Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Bulk excitations in ultraclean $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: Quantitative evidence for Majorana dispersions in a Kitaev quantum spin liquid

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the cleanest α-RuCl3 crystals, the gapless T-linear specific heat along the Ru-Ru bond direction quantitatively matches the Kitaev model's prediction for Majorana Dirac cones.

desk verdict A careful specific-heat study on ultraclean α-RuCl3 showing that the residual T-linear term for H∥b shrinks toward the Kitaev prediction as sample quality improves; the trend is real, but the 'quantitative agreement' is weaker than claimed because the theory band is factor-of-four wide and the clean-limit extrapolation is uncontrolled. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00971 v1 pith:6YIRMDEG submitted 2025-05-02 cond-mat.str-el

Kumpei Imamura , Ryuichi Namba , Riku Ishioka , Kota Ishihara , Yuji Matsuda , Seunghun Lee , Eun-Gook Moon , Kenichiro Hashimoto
show 1 more author
Takasada Shibauchi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords α-RuCl3KitaevquantumspinliquidMajoranafermionsspecificheatfield-induceddisorderedstateDiracconesfield-angledependenceultracleancrystals
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

This paper tries to establish that the low-energy bulk excitations of the Kitaev spin-liquid candidate $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ are genuinely the Majorana quasiparticles of the Kitaev honeycomb model, not artefacts of sample disorder. Using ultraclean single crystals and specific-heat measurements under in-plane magnetic-field rotation, the authors find a sixfold-oscillating excitation gap, a fully gapped response when the field points along the $a$ axis, and gapless, linearly dispersing excitations when it points along the Ru-Ru bond direction. The coefficient of the $T$-linear term in the bond direction is $0.3\,\mathrm{mJ\,mol^{-1}\,K^{-3}}$ in the cleanest crystal, inside the $0.15$–$0.61\,\mathrm{mJ\,mol^{-1}\,K^{-3}}$ range predicted for Majorana Dirac cones with the reported Kitaev coupling $J \approx 5$–$10\,\mathrm{meV}$. If the interpretation is right, the field-induced quantum disordered phase of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ is close to an ideal Kitaev quantum spin liquid in the clean limit.

What carries the argument

The object doing the work is the field-angle-dependent Majorana gap of the Kitaev honeycomb model. In a magnetic field, the itinerant Majorana fermions acquire a gap $\Delta_M$ that oscillates as $|\cos 3\phi|$ with the in-plane field angle $\phi$, vanishing when the field lies along the Ru-Ru bond direction ($H \parallel b$) and leaving a two-dimensional linear Dirac dispersion $E = v|k|$. The paper measures this gap through the specific heat: a gapped Majorana contribution plus a $Z_2$-flux term plus a phonon background for $H \parallel a$, and a gapless Dirac coefficient $\alpha = \lim_{T\to 0} C/T^2$ for $H \parallel b$. The quantitative claim is carried by comparing $\alpha$ with the range computed from the Dirac-cone density of states using the reported Kitaev coupling $J$ in the $5$–$10\,\mathrm{meV}$ window, and by the sample series in which $\alpha$ tracks the inverse phonon mean free path toward the clean limit.

What would settle it

Measure $C/T^2$ in the cleanest sample at $H \parallel b$ down to $0.3\,\mathrm{K}$ in a dilution refrigerator. If $\alpha$ changes as the temperature range is extended, or if the field-angle pattern of the residual term deviates from the $|\cos 3\phi|$-driven Dirac behavior, the assignment of the $T$-linear term to Majorana Dirac fermions would be falsified. Alternatively, a crystal with an even longer phonon mean free path that gives $\alpha$ outside the $0.15$–$0.61\,\mathrm{mJ\,mol^{-1}\,K^{-3}}$ window would break the quantitative agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the bulk specific heat of ultraclean $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ in the field-induced quantum disordered state reproduces, quantitatively, the two characteristic features of the Kitaev model's Majorana sector. For $H \parallel a$, where the Majorana gap is maximal, a clear gap $\Delta_M \approx 18.8\,\mathrm{K}$ at $10\,\mathrm{T}$ is observed, and it follows the predicted $H^3$ scaling when combined with the vison-peak temperature. For $H \parallel b$, the specific heat takes the gapless form $C/T = \alpha T$, and $\alpha$ extrapolates to about $0.3\,\mathrm{mJ\,mol^{-1}\,K^{-3}}$ in the cleanest sample, inside the theoretical window $0.15$–$0.61\,\mathrm{mJ\,mol^{-1}\,K^{-3}}$ obtained from the reported Kitaev coupling $J = 5$–$10\,\mathrm{meV}$. Across samples with different disorder levels, the gap is essentially unchanged while $\alpha$ decreases as crystal quality improves, which the paper reads as evidence that the anisotropic Majorana excitations are intrinsic and that the field-induced quantum disordered state approaches the ideal Kitaev quantum spin liquid as disorder is removed.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the residual $T$-linear specific heat seen for $H \parallel b$ comes purely from the predicted two-dimensional Majorana Dirac cones, with no additional disorder-independent constant term from nuclear spins, surfaces, or other quasiparticles entering the $T \to 0$ intercept.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is correct, the field-induced quantum disordered phase of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ is a bulk realization of the Kitaev quantum spin liquid, not a disorder-stabilized state.
  • The observation that $\alpha$ decreases toward the clean-limit value while the $H \parallel a$ gap stays fixed separates intrinsic Majorana physics from defect-induced in-gap states.
  • Combined with the reported half-integer quantized thermal Hall plateau in similarly grown crystals, the bulk gapless Dirac excitations support the predicted bulk–edge correspondence of the topological Kitaev state.
  • Specific heat under in-plane field rotation becomes a bulk thermodynamic signature for identifying Kitaev spin liquids and for ranking candidate materials by disorder.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to push specific-heat measurements below $0.5\,\mathrm{K}$ in the same crystals: if the Dirac-cone assignment is right, the coefficient $\alpha$ should stay constant and the field-angle oscillations of $C/T$ should sharpen as $T$ drops, whereas a nuclear Schottky or other background term would bend $C/T^2$ upward.
  • Because $\alpha$ is set by the Dirac velocity, a precise clean-limit value could become an independent thermodynamic estimate of the Kitaev coupling $J$, cross-checking neutron-scattering and theoretical ranges.
  • The paper leaves open how dilute vacancies affect the gapless $H \parallel b$ Dirac cone; a theory for that field direction, which lies in a different symmetry class, would predict whether ultraclean growth is necessary or merely helpful.
  • The same field-rotation specific-heat analysis could be applied to other Kitaev candidates, where the sixfold anisotropy pattern would help discriminate against non-Kitaev ordered states.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports high-resolution specific heat measurements on ultraclean α-RuCl3 crystals grown by a two-step sublimation method, focusing on the field-induced quantum disordered (FIQD) state. The authors observe sixfold in-plane anisotropy of C/T, a field-dependent Majorana-like gap for H || a with T_max^2 Δ_M ∝ H^3 scaling, and a residual gapless coefficient α = lim C/T^2 for H || b. In the cleanest sample #S1 they measure α ≈ 0.3 mJ mol−1 K−3 at 10 T and compare it with a theoretical estimate of 0.15–0.61 mJ mol−1 K−3 derived from the reported Kitaev coupling J ≈ 5–10 meV. They conclude that the finite gapless coefficient, its approach to the theoretical band as sample quality improves, and the preserved H || a gap constitute quantitative evidence that the FIQD phase of bulk α-RuCl3 is close to an ideal Kitaev quantum spin liquid with bulk Majorana Dirac dispersions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be an important step: it would connect bulk thermodynamic signatures of Majorana fermions in ultraclean crystals to the half-integer quantized thermal Hall edge response reported by the same group, supporting the bulk-edge correspondence in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate. The strengths of the paper are the new ultraclean crystals (TN = 7.7 K), the systematic field-rotation study, the internally consistent H^3 scaling, and the explicit comparison across samples of different quality. However, the quantitative claim is currently weakened by the factor-of-four theoretical range, the lack of error bars on α, the uncontrolled clean-limit extrapolation, and the only partially documented background subtraction. These issues are load-bearing because the central conclusion is specifically the claim of quantitative agreement with the Majorana prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Fig. 2(c)] The central quantity α is read as the zero-temperature limit of C/T^2 over the measured window 0.7–2 K. This identification assumes that no other contribution to the specific heat has the same T^2 form or a sufficiently flat C/T^2 in this window. A sub-Kelvin gap in the Majorana spectrum, a nuclear Schottky tail, or a disorder-broadened in-gap continuum could each mimic an apparent intercept, and the phonon background is not subtracted in the displayed data. Because the decomposition formula C(T,H)/T = β(H)T^2 + C_M/T + C_flux/T is only sketched in the main text, the cleanliness of the extracted intercept is not established. Data below 0.7 K or a quantitative background model would be needed to support the claim that the intercept is intrinsic.
  2. [§4, Fig. 4] The authors show that α decreases monotonically with increasing TN, from about 2.5 mJ mol−1 K−3 in the electron-irradiated #B2 sample to 0.3 in #S1. This is exactly the trend expected for a disorder-induced low-energy contribution, so the claim that the #S1 value is intrinsic rests on the extrapolation to the clean limit. The inset plots α versus l_ph^{-1} with only four points, no reported uncertainties, and a dashed line described only as a guide to the eyes. With no specified functional form or confidence interval, the clean-limit value could plausibly be zero or fall below the theoretical band. This uncontrolled extrapolation is load-bearing for the central 'quantitative evidence' claim and needs to be put on a firmer footing.
  3. [§4, gray band in Fig. 4] The theoretical range α_theory = 0.15–0.61 mJ mol−1 K−3 is generated from the literature range of J ≈ 5–10 meV, a factor-of-four spread. A measured value of 0.3 lies inside this window, but the window is so wide that the comparison has low discriminative power: essentially any value between 0.15 and 0.61 would be called quantitative agreement. The 'quantitative' language is therefore overstated unless the authors either provide a single computed α(J) curve or justify a narrower range of J. As it stands, the comparison is consistent with the Majorana prediction but does not strongly exclude other gapless quasiparticle scenarios with a similar density of states.
  4. [§2, Table I and reference [35]] The manuscript relies on the Supplemental Material for the definitions of βph, the phonon mean free path estimate, and the theoretical calculation of α, but this material is not available with the manuscript. Since these details are essential for reproducing Fig. 4 and the central comparison, the authors should include the relevant formulas in the main text or supply the SM during review. In addition, no uncertainties are reported for TN, α, or the specific heat data in Figs. 2–4, which makes it impossible to judge whether the difference between #S1 and #S2, or between #S1 and the lower edge of the theoretical band, is statistically significant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] Sample #S2 is described as slightly more disordered than #S1, yet it shows a larger C/T at TN (2.1 versus 1.5 J mol−1 K−2). The text should clarify whether the jump height or the presence of the shoulder-like anomaly is the decisive quality criterion, or the statement may appear internally inconsistent.
  2. [Fig. 4 inset] The inset in Fig. 4 would be more informative with a linear fit to the four α versus l_ph^{-1} points, including the extrapolated intercept and its confidence interval, rather than an unspecified dashed guide to the eyes.
  3. [Abstract and summary] The abstract states that the gapless excitations 'quantitatively match' theoretical predictions, while the main text says 'in quantitative agreement'. Given the factor-of-four theoretical range and the absence of error bars, the wording should be softened to 'consistent with' or the analysis should be strengthened to justify 'quantitative'.
  4. [§2, Fig. 2] The sixfold oscillation amplitude in Fig. 2(a) is small (of order 0.2–0.4 mJ mol−1 K−2); representative error bars on a few data points would help the reader assess the significance of the anisotropy and the residual intercept in Fig. 2(c).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured Majorana-gap anisotropy and the H||b T-linear coefficient α are compared with external Kitaev-model predictions from literature J values and prior QMC scaling, not fitted to the target.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that α ≈ 0.3 mJ mol−1 K−3 in the ultraclean sample #S1 at 10 T with H||b falls inside the theoretical band 0.15–0.61 mJ mol−1 K−3 obtained from the Kitaev model using literature values of J between 5 and 10 meV. This theoretical estimate does not use the present specific-heat data; it is an external prediction based on independently reported exchange parameters. Likewise, the H3 scaling of Tmax^2 ΔM is compared with earlier quantum Monte Carlo results, not fitted to the observed gap. The field-angle anisotropy ΔM ∝ |cos 3ϕ| is a known property of the Kitaev model, and the sixfold oscillation of C/T is a direct measurement rather than an output of the comparison. The extraction of α as lim_{T→0} C/T^2 is a straightforward intercept of measured data, and no parameter fitted to those data is then renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to refs [27], [29], [33], and [34] concern prior samples, measurement methods, crystal growth, and disorder context; they are not load-bearing for the quantitative α comparison, which rests on the external J range from refs [4–6]. The broadness of the theoretical band and the uncontrolled clean-limit extrapolation in the inset of Fig. 4 are legitimate correctness concerns, but they are not circularity: the claimed agreement is not equivalent to the input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it relies on the Kitaev model and on a phenomenological decomposition of specific heat. The main external input is the Kitaev coupling J from prior literature, with a wide range that weakens the quantitative test. The fitting parameters β(H), α, and Δ_M are data-derived, but their uncertainties are not reported.

free parameters (2)
  • β(H) = not reported
    Phonon background coefficient in the specific heat decomposition C/T = βT^2 + C_M/T + C_flux/T; fitted per field, its uncertainty propagates to the extracted α and Δ_M.
  • J (Kitaev coupling) = 5-10 meV
    Taken from prior literature; the broad range produces a factor-of-four spread in the predicted α, weakening the quantitative comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Kitaev model with the reported J describes the field-induced quantum disordered state of α-RuCl3.
    The entire interpretation of the specific heat anisotropy and α as Majorana Dirac cones relies on the Kitaev model being the correct effective description in the FIQD state.
  • domain assumption The measured specific heat decomposes into independent phonon, itinerant Majorana, and flux contributions.
    The fitting procedure in the section 'To evaluate the Majorana gap...' assumes this three-term decomposition; no justification for the independence or the exact functional forms is given in the main text.
  • domain assumption The relation T_max ∝ Δ_flux from quantum Monte Carlo simulations [36] holds in the FIQD state.
    Used to derive the T_max^2 Δ_M ∝ H^3 scaling shown in Fig. 2(b) inset; the validity of the QMC relation for the real material is assumed.
  • domain assumption The theoretical α calculation (in the supplement) correctly maps the 2D Majorana Dirac cone to the per-mole specific heat.
    The comparison in Fig. 4 depends on the supplement's derivation, which is not available in the preprint; the mapping from the model to the measured units is not verifiable from the main text.
  • domain assumption Sample quality ordering by TN correlates with the density of disorder that affects Majorana excitations.
    The authors use TN as a quality metric and correlate α with TN and the phonon mean free path, but no direct microscopic disorder characterization is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bulk excitations in ultraclean $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: Quantitative evidence for Majorana dispersions in a Kitaev quantum spin liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YIRMDEG

@misc{pith2026250500971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bulk excitations in ultraclean $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: Quantitative evidence for Majorana dispersions in a Kitaev quantum spin liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YIRMDEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00971}
}
abstract

The spin-orbit coupled Mott insulator $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ has emerged as a prime candidate for realizing the Kitaev quantum spin liquid (KQSL), characterized by Majorana quasiparticles, whose edge states exhibit a distinctive half-integer quantized thermal Hall conductivity. However, its van der Waals nature makes its thermal Hall response highly sensitive to structural disorder, leading to sample-dependent variations. Here, we investigate low-energy bulk excitations in the field-induced quantum disordered (FIQD) state of newly available ultraclean single crystals of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$. High-resolution specific heat measurements under in-plane magnetic field rotation reveal an anisotropic excitation gap, whose field dependence is consistent with the Majorana gap in the KQSL state. Remarkably, when the field aligns with Ru-Ru bond directions, we observe gapless excitations with Dirac-like dispersions that quantitatively match theoretical predictions of Majorana bands based on the reported Kitaev interactions. Our findings in these ultraclean crystals provide strong evidence that the FIQD state of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ is a robust KQSL, resilient against small disorder perturbations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Temperature dependence of specific heat divided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) In-plane field-angle dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann. Phys. 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Mott insulators in the strong spin-orbit coupling limit: From Heisenberg to a quantum compass and Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liquids, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev quan- tum spin liquids (2025), arXiv:2501.05608 [cond-mat.str- el]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Suzuki, H

    H. Suzuki, H. Liu, J. Bertinshaw, K. Ueda, H. Kim, S. Laha, D. Weber, Z. Yang, L. Wang, H. Takahashi, K. F¨ ursich, M. Minola, B. V. Lotsch, B. J. Kim, H. Yava¸ s, M. Daghofer, J. Chaloupka, G. Khaliullin, H. Gretarsson, and B. Keimer, Proximate ferromagnetic state in the Ki- taev model material α-RuCl3, Nature communications 12, 4512 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinking α- RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033011 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Sin- gleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent´ ı, and R. Coldea, Monoclinic crystal structure of α-RuCl3 and the zigzag antiferromagnetic ground state, Phys. Rev. B 92, 235119 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. Aczel, L. Li, M. Stone, G. Granroth, M. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, et al. , Proximate Kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honeycomb magnet, Nat. Mater. 15, 733 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    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, Neutron scattering in the proximate quantum spin liquid α-RuCl3, Science 356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.-J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Scattering continuum and possible frac- tionalized excitations in α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147201 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    J. Nasu, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, Y. Motome, and R. Moessner, Fermionic response from fractionalization in an insulating two-dimensional magnet, Nat. Phys. 12, 912 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Do, S.-Y

    S.-H. Do, S.-Y. Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.- H. Jang, J.-H. Park, K.-Y. Choi, and S. Ji, Majorana fermions in the Kitaev quantum spin system α-RuCl3, Nat. Phys. 13, 1079 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Widmann, V

    S. Widmann, V. Tsurkan, D. A. Prishchenko, V. G. Mazurenko, A. A. Tsirlin, and A. Loidl, Thermodynamic evidence of fractionalized excitations in α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 99, 094415 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Kitaev exchange and field-induced quantum spin-liquid states in honey- combα-RuCl3, Sci. Rep. 6, 37925 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. U. B. Wolter, L. T. Corredor, L. Janssen, K. Nenkov, S. Sch¨ onecker, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, R. Albrecht, J. Hunger, T. Doert, M. Vojta, and B. B¨ uchner, Field- induced quantum criticality in the Kitaev system α- RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 96, 041405 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, A. T. Savici, B. C. Chakoumakos, M. D. Lums- den, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Excitations in the field-induced quantum spin l...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Majorana quanti- zation and half-integer thermal quantum Hall effect in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nature 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Half-integer quantized anomalous thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev material can- didate α-RuCl3, Science 373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    J. A. N. Bruin, R. R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, Robustness of the thermal Hall effect close to half-quantization in α-RuCl3, Nat. Phys. 18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Yamashita, J

    M. Yamashita, J. Gouchi, Y. Uwatoko, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, Sample dependence of half-integer quantized thermal Hall effect in the Kitaev spin-liquid candidate α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 102, 220404 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Y. Xing, R. Namba, K. Imamura, K. Ishihara, S. Suet- sugu, T. Asaba, K. Hashimoto, T. Shibauchi, Y. Mat- suda, and Y. Kasahara, Magnetothermal transport in ul- traclean single crystals of Kitaev magnetα-RuCl3 (2024), arXiv:2410.18342

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kasahara, S

    Y. Kasahara, S. Suetsugu, T. Asaba, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and Y. Matsuda, Quantized and unquantized thermal Hall conductance of the Kitaev spin liquid candidate α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060410 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Planar thermal Hall effect of topological bosons in the Kitaev magnet α-RuCl3, Nat. Mater. 22, 6 36 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lefran¸ cois, G

    E. Lefran¸ cois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, N. Doiron-Leyraud, and L. Taillefer, Evidence of a phonon Hall effect in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021025 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. F. May, H. Miao, B. C. Sales, D. G. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, M. A. McGuire, and J. Yan, Sample- dependent and sample-independent thermal transport properties of α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 114403 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, H.-Y. Chao, Q. Zheng, M. Chi, B. C. Sales, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, H. Miao, F. Ye, and J. Yan, Stacking disorder and thermal transport properties of α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 014402 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tanaka, Y

    O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Hwang, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Fujimoto, Y. Mat- suda, E.-G. Moon, and T. Shibauchi, Thermodynamic evidence for a field-angle-dependent Majorana gap in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nat. Phys. 18, 429 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Hwang, A

    K. Hwang, A. Go, J. H. Seong, T. Shibauchi, and E.- G. Moon, Identification of a Kitaev quantum spin liquid by magnetic field angle dependence, Nature Communica- tions 13, 323 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Imamura, S

    K. Imamura, S. Suetsugu, Y. Mizukami, Y. Yoshida, K. Hashimoto, K. Ohtsuka, Y. Kasahara, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, P. Noh, J. Nasu, E.-G. Moon, Y. Matsuda, and T. Shibauchi, Majorana-fermion origin of the pla- nar thermal hall effect in the Kitaev magnet α-RuCl3, Science Advances ...

    2024

  22. [30]

    S. Fang, K. Imamura, Y. Mizukami, R. Namba, K. Ishi- hara, K. Hashimoto, and T. Shibauchi, Field-angle- resolved specific heat in Na 2Co2TeO6: Evidence against Kitaev quantum spin liquid (2024), arXiv:2410.18449 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. F. May, J. Yan, and M. A. McGuire, A practical guide for crystal growth of van der Waals layered materials, Journal of Applied Physics 128, 051101 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chak- oumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Low-temperature crystal and magnetic structure of α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B 93, 134423 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Namba, K

    R. Namba, K. Imamura, R. Ishioka, K. Ishihara, T. Miyamoto, H. Okamoto, Y. Shimizu, Y. Saito, Y. Agarmani, M. Lang, H. Murayama, Y. Xing, S. Suet- sugu, Y. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, K. Hashimoto, and T. Shibauchi, Two-step growth of high-quality single crystals of the kitaev magne...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Imamura, Y

    K. Imamura, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, R. Grasset, M. Konczykowski, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, Y. Matsuda, M. G. Yamada, K. Hashimoto, and T. Shibauchi, Defect- induced low-energy majorana excitations in the Kitaev magnet α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011045 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    See Supplemental Material at [ URL will be inserted by publisher] for detailed discussion

  28. [36]

    Motome and J

    Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Hunting Majorana fermions in Kitaev magnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 89, 012002 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    A. J. Willans, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, Disorder in a quantum spin liquid: Flux binding and local moment formation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 237203 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    M. O. Takahashi, M. G. Yamada, M. Udagawa, T. Mizushima, and S. Fujimoto, Nonlocal spin correla- tion as a signature of ising anyons trapped in vacancies of the Kitaev spin liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 236701 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    W.-H. Kao, J. Knolle, G. B. Hal´ asz, R. Moessner, and N. B. Perkins, Vacancy-induced low-energy density of states in the Kitaev spin liquid, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011034 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Altland and M

    A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Nonstandard symme- try classes in mesoscopic normal-superconducting hybrid structures, Phys. Rev. B 55, 1142 (1997)

    1997

  33. [41]

    O’Brien, M

    K. O’Brien, M. Hermanns, and S. Trebst, Classification of gapless Z2 spin liquids in three-dimensional Kitaev models, Phys. Rev. B 93, 085101 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Vinkler-Aviv and A

    Y. Vinkler-Aviv and A. Rosch, Approximately quantized thermal hall effect of chiral liquids coupled to phonons, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031032 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.