Statistics of spinons in the spin-liquid phase of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Cs</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CuCl</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by a recent experiment on ${\mathrm{Cs}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuCl}}_{4}$ [Coldea et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1335 (2001)], we study the spin dynamics of the spin-liquid phase of the $\mathrm{s}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\ensuremath{-}\frac{1}{2}$ frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the anisotropic triangular lattice. There have been two different proposals for the spin-liquid phase of ${\mathrm{Cs}}_{2}{\mathrm{CuCl}}_{4}.$ These spin-liquid states support different statistics of spinons; the bosonic $\mathrm{Sp}(N)$ large-N mean-field theory predicts bosonic spinons, while the SU(2) slave-boson mean-field theory leads to fermionic spinons. We compute the dynamical spin structure factor for both types of spin-liquid state at zero and finite temperatures. While at zero temperature both theories agree with experiment on a qualitative level, they show substantial differences in the temperature dependence of the dynamical spin structure factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".