4.6 Article

Low-energy effective theory and symmetry classification of flux phases on the kagome lattice

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 104, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165136

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [2017YFA0303100]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [NSFC-11888101]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB28000000]
  4. IOP-CAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivated by recent experiments on AV(3)Sb(5) (A = K, Rb, Cs), a chiral flux phase has been proposed to explain time-reversal symmetry breaking. A low-energy effective theory based on van Hove points around the Fermi surface was constructed to understand the chiral flux phase, and the possible symmetry-breaking states on the kagome lattice were studied. The relations between low-energy symmetry breaking orders, chiral flux, and charge bond orders were discussed, and a total of 183 flux phases on the kagome lattice were found and classified by point-group symmetry.
Motivated by recent experiments on AV(3)Sb(5) (A = K, Rb, Cs), the chiral flux phase has been proposed to explain time-reversal symmetry breaking. To fully understand the physics behind the chiral flux phase, we construct a low-energy effective theory based on the van Hove points around the Fermi surface. The possible symmetry-breaking states and their classifications of the low-energy effective theory are completely studied, especially the flux phases on the kagome lattice. In addition, we discuss the relations between the low-energy symmetry breaking orders, the chiral flux, and charge bond orders. We find all possible 183 flux phases on the kagome lattice within a 2*2 unit cell by brute-force approach and classify them by point-group symmetry. Among the 183 phases, we find 3 classes in a 1*1 unit cell, 8 classes in a 1*2 unit cell, and 18 classes in a 2*2 unit cell, respectively. These results provide a full picture of the time-reversal symmetry breaking in kagome lattices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据