, Large-s ex- pansion for quantum antiferromagnets on a triangular lattice, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 6, 8891 (1994)

    work page 1994

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Garanin, V

    D. Garanin, V. Lutovinov, and L. Panina, The magnon- magnon interactions in easy-plane antiferromagnets, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 184, 523 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    A. V. Chubukov and T. Jolicoeur, Order-from-disorder phenomena in heisenberg antiferromagnets on a triangu- lar lattice, Phys. Rev. B 46, 11137 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    Q. Wang, S. Mustafi, E. Fogh, N. Astrakhantsev, Z. He, I. Bialo, Y. Chan, L. Martinelli, M. Horio, O. Ivashko, N. E. Shaik, K. von Arx, Y. Sassa, E. Paris, M. H. Fischer, Y. Tseng, N. B. Christensen, A. Galdi, D. G. Schlom, K. M. Shen, T. Schmitt, H. M. Ronnow, and J. Chang, M...

    2024

  4. [12]

    M. Lakshmanan, The fascinating world of the Landau−Lifshitz−Gilbert equation: an overview, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 12801300 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    A. V. Chubukov and K. A. Musaelian, Systematic 1/s study of the two-dimensional hubbard model at half- filling, Phys. Rev. B 50, 6238 (1994)

    1994

  6. [14]

    Halloran, F

    T. Halloran, F. Desrochers, E. Z. Zhang, T. Chen, L. E. Chern, Z. Xu, B. Winn, M. Graves-Brook, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Y. Qiu, R. Zhong, R. Cava, Y. B. Kim, and C. Broholm, Geometrical frustration versus Kitaev interactions in BaCo 2(AsO4)2, Proceedings of the Na- tion...

    2023

  7. [15]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P. A. Maksimov, A. L. Chernyshev, A. Honecker, and R. Valenti, Breakdown of magnons in a strongly spin-orbital coupled magnet, Nature Communications 8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    E. Z. Zhang, R. H. Wilke, and Y. B. Kim, Spin excitation continuum to topological magnon crossover and thermal hall conductivity in kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184418 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Becca and S

    F. Becca and S. Sorella, Quantum Monte Carlo Ap- proaches for Correlated Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Hosoi, E

    M. Hosoi, E. Z. Zhang, A. S. Patri, and Y. B. Kim, Un- covering footprints of dipolar-octupolar quantum spin ice from neutron scattering signatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 097202 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Noculak and J

    V. Noculak and J. Reuther, Pseudo-fermion functional renormalization group with magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174414 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Catarina and B

    G. Catarina and B. Murta, Density-matrix renormaliza- tion group: a pedagogical introduction, The European Physical Journal B 96, 10.1140/epjb/s10051-023-00575- 2 (2023)

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    L. E. Chern, F. Desrochers, Y. B. Kim, and C. Castel- novo, Pseudofermion functional renormalization group study of dipolar-octupolar pyrochlore magnets, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184421 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Song, Neural quantum states in variational monte carlo method: A brief summary (2024), arXiv:2406.01017 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Y. Song, Neural quantum states in variational monte carlo method: A brief summary (2024), arXiv:2406.01017 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  17. [25]

    Mller, D

    T. Mller, D. Kiese, N. Niggemann, B. Sbierski, J. Reuther, S. Trebst, R. Thomale, and Y. Iqbal, Pseudo- fermion functional renormalization group for spin mod- els, Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 036501 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Hermele, T

    M. Hermele, T. Senthil, M. P. A. Fisher, P. A. Lee, N. Na- gaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Stability ofu(1) spin liquids in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 70, 214437 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Song, Y.-C

    X.-Y. Song, Y.-C. He, A. Vishwanath, and C. Wang, From spinon band topology to the symmetry quantum numbers of monopoles in dirac spin liquids, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011033 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    P. W. Anderson, Considerations on the flow of superfluid helium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 298 (1966)

    1966

  22. [30]

    X. G. Wen, Quantum field theory of many-body systems: from the origin of sound to an origin of light and elec- trons (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Hermele, T

    M. Hermele, T. Senthil, and M. P. A. Fisher, Algebraic spin liquid as the mother of many competing orders, Phys. Rev. B 72, 104404 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Brinckmann and P

    J. Brinckmann and P. A. Lee, Spin susceptibility and the π-excitation in underdoped cuprates, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 59, 1811 (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    X.-Y. Song, C. Wang, A. Vishwanath, and Y.-C. He, Uni- fying description of competing orders in two-dimensional quantum magnets, Nature Communications 10, 4254 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Brinckmann and P

    J. Brinckmann and P. A. Lee, Slave boson approach to neutron scattering in YBa2Cu3O6+y superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2915 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    P. A. Lee, Quantum spin liquid: a tale of emergence from frustration, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 529, 012001 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    A. V. C. Ar. Abanov and J. Schmalian, Quantum- critical theory of the spin-fermion model and its application to cuprates: Normal state anal- ysis, Advances in Physics 52, 119 (2003), https://doi.org/10.1080/0001873021000057123

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    Brinckmann and P

    J. Brinckmann and P. A. Lee, Renormalized mean-field theory of neutron scattering in cuprate superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 65, 014502 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Regnault, P

    L. Regnault, P. Burlet, and J. Rossat-Mignod, Magnetic ordering in a planar XY model: BaCo 2(AsO4)2, Physica B+C 86-88, 660 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    Abanov and A

    A. Abanov and A. V. Chubukov, Spin-fermion model near the quantum critical point: One-loop renormaliza- tion group results, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5608 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Zhong, T

    R. Zhong, T. Gao, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Weak- field induced nonmagnetic state in a Co-based honey- comb, Science Advances 6 (4), aay6953 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    does not extend below ≲ 0.2 THz which corresponds to Ω/J1 ≲ 0.1. B. Neutron scattering Fig.6 shows the real frequency imaginary component of χ ′′ xx(Q, Ω) for momenta along high-symmetry path and all energies, as well as fixed energy slices of the full Bril- louin zone. We fin...

  34. [42]

    Balents and O

    L. Balents and O. A. Starykh, Collective spinon spin wave in a magnetized u(1) spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 101, 020401 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    L. P. Regnault, C. Boullier, and J. E. Lorenzo, Polarized- neutron investigation of magnetic ordering and spin dy- namics in BaCo 2(AsO4)2 frustrated honeycomb-lattice magnet, Heliyon 4, E00507 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Lefrancois, M

    E. Lefrancois, M. Songvilay, J. Robert, G. Nataf, E. Jor- dan, L. Chaix, C. V. Colin, P. Lejay, A. Hadj-Azzem, R. Ballou, and V. Simonet, Magnetic properties of the 11 honeycomb oxide Na3Co2TeO6, Phys. Rev. B 94, 214416 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Xu, T. Halloran, R. Zhong, C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, N. Drichko, and N. P. Armitage, A mag- netic continuum in the cobalt-based honeycomb magnet BaCo2(AsO4)2, Nature Materials 22, 58 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    C. Tu, D. Dai, X. Zhang, C. Zhao, X. Jin, B. Gao, P. Dai, and S. Li, Evidence for gapless quantum spin liquid in a honeycomb lattice, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2212.07322 (2022), arXiv:2212.07322 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    H. S. Nair, J. M. Brown, E. Coldren, G. Hester, M. P. Gelfand, A. Podlesnyak, Q. Huang, and K. A. Ross, Short-range order in the quantum XXZ honeycomb lat- tice material BaCo 2(PO4)2, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134409 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Guang, N

    S. Guang, N. Li, R. L. Luo, Q. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Yue, K. Xia, Q. Li, X. Zhao, G. Chen, H. Zhou, and X. Sun, Thermal transport of fractionalized antifer- romagnetic and field-induced states in the Kitaev mate- rial Na2Co2TeO6, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184423 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V. Bal´ edent, M. Jim´ enez-Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, A. Hadj-Azzem, V. Simonet, and C. Stock, Kitaev interactions in the Co honeycomb anti- ferromagnets Na3Co2SbO6 and Na3Co2TeO6, Phys. Rev...

    2020

  42. [50]

    H. Yang, C. Kim, Y. Choi, J. H. Lee, G. Lin, J. Ma, M. Kratochvilova, P. Proschek, E.-G. Moon, K. H. Lee, Y. S. Oh, and J.-G. Park, Significant thermal Hall effect in the 3d cobalt Kitaev system Na 2Co2TeO6, Phys. Rev. B 106, L081116 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Zhang, S

    S. Zhang, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, S. M. Thomas, R. Movshovich, E. Brosha, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, V. S. Zapf, and M. Lee, Electronic and magnetic phase diagrams of Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate Na2Co2TeO6 (2023), arXiv:2212.03849 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. Das, S. Voleti, T. Saha-Dasgupta, and A. Paramekanti, Xy magnetism, Kitaev exchange, and long-range frustra- tion in the Jeff = 1 2 honeycomb cobaltates, Phys. Rev. B 104, 134425 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    J.-Q. Yan, S. Okamoto, Y. Wu, Q. Zheng, H. D. Zhou, H. B. Cao, and M. A. McGuire, Magnetic order in single crystals of Na 3Co2SbO6 with a honeycomb arrangement of 3d7 Co2+ ions, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 074405 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Liu and G

    H. Liu and G. Khaliullin, Pseudospin exchange interac- tions in d7 cobalt compounds: Possible realization of the Kitaev model, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014407 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    H. Liu, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Kitaev spin liquid in 3d transition metal compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 047201 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Easy-plane anisotropic-exchange magnets on a honeycomb lattice: Quantum effects and dealing with them, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214411 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Samanta, P

    S. Samanta, P. Detrattanawichai, S. Na-Phattalung, and H.-S. Kim, Active orbital degree of freedom and potential spin-orbit-entangled moments in the Kitaev magnet can- didate BaCo2(AsO4)2, Phys. Rev. B 106, 195136 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    P. A. Maksimov, A. V. Ushakov, Z. V. Pchelkina, Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and S. V. Streltsov, Ab initio guided mini- mal model for the “Kitaev” material BaCo2(AsO4)2: Im- portance of direct hopping, third-neighbor exchange, and quantum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. B 106, 165131 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    and might be consistent with experimental observa- tions on BaCo 2(AsO4)2 [14]. V. PHYSICAL RESPONSE FUNCTIONS In this section, we report the spin response functions of the DSL state after RPA correction near the phase boundary into a symmetry broken state in the interme- diat...

  52. [60]

    Jiang, S

    S. Jiang, S. R. White, and A. L. Chernyshev, Quan- tum phases in the honeycomb-lattice J1–J3 ferro- antiferromagnetic model, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180406 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Watanabe, S

    Y. Watanabe, S. Trebst, and C. Hickey, Frustrated fer- romagnetism of honeycomb cobaltates: Incommensurate spirals, quantum disordered phases, and out-of-plane Ising order (2022), arXiv:2212.14053 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. B. Fouet, P. Sindzingre, and C. Lhuillier, An investiga- tion of the quantum J1-J2-J3 model on the honeycomb lattice, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 20, 241 (2001)

    2001

  55. [63]

    Safari, W

    S. Safari, W. Bateman-Hemphill, A. Mitra, F. Desrochers, E. Z. Zhang, L. Shafeek, A. Fer- renti, T. M. McQueen, A. Shekhter, Z. Kll, Y. B. Kim, B. J. Ramshaw, and K. A. Modic, Quantum fluctuations suppress the critical fields in baco 2(aso4)2 (2024), arXiv:2403.15315 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. Bose, M. Routh, S. Voleti, S. K. Saha, M. Kumar, T. Saha-Dasgupta, and A. Paramekanti, Proximate dirac spin liquid in the honeycomb lattice J1−J3 xxz model: Numerical study and application to cobaltates, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174422 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    A. M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  58. [66]

    Zhou and X.-G

    Y. Zhou and X.-G. Wen, Quantum orders and spin liq- uids in cs 2cucl4 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0210662 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2003 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mei and X.-G

    J.-W. Mei and X.-G. Wen, Fractionalized spin-wave con- tinuum in spin liquid states on the kagome lattice (2015), arXiv:1507.03007 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Sonnenschein, A

    J. Sonnenschein, A. Chauhan, Y. Iqbal, and J. Reuther, Projective symmetry group classifications of quantum spin liquids on the simple cubic, body centered cubic, and face centered cubic lattices, Phys. Rev. B 102, 125140 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Chung, K

    C.-H. Chung, K. Voelker, and Y. B. Kim, Statistics of spinons in the spin-liquid phase of cs 2cucl4, Phys. Rev. B 68, 094412 (2003)

    2003

  62. [70]

    Bocquet, F

    M. Bocquet, F. H. L. Essler, A. M. Tsvelik, and A. O. Gogolin, Finite-temperature dynamical magnetic suscep- tibility of quasi-one-dimensional frustrated spin-1 2 heisen- berg antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 64, 094425 (2001)

    2001

  63. [71]

    Y.-D. Li, X. Wang, and G. Chen, Anisotropic spin model of strong spin-orbit-coupled triangular antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035107 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Li, Y.-M

    Y.-D. Li, Y.-M. Lu, and G. Chen, Spinon fermi sur- face u(1) spin liquid in the spin-orbit-coupled triangular- lattice mott insulator ybmggao 4, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054445 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Li and G

    Y.-D. Li and G. Chen, Detecting spin fractionalization in a spinon fermi surface spin liquid, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075105 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    H. Jia, B. Ma, Z. D. Wang, and G. Chen, Quantum spin supersolid as a precursory dirac spin liquid in a trian- gular lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033031 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    M. Zhu, V. Romerio, N. Steiger, S. Nabi, N. Murai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, K. Povarov, Y. Skourski, R. Sibille, L. Keller, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zheludev, Con- tinuum excitations in a spin supersolid on a triangu- lar lattice, Physical Review Letters 133, 10.1103/phys- revle...

    2024 doi

  68. [76]

    S. Xu, R. Bag, N. E. Sherman, L. Yadav, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. A. Podlesnyak, J. E. Moore, and S. Har- avifard, Realization of u(1) dirac quantum spin liquid in ybzn2gao5 (2023), arXiv:2305.20040 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Iqbal, W.-J

    Y. Iqbal, W.-J. Hu, R. Thomale, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Spin liquid nature in the heisenberg J1 − J2 triangular antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 93, 144411 (2016)

    2016

  70. [78]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Dynamical structure factor of the J1 − J2 heisenberg model on the triangular lattice: Magnons, spinons, and gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031026 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Parcollet, M

    O. Parcollet, M. Ferrero, T. Ayral, H. Hafermann, I. Krivenko, L. Messio, and P. Seth, Triqs: A toolbox for research on interacting quantum systems, Computer 12 Physics Communications 196, 398415 (2015). 13 Appendix A: Path Integral F ormulation Suppose we have a general spin ...

    2015

  72. [80]

    This can be decoupled using Hubbard Stratonovich (HS) fields

    Hubbard Stratonovich Decoupling The action consists of a four-fermion interaction term. This can be decoupled using Hubbard Stratonovich (HS) fields. However, this can be done in two channels : (a) when the fermions are hopping, (b) when there is magnetic ordering. Furthermore...

  73. [81]

    The free hopping Hamiltonian in momentum space looks like Hαβ ij (k; {α}) = − P δ tαβ ij (δ; {α})e−ik·δ

    Integrating out spinons We switch to momentum space and write down each piece of the action as S0[ ¯f , f; {α}] = X iω X k ¯fi,α(k, iω) h (iω − a0)δijδαβ + Hαβ ij (k; {α}) i fj,β(k, iω) , S0[m; {α}] = − X iω X k ma i (−k, −iω)J ab ij (k; {α})mj b(k, iω) , Sint[ ¯f , f, m; {α}]...

  74. [82]

    RP A corrections to response functions To get the physical susceptibility of the system, we have to introduce an external field hext, and find the effective action in terms of these fields. Doing so will give us an action with the same form as Eq.(A20), but with the RPA correc...

Pith tools

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