Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

SU(4) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice with exchange-frustrated perturbations: implications for twistronics and Mott insulators

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a gapless quantum spin-orbital liquid, originally found at the SU(4)-symmetric point of the honeycomb Kugel-Khomskii model, persists over a wide region of parameter space, up to Hund's coupling \(\eta \approx 0.175\)…

desk verdict Solid variational study that probably confirms a wide QSOL region, but the QSOL-NCD boundary rests on an approximation the authors admit fails near the SU(4) point. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09224 v2 pith:RIKZSVE6 submitted 2019-08-24 cond-mat.str-el

W. M. H. Natori , R. Nutakki , R. G. Pereira , E. C. Andrade This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords SU(4)Heisenbergmodelhoneycomblatticequantumspin-orbitalliquidKugel-KhomskiiHund'scouplingtwistedbilayergrapheneMottinsulatorvariationalMonteCarlo
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 tries to establish that the gapless quantum spin-orbital liquid found at the SU(4)-symmetric point of a honeycomb Kugel-Khomskii model is robust against two physically motivated perturbations: Hund's coupling and orbital-dependent exchange. If true, the same liquid phase could be relevant to Mott insulators such as Ba3CuSb2O9 and to the insulating state of magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene at quarter filling, not just at a special symmetry point. The paper constructs the phase diagram with mean-field theory, linear flavor-wave theory, and variational Monte Carlo, and identifies three competing states: the quantum spin-orbital liquid, a ferromagnetic state with staggered orbital order, and a noncollinear spin-dimer crystal with vortex orbital order. The result matters because it says the spin-orbital liquid is a broad phase rather than an isolated fine-tuned accident.

What carries the argument

The central object is the extended Kugel-Khomskii Hamiltonian \(H(\xi, \eta)\) on the honeycomb lattice, written with spin projectors and bond-dependent orbital operators, where \(\xi = t'/t\) is the orbital-anisotropic hopping ratio and \(\eta = J_H/U\) is the dimensionless Hund's coupling; at \((0,0)\) it reduces to the SU(4) Heisenberg model. The paper's argument runs on energy competition: a Gutzwiller-projected parton wavefunction with \(\pi\) flux per hexagon represents the quantum spin-orbital liquid; linear flavor-wave theory, cross-checked by a variational wavefunction, gives the energy of the ferromagnetic antiferro-orbital state; and variational Monte Carlo with a spin-dimerizing ansatz over a vortex orbital background represents the noncollinear spin-dimer crystal. The machinery identifies which of these states has the lowest energy at each parameter and flags instabilities through complex or negative flavor-wave dispersions.

What would settle it

Evaluate the NCD state at \((\xi, \eta) \approx (0.2, 0.05)\) with a wavefunction that retains spin-orbital entanglement, for example exact diagonalization on a 24-site cluster or a projected entangled-pair state, and compare its energy with the \(\pi\)-flux quantum spin-orbital liquid; if the entangled NCD energy rises above the liquid energy or the dimer order parameter vanishes, the reported QSOL-NCD boundary is an artifact of the decoupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the gapless \(\pi\)-flux quantum spin-orbital liquid, previously proposed as the ground state at the SU(4)-symmetric point, is not destroyed by small or moderate symmetry-breaking interactions. It remains the lowest-energy state over a substantial region of the extended Kugel-Khomskii model's phase diagram, giving way to a ferromagnetic antiferro-orbital ordered state only near \(\eta \approx 0.175\), a boundary that is nearly independent of \(\xi\), and to a noncollinear spin-dimer (NCD) crystal for larger orbital-dependent hopping, near \(\xi \approx 0.2\). The phase diagram is assembled by comparing variational Monte Carlo energies of the spin-orbital liquid and candidate valence-bond states with linear flavor-wave energies of ordered states, and the paper argues that the liquid is additionally stable against tetramerization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mean-field decoupling used to build the noncollinear spin-dimer crystal remains accurate at \(\xi \approx 0.2\), even though the paper states that this decoupling neglects spin-orbital entanglement and should break down close to the SU(4) point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quantum spin-orbital liquid is stable against tetramerization around the SU(4) point, so a simple valence-bond crystal instability does not preempt the liquid.
  • In quarter-filled twisted bilayer graphene, increasing Hund's coupling should drive a transition from the spin-orbital liquid to a spin-polarized antiferro-orbital state, connecting the model to observed spin-polarized states.
  • For dominant orbital-dependent hopping, \(\xi \gtrsim 0.2\), the ground state becomes a noncollinear spin-dimer crystal with vortex orbital order.
  • The antiferromagnetic antiferro-orbital state is unstable once quantum fluctuations are included, so it does not appear in the final phase diagram.
  • The spin-orbital liquid boundary at \(\eta \approx 0.175\) is essentially independent of \(\xi\) for small \(\xi\), meaning the liquid phase is not confined to the high-symmetry point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the spin-orbital-liquid-to-ferromagnet boundary is nearly vertical in \(\eta\), moiré devices could switch between the liquid and a spin-polarized state by electrostatic tuning of the effective Hund's coupling, a testable knob in twisted bilayer graphene.
  • Beyond the paper: because the NCD mean-field decoupling neglects spin-orbital entanglement, the published boundary near \(\xi \approx 0.2\) is only an estimate; a fully entangled treatment could enlarge the spin-orbital liquid region or shift the QSOL-NCD boundary.
  • Beyond the paper: the same energy-comparison strategy could be applied to triangular-lattice Kugel-Khomskii models, such as those proposed for trilayer graphene/hBN heterostructures, by replacing the honeycomb \(\pi\)-flux ansatz with the appropriate parton state.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Kugel-Khomskii model on the honeycomb lattice with an SU(4)-symmetric point, extended by Hund's coupling η and orbital-dependent hopping ξ. Using mean-field theory, linear flavor-wave theory (LFWT), a Huse-Elser variational ansatz, and variational Monte Carlo (VMC), the authors propose the phase diagram in Fig. 1 with three phases: a π-flux quantum spin-orbital liquid (QSOL), a ferromagnetic antiferro-orbital state (FM AFOxz), and a non-collinear spin-dimer state with ferro-orbital vortex order (NCD). The central claim is that the QSOL survives away from the SU(4) point over a wide region, giving way to FM AFOxz at η ≈ 0.175 and to NCD for ξ ≳ 0.2.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes that a gapless spin-orbital liquid is not an isolated accident of the fine-tuned SU(4) point but survives realistic symmetry-breaking perturbations, which is of direct relevance to candidate materials such as Ba3CuSb2O9 and to models of twisted bilayer graphene. The study combines several standard techniques and includes useful cross-checks: the Huse-Elser variational calculation confirms the LFWT energy of FM AFOxz along ξ = 0, and VMC tests the QSOL against tetramerized and dimerized competitors. However, the phase diagram is ultimately a variational energy comparison over a limited set of trial states, and the manuscript does not report statistical or finite-size extrapolation errors for the VMC energies.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.B, Fig. 6] The NCD state is constructed by a mean-field decoupling that freezes the orbital sector into the ferro-orbital vortex pattern and solves only the spin sector; the authors explicitly state that this approximation 'neglects spin-orbital entanglement' and 'should break down close to the SU(4) point' (Sec. IV.B). The QSOL-NCD boundary is placed at ξ ≈ 0.2 and small η, which is not far from the SU(4) point. If orbital fluctuations and spin-orbital entanglement lower the true NCD energy relative to the frozen-orbital estimate, the NCD state wins at smaller ξ and the advertised QSOL region shrinks toward a narrow sliver around ξ = 0. Because the central quantitative claim is the survival of the QSOL up to η ≈ 0.175 for ξ ≲ 0.2, this uncontrolled approximation on a competing state at the boundary is load-bearing. I recommend either improving the NCD trial state to allow orbital fluctuations or spin-orbital entanglement, or benchmarking the NCD energy near the boundary against exact diagonalization or iPEPS.
  2. [§IV.A, Fig. 6] The VMC energies in Fig. 6 are presented as single curves with no statistical error bars and no finite-size extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, although the simulations are done for L = 6, 12, and 18. The phase boundaries, such as the QSOL–FM AFOxz crossing at η ≈ 0.175 for ξ = 0.2 and the QSOL–NCD crossings at ξ = 0.25, are obtained directly from crossings of these curves. At ξ = 0.25 the QSOL and NCD energies appear close over a range of η, and without uncertainties the location or even the existence of some boundaries is not quantitatively established. Reporting standard errors on the energies and showing an L → ∞ extrapolation for at least the crossing points is necessary to support the phase diagram.
  3. [§III.B, §IV.B] The gray region in Fig. 1 marks an LFWT instability of the FM AFOxz phase, but the authors explicitly state that no competitive VMC candidate is found for this region. The phase diagram is therefore incomplete there, and the summary statement of 'three distinct phases' in Fig. 1 does not describe this part of the parameter space. This does not invalidate the QSOL claim, but the manuscript should prominently state that the ground state in the gray region is unidentified, and ideally extend the variational search to partially polarized or other spin-orbital entangled states, as suggested by Ref. [31].
  4. [§IV.A] The QSOL trial wavefunction is the SU(4)-symmetric π-flux parton state of Ref. [36]; within the QSOL family, the authors do not consider symmetry-broken parton ansätze, such as those with a staggered chemical potential or bond modulations that break the SU(4) symmetry. The claim that the QSOL 'covers an appreciable portion of the phase diagram' is therefore a statement about this specific variational state. Adding a class of SU(4)-breaking parton states (while keeping the π-flux structure) would strengthen the evidence that the QSOL region is not an artifact of the high symmetry imposed on the trial wavefunction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, Fig. 4] In the text, 'Figure 4(b) shows ωλ(k) for ξ = 0 in solid lines' appears to refer to the ξ = 0 panel; Fig. 4(a) is the ξ = 0 case and Fig. 4(b) is ξ = 0.4. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§IV.B] The discussion of the tetramerized state says 'we modulate the sign of χ̃ij as in Fig. 5(d)', but Fig. 5 only contains panels (a) and (b); the intended reference is likely Fig. 5(a), the π-flux pattern.
  3. [§IV.A] The Monte Carlo parameters (∼10^5 sweeps with half discarded) are reported, but no autocorrelation time or number of statistically independent samples is given; adding this information would allow the reader to assess the statistical quality of the VMC energies in Fig. 6 and Fig. 8.
  4. [§II.B] The statement that the mean-field phase diagram is symmetric under ξ ↦ −ξ is clear for the classical energy, but the full quantum Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) contains terms linear in ξ; please clarify whether the symmetry is an exact property of the model or only of the classical/mean-field energy after an orbital transformation.
  5. [§IV.B, Fig. 7(c)] For the NCD state, the text refers to a 'Kekulé arrangement' of spin dimers; since there are two inequivalent Kekulé dimer coverings on the honeycomb lattice, please specify which covering is used in Fig. 7(c).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QSOL stability claim rests on VMC energy comparisons against independent trial states over swept Hamiltonian parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the π-flux QSOL survives finite Hund's coupling η and orbital-dependent hopping ξ, is established by variational Monte Carlo energy competition among three distinct trial states: the π-flux QSOL taken from the independent prior work of Corboz et al. (Ref. [36]), the FM AFOxz ordered state treated by linear flavor-wave theory and Huse-Elser variational states, and the NCD valence-bond state built from a spin-orbital mean-field decoupling. The Hamiltonian parameters ξ and η are swept, not fitted, and the phase boundaries are energy crossings of these independent trial states. The QSOL ansatz is not constructed from the Hamiltonian's own outputs; it is an externally proposed parton state whose energy is evaluated directly on model (8). Self-citations to Refs. [16, 18, 20] appear only as methodological citations for parton-VMC techniques, not as load-bearing evidence for the survival of the QSOL. The NCD mean-field decoupling is explicitly acknowledged to neglect spin-orbital entanglement and to break down near the SU(4) point (Sec. IV.B), which is a legitimate accuracy limitation affecting the placement of the QSOL-NCD boundary, but it is not a circularity: the NCD energy is still computed independently from the QSOL energy, and the comparison does not reduce to an identity or to the fitted input being renamed as a prediction. No step in the derivation chain defines a predicted quantity in terms of the target result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, with any residual concerns belonging to approximation error rather than circularity.

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

The central results are variational energy comparisons for a fixed lattice model. No experimental data are fitted; the model parameters ξ and η are swept, not optimized, and all variational parameters (χ, χtet, ε~, dimerization strength) are internal trial-state optimizations rather than free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian Eq. (5) is a faithful strong-coupling expansion of the Hubbard model for t,t' << U,JH.
    Sec. II.B states the model is derived within second-order perturbation theory in the regime t,t' << U,JH. The phase diagram extends to η = JH/U = 0.3 and ξ near 1, where the expansion becomes less controlled.
  • domain assumption Each site hosts a spin-1/2 and an orbital-1/2 doublet, and C3 symmetry fixes the hopping matrix to the σ/π form in Eq. (4).
    Sec. II.A-B; this is the physical modeling assumption that connects the model to p orbitals in twistronics and eg orbitals in Mott insulators.
  • domain assumption LFWT truncates the Holstein-Primakoff expansion at quadratic order, and the FM AFOxz ground-state energy uses only the λ=1,2 modes, with the other modes stated not to affect the energy.
    Sec. III.B, Eqs. (14)-(17). The claim that number-conserving gapped modes do not contribute to the ground state energy is a specific technical assumption.
  • domain assumption The variational trial set (π-flux QSOL, FM AFOxz, NCD, tetramer, collinear dimer, partially polarized spins) contains the relevant low-energy states of model (5).
    Sec. IV. The phase diagram is a variational energy comparison; the completeness of the trial set is not proven, and other flux patterns or bond orders are not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SU(4) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice with exchange-frustrated perturbations: implications for twistronics and Mott insulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIKZSVE6

@misc{pith2026190809224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SU(4) Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice with exchange-frustrated perturbations: implications for twistronics and Mott insulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIKZSVE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09224}
}
abstract

The SU(4)-symmetric spin-orbital model on the honeycomb lattice was recently studied in connection to correlated insulators such as the $e_{g}$ Mott insulator Ba$_{3}$CuSb$_{2}$O$_{9}$ and the insulating phase of magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene at quarter filling. Here we provide a unified discussion of these systems by investigating an extended model that includes the effects of Hund's coupling and anisotropic, orbital-dependent exchange interactions. Using a combination of mean-field theory, linear flavor-wave theory, and variational Monte Carlo, we show that this model harbors a quantum spin-orbital liquid over a wide parameter regime around the SU(4)-symmetric point. For large Hund's coupling, a ferromagnetic antiferro-orbital ordered state appears, while a valence-bond crystal combined with a vortex orbital state is stabilized by dominant orbital-dependent exchange interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09224 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of (a) pz and (b) px orbitals in the zx plane. The orbitals in Fig. (a) overlap with each other analogously to a σ-bond in organic chemistry. Analogously, Fig. (b) depicts active orbitals similar to a π-bond. |S z i , τ z i i (often called colors) which are labeled as |1i = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Classical states in the spin-orbital model Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Dispersions ωλ(k) for λ = 1, 2 (continuous line) and λ = 3, ..., 6 (dashed lines) of the ordered state FM AFOxz for η = 0.2 and ξ = 0. (b) Dispersions ωλ(k) of the ordered state FM AFOxz for η = 0.2 and ξ = 0.4 with the same convention set in (a). (c) Correction to the order parameter ∆M as a function of ξ for η = 0.2 (d) Ground state energy as a function of η at ξ = 0 for the FM AFOxz state comparing the classi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Mean-field ansatz for the π-flux state. The links in black have χij = χ (φij = 0) while the links in green have χij = −χ (φij = π). (b) Dispersion relation of the π-flux state. The parton mean-field ground state is obtained through the occupation of the states in t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Valence bond crystal states considered in this work: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the energy, per site, of three dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Ground state energy of the tetramerized state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Smerald and F

    A. Smerald and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B90, 094422 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [36]

    Corboz, M

    P. Corboz, M. Lajkó, A. M. Läuchli, K. Penc, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. X2, 041013 (2012)

    2012

  3. [1]

    K. I. Kugel and D. I. Khomskii, Sov. Phys. Usp.25, 231 (1982)

    1982

  4. [2]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  5. [3]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Science288, 462 (2000)

    2000

  6. [4]

    Khaliullin, Prog

    G. Khaliullin, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.160, 155 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [5]

    Krüger, S

    F. Krüger, S. Kumar, J. Zaanen, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B79, 054504 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [6]

    X. Dou, V. N. Kotov, and B. Uchoa, Sci. Rep.6, 31737 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    H. Ueda, T. Morimoto, and T. Momoi, Phys. Rev. B98, 045128 (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    L. F. Feiner, A. M. Olés, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2799 (1997)

    1997

  3. [9]

    Nussinov and J

    Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 1 (2015)

    2015

  4. [10]

    Ghorayeb, P

    F.Reynaud, D.Mertz, F.Celestini, J.-M.Debierre, A.M. Ghorayeb, P. Simon, A. Stepanov, J. Voiron, and C. Del- mas, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3638 (2001)

    2001

  5. [11]

    M. V. Mostovoy and D. I. Khomskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 227203 (2002)

    2002

  6. [12]

    K. Penc, M. Mambrini, P. Fazekas, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 68, 012408 (2003)

    2003

  7. [13]

    Vernay, K

    F. Vernay, K. Penc, P. Fazekas, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B 70, 014428 (2004)

    2004

  8. [14]

    A. J. W. Reitsma, L. F. Feiner, and A. M. Oleś, New Journal of Physics7, 121 (2005)

    2005

  9. [15]

    G. Chen, R. Pereira, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B82, 174440 (2010)

    2010

  10. [16]

    W. M. H. Natori, E. C. Andrade, E. Miranda, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 017204 (2016)

    2016

  11. [17]

    Romhányi, L

    J. Romhányi, L. Balents, and G. Jackeli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 217202 (2017)

    2017

  12. [18]

    W. M. H. Natori, M. Daghofer, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B 96, 125109 (2017)

    2017

  13. [19]

    M. G. Yamada, M. Oshikawa, and G. Jackeli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 097201 (2018)

    2018

  14. [20]

    W. M. H. Natori, E. C. Andrade, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B98, 195113 (2018)

    2018

  15. [21]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    2018

  16. [22]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Nature 556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Xu and L

    C. Xu and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087001 (2018)

    2018

  18. [24]

    J. W. F. Venderbos and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245103 (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    N.F.Q.YuanandL.Fu,Phys.Rev.B 98,045103(2018)

    2018

  20. [26]

    Zhang and T

    Y.-H. Zhang and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B99, 205150 (2019)

    2019

  21. [27]

    Classen, C

    L. Classen, C. Honerkamp, and M. M. Scherer, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195120 (2019)

    2019

  22. [28]

    Schrade and L

    C. Schrade and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B100, 035413 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    X.-C. Wu, A. Keselman, C.-M. Jian, K. A. Pawlak, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B100, 024421 (2019)

    2019

  24. [30]

    Zhang and D

    Y.-H. Zhang and D. Mao, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.10132 (2019), arXiv:1906.10132 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [32]

    K. I. Kugel, D. I. Khomskii, A. O. Sboychakov, and S. V. Streltsov, Phys. Rev. B91, 155125 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Affleck and J

    I. Affleck and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3774 (1988)

    1988

  27. [34]

    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. B38, 316 (1988)

    1988

  28. [35]

    Read and S

    N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1773 (1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    Nakatsuji, K

    S. Nakatsuji, K. Kuga, K. Kimura, R. Satake, N. Katayama, E. Nishibori, H. Sawa, R. Ishii, M. Hagi- wara, F. Bridges, T. U. Ito, W. Higemoto, Y. Karaki, M. Halim, A. A. Nugroho, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, M. A. Green, and C. Broholm, Science336, 559 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Nasu and S

    J. Nasu and S. Ishihara, Phys. Rev. B88, 094408 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    D. A. Huse and V. Elser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2531 (1988)

    1988

  32. [40]

    Ferrari, S

    F. Ferrari, S. Bieri, and F. Becca, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104401 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Wu, Phys

    C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 200406 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Joshi, M

    A. Joshi, M. Ma, F. Mila, D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B60, 6584 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Chaloupka and G

    J. Chaloupka and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. B92, 024413 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Gros, Annals of Physics189, 53 (1989)

    C. Gros, Annals of Physics189, 53 (1989)

    1989

  37. [45]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Wen, Phys

    M.Hermele, T.Senthil, M.P.A.Fisher, P.A.Lee, N.Na- gaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B70, 214437 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Khomskii, Transition Metal Compounds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    D. Khomskii, Transition Metal Compounds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Lajkó and K

    M. Lajkó and K. Penc, Phys. Rev. B87, 224428 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Y. Q. Li, M. Ma, D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3527 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    X. Y. Xu, K. T. Law, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B98, 121406(R) (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    J. A. Quilliam, F. Bert, E. Kermarrec, C. Payen, C. Guillot-Deudon, P. Bonville, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, and P. Mendels, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 117203 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Katayama, K

    N. Katayama, K. Kimura, Y. Han, J. Nasu, N. Drichko, Y. Nakanishi, M. Halim, Y. Ishiguro, R. Satake, E. Nishi- bori, M. Yoshizawa, T. Nakano, Y. Nozue, Y. Wak- abayashi, S. Ishihara, M. Hagiwara, H. Sawa, and S. Nakatsuji, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 9305 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. X8, 031088 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Koshino, N

    M. Koshino, N. F. Q. Yuan, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, K. Kuroki, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. X8, 031087 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    H. C. Po, L. Zou, A. Vishwanath, and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031089 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    K. Seo, V. N. Kotov, and B. Uchoa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 246402 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    A. L. Sharpe, E. J. Fox, A. W. Barnard, J. Finney, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. A. Kastner, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1901.03520 11 (2019), arXiv:1901.03520 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Serlin, C

    M. Serlin, C. L. Tschirhart, H. Polshyn, Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Balents, and A. F. Young, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1907.00261 (2019), arXiv:1907.00261 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kang and O

    J. Kang and O. Vafek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 246401 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Kiese, F

    D. Kiese, F. Lasse Buessen, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and M. M. Scherer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1907.09490 (2019), arXiv:1907.09490 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ramires and J

    A. Ramires and J. L. Lado, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 146801 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.