SciPost Submission Page

Competing Spin Liquid Phases in the S=$\frac{1}{2}$ Heisenberg Model on the Kagome Lattice

by Shenghan Jiang, Panjin Kim, Jung Hoon Han, Ying Ran

Submission summary

As Contributors: Shenghan Jiang
Arxiv Link:
Date submitted: 2019-04-24
Submitted by: Jiang, Shenghan
Submitted to: SciPost Physics
Domain(s): Theor. & Comp.
Subject area: Condensed Matter Physics - Computational


The properties of ground state of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ kagome antiferromagnetic Heisenberg (KAFH) model have attracted considerable interest in the past few decades, and recent numerical simulations reported a spin liquid phase. The nature of the spin liquid phase remains unclear. For instance, the interplay between symmetries and $Z_2$ topological order leads to different types of $Z_2$ spin liquid phases. In this paper, we develop a numerical simulation method based on symmetric projected entangled-pair states (PEPS), which is generally applicable to strongly correlated model systems in two spatial dimensions. We then apply this method to study the nature of the ground state of the KAFH model. Our results are consistent with that the ground state is a $U(1)$ Dirac spin liquid rather than a $Z_2$ spin liquid.

Current status:
Editor-in-charge assigned

Submission & Refereeing History

Submission 1610.02024v2 on 24 April 2019

Reports on this Submission

Report 1 by Didier Poilblanc on 2019-5-17 Invited Report


The Kagome HAFM is one of the hardest problem in frustrated quantum magnetism. The authors use state-of-the-art, recently developed, reliable tensor network (TN) techniques to investigate the nature of the spin liquid ground-state, obtaining convincing results in favor of a critical Dirac spin liquid.


Naively, one may think this paper is a bit outdated, considering the fact that more recent work on the topic, reaching similar conclusions, have been published as e.g. Liao et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 137202 (2017) by the group of Professor Tao Xiang (see comment below).


Considering the two remarks above, my overall opinion about the paper is very positive and I think it should be published because:

i) it was initially submitted on arXiv at the same time (even a week before) as the above mentioned PRL, while drawing similar strong conclusions.

ii) it follows a different route, using state-of-the-art tensor symmetry analysis, enabling to construct fully SU(2)-symmetric ansatz while in the non-symmetric TN version a spurious finite 120-degrees magnetic order at all finite D (the tensor bond dimension) values appears.

  • validity: top
  • significance: high
  • originality: top
  • clarity: high
  • formatting: excellent
  • grammar: perfect

Login to report or comment