Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Pressure tuning of competing interactions on a honeycomb lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure drives a honeycomb magnet's Néel order to zero.

desk verdict Solid multiprobe pressure study of Ag3LiRh2O6; the empirical tuning of TN and the muSR crossover are new and credible, but the quantitative |K/J| enhancement rests on borrowed Li2RhO3 curves and DFT-relaxed angles. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18016 v1 pith:36NFRBEL submitted 2025-05-23 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Piyush Sakrikar , Bin Shen , Eduardo H. T. Poldi , Faranak Bahrami , Xiaodong Hu , Eric M. Kenney , Qiaochu Wang , Kyle W. Fruhling
show 15 more authors
Chennan Wang Ritu Gupta Rustem Khasanov Hubertus Luetkens Stuart A. Calder Adam A. Aczel Gilberto Fabbris Russell J. Hemley Kemp W. Plumb Ying Ran Philipp Gegenwart Alexander A. Tsirlin Daniel Haskel Michael J. Graf Fazel Tafti
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.10.Kt75.30.Et62.50.-p
keywords Ag3LiRh2O6honeycomblatticeKitaevspinliquidHeisenberg-KitaevmodelhydrostaticpressuremuonrelaxationNéeltemperatureRh-O-Rhbondangle
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 reports that hydrostatic pressure suppresses the antiferromagnetic order in the honeycomb-lattice material Ag3LiRh2O6, pushing its Néel temperature from about 100 K to zero by roughly 3–4 GPa. The proposed mechanism is a change in the Rh-O-Rh bond angle under pressure, which weakens the Heisenberg exchange J faster than the Kitaev exchange K, so the ratio |K/J| grows. Muon-spin-rotation data support this by showing long-range order at low pressure but only short-range, fluctuating magnetism above half of TN at high pressure. The material retains its pseudospin-1/2 moments and avoids structural dimerization up to about 5 GPa, leaving a window in which the system is tuned toward a Kitaev spin liquid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rh-O-Rh bond angle, the geometric parameter that mediates orbital overlap between the Rh pseudospin-1/2 moments on the honeycomb lattice. Quantum-chemistry calculations on the parent compound Li2RhO3 show that the Heisenberg coupling J varies quadratically with this angle while the Kitaev coupling K varies linearly, so compressing the lattice moves the system along a trajectory where |K/J| climbs steeply. The paper extracts average bond angles at each pressure from DFT-relaxed atomic positions constrained by x-ray-measured lattice parameters, then reads J and K from those published curves. Muon spin rotation supplies the magnetic fingerprint: spontaneous oscillations signal long-range order, and their delayed onset below TN/2 at high pressure signals a crossover into short-range, fluctuating magnetism.

What would settle it

A material-specific quantum-chemistry calculation of J and K for Ag3LiRh2O6 as a function of pressure: if |K/J| does not approach roughly 2.6 at 2.8 GPa and 3.6 at 5.1 GPa, or if J does not tend toward zero near a 96° bond angle, the central claim loses its quantitative foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ag3LiRh2O6 can be tuned by pressure from a magnetically ordered, Heisenberg-dominated state toward a Kitaev-dominated spin-liquid regime without destroying the magnetic moments or dimerizing the lattice. As pressure increases to about 5 GPa, the Rh-O-Rh bond angle decreases toward roughly 96°, and using previously published quantum-chemistry curves for Li2RhO3, the authors infer that |K/J| rises from about 1.6 at ambient pressure to 2.6 at 2.8 GPa and 3.6 at 5.1 GPa, with J approaching zero near the critical angle. Magnetization measurements show TN falling at about -20 K/GPa and disappearing beyond 4 GPa, while the Curie-Weiss temperature decreases in parallel and the effective moment stays near 1.9 µB. MuSR shows a qualitative change: at low pressure oscillations set in immediately below TN, whereas at 2.3 GPa they appear only below TN/2, indicating a temperature window of short-range magnetism. The paper concludes that competing Kitaev and Heisenberg interactions, not dimerization, are responsible for the loss of magnetic order in the 0–5 GPa range.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative link between bond angle and the exchange couplings J and K is borrowed from calculations on Li2RhO3, not on Ag3LiRh2O6, and the bond angles themselves come from DFT structural relaxation rather than direct refinement of the x-ray data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ag3LiRh2O6 becomes a rare example where pressure suppresses magnetic order without a structural dimerization, keeping the magnetic moments intact up to at least 5 GPa.
  • The near-linear drop of TN with pressure, together with the parallel fall of the Curie-Weiss temperature, indicates that the average Heisenberg exchange weakens while the local moment size stays fixed near 1.9 µB.
  • MuSR oscillations that appear only below TN/2 at high pressure imply a broad regime of short-range and dynamically fluctuating magnetism between TN/2 and TN.
  • If the inferred |K/J| values are correct, pressure provides a direct route toward the Kitaev limit that does not require chemical substitution or an external magnetic field.
  • The persistence of the C2/m structure until 6.6 GPa means the quantum critical region near 4 GPa is accessible to thermodynamic and spectroscopic probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is inelastic x-ray or Raman scattering under pressure near 4 GPa to look for fractionalized excitations or a spin gap; a gapped or continuum response would distinguish a Kitaev spin liquid from a disordered classical magnet.
  • If the bond-angle mechanism generalizes, epitaxial strain on other 4d and 5d honeycomb materials could serve as a clean tuning knob for |K/J|, extending the result beyond Ag3LiRh2O6.
  • The muSR signature of oscillations only below TN/2 could be a generic marker of proximity to a Kitaev spin liquid; testing other candidate materials under pressure would show whether this fingerprint is universal.
  • Specific-heat and NMR measurements below 2 K near 4 GPa could reveal quantum critical scaling and the nature of the low-energy excitations in the window between the magnetic and dimerized phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multiprobe high-pressure study of the honeycomb magnet Ag3LiRh2O6. Magnetization measurements show that the Néel temperature decreases from about 100 K at ambient pressure and vanishes near 4 GPa, while the effective moment stays constant. High-pressure X-ray diffraction shows that the monoclinic C2/m structure is retained up to 5 GPa, with a structural transition at 6.6 GPa. Muon spin rotation/relaxation shows spontaneous oscillations below TN at low pressure, but at 2.3 GPa oscillations appear only below TN/2, which the authors interpret as a crossover from long-range to short-range/fluctuating magnetism. The authors attribute these observations to pressure tuning of the ratio of Kitaev to Heisenberg exchange, |K/J|, from 1.6 to 3.6, based on the change of Rh-O-Rh bond angles and on J/K curves taken from quantum-chemistry calculations for Li2RhO3. They also acknowledge the J1-J2 model as an alternative explanation.

Significance. The experimental data set is of high quality and internally consistent. The observation that magnetic order is suppressed without structural dimerization up to 5 GPa, together with the muSR crossover, is an important benchmark for pressure tuning of honeycomb magnets, particularly because related Kitaev candidates dimerize at much lower pressures. The paper is notably honest in flagging its main limitation: the quantitative J/K mapping is transferred from Li2RhO3, and the J1-J2 model is not ruled out. If material-specific calculations confirm the bond-angle dependence, the work would establish a rare example of pressure driving a spin-1/2 honeycomb system toward a Kitaev spin liquid. Currently the qualitative evidence is strong, but the quantitative Kitaev-enhancement claim is not yet proven.

major comments (3)
  1. [X-ray diffraction, Fig. 2d and text near 'We used the calculated J and K curves'] The quantitative claim that |K/J| increases from 1.6 to 2.6 to 3.6 under pressure is obtained by combining DFT-relaxed bond angles with the J(θ) and K(θ) curves from Ref. 16, which were calculated for Li2RhO3, not for Ag3LiRh2O6. The authors state this limitation explicitly, yet these numbers appear in the abstract and are used to conclude that pressure drives the system toward a Kitaev spin liquid. Because the transferability of the J(θ) and K(θ) curves to Ag3LiRh2O6 is not demonstrated, and because the bond angles themselves come from DFT structural relaxation rather than from measured atomic positions, the specific |K/J| values are model-dependent estimates. A major revision should either provide material-specific calculations for Ag3LiRh2O6, or reframe the central claim as a qualitative demonstration of competing-interaction tuning with the |K/J| values clearly labeled as illustrative estimates without a false precision.
  2. [Magnetization section, statement 'Since ΘCW is proportional to the Heisenberg coupling J'] The statement that the Curie-Weiss temperature is proportional solely to the Heisenberg coupling J is not valid in the Kitaev-Heisenberg model; the powder-averaged Curie-Weiss temperature also receives a contribution from the Kitaev coupling K through the isotropic part of the bond-anisotropic exchange. Therefore the parallel suppression of TN and ΘCW in Fig. 1e does not by itself establish that the average J is specifically weakened; a simultaneous change in K could produce the same signature. The text should replace this statement with a formulation based on the appropriate high-temperature expansion of the J-K susceptibility, which would make the interpretation of Fig. 1e quantitative rather than qualitative.
  3. [Magnetization and Discussion sections, J1-J2 alternative] The paper acknowledges that the J1-J2 model is an alternative framework consistent with the magnetization data, but it does not offer any quantitative test or distinguishing prediction to separate J-K from J1-J2. Because all experimental observations (TN suppression, parallel ΘCW change, muSR crossover, loss of oscillations above TN/2) are also consistent with frustrated J1-J2 interactions, the uniqueness of the 'Kitaev enhancement' interpretation in the title and abstract is overstated. The authors should either provide a calculation or an empirical diagnostic that discriminates between the two models, or soften the wording to 'competing interactions' and avoid presenting Kitaev enhancement as the established conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and main text] There are several typos: 'cadidate' and 'dimerizaion' in the abstract, 'origin form' in the X-ray diffraction section, and 'dyanmic' in the muSR section. These should be corrected.
  2. [X-ray diffraction section] The notation '̸ Rh-O-Rh' contains a stray symbol, and the bond-angle variable is not defined consistently; the authors should define a symbol such as θ and use it throughout the text and figure captions.
  3. [Equation (1) and Table 1] The parameter f1 is fixed at 0.59 based on the ambient-pressure, low-temperature fit, but the justification for keeping it constant at all pressures and temperatures is not given. The authors should show the sensitivity of the derived fields and damping rates to this constraint, especially because the high-pressure data show a substantially reduced oscillatory fraction fosc.
  4. [X-ray diffraction, structural transition at Pc = 6.6 GPa] The structural transition is inferred from a Bragg peak bifurcation and is called a dimerization by analogy with Li2RhO3; the paper should acknowledge that no direct evidence of Rh-Rh dimer formation (e.g., from refinement or local probes) is presented in this work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the experimental observables are independent, and the transferred J/K curves are an external quantum-chemistry input, not a fit to the present data.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental claims—rapid suppression of TN with pressure, pressure-independent effective moment, and the muSR crossover from long-range order below TN to oscillations only below TN/2—are independently measured inputs, not outputs of the model. The quantitative |K/J| values are read off the J(theta) and K(theta) curves of Ref. 16, an external quantum-chemistry calculation for Li2RhO3, which is not fitted to any of the present magnetization, XRD, or muSR data. The authors explicitly acknowledge this transferability limitation: "We used the calculated J and K curves for Li2RhO3 in Fig. 2d, because such calculations do not exist for Ag3LiRh2O6 at present." This is a model-transfer/validity concern, not a circular reduction: the predicted |K/J| increase is not defined in terms of the measured TN suppression, nor is any measured quantity used to construct the J/K curves that then 'predict' it. The DFT-relaxed Rh-O-Rh bond angles are themselves model-dependent, but that is an uncertainty about the determined bond angles, not circularity. Self-citations such as Ref. 15 for the synthesis and characterization of the parent material are normal supporting references and are not load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusion; they supply previously established experimental facts rather than the contested interpretation. No equation in the paper reduces to itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative inference (|K/J| increase) rests on externally calculated J/K curves from Li2RhO3 and DFT-derived bond angles; the pseudospin-1/2 picture must persist under pressure. These are domain assumptions, not fitted parameters of this paper. The muSR fit parameters are descriptive and not load-bearing for the |K/J| claim.

free parameters (1)
  • muSR fit parameters (fosc, B1, B2, Lambda1, Lambda2, f1) = see Table 1, e.g., fosc = 0.48-0.58, B1,max = 2010-2155 G, f1 fixed at 0.59
    Parameters fit to Gmag(t) using Eq. 1 to describe muon stopping sites and field distributions. They are descriptive of the magnetic state and support the qualitative long-range vs short-range crossover, but do not enter the |K/J| inference.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The J and K couplings versus Rh-O-Rh bond angle for Li2RhO3 (Ref. 16) are transferable to Ag3LiRh2O6.
    Used to convert measured and DFT-derived bond angles into |K/J| values in Fig. 2d. The paper explicitly notes that material-specific calculations do not exist for Ag3LiRh2O6.
  • domain assumption DFT-relaxed atomic positions, constrained to experimental lattice parameters, give accurate bond angles under pressure.
    Rietveld refinement was not possible due to stacking faults and limited angular range, so bond angles come from DFT optimization (Methods, DFT calculations).
  • domain assumption The pseudospin-1/2 picture remains valid up to about 5 GPa.
    The analysis assumes the local moment is a robust pseudospin-1/2, with supplementary DFT confirming robustness. If pressure changed the spin-orbital character, the J-K model would not apply.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure tuning of competing interactions on a honeycomb lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36NFRBEL

@misc{pith2026250518016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure tuning of competing interactions on a honeycomb lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36NFRBEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18016}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic exchange interactions are mediated via orbital overlaps across chemical bonds. Thus, modifying the bond angles by physical pressure or strain can tune the relative strength of competing interactions. Here we present a remarkable case of such tuning between the Heisenberg (J) and Kitaev (K) exchange, which respectively establish magnetically ordered and spin liquid phases on a honeycomb lattice. We observe a rapid suppression of the Neel temperature (TN) with pressure in Ag3LiRh2O6, a spin-1/2 honeycomb lattice with both J and K couplings. Using a combined analysis of x-ray data and first-principles calculations, we find that pressure modifies the bond angles in a way that increases the |K/J| ratio and thereby suppresses TN. Consistent with this picture, we observe a spontaneous onset of muon spin relaxation (muSR) oscillations below TN at low pressure, whereas in the high-pressure phase, oscillations appear only when T < TN/2. Unlike other candidate Kitaev materials, Ag3LiRh2O6 is tuned toward a quantum critical point by pressure while avoiding a structural dimerization in the relevant pressure range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18016 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetization data. (a) Unit cell of Ag3LiRh2O6 in the monoclinic space group C2/m with Ag atoms between the [LiRh2O6] honeycomb layers. (b) ̸ Rh-O-Rh bond angles within a honeycomb layer. (c) Suppression of TN with increasing pressure. (d) TN is identified by the peak in χ(T) at different pressures. (e) Both TN and ΘCW decrease in parallel with pressure while µeff remains nearly unchanged. All data in this panel ar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray diffraction. (a) Pressure-dependent diffraction patterns at 293 K (black) and 83 K (red). The ∗, + and . symbols indicate, respectively, the Re peaks (gasket), Au peaks (manometers), and boron carbide seat. Red vertical bars in the bottom panel indicate calculated Bragg peak intensities at 1.9 GPa (293 K) and 2.7 GPa (83 K). (b) Monoclinic unit cell parameters, angle β, and volume plotted as a function of pres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. µSR data. (a) Muon polarization at a low pressure showing oscillations immediately below TN. (b) At a high pressure, oscillations do not appear until TN/2. (c) Comparing the low-T polarization curves at low-pressure (0 and 0.6 GPa) and high-pressure (2.3 GPa). (d) Comparing the Fourier transforms of polarization curves. (e) Visualizing the muon stopping sites (black circles) in the lattice structure. (f) Phase diagr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    & Khaliullin, G

    Chaloupka, J., Jackeli, G. & Khaliullin, G. Kitaev-Heisenberg Model on a Honeycomb Lattice: Possible Exotic Phases in Iridium Oxides A 2IrO3. Physical Review Letters 105, 027204 (2010). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 105.027204

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2010

  2. [3]

    & Nagler, S

    Takagi, H., Takayama, T., Jackeli, G., Khaliullin, G. & Nagler, S. E. Concept and realization of Kitaev quantum spin liquids. Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264–280 (2019). URL https: //www.nature.com/articles/s42254-019-0038-2

    work page 2019

  3. [4]

    Relevance of the Heisenberg-Kitaev Model for the Honeycomb Lattice Iridates A2IrO3

    Singh, Y .et al. Relevance of the Heisenberg-Kitaev Model for the Honeycomb Lattice Iridates A2IrO3. Physical Review Letters 108, 127203 (2012). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.127203

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.127203 2012

  4. [5]

    & Khaliullin, G

    Chaloupka, J., Jackeli, G. & Khaliullin, G. Zigzag Magnetic Order in the Iridium Oxide Na2IrO3. Physical Review Letters 110, 097204 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.097204

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.097204 2013

  5. [6]

    G., Lee, E

    Rau, J. G., Lee, E. K.-H. & Kee, H.-Y . Generic Spin Model for the Honeycomb Iridates beyond the Kitaev Limit. Physical Review Letters 112, 077204 (2014). URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.077204

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.077204 2014

  6. [7]

    & Vishwanath, A

    Kimchi, I. & Vishwanath, A. Kitaev-Heisenberg models for iridates on the triangular, hyper- kagome, kagome, fcc, and pyrochlore lattices. Physical Review B 89, 014414 (2014). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.014414

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.014414 2014

  7. [8]

    M., Li, Y ., Jeschke, H

    Winter, S. M., Li, Y ., Jeschke, H. O. & Valentì, R. Challenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic interactions from competing energy scales. Physical Review B 93, 214431 (2016). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214431. 13

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.214431 2016

  8. [9]

    Winter, S. M. et al. Models and materials for generalized Kitaev magnetism. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017). URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1361-648X/aa8cf5

    work page 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [10]

    Bahrami, F. et al. Effect of structural disorder on the Kitaev magnet Ag 3LiIr2O6. Phys- ical Review B 103, 094427 (2021). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.103.094427. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

  2. [11]

    Phys- ical Review B 100, 094418 (2019)

    Coexistence of static and dynamic magnetism in the Kitaev spin liquid material Cu2IrO3. Phys- ical Review B 100, 094418 (2019). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.100.094418. Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  3. [12]

    Kitagawa, K. et al. A spin–orbital-entangled quantum liquid on a honeycomb lattice. Nature 554, 341–345 (2018). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25482

    2018

  4. [13]

    Banerjee, A. et al. Excitations in the field-induced quantum spin liquid state of α-RuCl3. npj Quantum Materials 3, 1–7 (2018). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41535-018-0079-2

    2018

  5. [14]

    Tanaka, O. et al. Thermodynamic evidence for a field-angle-dependent Majorana gap in a Kitaev spin liquid. Nature Physics 18, 429–435 (2022). URL https://www.nature. com/articles/s41567-021-01488-6

    2022

  6. [15]

    Bahrami, F. et al. First demonstration of tuning between the Kitaev and Ising limits in a honeycomb lattice. Science Advances 8, eabl5671 (2022). URL https://www.science. org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl5671

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    Katukuri, V . M. et al. Strong magnetic frustration and anti-site disorder causing spin-glass behavior in honeycomb Li2RhO3. Scientific Reports 5, 14718 (2015). URL https://www. nature.com/articles/srep14718

    2015

  8. [17]

    Katukuri, V . M.et al. Electronic Structure of Low-Dimensional 4d5 Oxides: Interplay of Lig- and Distortions, Overall Lattice Anisotropy, and Spin–Orbit Interactions.Inorganic Chemistry 53, 4833–4839 (2014). URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ic402653f

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    & Paramekanti, A

    Mulder, A., Ganesh, R., Capriotti, L. & Paramekanti, A. Spiral order by disorder and lattice nematic order in a frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the honeycomb lattice. Phys- 14 ical Review B 81, 214419 (2010). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.81.214419

    2010

  10. [19]

    N., Motrunich, O

    Gong, S.-S., Sheng, D. N., Motrunich, O. I. & Fisher, M. P. A. Phase diagram of the spin-1/2 J1-J2 Heisenberg model on a honeycomb lattice. Physical Review B 88, 165138 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.88.165138

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    Bishop, R. F. & Li, P. H. Y . Complete phase diagram of the spin- 12 J1-J2-J3 model (with J3 = J2) on the honeycomb lattice. Physical Review B 85, 155135 (2012). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.155135

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    & Nishimoto, S

    Ganesh, R., van den Brink, J. & Nishimoto, S. Deconfined Criticality in the Frustrated Heisenberg Honeycomb Antiferromagnet. Physical Review Letters 110, 127203 (2013). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.127203

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    Takayama, T. et al. Hyperhoneycomb Iridate β-Li2IrO3 as a Platform for Kitaev Magnetism. Physical Review Letters 114, 077202 (2015). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.114.077202

    2015

  14. [23]

    Veiga, L. S. I. et al. Pressure tuning of bond-directional exchange interactions and magnetic frustration in the hyperhoneycomb iridate β-Li2IrO3. Physical Review B 96, 140402 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.140402

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    Majumder, M. et al. Breakdown of Magnetic Order in the Pressurized Kitaev Iridateβ-Li2IrO3. Physical Review Letters 120, 237202 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.120.237202

    2018

  16. [25]

    Shen, B. et al. Interplay of magnetism and dimerization in the pressurized Kitaev material beta-Li2IrO3. Physical Review B 104, 134426 (2021). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.134426

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Hermann, V . et al. Pressure-induced formation of rhodium zigzag chains in the honeycomb rhodate Li 2RhO3. Physical Review B 100, 064105 (2019). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.064105

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    Perspective on muon-spin rotation/relaxation under hydrostatic pressure

    Khasanov, R. Perspective on muon-spin rotation/relaxation under hydrostatic pressure. Jour- nal of Applied Physics 132, 190903 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5. 0119840. 15

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Khuntia, P. et al. Local magnetism and spin dynamics of the frustrated honeycomb rhodate Li2RhO3. Physical Review B 96, 094432 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.094432

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Choi, S. et al. Spin dynamics and field-induced magnetic phase transition in the honeycomb Kitaev magnet α-Li2IrO3. Physical Review B 99, 054426 (2019). URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.054426

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    & Reotier, P

    Yaouanc, A. & Reotier, P. D. d.Muon Spin Rotation, Relaxation, and Resonance: Applications to Condensed Matter . International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2011)

    2011

  22. [31]

    Zhang, S.-S., Halász, G. B. & Batista, C. D. Theory of the Kitaev model in a [111] mag- netic field. Nature Communications 13, 399 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41467-022-28014-3

    2022

  23. [32]

    M., Janssen, L., V ojta, M

    Cônsoli, P. M., Janssen, L., V ojta, M. & Andrade, E. C. Heisenberg-Kitaev model in a magnetic field: 1/S expansion. Physical Review B 102, 155134 (2020). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.102.155134

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    & Jackeli, G

    Yadav, R., Rachel, S., Hozoi, L., van den Brink, J. & Jackeli, G. Strain- and pressure-tuned magnetic interactions in honeycomb Kitaev materials. Physical Review B 98, 121107 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.121107

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    Bhattacharyya, P. et al. Maximized K/J ratio and cubiclike jeff = 1/2 moments in a noncubic environment in RuCl3 under pressure. Physical Review B108, L161107 (2023). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L161107

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Bastien, G. et al. Pressure-induced dimerization and valence bond crystal formation in the Kitaev-Heisenberg magnet α-RuCl3. Physical Review B 97, 241108 (2018). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.241108

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    Stahl, Q. et al. Pressure-tuning of RuCl3 towards the ideal Kitaev-limit (2022). URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2209.08367

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Wang, Z. et al. Pressure-induced melting of magnetic order and emergence of a new quantum state in α-RuCl3. Physical Review B 97, 245149 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.245149. 16

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    Takayama, T. et al. Competing spin-orbital singlet states in the 4d4 honeycomb ruthenate Ag3LiRu2O6. Physical Review Research 4, 043079 (2022). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043079

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    & ¯Onuki, Y

    Tateiwa, N., Haga, Y ., Fisk, Z. & ¯Onuki, Y . Miniature ceramic-anvil high-pressure cell for magnetic measurements in a commercial superconducting quantum interference device mag- netometer. Review of Scientific Instruments 82, 053906 (2011). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1063/1.3590745

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    & Wojek, B

    Suter, A. & Wojek, B. M. Musrfit: A Free Platform-Independent Framework for µSR Data Analysis. Physics Procedia 30, 69–73 (2012). URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S187538921201228X

    2012

  32. [41]

    & Prakapenka, V

    Prescher, C. & Prakapenka, V . B. DIOPTAS: a program for reduction of two-dimensional X- ray diffraction data and data exploration. High Pressure Research 35, 223–230 (2015). URL https://doi.org/10.1080/08957959.2015.1059835

    2015

  33. [42]

    & Dušek, M

    Pet ˇríˇcek, V ., Palatinus, L., Plášil, J. & Dušek, M. Jana2020 – a new version of the crystallo- graphic computing system Jana. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials 238, 271–282 (2023). URL https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/ zkri-2023-0005/ht...

    2023

  34. [43]

    & Angel, R

    Gonzalez-Platas, J., Alvaro, M., Nestola, F. & Angel, R. EosFit7-GUI: a new graphical user interface for equation of state calculations, analyses and teaching. Journal of Applied Crystal- lography 49, 1377–1382 (2016)

    2016

  35. [44]

    Giannozzi, P. et al. Quantum espresso: a modular and open-source software project for quan- tum simulations of materials. Journal of physics: Condensed matter 21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  36. [45]

    Giannozzi, P. et al. Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with quantum espresso. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  37. [46]

    Pizzi, G. et al. Wannier90 as a community code: new features and applications. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 165902 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1361-648x%2Fab51ff. 17

    2020

  38. [47]

    Aczel, A. A. et al. Revisiting the Kitaev material candidacy of Ir4+ double perovskite iridates. Physical Review B99, 134417 (2019). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.99.134417

    2019

  39. [48]

    Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diffraction

    Rodríguez-Carvajal, J. Recent advances in magnetic structure determination by neutron powder diffraction. Physica B: Condensed Matter 192, 55–69 (1993). URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145269390108I. 18 Acknowledgments The authors thank L. Hozoi for f...

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.