Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Dynamics of Quantum Chiral Solitons

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the dominant soliton tunneling amplitude in quantum spin chains alternates with spin parity, sgn(t_1+) = (-1)^(2S+1), placing soliton band minima at k=π for half-integer S and k=0 for integer S.

desk verdict New Wannierized lattice-soliton framework with strong numerics, but the headline spin-parity sign formula is not backed by the paper's own derivation and is contradicted by its Fig. 7. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08220 v2 pith:5NL6VVFS submitted 2025-12-09 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Leandro M. Chinellato , Oleg A. Starykh , Cristian D. Batista This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumchiralsolitonsspinchainssine-GordondualityThirringmodelDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractionBerryphasetopologicalparityinelasticneutronscattering
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, in a ferromagnetic spin chain with Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction just above the saturation field, the low-energy excitations are quantum chiral solitons rather than ordinary magnons. Its central claim is that the dominant soliton tunneling amplitude has a sign determined solely by spin parity, sgn(t_1+) = (-1)^(2S+1), which shifts the soliton band minimum from the zone center to the zone boundary as the spin changes from integer to half-odd-integer. The authors build this claim from explicit lattice soliton creation operators, orthogonalize them into quantum soliton states, and derive an effective fermionic tight-binding model that reproduces numerically computed dispersions. If correct, chiral solitons become directly observable quasiparticles with distinctive neutron-scattering and thermodynamic signatures, and the continuum sine-Gordon/Thirring duality acquires a concrete lattice realization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum chiral soliton creation operator: a product of local spin rotations that imprints the classical sine-Gordon kink profile onto the fully polarized vacuum. Because the resulting single-soliton states are not orthogonal, the construction continues with Wannierization—Fourier transforming the states, normalizing each momentum component, and transforming back—producing orthonormal, exponentially localized quantum soliton states. The tunneling amplitudes are then matrix elements of the original spin Hamiltonian in this basis. The critical factor is a Berry-phase overlap between solitons centered at neighboring sites: for a soliton carrying winding ±1, this overlap

What would settle it

Compute the complete nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude t_1+ from the full lattice Hamiltonian for S=1 and S=3/2 including Heisenberg, DM, and Zeeman terms over H_c < H < ∞, and check whether sgn(t_1+) = (-1)^(2S+1) holds at every field; alternatively, measure the soliton band minimum in a known half-integer-spin chain with DM interaction and look for a low-energy peak at k=π rather than k=0.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives a nonperturbative lattice quantization of chiral solitons. Starting from the classical sine-Gordon soliton profile acting on the fully polarized state, it constructs localized soliton operators, then applies a momentum-space orthogonalization step to obtain orthonormal quantum soliton states. In this basis the nearest-neighbor tunneling amplitude of a soliton is computed from the spin Hamiltonian, giving t_1+ whose sign is (-1)^(2S+1). This sign is a topological Berry-phase effect: for half-integer spin the soliton band minimum lies at the Brillouin-zone boundary k=π, while for integer spin it lies at k=0. The resulting two-flavor hard-core-boson/Jordan-Wigner fermion model

Load-bearing premise

The whole sign alternation rests on the claim, asserted without proof in Appendix F, that the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya contribution to the nearest-neighbor hopping exceeds the combined Heisenberg and Zeeman contributions; if that balance fails in some field or spin range, the Berry-phase sign would be masked and the band-minimum shift would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The soliton band minimum shifts from k=0 to k=π when the chain changes from integer to half-odd-integer spin, and this shift should appear as a measurable displacement of the low-energy spectral peak in neutron scattering.
  • For fields slightly above saturation, solitons—not magnons—are the lowest-energy excitations over a finite field window, so magnetization dynamics and relaxation near the critical field must be interpreted through soliton rather than magnon language.
  • At the field where the hopping amplitude changes sign, the soliton band becomes nearly flat, producing a Schottky-like double-peak structure in the specific heat that merges into a single broad feature at higher fields.
  • The saturation-field quantum phase transition is governed by a free-fermion fixed point, with the gap scaling linearly with H − H_c (exponents ν=1/2, z=2), replacing the classical square-root scaling of the magnetization slope.
  • The lattice effective model extends the sine-Gordon/Thirring duality beyond the continuum limit, giving soliton and antisoliton bands with different effective masses and dispersions across the full Brillouin zone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the sign rule is derived under the explicit assumption that the DM contribution dominates the Heisenberg and Zeeman terms, the result should be read as a DM-dominated-window statement; a direct lattice computation of the full t_1+ for general S would reveal whether the alternation survives outside that window.
  • The same Wannierization-plus-Berry-phase logic could be applied to other topological solitons such as skyrmions, where the solid-angle overlap would produce analogous spin-parity effects in tunneling amplitudes; the paper mentions this generalization but does not develop it.
  • The identified magnon-soliton hybridization suggests a practical materials-search strategy: ferromagnetic chains with moderate DM coupling are the most promising neutron-scattering candidates, and the predicted specific-heat anomaly could serve as a cheaper pre-screening probe before expensive inelastic experiments.
  • The free-fermion scaling at the critical point implies a 1/√T divergence in the temperature derivative of the magnetization at H=H_c, which is a sharper and more direct experimental test of the theory than matching the full spectral function.
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 develops a lattice quantization scheme for chiral solitons in the spin-S ferromagnetic chain with DM interaction and transverse field, Eq. (1). Classical sine-Gordon solitons are promoted to operators \hat T^\dagger_{j\tau}, Eq. (21), Wannierized into orthogonal single-soliton states via Eqs. (26)-(29), and their hopping integrals t_{\delta\tau} are evaluated analytically from the spin Hamiltonian, Eqs. (33)-(38). The resulting tight-binding model is Jordan-Wigner mapped to two-flavor fermions, Eqs. (40)-(51), with a free-fermion fixed point at saturation and a Tomonaga-Luttinger-liquid phase below. Static magnetization, soliton/antisoliton dispersions, and the dynamical spin structure factor are benchmarked against DMRG/TEBD, and neutron-scattering and thermodynamic signatures are proposed. The headline claim, stated in the Abstract and Sec. IV.D, is the spin-parity sign relation sgn(t_{1+}) = (-1)^{2S+1}, which is said to distinguish half-odd-integer from integer spin chains.

Significance. If correct, the Wannierized quantum-soliton construction would be a valuable nonperturbative bridge between lattice spin models and the sine-Gordon/Thirring duality, with explicit parameter-free predictions for dispersions, spectral functions, and thermodynamics. The numerical benchmarks in Fig. 11 are strong: the analytic soliton bands reproduce the TEBD dispersions without fitting, and the DSSF/hybridization analysis gives concrete experimental signatures. However, the central spin-parity claim is not established: it is contradicted by the paper's own S=1/2 hopping data in Fig. 7, and the Appendix F derivation is internally inconsistent with the soliton states used elsewhere in the paper. The contribution is therefore significant conditionally, but the current version overstates a key result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. IV.D, Fig. 7] The unqualified formula sgn(t_{1+}) = (-1)^{2S+1} is contradicted by the paper's own S=1/2 result. Fig. 7 shows t_{1+} > 0 for H < H0 ≈ 0.2 and t_{1+} < 0 for H > H0, and Sec. IV.D explicitly describes this sign reversal. Since this t_{1+} is the total nearest-neighbor hopping used in Eqs. (38)-(43), the headline formula cannot hold as stated. At minimum the claim must be restricted to the DM contribution and/or to a finite field window; as written it misstates the numerical result and makes the 'sharply distinguishing' spin-parity statement unsupported.
  2. [Appendix F, Eqs. (F2)-(F6), vs. Eq. (E2)] The Berry-phase derivation of the sign alternation is inconsistent with the explicit soliton states used throughout the paper. The states in Eq. (E2) have overlap cos[(φ−φ')/2], which is real and positive for a smooth soliton profile, so the product ζ in Eq. (F4) is real and positive; the factor e^{iSΔΦ} = e^{±i2πS} of Eq. (F6) does not appear. The phase formula Eq. (F2) holds only for a different phase convention of canonical SU(2) coherent states, not for the rotated-|+x⟩ states of Eq. (E2) from which the Wannier coefficients (29) and hopping integrals (34)-(38) are built. There is also an internal sign inconsistency: Eq. (F24) gives δE_τ < 0 for the soliton, which combined with Eq. (F16) for S=1/2 gives t_DM < 0, while the final paragraph of Appendix F states the opposite.
  3. [Appendix F, 'This restriction is justified...'] The assertion that the DM contribution dominates the nearest-neighbor hopping is not proven and is contradicted by Fig. 7. A field-independent DM contribution with sign fixed by (-1)^{2S} cannot produce the sign reversal of t_{1+} at H0 ≈ 0.2 for S=1/2 unless non-DM terms are at least comparable, and above H0 they must dominate. The use of Eq. (F17) for the total t_{1+} therefore fails exactly in the field range H = 0.2-1.0 where the effective model is applied in Figs. 11-14. Moreover, because Zeeman terms scale as S while Heisenberg/DM terms scale as S², the competition cannot be assumed independent of S.
  4. [Sec. V; Sec. IV.D] No integer-S numerical test is provided. All DMRG/TEBD results are for S=1/2, so the claimed distinction between integer and half-odd-integer chains rests entirely on Appendix F, which, as discussed above, is inconsistent with the actual construction. Given that even S=1/2 shows a field-driven sign reversal, the 'sharply distinguishing' statement is not supported. A direct S=1 (or S=3/2) TEBD calculation of the lowest soliton band near H_c would be needed to validate the claimed alternation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 10 caption; Sec. V.B] 'TEDB' is used instead of 'TEBD' in the caption of Fig. 10 and in the text immediately after Eq. (53). Please standardize.
  2. [Sec. V.C] The text refers to 'Figs. 11(e) and 11(d)' when discussing the soliton structure factor; Fig. 11(e) is an antisoliton panel. The intended references appear to be panels 11(c) and 11(d).
  3. [Eqs. (26), (32)] The normalization of the Fourier-transformed soliton state is written in a confusing way, with the norm appearing inside a ket notation. It would be clearer to define a normalized Bloch state explicitly before applying the inverse Fourier transform.
  4. [Eq. (29) and surrounding text] 'Wannerized' appears to be a typo for 'Wannierized'; the same misspelling occurs in the discussion below Eq. (31).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the effective soliton Hamiltonian is computed from the original spin Hamiltonian without fitted parameters, and the DMRG/TEBD benchmarks are independent checks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The soliton operators in Eq. (21) are constructed from the classical sine-Gordon profile Eq. (8); the Wannier coefficients in Eq. (29) follow from the overlap norm Eq. (30); the hopping integrals in Eq. (38) are obtained from exact matrix elements h_tau(s) of the original Hamiltonian H_S, evaluated in Appendix E; and the chemical potential is computed from the same Hamiltonian in Eq. (39). No parameter is fitted to the DMRG or TEBD data: J, D, H, and S fix the classical profile, the Wannier coefficients, and the hopping integrals, and the numerical bands in Fig. 11 are a benchmark, not a fit. The soliton spectral function Eq. (54) uses the same soliton operator as the variational ansatz, but the peak positions are obtained from exact time evolution of the original spin Hamiltonian, so the agreement visible in Fig. 11 is genuine evidence for the trial subspace rather than a reduction by construction. The spin-parity result in Appendix F is derived from coherent-state overlap identities rather than imported as a fitted input, and it is additionally supported by the external references [29,30]. The paper contains several self-citations, but they are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The unproven DM-dominance assertion in Appendix F and the sign reversal of t1+ shown in Fig. 7 are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper's central derivation rests on the classical continuum approximation, the single-soliton variational subspace, and an unproven dominance of the DM hopping term. No physical constants are fitted to the numerical data; the only manually chosen quantity is the hopping truncation range.

free parameters (1)
  • Truncation range of hopping terms (n_neighbors) = n ≤ 4 (field-dependent)
    The tight-binding sum in Eq. (43) retains only hopping amplitudes |tδ| above numerical significance. This is a computational truncation, not a physical parameter fit to data, and it does not affect the sign result.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lattice spin model is accurately described by the classical continuum sine-Gordon Hamiltonian in the long-wavelength, small-pitch limit.
    Used in Sec. II and Appendix A to replace lattice spin operators by coherent-state fields and to drop subleading gradient terms; restricts validity to solitons extending over several lattice spacings.
  • domain assumption The low-energy single-soliton Hilbert space is well approximated by Wannierized product states built from the classical soliton profile.
    This is the semiclassical variational truncation at the heart of Sec. IV: quantum solitons are treated as orthogonalized single-particle wave packets, neglecting multi-soliton and continuum contributions in the effective Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The DM contribution to the nearest-neighbor hopping dominates the Heisenberg and Zeeman contributions, fixing the sign of the total hopping.
    Appendix F explicitly restricts the sign calculation to the DM term and asserts it dominates without quantitative proof. This is load-bearing for sgn(t1+)=(-1)^{2S+1}.
  • standard math Coleman-Mandelstam bosonization identities and the massive Thirring mapping are valid.
    Used in Sec. III and Appendix A to connect the quantum sine-Gordon model to Thirring fermions; these are standard field-theory results cited from Refs. [13,14,28].
  • domain assumption DMRG/TEBD calculations with the stated parameters converge for L=48/84 and T_f=40.
    The numerical benchmarks in Sec. V and Appendix G rely on the accuracy of ITensor v0.9 calculations with the given bond/truncation parameters, which the authors state is sufficient but do not document with convergence plots.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantum chiral soliton quasiparticle (Wannierized soliton operator) independent evidence
    purpose: A mobile, orthonormal single-particle excitation describing the quantized chiral soliton on the lattice; it forms the fermionic bands of the effective Thirring-like model.
    The quasiparticle is constructed explicitly from spin operators, and it has falsifiable handles: predicted dispersion, dynamical soliton structure factor, specific-heat anomaly, and INS visibility. It is not an ad hoc entity pulled from nowhere.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Quantum Chiral Solitons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NL6VVFS

@misc{pith2026251208220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Quantum Chiral Solitons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NL6VVFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08220}
}
abstract

We introduce a nonperturbative framework for quantizing chiral solitons in interacting quantum spin chains. This approach provides a direct lattice extension of the well-established $S$-duality between the sine-Gordon and Thirring models, thereby bridging the gap between continuum dualities and their lattice counterparts. By constructing the quantum chiral-soliton operators explicitly, we show how their unconventional dynamics appear in the excitation spectrum and correlation functions across the full Brillouin zone. A key result is that the dominant soliton tunneling amplitude alternates in sign, $\operatorname{sgn}(t_{1+}) = (-1)^{2S+1}$, sharply distinguishing half-odd-integer from integer spin chains. We further identify characteristic signatures of these chiral excitations in the dynamical spin structure factor, demonstrating their visibility in inelastic neutron scattering. Our results open a route to experimentally probing nonperturbative features of dual quantum field theories in condensed-matter settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Profile of the classical chiral soliton. Arrow directions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Field dependence of the magnetization. b) Spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamical spin structure factor and magnon dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Schematic representation of the fermionic soliton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematic representation of the action of the soliton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Field-induced magnetization of soliton (green) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Soliton (a) and anti-soliton (b) hopping amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Magnetization curves obtained from DMRG calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Difference between the ground-state magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. DSSF for a chain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Dynamical soliton–soliton (top) and antisoliton-antisoliton structure factor (bottom) for a chain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. DSSF for a chain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Left: Dynamical spin structure factor showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Constant momentum cuts of the dynamical spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (a–d) Character fidelity, as defined in Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Temperature dependence of the specific heat (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Use DMRG to obtain the ground state|0⟩

  2. [2]

    Att= 0, apply the spin operator at sitej ′ to the ground state:|ψ(0)⟩= ˆSβ j′ |0⟩

  3. [3]

    Evolve the state in time with a small time step δt≪1 using TEBD to obtain|ψ(t=δt)⟩= e−i ˆHδt |ψ(t= 0)⟩

  4. [4]

    ComputeS αβ jj ′ (t=δt) =⟨0|S α j |ψ(t=δt)⟩

  5. [5]

    After completing these steps, a Fourier transformation in both space and time is applied to obtain the dynamical function

    Continue the time evolution of the initial state by repeating step 3 a total ofn steps =T f /δttimes, withT f the total evolution time. After completing these steps, a Fourier transformation in both space and time is applied to obtain the dynamical function. However, since the total evolution timeT f is finite (T f <∞), the Fourier transform ofS αβ jj ′ (...

  6. [6]

    J. S. Russell, Report on waves, inReport of the 14th Meet- ing of the British Association for the Advancement of Science(York, London, 1844) p. 311

  7. [7]

    J. E. Allen, The early history of solitons (solitary waves), Physica Scripta57, 436 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    A. D. Craik, The origins of water wave theory, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.36, 1 (2004)

    2004

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Hereman, Shallow water waves and solitary waves, inMathematics of complexity and dynamical systems (Springer, 2012) pp

    W. Hereman, Shallow water waves and solitary waves, inMathematics of complexity and dynamical systems (Springer, 2012) pp. 1520–1532

    2012

  2. [10]

    soli- tons

    N. J. Zabusky and M. D. Kruskal, Interaction of “soli- tons” in a collisionless plasma and the recurrence of ini- tial states, Physical review letters15, 240 (1965)

    1965

  3. [11]

    Rajaraman,Solitons and Instantons: An Introduction to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory, North-Holland Personal Library (North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1982)

    R. Rajaraman,Solitons and Instantons: An Introduction to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory, North-Holland Personal Library (North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    J. H. Adlam and J. E. Allen, The structure of strong collision-free hydromagnetic waves, Philosophical Maga- zine3, 448 (1958)

    1958

  5. [13]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, A non-linear field theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences260, 127 (1961)

    1961

  6. [14]

    Skyrme, A unified field theory of mesons and baryons, Nuclear Physics31, 556 (1962)

    T. Skyrme, A unified field theory of mesons and baryons, Nuclear Physics31, 556 (1962)

    1962

  7. [15]

    Zahed and G

    I. Zahed and G. E. Brown, The skyrme model, Physics Reports142, 1 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Chaikin and T

    P. Chaikin and T. Lubensky,Principles of Condensed Matter Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Kosevich, B

    A. Kosevich, B. Ivanov, and A. Kovalev, Magnetic soli- tons, Physics Reports194, 117 (1990)

    1990

  10. [18]

    Coleman, Quantum sine-gordon equation as the mas- sive thirring model, Phys

    S. Coleman, Quantum sine-gordon equation as the mas- sive thirring model, Phys. Rev. D11, 2088 (1975)

  11. [19]

    Mandelstam, Soliton operators for the quantized sine- gordon equation, Phys

    S. Mandelstam, Soliton operators for the quantized sine- gordon equation, Phys. Rev. D11, 3026 (1975)

    1975

  12. [20]

    Dzyaloshinskii, Theory of helicoidal structures in an- tiferromagnets

    I. Dzyaloshinskii, Theory of helicoidal structures in an- tiferromagnets. i. nonmetals, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 960 (1964)

    1964

  13. [21]

    Y. A. Izyumov, Modulated, or long-periodic, magnetic structures of crystals, Soviet Physics Uspekhi27, 845 (1984)

    1984

  14. [22]

    Kishine and A

    J.-i. Kishine and A. S. Ovchinnikov, Theory of monoax- 28 ial chiral helimagnet, inSolid State Physics, Solid State Physics, Vol. 66, edited by R. E. Camley and R. L. Stamps (Academic Press, 2015) pp. 1–130

    2015

  15. [23]

    vortices

    A. N. Bogdanov and D. Yablonskii, Thermodynamically stable “vortices” in magnetically ordered crystals. the mixed state of magnets, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz95, 178 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Skyrmion lattice in a chiral magnet, Science323, 915 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    X. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, J. H. Park, J. Han, Y. Matsui, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Real-space ob- servation of a two-dimensional skyrmion crystal, Nature 465, 901 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Zhang, Z

    H. Zhang, Z. Wang, D. Dahlbom, K. Barros, and C. D. Batista, Cp2 skyrmions and skyrmion crystals in realis- tic quantum magnets, Nature Communications14, 3626 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Williams, D

    F. Williams, D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Bar- ros, and C. D. Batista, Skyrmions of frustrated quantum dimer systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22320 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nitta, Relations among topological solitons, Phys

    M. Nitta, Relations among topological solitons, Phys. Rev. D105, 105006 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Manton and P

    N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe,Topological solitons(Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    Shankar,Quantum Field Theory and Condensed Matter: An Introduction(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    R. Shankar,Quantum Field Theory and Condensed Matter: An Introduction(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    V. Zapf, M. Jaime, and C. D. Batista, Bose-einstein con- densation in quantum magnets, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 563 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, et al., Sunny. jl: a julia package for spin dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13095 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Luther and V

    A. Luther and V. J. Emery, Backward scattering in the one-dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 589 (1974)

    1974

  26. [34]

    Braun and D

    H.-B. Braun and D. Loss, Berry’s phase and quantum dy- namics of ferromagnetic solitons, Phys. Rev. B53, 3237 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    Kodama, A

    S. Kodama, A. Tanaka, and Y. Kato, Spin parity effects in a monoaxial chiral ferromagnetic chain, Phys. Rev. B 107, 024403 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension, In- ternational Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    Haller, S

    A. Haller, S. A. D ´ ıaz, W. Belzig, and T. L. Schmidt, Quantum magnetic skyrmion operator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 216702 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Bhowmick, A

    D. Bhowmick, A. Haller, D. S. Kathyat, T. L. Schmidt, and P. Sengupta, Quantum skyrmion liquid, Phys. Rev. B111, 134410 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Takashima, H

    R. Takashima, H. Ishizuka, and L. Balents, Quantum skyrmions in two-dimensional chiral magnets, Phys. Rev. B94, 134415 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    C. D. Batista and G. Ortiz, Generalized jordan-wigner transformations, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 1082 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Fishman, S

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

    2022

  34. [42]

    Fishman, S

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

    2022

  35. [43]

    P.-O. L¨ owdin, On the non-orthogonality problem con- nected with the use of atomic wave functions in the the- ory of molecules and crystals, The Journal of Chemical Physics18, 365 (1950)

    1950

  36. [44]

    Mayer, On l¨ owdin’s method of symmetric orthogonal- ization, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry90, 63 (2002)

    I. Mayer, On l¨ owdin’s method of symmetric orthogonal- ization, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry90, 63 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    Mekata and K

    M. Mekata and K. Adachi, Magnetic structure of cscocl3, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.45, 1050–1057 (1978)

    1978

  38. [46]

    Zheludev, S

    A. Zheludev, S. Maslov, G. Shirane, Y. Sasago, N. Koide, and K. Uchinokura, Field-induced incommensurate-to- commensurate transition in ba2cuge2o7, Phys. Rev. B57, 2968 (1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    Zheludev, S

    A. Zheludev, S. Maslov, G. Shirane, Y. Sasago, N. Koide, and K. Uchinokura, Field-induced commensurate- incommensurate phase transition in a dzyaloshinskii- moriya spiral antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4857 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    K. Y. Povarov, T. A. Soldatov, R.-B. Wang, A. Zheludev, A. I. Smirnov, and O. A. Starykh, Electron spin reso- nance of the interacting spinon liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 187202 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Garate and I

    I. Garate and I. Affleck, Interplay between symmetric exchange anisotropy, uniform dzyaloshinskii-moriya in- teraction, and magnetic fields in the phase diagram of quantum magnets and superconductors, Phys. Rev. B81, 144419 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Y.-H. Chan, W. Jin, H.-C. Jiang, and O. A. Starykh, Ising order in a magnetized heisenberg chain subject to a uniform dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction, Phys. Rev. B96, 214441 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Shimamoto, Y

    Y. Shimamoto, Y. Matsushima, T. Hasegawa, Y. Kousaka, I. Proskurin, J. Kishine, A. S. Ovchinnikov, F. J. T. Goncalves, and Y. Togawa, Observation of collective resonance modes in a chiral spin soliton lattice with tunable magnon dispersion, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 247203 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    O. G. Mouritsen, Specific heat of the classical easy-plane ferromagnetic chain with application to csnif 3, Physical Review B30, 498 (1984)

    1984

  45. [53]

    Balucani, A

    U. Balucani, A. Rettori, and V. Tognetti, Classical fer- romagnetic heisenberg chain in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 703–706 (1982)

    1982

  46. [54]

    Karadamoglou, N

    J. Karadamoglou, N. Papanicolaou, X. Wang, and X. Zo- tos, Magnon dispersion and thermodynamics in csnif 3, Phys. Rev. B63, 224406 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Coldea, D

    R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, E. M. Wheeler, E. Wawrzyn- ska, D. Prabhakaran, M. Telling, K. Habicht, P. Smeibidl, and K. Kiefer, Quantum criticality in an ising chain: Ex- perimental evidence for emergent e 8 symmetry, Science 327, 177 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Adachi, M

    H. Adachi, M. Ishikawa, T. Hirano, M. Ichioka, and K. Mekata, Helical magnetic structure in cscucl3, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.49, 545–553 (1980)

    1980

  49. [57]

    Adachi, M

    H. Adachi, M. Ishikawa, T. Hirano, M. Ichioka, and K. Mekata, Helical magnetic structure in cscucl3, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan49, 545 (1980)

    1980

  50. [58]

    Nikuni and H

    T. Nikuni and H. Shiba, Magnetic excitations in cscucl 3 with helical spin structure, Journal of the Physical Soci- ety of Japan62, 3268 (1993)

    1993

  51. [59]

    R. Aoki, Y. Togawa, and S. Ohara, Electrical transport properties of micrometer-sized samples of the rare-earth chiral magnet ybni3al9, Phys. Rev. B97, 214414 (2018). 29

    2018

  52. [60]

    Y. Wang, H. Jin, J. Cao, R. Yu, J. Li, W. Tong, J. Xu, F. Zhu, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, and R. Tai, Nonequilibrium spin dynamics in the chiral soliton lattice host ybni3al9, Results in Physics75, 108336 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Psaroudaki, S

    C. Psaroudaki, S. Hoffman, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Quantum dynamics of skyrmions in chiral magnets, Phys. Rev. X7, 041045 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Mæland and A

    K. Mæland and A. Sudbø, Quantum fluctuations in the order parameter of quantum skyrmion crystals, Phys. Rev. B105, 224416 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Haller, S

    A. Haller, S. Groenendijk, A. Habibi, A. Michels, and T. L. Schmidt, Quantum skyrmion lattices in heisenberg ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043113 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    A. P. Petrovi´ c, C. Psaroudaki, P. Fischer, M. Garst, and C. Panagopoulos, Colloquium: Quantum properties and functionalities of magnetic skyrmions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 031001 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    S. K. Kim and O. Tchernyshyov, Mechanics of a ferro- magnetic domain wall, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter35, 134002 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    H. J. Mikeska, Solitons in a one-dimensional magnet with an easy plane, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 11, L29 (1978)

    1978

  59. [67]

    J. M. Radcliffe, Some properties of coherent spin states, Journal of Physics A: General Physics4, 313 (1971)

    1971

  60. [68]

    Q. Li, J. Cui, and W. Li, Detecting confined and decon- fined spinons in dynamical quantum simulations, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013193 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Keselman, L

    A. Keselman, L. Balents, and O. A. Starykh, Dynamical signatures of quasiparticle interactions in quantum spin chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 187201 (2020). 30

    2020

Pith tools

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