Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Exact generalized Bethe eigenstates of the non-integrable alternating Heisenberg chain

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

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

Pith's one-line read The non-integrable alternating Heisenberg chain has exact closed-form zero-energy eigenstates, a generalized Bethe ansatz, that account for all two-magnon and most three-magnon states.

desk verdict The paper delivers genuine closed-form two-magnon states and a large explicit three-magnon family, but the 'all even-N' completeness claim is an extrapolation from ED counts, not a proven statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14017 v1 pith:YLZ5KOQP submitted 2025-01-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph

Ronald Melendrez , Bhaskar Mukherjee , Marcin Szyniszewski , Christopher J. Turner , Arijeet Pal , Hitesh J. Changlani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mechquant-ph
keywords alternatingHeisenbergchaingeneralizedBetheansatzzero-energyeigenstatesquantummany-bodyscarsmagnonpairingentanglemententropynon-integrablespin
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the alternating ferromagnetic–antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain, a non-integrable spin model with chaotic level statistics, harbours an exactly solvable zero-energy sector. It argues that a generalized Bethe ansatz—plane-wave superpositions with sublattice-resolved coefficients and constant shifts—produces closed-form wave functions for all two-magnon zero-energy states at any chain length, and for all even-N and most odd-N three-magnon zero-energy states. The closed forms reproduce the exact-diagonalization degeneracy counts, including an extra family of states with fractionalized momentum that exists only for odd N. If the claim is right, partially integrable structure can persist inside an otherwise chaotic many-body spectrum, giving analytic access to quantum many-body scar states and their entanglement properties.

What carries the argument

The generalized Bethe ansatz (GBA): an eigenstate ansatz in which the amplitude for magnons at positions $n,m,\ldots$ is a linear combination of plane waves $e^{i(k_1 n + k_2 m + \cdots)}$ over momentum permutations, with coefficients labelled by the A/B sublattice of each magnon and with constant shift terms added. Substituting it into the Schrödinger equation splits the problem into hopping equations, which are solved by choosing momenta whose single-magnon energies sum to zero ($\sin k_1 \pm \sin k_2 \pm \cdots = 0$), and constraint equations for nearest-neighbour magnons, which fix the coefficients and the constant shifts. For odd N a second ingredient is the fractionalized momentum $k+\pi/2$, which is allowed because $e^{2i(k+\pi/2)N} = -1$ when N is odd. The GBA carries the argument by turning the search for zero-energy eigenstates into algebra on a small set of Bethe parameters, whose linear independence is then checked with the Gram matrix.

What would settle it

For two magnons, run full exact diagonalization at N=5 and N=7 and check that every zero-energy eigenvector lies in the span of the AA–BB, AB, and fractionalized families; a single zero-energy eigenvector with zero overlap on all three families would refute completeness. For even-N three magnons, the rank of the Gram matrix of the GBA states must equal the exact degeneracy $2(N-1)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-energy eigenstates of the alternating Heisenberg chain can be written exactly, for arbitrary finite N, as generalized Bethe ansatz states: sums of plane waves with momenta satisfying $\sin k_1 \pm \sin k_2 \pm \cdots = 0$, with amplitudes that depend on whether each magnon sits on the even (A) or odd (B) sublattice, plus constant shifts that enforce the nearest-neighbour constraint equations. For two magnons this yields three families—AA–BB, AB, and, for odd N only, a family built from the fractionalized momentum $k+\pi/2$—whose linearly independent counts $N$ (even N) and $2N-1$ (odd N) match exact diagonalization. For three magnons the momentum-zero sector is spanned for even N by $2(N-1)$ GBA states; odd N additionally has non-zero-momentum families, of which the GBA captures all but $N-1$ states that the authors classify as non-Bethe. The paper also computes exact entanglement entropies for these closed-form states, finding area-law scaling, and uses a numerical GBA to identify four-magnon zero modes consistent with a magnon-pairing picture.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumption that the chosen real-momentum plane-wave families exhaust the zero-energy subspace: the paper explicitly sets aside complex-momentum bound states for two magnons, uses only a restricted set of momentum triples for three magnons, and labels the remaining odd-N three-magnon zero modes as non-Bethe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All two-magnon zero-energy eigenstates of the alternating Heisenberg chain are known in closed form for any finite even or odd N, so the degeneracy counts N and 2N−1 in that sector are established analytically rather than by numerics alone.
  • For even N the three-magnon zero-energy subspace is fully spanned by GBA states, giving explicit wave functions for all 2(N−1) states in that sector.
  • Every GBA state constructed here has area-law entanglement, with half-chain entanglement entropies approaching finite constants in the thermodynamic limit.
  • The numerical GBA procedure, which diagonalizes the square of the Hamiltonian in a restricted plane-wave basis, provides a general diagnostic for exact eigenstates hidden in partially integrable models.
  • The four-magnon GBA results support a picture in which zero-energy modes form from pairs of magnons with opposite momenta, consistent with counts such as N choose 2 for even N in the zero-momentum sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the non-Bethe odd-N three-magnon states, if their analytic form is found, may signal a second integrable structure beyond plane-wave superpositions, perhaps a reflection-based or pair-hopping algebra.
  • The same GBA construction could be portable to the alternating Heisenberg kagome, where the three-sublattice structure and the zero-energy flat band generalize the A/B sublattice and the ± sin k dispersion of the chain.
  • A testable extension is to prepare the closed-form two-magnon states in a cold-atom or digital quantum simulator: their exactness and area-law entanglement predict long-lived oscillations or slow relaxation that would confirm the scar picture.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spin-1/2 alternating ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic Heisenberg chain and constructs exact zero-energy eigenstates using a generalized Bethe ansatz (GBA) with sublattice labels, constant shifts, and, for odd N, fractionalized momenta. The two-magnon problem is solved in closed form for arbitrary N, with counts N (even N) and 2N-1 (odd N). Three-magnon zero-energy states are constructed in the K=0 sector for both parities, and the paper claims the GBA explains all even-N three-magnon zero modes and a large fraction for odd N, while explicitly identifying some odd-N states as non-Bethe. The paper also uses a numerical generalized Bethe ansatz for four magnons and derives analytic entanglement entropies for the two-magnon states. The central claims are the closed-form wavefunctions and the statement that the GBA captures the complete zero-energy subspace in the two-magnon sector and in the even-N three-magnon sector.

Significance. If the completeness claims hold, this is a valuable result: it provides explicit analytic eigenstates in a non-integrable model, connects few-magnon sectors to quantum many-body scars, and gives compact closed-form expressions for wavefunctions and entanglement. The two-magnon construction is concrete and largely verifiable by direct substitution, and the paper includes useful cross-checks against exact diagonalization counts. The exact analytic formulas for the reduced density matrices of the AA-BB family are a genuine strength. However, the load-bearing step that separates 'a large family of exact states' from 'all zero-energy states' is a completeness proof, and this proof is not supplied. The odd-N non-Bethe states found in Section IV.C.2 make the absence of analogous even-N states a substantive open question rather than a technicality.

major comments (4)
  1. [III.A and Appendix B] Section III.A states that real momenta with sin^2 k1 = sin^2 k2 'will be found to account for all zero energy states in the two-magnon sector,' but Appendix B only rules out the k1 = k2 != 0 case. No argument excludes complex-momentum solutions or real solutions with k1, k2 outside the four branches k1 = ±k2, π ± k2 that could satisfy the constraint equations. To support the word 'all,' the paper needs either a proof that the constraint equations force the real-momentum condition and the listed branches, or an explicit exhaustive check for arbitrary N. As written, the completeness of the two-magnon description is an assumption, not a proven statement.
  2. [IV.B.3 and IV.C.2] The claim that the GBA explains all even-N three-magnon zero-energy states is not established. The construction solves only the K=0 sector with the specific (k,-k,0) ansatz and R=±1 symmetry, and Section IV.B.3 asserts without proof that for even N all zero modes lie in this sector. Since Section IV.C.2 explicitly finds non-Bethe zero-energy modes for odd N, the possibility of analogous even-N non-Bethe modes cannot be dismissed by construction. A completeness proof, or at minimum a systematic Gram-rank comparison between the GBA span and the exact K=0 null space for a range of N, is needed before the 'all even N' statement is warranted.
  3. [IV.B.1 and IV.B.2, Eqs. (51) and (57)] The derivation of the three-magnon solutions relies on the assertion that the constraint equations reduce to the three equations shown in Eqs. (52) and (58), but the text explicitly says the algebra is not shown for Eq. (51) and (57), and only one representative constraint equation is displayed. The subsequent claim that the remaining constraint equations give the same conditions is also stated without derivation. This omitted algebra is load-bearing for the enumeration of the R=±1 solutions, so the paper should include the full reduction or a reproducible computer-algebra supplement.
  4. [Table I and Section VII] The counts for N↓ >= 4 are described in Table I as 'obtained from numerical inference,' with the C5 entries including a question mark. Section VII nevertheless concludes that the GBA 'explains all two-magnon states ... and a large number of three-magnon zero energy states (all for even N).' The even-N three-magnon count C3 = 2(N-1) is matched to an inferred formula, not to a proven degeneracy for arbitrary N. The conclusions should distinguish rigorously proven count formulas from numerically inferred ones, and the completeness claims should be limited to what the proof actually establishes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Figure 8(a)] The legend in Figure 8(a) lists 'R = 1, type I' and 'R = 1, type II' twice; the second pair should presumably read 'R = -1, type I' and 'R = -1, type II.'
  2. [Section II, Eq. (9)] The notation S^-_{E=±sin(k)} in Eq. (9) is introduced before the Fourier operators S^-_{k,A(B)} are defined in Eq. (10); reordering or adding a short definition would improve clarity.
  3. [Appendix A] Appendix A proves only that the k = π/2 AA-BB solution is linearly dependent on the other cosine solutions. The linear independence of the remaining two-magnon families, including the fractionalized family for odd N, is checked numerically via the Gram matrix in Section III.F but not proved analytically; this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section III.D] The statement that the uniform mode 'can be written as a linear combination of this family and the AB solutions' is not shown. Since this subtraction is used to obtain the 2N-1 count for odd N, a short proof or explicit linear relation would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GBA wavefunctions are verified solutions of the hopping and constraint equations, and exact-diagonalization counts are used as external checks rather than as inputs to the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. For two magnons, the GBA coefficients are obtained by solving the hopping equations (Eq. 14) and constraint equations (Eqs. 15) together with periodic boundary conditions; the resulting AA-BB, AB, and odd-N fractionalized families are then checked by substitution and their linear independence is verified. The three-magnon construction similarly solves the constraint equations for the parameters α, β, γ, δ, C1, C2, and the NGBA procedure checks that the resulting states have zero variance of the Hamiltonian. Exact-diagonalization counts (Table I) serve as external checks on linear independence and completeness, not as inputs to the wave-function derivation. The self-citations, including Refs. [18], [51], [72], and [73], supply background, complementary real-space pictures, integrability classification, and related volume-law states, but none of these is load-bearing for the analytic GBA construction; the central equations are solved within the paper itself. The paper also explicitly flags its main limitations: in Sec. IV.C.2 it states that the restricted Bethe basis is insufficient for the missing odd-N three-magnon states and classifies them as 'non-Bethe solutions', and in Sec. V it states that many four-magnon zero modes 'have not been able to explain' and asks whether the choice of lattice momenta is insufficient. These are completeness gaps in the claim to explain 'all' states, not cases where a fitted parameter or self-citation is renamed as a prediction. No equation is defined in terms of the result it is said to predict, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: momenta are quantized by periodic boundary conditions and constants are fixed by constraint equations up to overall scale. The main axioms are the fixed-magnon-sector reduction, the sufficiency of hopping and constraint equations, and the completeness of the chosen real-momentum GBA bases, the last of which is not proven for complex momenta or for higher-magnon sectors. No new particles, forces, mediators, or dimensions are introduced; 'fractionalized momentum' is a property of allowed k values, not an invented entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Zero-energy eigenstates can be searched within fixed magnon-number sectors built on the ferromagnetic vacuum |F>.
    The Hamiltonian conserves total S^z, and the paper only considers zero-energy states with 1, 2, 3, and 4 magnons. This is standard for the Bethe ansatz but restricts the claim to these sectors.
  • standard math The hopping and constraint equations obtained by applying H to plane-wave-like ansatze are necessary and sufficient for an exact zero-energy eigenstate.
    This is linear algebra on the Schrodinger equation; the paper derives these equations in Secs. III and IV.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-magnon zero-energy states are completely captured by real momenta satisfying sin^2 k1 = sin^2 k2, together with the fractionalized-momentum family for odd N.
    Sec. III A states that complex-momentum bound states are not considered; no proof is given that they do not produce additional zero-energy states. Appendix B rules out k1=k2 but not all complex cases.
  • ad hoc to paper For three magnons, the GBA basis built from the momentum combinations in Table II, plus R=+/-1 symmetry and constant shifts, spans the zero-energy subspace for even N.
    Sec. IV B shows representative algebra and compares final counts with exact diagonalization; the omitted algebra and numerical linear independence checks are not fully provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact generalized Bethe eigenstates of the non-integrable alternating Heisenberg chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLZ5KOQP

@misc{pith2026250114017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact generalized Bethe eigenstates of the non-integrable alternating Heisenberg chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLZ5KOQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14017}
}
read the original abstract

Exact solutions of quantum lattice models serve as useful guides for interpreting physical phenomena in condensed matter systems. Prominent examples of integrability appear in one dimension, including the Heisenberg chain, where the Bethe ansatz method has been widely successful. Recent work has noted that certain non-integrable models harbor quantum many-body scar states, which form a superspin of regular states hidden in an otherwise chaotic spectrum. Here we consider one of the simplest examples of a non-integrable model, the alternating ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic (bond-staggered) Heisenberg chain, a close cousin of the spin-1 Haldane chain and a spin analog of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, and show the presence of exponentially many zero-energy states. We highlight features of the alternating chain that allow treatment with the Bethe ansatz (with important modifications) and surprisingly for a non-integrable system, we find simple compact expressions for zero-energy eigenfunctions for a few magnons including solutions with fractionalized particle momentum. We discuss a general numerical recipe to diagnose the existence of such generalized Bethe ansatz (GBA) states and also provide exact analytic expressions for the entanglement of such states. We conclude by conjecturing a picture of magnon pairing which may generalize to multiple magnons. Our work opens the avenue to describe certain eigenstates of partially integrable systems using the GBA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Normalized density of states for alternating mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Configurations for the constraint equations for two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Conditional probability amplitude for Bethe coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Configurations for the constraint equations for three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representative example of points in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.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. Fractal quantum many-body scars and Hamiltonian inverse design from ZX-calculus

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sierpiński-triangle ZX-diagrams yield exact quantum many-body scars in local chaotic Hamiltonians, with ZX identities certifying the annihilation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [60]

    E. H. Lieb and F. Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1445 (1968)

    1968

  2. [1]

    (49) Plugging in the symmetry adapted GBA from Eq

    Generalized Bethe ansatz zero energy states forR = 1 Consider the constraint equation for configurations where the three magnons exist on contiguous sites 2n, 2n + 1, 2n + 2, a2n,2n+1,2n+3 − a2n−1,2n+1,2n+2 = 0. (49) Plugging in the symmetry adapted GBA from Eq. (47) into Eq.(49) we find that it is satisfied for arbitrary α, β, γ, δ, C1, C2. So this equat...

    work page

  3. [2]

    For example, the constraint equation cor- responding to three magnons on consecutive sites is once again satisfied for arbitrary α, β, γ, δ, C1, C2

    Generalized Bethe ansatz zero energy states forR = −1 The arithmetic for the R = −1 case has many similari- ties to the R = 1 case, which we refer to when discussing the solutions. For example, the constraint equation cor- responding to three magnons on consecutive sites is once again satisfied for arbitrary α, β, γ, δ, C1, C2. Consider magnons at sites 2...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Counting the total number ofR = ±1 zero modes The arguments for counting the number of linearly in- dependent three-magnon states parallel those we encoun- tered earlier in the two-magnon case. For both even and odd N , there are N two-magnon states in the zero mo- mentum sector (including the uniform mode) and hence N three-magnon states that descend fro...

    work page

  5. [4]

    +” sign between the terms and the black color corresponds to the “ −

    Linear combination of Bethe states with momenta k1 = k2 = K 2 , k3 = 0 and k1 = k2 = K 2 + π 2 and k3 = 0 We first attempt a linear combination for a subset of momenta in Table II, in particular, we consider only 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 k 1 / 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 k 2 / s i n k 1 + s i n k 2 + s i n ( K k 1 k 2 ) = 0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 k 1 / s i n k 1 s i n k ...

    work page

  6. [5]

    numerical generalized Bethe ansatz

    Numerical GBA search and possible non-Bethe solutions For a given K = 2πn N where n is a non-zero integer, we now utilize Bethe basis functions for all four momentum combinations in Table II along with their permutations. Note that the combination of sublattices, i.e.AAA, AAB, ABA, ..., BBB , and the momenta k1, k2, k3 are needed to specify a single Bethe...

    work page

  7. [6]

    non-Bethe solution

    Then diagonalization of H in the Bethe basis would suggest that the energy ⟨ψ|H|ψ⟩ = 0, however, the state is clearly not an exact eigenstate of H unless α is strictly zero. Given that H is Hermitian we have, H|ϕ⟩ = α∗|ψ⟩ + β|ϕ⟩ + γ|ϕ′⟩ (68) where |ϕ′⟩ satisfies ⟨ϕ|ϕ′⟩ = ⟨ψ|ϕ′⟩ = 0 and where β and γ are scalars. Thus, ⟨ψ|H 2|ψ⟩ = |α|2 (69) which implies t...

    work page

  8. [7]

    E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 16, 407 (1961)

    1961

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Niemeijer, Physica 36, 377 (1967)

    T. Niemeijer, Physica 36, 377 (1967)

    1967

  2. [9]

    Mazur, Physica 43, 533 (1969)

    P. Mazur, Physica 43, 533 (1969)

    1969

  3. [10]

    Zotos, F

    X. Zotos, F. Naef, and P. Prelovsek, Phys. Rev. B 55, 11029 (1997)

    1997

  4. [11]

    J. M. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 43, 2046 (1991)

    1991

  5. [12]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. E 50, 888 (1994)

    1994

  6. [13]

    Rigol, V

    M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, Nature 452, 854 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    A. M. Kaufman, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, R. Schittko, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 794 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    D’Alessio, Y

    L. D’Alessio, Y. Kafri, A. Polkovnikov, and M. Rigol, Adv. Phys. 65, 239 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    P. N. Jepsen, Y. K. E. Lee, H. Lin, I. Dimitrova, Y. Mar- galit, W. W. Ho, and W. Ketterle, Nat. Phys. 18, 899 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1515 (1984)

    1984

  12. [19]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Nat. Phys.14, 745 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    C. J. Turner, A. A. Michailidis, D. A. Abanin, M. Serbyn, and Z. Papi´ c, Phys. Rev. B98, 155134 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235156 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Moudgalya, S

    S. Moudgalya, S. Rachel, B. A. Bernevig, and N. Reg- nault, Phys. Rev. B 98, 235155 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Iadecola, M

    T. Iadecola, M. Schecter, and S. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 100, 184312 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    K. Lee, R. Melendrez, A. Pal, and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B 101, 241111 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    Shibata, N

    N. Shibata, N. Yoshioka, and H. Katsura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 180604 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Chertkov and B

    E. Chertkov and B. K. Clark, Phys. Rev. B 104, 104410 (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    Sharma, K

    P. Sharma, K. Lee, and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B 105, 054413 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    P. A. McClarty, M. Haque, A. Sen, and J. Richter, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224303 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    C. M. Langlett, Z.-C. Yang, J. Wildeboer, A. V. Gor- shkov, T. Iadecola, and S. Xu, Phys. Rev. B105, L060301 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Zhang and G

    Z. Zhang and G. Mussardo, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134420 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Melendrez, B

    R. Melendrez, B. Mukherjee, P. Sharma, A. Pal, and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B 110, 104304 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2144 (1989)

    1989

  26. [34]

    Vafek, N

    O. Vafek, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, SciPost Phys. 3, 043 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    S. Pal, P. Sharma, H. J. Changlani, and S. Pujari, Phys. Rev. B 103, 144414 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Gerken, I

    F. Gerken, I. Runkel, C. Schweigert, and T. Posske, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2310.13158 (2023), arXiv:2310.13158 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mohapatra, S

    S. Mohapatra, S. Moudgalya, and A. C. Balram, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.22773 (2024), arXiv:2410.22773 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Khemani, M

    V. Khemani, M. Hermele, and R. Nandkishore, Phys. Rev. B 101, 174204 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    P. Sala, T. Rakovszky, R. Verresen, M. Knap, and F. Poll- mann, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011047 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    K. Lee, A. Pal, and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B 103, 235133 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    K. K. W. Ma and H. J. Changlani, Phys. Rev. B 109, L180301 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    H. J. Changlani, D. Kochkov, K. Kumar, B. K. Clark, and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117202 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    H. J. Changlani, S. Pujari, C.-M. Chung, and B. K. Clark, Phys. Rev. B 99, 104433 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Palle and O

    G. Palle and O. Benton, Phys. Rev. B 103, 214428 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Derzhko, J

    O. Derzhko, J. Schnack, D. V. Dmitriev, V. Y. Krivnov, and J. Richter, Eur. Phys. J. B 93, 161 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Udupa, S

    A. Udupa, S. Sur, S. Nandy, A. Sen, and D. Sen, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214430 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    W.-L. You, Z. Zhao, J. Ren, G. Sun, L. Li, and A. M. Ole´ s, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013103 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    B.-T. Chen, A. Prem, N. Regnault, and B. Lian, Phys. Rev. B 110, 165109 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Banerjee and A

    D. Banerjee and A. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 220601 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Y. Kuno, T. Mizoguchi, and Y. Hatsugai, Phys. Rev. B 22 104, 085130 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Schecter and T

    M. Schecter and T. Iadecola, Phys. Rev. B 98, 035139 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Buijsman, Phys

    W. Buijsman, Phys. Rev. B 106, 045104 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Zhang, D

    S.-Y. Zhang, D. Yuan, T. Iadecola, S. Xu, and D.-L. Deng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 020402 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Karle, M

    V. Karle, M. Serbyn, and A. A. Michailidis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 060602 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Lin and O

    C.-J. Lin and O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 173401 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Moudgalya, N

    S. Moudgalya, N. Regnault, and B. A. Bernevig, Phys. Rev. B 102, 085140 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    C. J. Turner, M. Szyniszewski, B. Mukherjee, R. Melendrez, H. J. Changlani, and A. Pal, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2407.11956 (2024), 2407.11956

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bethe, Z

    H. Bethe, Z. Phys. 71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  51. [59]

    Feynman, Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Advanced Books Classics (Avalon Publishing, 1998)

    R. Feynman, Statistical Mechanics: A Set Of Lectures, Advanced Books Classics (Avalon Publishing, 1998)

    1998

  52. [61]

    P. B. Wiegmann and A. M. Tsvelick, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 16, 2281 (1983)

    1983

  53. [62]

    Schlottmann, Phys

    P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1697 (1983)

    1983

  54. [63]

    Andrei, Phys

    N. Andrei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 379 (1980)

    1980

  55. [64]

    P. B. Wiegmann, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14, 1463 (1981)

    1981

  56. [65]

    P. N. Bibikov, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2018 (4), 043108

    2018

  57. [66]

    S. C. Bell, P. D. Loly, and B. W. Southern, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1, 9899 (1989)

    1989

  58. [67]

    W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1698 (1979)

    1979

  59. [68]

    Bulaevskii, Sov

    L. Bulaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 17, 684 (1963)

    1963

  60. [69]

    Hida, Phys

    K. Hida, Phys. Rev. B 45, 2207 (1992)

    1992

  61. [70]

    Hida, Phys

    K. Hida, Phys. Rev. B 46, 8268 (1992)

    1992

  62. [71]

    Hung and C.-D

    H.-H. Hung and C.-D. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 71, 054413 (2005)

    2005

  63. [72]

    H. T. Wang, B. Li, and S. Y. Cho, Phys. Rev. B 87, 054402 (2013)

    2013

  64. [73]

    W.-X. Chen, J. Ren, W.-L. You, X. Hao, and Y.-Z. Wu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 71, 1029 (2019)

    2019

  65. [74]

    D. B. Chesnut, J. Chem. Phys. 45, 4677 (1966)

    1966

  66. [75]

    P. L. Nordio, Z. G. Soos, and H. M. McConnell, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 17, 237 (1966)

    1966

  67. [76]

    J. C. Bonner, S. A. Friedberg, H. Kobayashi, D. L. Meier, and H. W. J. Bl¨ ote, Phys. Rev. B27, 248 (1983)

    1983

  68. [77]

    D. C. Johnston, R. K. Kremer, M. Troyer, X. Wang, A. Kl¨ umper, S. L. Bud’ko, A. F. Panchula, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B 61, 9558 (2000)

    2000

  69. [78]

    Mukherjee, R

    B. Mukherjee, R. Melendrez, M. Szyniszewski, H. J. Changlani, and A. Pal, Phys. Rev. B 109, 064303 (2024)

    2024

  70. [79]

    Exact quantum many-body scars tunable from volume to area law

    B. Mukherjee, C. J. Turner, M. Szyniszewski, and A. Pal, “Exact quantum many-body scars tunable from volume to area law” (To appear on arXiv concurrently)

  71. [80]

    J. S. Van Dyke, G. S. Barron, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, PRX Quantum 2, 040329 (2021)

    2021

  72. [81]

    Green, L

    D. Green, L. Santos, and C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. B 82, 075104 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

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