Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Signatures of Kitaev interactions in the van der Waals ferromagnet VI3

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a large ferromagnetic bond-dependent Kitaev interaction, with $K=-7.8$ meV, dominates the low-energy spin excitations of VI3 and accounts for their anisotropic patterns.

desk verdict New INS data on VI3 show genuinely anisotropic zone-boundary excitations, but the large fitted Kitaev term is one plausible parametrization rather than a uniquely established interaction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21003 v1 pith:ZHJQPGZW submitted 2024-12-30 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yiqing Gu , Yimeng Gu , Feiyang Liu , Seiko Ohira-Kawamura , Naoki Murai , Jun Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords KitaevinteractioninelasticneutronscatteringVI3vanderWaalsferromagnethoneycomblatticespinwavebond-dependentexchangeS=1
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

VI3 is a van der Waals ferromagnet whose V3+ ions form a honeycomb lattice, and it has long resisted explanation by conventional Heisenberg or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya models. The paper presents high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering maps of its magnetic excitations over a wide region of reciprocal space and shows that the low-energy spin-wave branch is reproduced by a nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian with a large bond-dependent Kitaev term, $K S_i^\gamma S_j^\gamma$, in addition to Heisenberg, off-diagonal, and single-ion-anisotropy terms. The fitted parameters are $J=-1.04$ meV, $K=-7.8$ meV, $\Gamma=0.3$ meV, $\Gamma'=-1.2$ meV, and $A=-0.6$ meV, so the ferromagnetic Kitaev exchange dominates the low-energy magnetism. If the claim holds, VI3 becomes a rare S=1 van der Waals Kitaev magnet, and its anomalous thermal Hall effect, monolayer ordering-temperature increase, and strong pressure sensitivity would be natural consequences of bond-dependent exchange. This would extend the search for Kitaev physics from 4d/5d $S=1/2$ magnets to a 3d $S=1$ ferromagnet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bond-dependent Kitaev interaction $K S_i^\gamma S_j^\gamma$ on the honeycomb lattice, where $\gamma = x, y, z$ labels the three nearest-neighbor bond directions of the edge-sharing iodine octahedra. The paper puts this term inside the symmetry-allowed J-K-$\Gamma$-$\Gamma'$-A Hamiltonian and compares linear spin-wave simulations, averaged over the three 120-degree magnetic domains and including the V3+ magnetic form factor, against the measured constant-energy slices and dispersions. It is the Kitaev term that produces the asymmetric, non-ring-like momentum structure; the alternative models fail where the data are most distinctive.

What would settle it

Ab initio computation of the exchange constants for the low-temperature distorted structure could show that the microscopic nearest-neighbor Kitaev coupling is much smaller than 7.8 meV, meaning the fitted K is an effective parameter rather than a real bond-dependent exchange. Alternatively, a neutron scan across the 5.5 meV bend at $\Gamma_1^*$ with better momentum and energy resolution would distinguish a sharp magnon crossing from a broad continuum, the latter indicating physics beyond linear spin-wave theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the low-energy magnon branch of VI3, measured at 5 K across several Brillouin zones, is quantitatively described by the J-K-$\Gamma$-$\Gamma'$-A model on a honeycomb lattice, with a ferromagnetic Kitaev coupling nearly eight times larger in magnitude than the Heisenberg coupling. This one model reproduces the six-pointed star pattern near $\Gamma_1$, the triangular pattern near $\Gamma_1^*$, the anisotropic V-shaped dispersion with the ~5.5 meV bend along $M$-$\Gamma_1^*$-$M$, and the evolution of single peaks into two peaks with increasing energy. Simpler models, including Heisenberg, XXZ, and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya terms, produce ring-like or otherwise incompatible patterns in the same region. The high-energy branch above 6 meV is assigned to the orbital-quenched excited state and simulated separately with J-A parameters that the paper explicitly states cannot be unambiguously determined.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the low-energy magnon branch is not accurately described by a single nearest-neighbor J-K-$\Gamma$-$\Gamma'$-A model on an ideal honeycomb lattice with the ground-state orbital configuration, because then the fitted K would be an effective parameter absorbing longer-range exchange, interlayer coupling, orbital mixing, and distortion effects rather than a genuine Kitaev interaction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VI3 sits at $\xi = 0.7289$, inside the range $0.7150 \lesssim \xi \lesssim 0.7775$ proposed for an S=1 Kitaev spin liquid, so moderate tuning by pressure, strain, field, or iodine substitution could push it toward a spin-liquid state.
  • The dominance of $K$ over $J$ gives a natural explanation for the remarkable sensitivity of VI3's magnetism to pressure and structural distortion: bond-dependent exchange weights change quickly when the lattice distorts.
  • The large anomalous thermal Hall effect, previously attributed to DM interactions, is more plausibly tied to the Kitaev coupling, since the fitted Kitaev term is much larger than any DM-like term in the model.
  • The six-pointed star pattern with filled intensity near the zone center resembles the scattering pattern reported for $\alpha$-RuCl3, so the paper's result suggests that continuum or fractionalized excitations, rather than simple single-magnon scattering, may contribute in VI3 as well.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One step the paper leaves open is an ab initio computation of the individual exchange paths in the actual low-temperature distorted structure; such a calculation could show whether the fitted $K=-7.8$ meV is a genuine microscopic Kitaev coupling or an effective parameter absorbing other terms.
  • The separate J-A treatment of the high-energy orbital-quenched branch leaves the connection between the two orbital sectors unexplored; a two-orbital model linking the branches could be tested against the data above 6 meV.
  • If the Kitaev picture holds, monolayer VI3 becomes a direct place to search for field- or strain-induced Kitaev spin-liquid signatures, a prediction the paper hints at but does not develop in detail.
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 reports high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering measurements on the van der Waals ferromagnet VI3, covering a wide range of reciprocal space at 5 K. The measured spin excitation spectra display strongly anisotropic features, including a six-pointed star pattern around the Γ1 zone center and a triangular pattern around the inequivalent Γ1* zone center, as well as a V-shaped dispersion with a bend anomaly. The authors fit these data with a linear spin-wave model described by a nearest-neighbor J-K-Γ-Γ'-A Hamiltonian on a honeycomb lattice, obtaining J = -1.04 meV, K = -7.8 meV, Γ = 0.3 meV, Γ' = -1.2 meV, and A = -0.6 meV, and claim that the low-energy branch is well captured only when a large bond-dependent Kitaev interaction is included. The high-energy branch above ~6 meV is separately simulated with a J-A model for the orbital-quenched state. The paper interprets the results as evidence for a dominant ferromagnetic Kitaev interaction in VI3, discusses the proximity of the fitted parameters to a predicted S=1 Kitaev spin liquid regime (ξ = 0.7289), and connects the findings to the large anomalous thermal Hall effect and the anomalous monolayer Tc enhancement.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, VI3 would be a rare S = 1 van der Waals ferromagnetic Kitaev candidate with a dominant bond-dependent exchange, a result that would substantially broaden the materials platform for Kitaev physics and offer a new framework for understanding the anomalous thermal Hall effect, the pressure/structure sensitivity of magnetism, and the enhanced monolayer Tc. The paper's strengths include the wide momentum coverage of the INS data, the explicit comparison of several symmetry-allowed interaction models, and the identification of texture in constant-energy slices (six-pointed star and triangular patterns) that are qualitatively reproduced by the Kitaev model but not by simpler Heisenberg, XXZ, or DM models. However, the significance is currently tempered by the absence of quantitative fit metrics, the lack of demonstrated parameter identifiability, and the incomplete treatment of model-space alternatives, all of which are needed to establish that the fitted K is a genuine microscopic Kitaev interaction rather than an effective parameter that absorbs neglected physics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, fitting paragraph (Eq. (1) and Fig. 3)] The five parameters J, K, Γ, Γ′, A are fitted to the very same low-energy magnon data that are then used to claim agreement, but the paper provides no goodness-of-fit measure, no error bars, and no parameter covariance or confidence intervals. Without such information, it is impossible to judge whether K = -7.8 meV is uniquely determined by the data or whether other parameter combinations (e.g., different K with compensating Γ and Γ′) reproduce the spectra equally well. This is load-bearing because the central claim of a large Kitaev interaction depends on the identifiability of K from the fit. Please provide a χ² landscape or equivalent analysis showing that the fitted parameter set is a well-isolated minimum and that K is constrained by the data.
  2. [Model space and lattice approximation (Eq. (1); paragraph 'Considering the minimal lattice distortions...')] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) includes only nearest-neighbor J-K-Γ-Γ′ and single-ion anisotropy on an ideal honeycomb lattice. The manuscript states that the lattice is approximated as honeycomb because distortions are 'minimal', but no quantitative justification is given, and longer-range exchange (e.g., second-neighbor J2), interlayer coupling, or further-neighbor anisotropic terms are not tested. Since the fitted K could absorb the effect of these omitted terms, the claim of a genuine microscopic Kitaev interaction requires a quantitative demonstration that such terms are negligible or that their inclusion does not change the extracted K. Please provide fits with representative longer-range or interlayer couplings, or a theoretical estimate of their scale.
  3. [Main text, 'In comparison, alternative models fail...' and Figs. S3–S5] The paper asserts that alternative models (Heisenberg, XXZ, DM) cannot capture the observed anisotropic dispersion, but no quantitative comparison is provided in the main text; the reader is referred to Supplemental Figures without any residual analysis, χ² values, or confidence statements. The central claim is that Kitaev interactions are necessary, not merely sufficient, so the exclusion of simpler models must be demonstrated quantitatively. Please include explicit goodness-of-fit comparisons or at least representative fits of the alternative models with the same data and fitting procedure.
  4. [Discussion, paragraph on S=1 Kitaev spin liquid phase (ξ = 0.7289)] The parameter ξ is defined via K = sin(2πξ) and J = cos(2πξ) using the already fitted J and K values. Therefore, the statement that VI3 falls within the predicted S=1 Kitaev spin liquid range (0.7150 ≲ ξ ≲ 0.7775) is a restatement of the fitted K/J ratio, not an independent validation from the phase diagram. This is a circularity in the interpretation that should be removed or explicitly reframed as a derived consequence of the fit, rather than presented as corroborating evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the high-energy mode parameters (J = -2.9 meV, A = -3.1 meV) 'cannot be unambiguously determined based on the available data.' This limitation is acknowledged only in the caption; it should be stated in the main text as well, and the orbital-state assignment of the high-energy branch should not be presented as being strongly constrained by the fit.
  2. [Abstract and main text] There are several typographical artifacts, including 'Kit aev' in the abstract, 'We not e that the bend' in the main text, and a duplicated phrase in the acknowledgements ('supported by the was supported by'). These should be corrected during production.
  3. [Main text, description of high-energy mode] The text first describes the high-energy mode as 'above 6 meV' and later refers to 'the high-energy mode above 6.5 meV'; please make the energy threshold consistent.
  4. [Main text, lattice approximation paragraph] The statement 'Considering the minimal lattice distortions observed, we approximate the lattice as a honeycomb structure at low temperatures' would benefit from a quantitative justification, such as the magnitude of the distortion from diffraction data, to allow the reader to assess the approximation.
  5. [Fig. 2] The color scales of the experimental and simulated constant-energy slices are not specified; adding a common intensity scale (or stating how intensities are normalized) would make the visual agreement more transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fitted ξ reparameterization cited as independent spin-liquid support; the core spin-wave fit itself is standard parameter estimation, not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Discussion paragraph beginning 'Unlike intensively studied Kitaev spin liquid materials...' (p. 7-8), where K=sin(2πξ) and J=cos(2πξ) are defined.]
    "Fukui et al. [26] proposed a parameter range for the S = 1 Kitaev spin liquid phase to exist, roughly 0.7150 ≲ ξ ≲ 0.7775. Interestingly, VI3 falls within this range, with a parameter value of ξ = 0.7289. Here we denote K=sin(2πξ) and J=cos(2πξ)."

    The quantity ξ is not an independent experimental parameter: it is defined by the identities K=sin(2πξ) and J=cos(2πξ) using the already fitted exchange constants J = -1.04 meV and K = -7.8 meV. Therefore the statement that VI3 falls in Fukui et al.'s spin-liquid window is logically equivalent to the fitted ratio K/J ≈ 7.5 and contains no new information. The theoretical window is a genuine external result, but the comparison is made circular by defining ξ in terms of the fitted parameters: any fitted (J,K) pair defines some ξ, and the 'agreement' with the QSL range is not a test of the model. The central Kitaev claim does not rest solely on this argument, but the passage presents it as supporting evidence.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is a conventional linear-spin-wave fit of the J-K-Γ-Γ'-A Hamiltonian to the measured low-energy magnon branch. Fitting parameters to data and then plotting simulated spectra with those parameters is not circular in a logical sense; it is parameter estimation. The paper presents the fitted simulation as evidence of 'good agreement' without reporting error bars or a covariance matrix, which is a statistical weakness rather than a circularity. The one genuinely circular step is the ξ argument: ξ is defined via K=sin(2πξ), J=cos(2πξ) from the fitted J and K, so the statement that VI3 falls in the Fukui et al. spin-liquid window merely restates the fitted ratio K/J and cannot independently support the Kitaev interpretation. This step is peripheral to the main claim, which rests on the model comparison and the reproduction of the V-shaped and six-pointed-star anisotropy. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation was found. Score 4 reflects one real but non-central circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fitted parameters carry the central claim. The axioms are standard for this kind of spin-wave analysis but not independently verified here. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • J (Heisenberg exchange) = -1.04 meV
    Fitted to the low-energy magnon branch in the J-K-Γ-Γ'-A model; central to the claim that K dominates.
  • K (Kitaev exchange) = -7.8 meV
    Fitted to the same data; this is the quantity the paper claims is large and bond-dependent.
  • Γ (off-diagonal exchange) = 0.3 meV
    Fitted; included for symmetry-allowed anisotropy.
  • Γ' (off-diagonal exchange) = -1.2 meV
    Fitted; included for symmetry-allowed anisotropy.
  • A (single-ion anisotropy) = -0.6 meV
    Fitted; easy-axis anisotropy along the moment direction.
  • J_orbital (Heisenberg exchange for high-energy mode) = -2.9 meV
    Fitted to the high-energy orbital-quenched mode; the authors state this cannot be unambiguously determined.
  • A_orbital (single-ion anisotropy for high-energy mode) = -3.1 meV
    Fitted to the high-energy orbital-quenched mode; ancillary to the main Kitaev claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linear spin wave theory (via SpinW) accurately describes the magnetic excitations of the ordered ferromagnet at T = 5 K, with magnon damping or continuum effects neglected.
    All simulated spectra use LSWT; the paper notes some center intensity that may come from damping or continuum but does not model it.
  • domain assumption The low-temperature lattice can be approximated as a honeycomb structure despite structural distortions at Ts1 and TFM2.
    Main text: 'we approximate the lattice as a honeycomb structure at low temperatures'.
  • domain assumption The low-energy mode corresponds to spin waves of the a1g eg'1 orbital ground state, and the high-energy mode to the orbital-quenched eg'2 state.
    This interpretation relies on DFT results from refs. [33,35]; if the orbital assignment is wrong, the model assignment shifts.
  • domain assumption Magnetic interactions are restricted to nearest-neighbor J, K, Γ, Γ' and single-ion A; longer-range or interlayer terms are negligible.
    Required for the fitted parameters to represent physical Kitaev exchange rather than effective absorptions of other terms.
  • domain assumption Three magnetic domains with in-plane moments separated by 120 degrees adequately represent the magnetic structure.
    Explicitly used in the simulations to account for the in-plane magnetic structure.
  • standard math The Kitaev bond geometry for edge-shared octahedra applies to VI3, with local x, y, z Ising axes on the three bond types.
    Standard Jackeli-Khaliullin mechanism for honeycomb magnets with edge-shared octahedra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Signatures of Kitaev interactions in the van der Waals ferromagnet VI3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHJQPGZW

@misc{pith2026241221003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Signatures of Kitaev interactions in the van der Waals ferromagnet VI3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHJQPGZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21003}
}
read the original abstract

Materials manifesting the Kitaev model, characterized by bond-dependent interactions on a honeycomb lattice, can host exotic phenomena like quantum spin liquid states and topological magnetic excitations. However, finding such materials remains a formidable challenge. Here, we report high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering measurements performed on VI3, a van der Waals ferromagnetic Mott insulator, covering a wide range of reciprocal space. Our measurements unveil highly anisotropic magnetic excitations in momentum space. Through a comprehensive comparative analysis of various models that incorporate diverse symmetry-allowed magnetic interactions, we find the observed excitations are well captured by a model with a large bond-dependent Kitaev interaction. These results not only help to understand the intriguing properties of VI3, such as the pronounced anomalous thermal Hall effects and strong pressure/structure dependence of magnetism, but also open a new avenue for exploring Kitaev physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dispersion of magnetic excitation spectra of VI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constant momentum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 207203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J . Knolle, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018). 9

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G . Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    P. A. McClarty, X. Y . Dong, M. Gohlke, J. G. Rau, F. Pollmann, R. Moessner, and K. Penc, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    D. G. Joshi, Phys. Rev. B 98, 060405 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Physics Reports 950, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Singh and P

    Y . Singh and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. B 82, 064412 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Singh, S

    Y . Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127203 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    S. K. Choi, R. Coldea, A. N. Kolmogorov, T. Lancaster, I. I. Mazin, S. J. Blundell, P. G. Radaelli, Y . Singh, P. Gegenwart, K. R. Choi, S. W. Cheong, P. J. Baker, C. Stock, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127204 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Hwan Chun, J.-W

    S. Hwan Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, Constantinos C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. F. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, Y . Singh, Y . Choi, T. Gog, A. Al-Zein, M. M. Sala, M. Krisch, J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Nat. Phys. 11, 462 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, L. J. Sandilands, V . V . Shankar, Y . F. Hu, K. S. Burch, H.-Y . Kee, and Y .-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 90, 041112 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone , M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Do, S.-Y

    S.-H. Do, S.-Y . Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y . Motome, Y . S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. V oneshen, K. Kim, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, K.-Y . Choi, and S. Ji, Nat. Phys. 13, 1079 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kim, H.-S

    C. Kim, H.-S. Kim, and J.-G. Park, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 34, 023001 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Kasahara, T

    Y . Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y . Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y . Motome, T. Shibauchi, and Y . Matsuda, Nature (London) 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Kitagawa, T

    K. Kitagawa, T. Takayama, Y . Matsumoto, A. Kato, R. Takano, Y . Kishimoto, S. Bette, R. Dinnebier, G. Jackeli, 10 and H. Takagi, Nature (London) 554, 341 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    H. Liu, J. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 047201 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V . Balédent, M. Jiménez-Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, A. Hadj-Azzem, V . Simonet, and C. Stock, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224429 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    W. Yao, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, and Y . Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 147202 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Halloran, F

    T. Halloran, F. Desrochers, E. Z. Zhang, T. Chen, L. E. Chern, Z. Xu, B. Winn, M. Graves-Brook, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Y . Qiu, R. Zhong, R. Cava, Y . B. Kim, and C. Broholm, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2215509119 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, D. Pereira, and H.-Y . Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 037203 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, M. Kawamura, Y . Yamaji, Y . Nahas, S. Prokhorenko, Y . Qi, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 087205 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Dong and D

    X.-Y . Dong and D. N. Sheng, Phys. Rev. B 102, 121102 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Fukui, Y

    K. Fukui, Y . Kato, J. Nasu, and Y . Motome, Phys. Rev. B 106, 174416 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y . Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, and X. Zhang, Nature (London) 546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J. G. Park, Nature (London) 563, 47 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    T. Kong, K. Stolze, E. I. Timmons, J. Tao, D. R. Ni, S. Guo, Z. Yang, R. Prozorov, and R. J. Cava, Adv. Mater. 31, 1808074 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    S. Son, M. J. Coak, N. Lee, J. Kim, T . Y . Kim, H. Hamidov, H. Cho, C. Liu, D. M. Jarvis, P . A. C. Brown, J. H. Kim, C.-H. Park, D. I. Khomskii, S. S. Saxena, and J.-G. Park, Phys. Rev. B 99, 041402 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    S. Tian, J. F. Zhang, C. Li, T. Ying, S. Li, X. Zhang, K. Liu, and H. Lei, Journal of the American Chemical Society 141, 5326 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Y . Hao, Y . Gu, Y . Gu, E. Feng, H. Cao, S. Chi, H. Wu, and J. Zhao, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 096101 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Hovančík, J

    D. Hovančík, J. Pospíšil, K. Carva, V . Sechovský, and C. Piamonteze, Nano Lett. 23, 1175 (2023). 11

    2023

  26. [34]

    Chen, J.-H

    L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, B. Winn, V . O. Garlea, D. L. Abernathy, B. Gao, M. Augustin, E. J. Santos, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031047 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    K. Yang, F. Fan, H. Wang, D. I. Khomskii, and H. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 101, 100402(R) (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Z. Lin, B. Huang, K. Hwangbo, Q. Jiang, Q. Zhang, Z. Liu, Z. Fei, H. Lv, A. Millis, M. McGuire, D. Xiao, J.-H. Chu, and X. Xu, Nano Lett. 21, 9180 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Zhang, C

    H. Zhang, C. Xu, C. Carnahan, M. Sretenovic, N. Suri, D. Xiao, and X. Ke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 247202 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Valenta, M

    J. Valenta, M. Kratochvílová, M. Míšek, K. Carva, J. Kašti l, P. Doležal, P. Opletal, P. Čermák, P. Proschek, K. Uhlířová, J. Prchal, M. J. Coak, S. Son, J. G. Park, and V . Sechovský, Phys. Rev. B 103, 054424 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Wang, H. Su, X. Xia, C. Liu, B. Lyu, J. Lin, M. Huang, Y. Cheng, J.-W. Mei, and J.-F. Dai, Nano Lett. 22, 9891 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    H. Lane, E. Pachoud, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, M. Songvilay, G. Xu, P. M. Gehring, J. P. Attfield, R. A. Ewings, and C. Stock, Phys. Rev. B 104, L020411 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    [32,42-44]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publ isher] for details of the experimental methods, supplemental data and comparative analysis of various models, which includes Refs. [32,42-44]

  34. [42]

    Nakajima, S

    K. Nakajima, S. Ohira-Kawamura, T. Kikuchi, M. Nakamura, R. Kajimoto, Y . Inamura, N. Takahashi, K. Aizawa, K. Suzuya, K. Shibata, T. Nakatani, K. Soyama, R. Maruyama, H. Tanaka, W. Kambara, T. Iwahashi, Y . Itoh, T. Osakabe, S. Wakimoto, K. Kakurai, F. Maekawa, M. Harada, K. ...

    2011

  35. [43]

    Ewings, A

    R. Ewings, A. Buts, M. Le, J. Van Duijn, I. Bustinduy, and T. Perring, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 834, 132 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    E. Gati, Y . Inagaki, T. Kong, R. J. Cava, Y . Furukawa, P. C. Canfield, and S. L. Bud'ko, Phys. Rev. B 100, 094408 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Koriki, M

    A. Koriki, M. Míšek, J. Pospíšil, M. Kratochvílová, K. Carva, J. Prokleška, P. Doležal, J. Kaštil, S. Son, J. G. Park, 12 and V . Sechovský, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174401 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Hovančík, D

    D. Hovančík, D. Repček, F. Borodavka, C. Kadlec, K. Carva, P. Doležal, M. Kratochvílová, P. Kužel, S. Kamba, V . Sechovský, and J. Pospíšil, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 11095 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Agrestini, C.-Y

    S. Agrestini, C.-Y . Kuo, K.-T. Ko, Z. Hu, D. Kasinathan, H . B. Vasili, J. Herrero-Martin, S. M. Valvidares, E. Pellegrin, L.-Y . Jang, A. Henschel, M. Schmidt, A. Tanaka, and L. H. Tjeng, Phys. Rev. B 96, 161107 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Zhang, Y

    X.-T. Zhang, Y . H. Gao, and G. Chen, arXiv preprint, arXiv:2305.04830 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. An, Y . Zhang, J. Chen, H.-M. Zhang, Y . Guo, and S. Dong, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 123, 30545 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    B. Yang, Y . M. Goh, S. H. Sung, G. Ye, S. Biswas, D. A. S. Kaib, R. Dhakal, S. Yan, C. Li, S. Jiang, F. Chen, H. Lei, R. He, R. Valentí, S. M. Winter, R. Hovden, and A. W. Tsen, Nat. Mater. 22, 50 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Dun, W. A. Phelan, V . O. Garlea, M. Mourigal, and C. D. Batista, Nat. Commun. 14, 4199 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhang, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, F. Ye, C. D. Batista, and M. Mourigal, Nat. Phys. 17, 467 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    C. Kim, S. Kim, P. Park, T. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Ohira-Kawamu ra, N. Murai, K. Nakajima, A. L. Chernyshev, M. Mourigal, S.-J. Kim, and J.-G. Park, Nat. Phys. 19, 1624 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    F. Ye, S. Chi, H. Cao, B. C. Chakoumakos, J. A. Fernandez- Baca, R. Custelcean, T. F. Qi, O. B. Korneta, and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. B 85, 180403 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lu msden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chakoumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    J. G. Rau and H.-Y . Kee, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1408.4811 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bradley and R

    O. Bradley and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B 105, L060405 (2022). 13 FIG. 1. Lattice structure, bond geometry of Kitaev interactions and schematics of crystal field splitting in VI3. (a) Lattice structure of VI3. The V3+ and I- ions are colored in red and purple, respectively. ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.