Superconfined Antiferromagnons on the Two-Dimensional Penrose Lattice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is scientifically sound and interesting. It is quite explanatory in its objective, results, and methods. I have some suggestions that could benefit the overall presentation.
line 6: originating from instead of in, as written elsewhere in the paper.
line 47: provide reference(s) for the reduction of the Hubbard to the Heisenberg model in the strong correlation limit.
line 60: provide reference for the perpendicular space.
Beginning of section model and method: it will be beneficial to the reader to provide a figure of the Penrose lattice with the two sublattices A and B clearly indicated.
Figure 2 is a little hard to bring its message across, especially when printed in black and white. It will only be beneficial if a more clear picture is included, showing the results produced and the difference between the two cases in a concrete way.
On page 7, in the text (line 102) or the caption of table 2, especially the first, the value of \tau can be specifically written so that the reader who does not know it does not have to wait until the appendix.
Line 193: a question mark is missing.
LIne 201: anyway should be separated into two words.
Author Response
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors report on novel confined states in the spin-S nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the two-dimensional Penrose lattice, in contrast with itinerant analogs in the tight-binding model. They check the robustness of these states against 1/S corrections and they further identify superconfined linear waves within tricoordinated sites due to emergent O(S⁰) interactions.
I find the paper very interesting. The manuscript is well written and the conclusions are sound and clearly presented. On the technical side, the authors employ a series expansion of the Heisenberg hamiltonian in descending powers of S. The method is well presented an the derivation of the reported results seems to be correct.
The only thing I miss is a stronger connection with experimental data and, also, with geometrical frustration, which is cited in passing. Then again, this is a mere suggestion to the authors for a future work.
To summarize, I strongly recommend publication of this manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Please find our reply in the attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript investigates linear spin-wave excitations and interacting spin waves including O(S^0) quantum corrections in the spin-S antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on the two-dimensional Penrose lattice. The main finding is that under the LSW approximation, macroscopically degenerate states emerge that are strictly confined to tricoordinated (z=3) sites. Including O(S^0) interactions splits these confined modes into two branches that nevertheless remain on z=3 sites, which the authors call “superconfined” states. The observation is interesting and carries physical significance. However, several issues should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. I recommend a minor revision.
Q1: The paper is almost entirely restricted to the ideal model and no serious attempt is made to connect the findings to experimental observables. Without discussing possible experimental signatures, the applied relevance of the work remains constrained. It is advisable to discuss how the predicted confined modes could be detected or manipulated, for example, through spin current injection, magnetotransport, or optical probes.
Q2: The authors show that open boundaries reduce the number of confined states, but do not establish whether this is a general property of quasiperiodic systems or specific to the Penrose lattice. The role of boundary geometry is also not examined, despite the fact that different terminations may significantly alter local coordination environments. In addition, the manuscript lacks connection to realistic conditions: the impact of edges, defects, or disorder that are unavoidable in experiments on the stability of confined states is not addressed.
Author Response
Please find our detailed responses in the attached PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
