Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Fully Generalized Spin Models with Strain Effects of Kitaev Spin Liquid Candidate Materials

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 The paper shows that a few percent strain opens new exchange channels in Kitaev candidates and can drive a topological transition diagnostic of the spin liquid.

desk verdict Useful strain-dependent Kitaev model with real DFT numbers, but the topological-transition 'diagnostic' is a schematic with uncomputed coefficients and should be labeled as such. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23909 v1 pith:4SJ6UJC7 submitted 2025-05-29 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Pureum Noh , Hyunggeun Lee , Myung Joon Han , Eun-Gook Moon This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords Kitaevspinliquidstrainengineeringmodelα-RuCl3topologicalphasetransitiondensityfunctionaltheorystrong-couplingexpansionhoneycombmagnet
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

The paper sets out to fix a known blind spot in the physics of Kitaev spin-liquid candidates: the standard KJΓΓ′ model assumes an ideal high-symmetry geometry that real crystals do not have, especially when strained. It introduces the ε-KJΓΓ′ model, which includes every nearest-neighbor spin exchange allowed once lattice deformations break the ideal symmetry, with all coupling constants computed from density-functional theory and a microscopic strong-coupling derivation. For α-RuCl3 under a 3% strain, the emergent anisotropic exchange terms reach magnitudes comparable to the original Kitaev, Heisenberg, and Γ couplings. Using those parameters, the paper predicts strain-driven quantum phase transitions between zigzag magnetic order and the Kitaev quantum spin liquid, and identifies a topological transition within the spin liquid that is controlled purely by strain. This matters because it turns strain into a practical tuning knob and offers a concrete experimental signature for detecting Kitaev physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ε-KJΓΓ′ model, a generalized nearest-neighbor spin Hamiltonian built from the original KJΓΓ′ couplings plus strain-induced exchange terms. The machinery is a symmetry classification of homogeneous strains into the groups G0, G1, and G2 according to how they break the dihedral D3 symmetry of the ideal honeycomb lattice, combined with a strong-coupling expansion in which each coupling constant is expressed as a polynomial in strain (Type I at O(ε⁰), Type II at O(ε), Type III at O(ε²)). The coupling coefficients are derived from symmetry-decomposed hopping matrices whose strain-dependent entries are fitted to Wannier functions from DFT, and the same perturbative scheme that recovers the pristine KJΓΓ′ model in the zero-strain limit also generates the new terms under deformation.

What would settle it

Measure the thermal Hall conductivity or the field-angle dependence of the topological invariant in a strained α-RuCl3 flake with the magnetic field locked along the b-axis: the paper predicts a strain-driven transition at a specific strain value where the unstrained crystal has no transition, so observing no transition would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conventional KJΓΓ′ model is quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient once a Kitaev material is deformed, and that a fully generalized spin model in the deformed geometry—the ε-KJΓΓ′ model—captures the new physics. The paper argues that any homogeneous strain falls into one of three symmetry classes (preserving the original P3̄1m group, breaking C3 but keeping one C2, or breaking all rotations), and that each class generates a specific set of additional exchange interactions beyond K, J, Γ, and Γ′. These additional interactions are not small: in α-RuCl3 at 3% strain, coefficients such as (Γ(E))b reach |(Γ(E))b/Γ| ≈ 1.32 and (K(E))b reaches |(K(E))b/K| ≈ 0.77. The authors then show that the strain-dependent couplings move the system across phase boundaries into the Kitaev quantum spin liquid, and that the topological invariant of the KQSL under a magnetic field changes with strain in a way that is symmetry-protected and can be detected as a transition at fixed field direction.

Load-bearing premise

The model keeps only nearest-neighbor spin exchanges; if longer-range couplings such as the third-neighbor J3, which is believed significant in α-RuCl3, are not negligible under strain, the predicted phase boundaries and the topological transition would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tensile biaxial strain and out-of-plane compressive strain suppress J, Γ, and Γ′ relative to K, moving α-RuCl3 toward the ferromagnetic Kitaev spin-liquid phase.
  • Strain is a control knob for quantum phase transitions between zigzag order and the Kitaev quantum spin liquid, and for topological transitions within the KQSL itself, even with the magnetic field fixed along the b-axis.
  • The symmetry-based classification applies beyond α-RuCl3 to other d5 systems and to d7 cobalt-based compounds.
  • Specific strain types produce emergent exchange channels comparable to the original isotropic couplings, so the unstrained KJΓΓ′ model is not sufficient to describe deformed crystals.
  • The predicted topological transition at fixed field direction gives a concrete experimental diagnostic for identifying Kitaev spin-liquid physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ε-KJΓΓ′ parameters are accurate, strain engineering in thin films could replace magnetic-field-angle rotation as the practical way to locate Kitaev spin-liquid phases, since the topological transition point shifts with strain at fixed field direction.
  • The same strong-coupling-plus-symmetry machinery could be applied to uniaxial pressure or dynamic strain, and a testable extension is that time-periodic strain should produce Floquet topological transitions in the Majorana spectrum of the spin liquid.
  • The relative magnitudes of Type II couplings under strain could be measured directly via inelastic neutron scattering or Raman spectroscopy, and comparing those measurements with Table III would test the microscopic derivation.
  • Because the topological-invariant formula rests only on symmetry, the phase-boundary shapes in Fig. 4 could be checked by exact diagonalization of the ε-KJΓΓ′ model at representative strain values.
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 introduces the ε-KJΓΓ′ model, a nearest-neighbor spin-1/2 Hamiltonian that includes all exchange terms allowed by the strain-lowered symmetry of a honeycomb d5 (or d7) Kitaev material. The authors classify homogeneous strains into groups G0, G1, and G2 according to the residual space group, derive the strain-induced exchange terms by a strong-coupling expansion from Kanamori-type atomic physics and DFT+Wannier hoppings, and tabulate numerical couplings for a α-RuCl3 monolayer under 3% strains (Table III). They report that under certain G1 and G2 strains the emergent couplings become comparable to the pristine K, J, Γ, and Γ′ values. Based on a symmetry expression for the KQSL topological invariant, Eq. (9), they propose that strain can drive a topological phase transition even for a fixed b-axis field, and identify this as a practical diagnostic of Kitaev physics. The Discussion acknowledges that non-nearest-neighbor terms such as J3 are not included.

Significance. If the quantitative content of the central claims holds, this paper provides a useful methodological template: a symmetry-based classification of strain effects combined with a microscopic strong-coupling calculation yields falsifiable numerical predictions for exchange couplings and phase boundaries. The non-circular derivation from hoppings, the internal consistency checks that Table II reduces to the known KJΓΓ′ couplings at zero strain and that symmetry-protected zero couplings vanish identically, and the explicit DFT parameter set are concrete strengths. However, the headline topological diagnostic is presently supported only by a symmetry argument with undetermined coefficients, and the nearest-neighbor truncation is a known limitation for α-RuCl3. The paper's value would be substantially increased by a calculation of the k_i constants in Eq. (9) from the computed ε-KJΓΓ′ parameters, or by a clear demotion of Fig. 4 to an illustrative symmetry construction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (9) and Fig. 4] The central predictive claim—that strain alone can drive a topological transition in the KQSL for a b-axis field (blue line in Fig. 4c)—is not a consequence of the calculated microscopic model. Eq. (9) contains undetermined real constants k1–k8, and Fig. 4 sets k1–k8 = 1 without justification. Since Eq. (9) is only a symmetry-allowed sign function, the existence and location of transition lines depend quantitatively on these constants; the DFT-derived couplings in Table III are not used to determine them. The authors should either compute the k_i constants (for example, from a low-energy Majorana-fermion expansion built from the ε-KJΓΓ′ parameters) or explicitly present Fig. 4 and the blue-line prediction as an illustrative symmetry construction, and qualify or remove the 'practical diagnostic' claim accordingly.
  2. [Discussion / J3 limitation] The Discussion acknowledges that the strategy can be extended to non-nearest-neighbor interactions such as J3, but the phase-diagram and transition claims for α-RuCl3 are computed in a nearest-neighbor-only model. References [18,20] identify J3 as significant in α-RuCl3; its omission could change the strain values at which the KQSL is stable and could alter the predicted topological-transition signatures. The statement that the topological transition is robust beyond the nearest-neighbor model is attributed to Ref. [20], but the blue-line transition in Fig. 4 is new, and its robustness to J3 is not demonstrated. Please provide a quantitative estimate or a symmetry argument showing that the omitted longer-range terms do not affect the strain-driven transition.
  3. [DFT estimation / Table III] The quantitative claim that emergent channels become comparable to their unstrained counterparts rests on a single parameter choice, U = 3 eV, JH/U = 0.15, and Ueff = 2 eV. The text states robustness for 0.05 < JH/U < 0.33, but no resulting coupling ranges are shown, and Table III contains no error bars or spread over functional and U/JH choices. Because Type II and Type III couplings are leading-order strain effects, their relative magnitudes are sensitive to small changes in the hoppings and in U and JH. The authors should report a sensitivity analysis, at least for the key ratios such as |(Γ(E))b/Γ| and |(K(E))b/K|, so that the 'comparable magnitudes' conclusion can be assessed quantitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The text repeatedly refers to 'arbitrary lattice deformations,' but the formal development and DFT calculations cover homogeneous strains only; please qualify the claim to homogeneous strain and note that inhomogeneous strain is outside the current framework.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The normalization factor sqrt(J^2 + K^2 + Γ^2 + Γ′^2) is stated in the caption, but the figure's strain axis and the fixed-volume convention are not described in the main text; one sentence in the caption or in the DFT section clarifying which strain parameter is varied would remove ambiguity.
  3. [Tables I and III] The correspondence between the strain labels Dα_a, Dβ_a, Dα_b, and Dβ_b in Table I and the representation components such as (K(E))a and (K(E))b in Table III is not stated explicitly; a short sentence or column header would remove ambiguity for the reader.
  4. [Supplemental Information cross-reference] The cross-reference to the Supplemental Information for the explicit matrix representation of the ε-KJΓΓ′ model should be expanded, and the SI should be included with the arXiv submission so that the matrix form and the O(ϵ^n) classification are verifiable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction in the ε-KJΓΓ′ parameter derivation; the strain-topology application is schematic and not derived from the computed couplings, but this is under-support rather than equivalence by construction.

  1. other [Strain-driven quantum phase transitions, Eq. (9) and Fig. 4]
    "This applicability arises from previous results indicating that topological phase transitions of KQSLs under perturbative external fields can be analyzed through symmetry considerations [65]. ... ν(h, ϵ) = Sign[k1hc + k2h3c + k3hc(h2a+h2b) + k4ha(h2a−3h2b) + k5hcϵa + k6hcϵc + (k7Dα + k8Dβ) × (ha,hb)] (9) where k1–k8 are real constants. Figure 4 illustrates the schematic behavior of the topological invariant under three different strain groups, with the normalized interaction parameters (k1–k8 = 1)."

    The central diagnostic claim—that the blue line in Fig. 4c permits a strain-only topological transition for a field along b—follows because the undetermined symmetry coefficients k1–k8 were set to 1, not because they were computed from the DFT-derived ε-KJΓΓ′ exchange parameters in Table III. If the actual k_i differ, the transition can move or vanish. This is therefore a schematic ansatz presented as a proposed diagnostic, not a derived prediction. It is not a full circularity because the spin-model couplings themselves are derived independently from DFT hoppings; the topological section is underdetermined rather than equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: hoppings from DFT/Wannier are inserted into a strong-coupling expansion (Table II and the tα_KJ, tα_ΓΓ′ expressions), yielding the ε-KJΓΓ′ couplings of Table III with no spin-model output fitted back. The pristine limit reproduces the KJΓΓ′ model, and symmetry-enforced zeros are checked both by group theory and by substitution of Eq. (6)/(7), which is consistency checking, not circularity. The non-nearest-neighbor J3 truncation is acknowledged in the Discussion and is a model limitation, not a circular step. The only flagged issue is the strain-topological-transition claim: Eq. (9) imports a symmetry form from the authors' prior work [65] and leaves k1–k8 undetermined; Fig. 4 sets them to 1 and is explicitly labeled 'schematic', so the blue-line transition is an illustration rather than a consequence of the computed parameters. This weakens quantitative support but does not reduce the principal model derivation to its inputs. Score 2 reflects the minor load-bearing self-citation and schematic coefficients in the secondary topological application, while the central ε-KJΓΓ′ construction remains independent and non-circular.

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

The spin couplings are derived rather than fit, but the derivation rests on empirical DFT+U parameters and a nearest-neighbor truncation. The topological phase diagram uses undetermined constants set to one, making it qualitative.

free parameters (5)
  • U (on-site Coulomb repulsion) = 3 eV
    Taken from previous literature [17,58] for the strong-coupling expansion; affects the magnitude of all exchange couplings.
  • JH/U (Hund's coupling ratio) = 0.15
    Taken from literature; authors state robustness in the range 0.05 to 0.33 but give no quantitative error bars.
  • U_eff (DFT+U parameter) = 2 eV
    Used in Dudarev's DFT+U scheme; influences the Wannier hoppings and therefore all spin couplings.
  • Strain magnitude = 3%
    Representative strain value chosen for DFT calculations; the model is defined for arbitrary strain, but the headline numbers are for 3%.
  • k1..k8 in Eq. (9) = 1 (all)
    Unknown constants in the topological invariant expression; set to 1 for the schematic phase diagrams, so the predicted transition locations are not material-specific.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The system remains in a Mott insulating regime with well-defined jeff=1/2 local moments under strain
    Justifies the strong-coupling expansion; stated in the Microscopics section based on DFT jeff-projected bands.
  • domain assumption The Kanamori atomic Hamiltonian with parameters U, JH, lambda_SO describes the local physics
    Standard for d5 transition-metal ions; used as the starting point for the perturbative derivation.
  • domain assumption Strong-coupling perturbation theory is valid in the limit U, JH >> lambda_SO >> |t|
    Assumed in the Microscopics section to derive H1 and the coupling constants from hopping integrals.
  • domain assumption The topological invariant nu(h, epsilon) is odd under time-reversal, even under inversion, and transforms as the A2 representation, leading to Eq. (9)
    Borrowed from the authors' prior work [65]; not derived in this paper and used to generate the schematic phase diagram.
  • domain assumption Only nearest-neighbor spin interactions are relevant; longer-range exchanges such as J3 are negligible or unaffected by strain
    Model truncation; the Discussion states extension to J3 is possible, implying it is not included in the present results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully Generalized Spin Models with Strain Effects of Kitaev Spin Liquid Candidate Materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SJ6UJC7

@misc{pith2026250523909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully Generalized Spin Models with Strain Effects of Kitaev Spin Liquid Candidate Materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SJ6UJC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23909}
}
abstract

The $KJ\Gamma\Gamma'$ spin model-originally derived for an ideal $P\bar{3}1m$ symmetric geometry-has long served as a central framework for understanding candidate Kitaev materials. In realistic crystals, however, this ideal geometry is seldom realized, either at low temperatures or under external perturbations, limiting the model's quantitative applicability. Here we introduce a fully generalized spin model, denoted $\epsilon$-$KJ\Gamma\Gamma'$, that explicitly incorporates arbitrary lattice deformations $\epsilon$. All spin-exchange interactions and their strain-dependent coefficients are obtained from density-functional theory (DFT) calculations and a microscopic derivation of coupling constants for materials based on $d^5$ transition-metal ions. For $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ under a strain of $3\%$, new emergent exchange channels acquire magnitudes comparable to their unstrained counterparts. Building on these parameters, we investigate strain-driven quantum phase transitions between competing magnetic states-including the zigzag order and the Kitaev quantum spin liquid (KQSL)-and identify a strain-induced topological transition within the KQSL states that offers a practical diagnostic of Kitaev physics. Furthermore, our symmetry analysis of the $\epsilon$-$KJ\Gamma\Gamma'$ model is applicable to both $d^{5}$ ions, such as $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$, and $d^{7}$ systems, including cobalt-based compounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The crystal structures and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The visualization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The calculated spin interactions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic strain-driven topological phase transitions. Figures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [65]

    Vatansever, S

    E. Vatansever, S. Sarikurt, F. Ersan, Y. Kadioglu, O. Uzengi Akturk, Y. Yuksel, C. Ataca, E. Akturk, and U. Akıncı, J. Appl. Phys. 125, 083903 (2019), ISSN 0021- 8979, URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5078713

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5078713 2019

  2. [20]

    Jiang, Z.-C

    H.-C. Jiang, Z.-C. Gu, X.-L. Qi, and S. Trebst, Phys. Rev. B 83, 245104 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.245104

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.245104 2011

  3. [1]

    Identify all possible emergent spin interactions un- der external perturbations ( ϵ) through symmetry analysis, denoted as H1(ϵ). 3 Our notation Strain ϵa ϵaa + ϵbb ϵc 2ϵcc Dα = (Dα a , Dα b ) (2ϵab, ϵaa − ϵbb) Dβ = (Dβ a , Dβ b ) (2ϵbc, −2ϵac) Our notation Nearest neighbor’s two spins − →S K(E) 1 2 √ 6 √ 3 J xx x − J yy y , Jxx x + J yy y − 2J zz z S J(A...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Perform DFT calculation for a given material under the symmetry-breaking perturbation

    work page

  5. [3]

    Construct the tight-binding model incorporating symmetry-breaking effects induced by external per- turbations (ϵ)

    work page

  6. [4]

    Below, we apply the general strategy to α-RuCl3 and construct a generalized spin model under strain effects

    Perform microscopic calculations to determine the coefficients of H0(ϵ) and H1(ϵ), and construct the generalized spin model, H(ϵ). Below, we apply the general strategy to α-RuCl3 and construct a generalized spin model under strain effects. With the estimated energy scales induced by H1(ϵ), we propose and discuss the possible engineering of ground states v...

    work page 2025

  7. [5]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025003 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.025003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.025003 2017

  8. [6]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2016), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0034-4885/80/1/016502

    work page 2016

Show all 80 references
  1. [7]

    Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08917

    L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08917

    2010 doi

  2. [8]

    Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973), ISSN 0025-5408, URL https://www.sciencedirect

    P. Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973), ISSN 0025-5408, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0025540873901670

    1973

  3. [9]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys- 031218-013401, URL https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-conmatphys-031218-013401

    2019 doi

  4. [10]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freed- man, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1083 (2008), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.80.1083

    2008

  5. [11]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003), ISSN 0003- 4916, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003491602000180

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 303, 2 (2003), ISSN 0003- 4916, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003491602000180

    2003

  6. [12]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0003491605002381

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), ISSN 0003-4916, january Special Issue, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0003491605002381

    2006

  7. [13]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.102.017205

    2009

  8. [14]

    J. c. v. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 027204 (2010), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.027204

    2010 doi

  9. [15]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077204 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.077204

    2014 doi

  10. [16]

    J. G. Rau and H.-Y. Kee, Trigonal distortion in the hon- eycomb iridates: Proximity of zigzag and spiral phases in Na2IrO3 (2014), arXiv:1408.4811 [cond-mat], URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.4811

    2014 arXiv

  11. [17]

    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), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.041112

    2014 doi

  12. [18]

    Koitzsch, C

    A. Koitzsch, C. Habenicht, E. M¨ uller, M. Knupfer, B. B¨ uchner, H. C. Kandpal, J. van den Brink, D. Nowak, A. Isaeva, and T. Doert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 12 126403 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.126403

    2016

  13. [19]

    L. J. Sandilands, Y. Tian, K. W. Plumb, Y.- J. Kim, and K. S. Burch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147201 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.114.147201

    2015

  14. [21]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155143 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.93.155143

    2016

  15. [22]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent ´ ı, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/aa8cf5

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214431

    2016 doi

  17. [24]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, D. Kaib, R. Coldea, and R. Valent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077203 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 120.077203

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Scientific Re- ports 6, 37925 (2016), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/srep37925

    2016 doi

  19. [26]

    Takeda, J

    H. Takeda, J. Mai, M. Akazawa, K. Tamura, J. Yan, K. Moovendaran, K. Raju, R. Sankar, K.- Y. Choi, and M. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042035 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L042035

    2022

  20. [27]

    Viciu, Q

    L. Viciu, Q. Huang, E. Morosan, H. Zandbergen, N. Greenbaum, T. McQueen, and R. Cava, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 180, 1060 (2007), ISSN 0022- 4596, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0022459607000175

    2007

  21. [28]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V. Bal´ edent, M. Jim´ enez- Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, et al., Phys. Rev. B 102, 224429 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.102.224429

    2020

  22. [29]

    G. Lin, J. Jeong, C. Kim, Y. Wang, Q. Huang, T. Ma- suda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, G. G¨ unther, M. Russina, et al., Na- ture Communications 12, 5559 (2021), ISSN 2041-1723, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25567-7

    2021 doi

  23. [30]

    Wulferding, Y

    D. Wulferding, Y. Choi, S.-H. Do, C. H. Lee, P. Lem- mens, C. Faugeras, Y. Gallais, and K.-Y. Choi, Nature Communications 11, 1603 (2020), ISSN 2041-1723, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15370-1

    2020 doi

  24. [31]

    Tanaka, Y

    O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Hwang, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Fujimoto, Y. Mat- suda, E. G. Moon, et al., Nature Physics 18, 429 (2022), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41567-021-01488-6

    2022

  25. [32]

    Y. Xing, R. Namba, K. Imamura, K. Ishihara, S. Suet- sugu, T. Asaba, K. Hashimoto, T. Shibauchi, Y. Mat- suda, and Y. Kasahara, npj Quantum Materials 10, 33 (2025), ISSN 2397-4648, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41535-025-00749-4

    2025

  26. [33]

    Kasahara, S

    Y. Kasahara, S. Suetsugu, T. Asaba, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060410 (2022), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L060410

    2022 doi

  27. [34]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, et al., Nature 559, 227 (2018), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0274-0

    2018 doi

  28. [35]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, C. Hickey, et al., Science 373, 568 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aay5551, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.aay5551

    2021 doi

  29. [36]

    Czajka, T

    P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen- Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Nature Physics 17, 915 (2021), ISSN 1745-2481, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41567-021-01243-x

    2021

  30. [37]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019), ISSN 2522-5820, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s42254-019-0038-2

    2019

  31. [38]

    Lefran¸ cois, G

    E. Lefran¸ cois, G. Grissonnanche, J. Baglo, P. Lampen- Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, C. Balz, D. Mandrus, S. E. Na- gler, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, et al., Phys. Rev. X 12, 021025 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.12.021025

    2022

  32. [39]

    Rousochatzakis, J

    I. Rousochatzakis, J. Reuther, R. Thomale, S. Rachel, and N. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041035 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX. 5.041035

    2015 doi

  33. [40]

    G. B. Hal´ asz, N. B. Perkins, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 127203 (2016), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.127203

    2016 doi

  34. [41]

    D. C. Ronquillo, A. Vengal, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B 99, 140413 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.140413

    2019 doi

  35. [42]

    N. D. Patel and N. Trivedi, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 12199 (2019), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1821406116, URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas. 1821406116

    2019 doi

  36. [43]

    Vinkler-Aviv and A

    Y. Vinkler-Aviv and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031032 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.8.031032

    2018

  37. [44]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moess- ner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 207203 (2014), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.207203

    2014 doi

  38. [45]

    J. Nasu, J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, Y. Motome, and R. Moessner, Nature Physics 12, 912 (2016), ISSN 1745- 2481, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3809

    2016 doi

  39. [46]

    J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 92, 115122 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.115122

    2015 doi

  40. [47]

    J. Nasu, J. Yoshitake, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 127204 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.127204

    2017 doi

  41. [48]

    Motome and J

    Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan 89, 012002 (2020), https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.89.012002, URL https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.89.012002

    2020 doi

  42. [49]

    Kasahara, K

    Y. Kasahara, K. Sugii, T. Ohnishi, M. Shimozawa, M. Yamashita, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, T. Shibauchi, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 217205 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.120.217205

    2018

  43. [50]

    M. G. Yamada, H. Fujita, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. 13 Lett. 119, 057202 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.057202

    2017 doi

  44. [51]

    Gohlke, R

    M. Gohlke, R. Verresen, R. Moessner, and F. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 157203 (2017), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.157203

    2017 doi

  45. [52]

    Cookmeyer and J

    T. Cookmeyer and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B 107, 224428 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.107.224428

    2023

  46. [53]

    A. Go, J. Jung, and E.-G. Moon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 147203 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.147203

    2019 doi

  47. [54]

    H. Yang, C. Kim, Y. Choi, J. H. Lee, G. Lin, J. Ma, M. Kratochv ´ ılov´ a, P. Proschek, E.-G. Moon, K. H. Lee, et al., Phys. Rev. B 106, L081116 (2022), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L081116

    2022 doi

  48. [55]

    G. B. Hal´ asz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03879 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Zhang, G

    H. Zhang, G. B. Halasz, S. Ghosh, S. Jesse, T. Z. Ward, D. A. Tennant, M. McGuire, and J. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05417 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  50. [57]

    E. Z. Zhang, R. H. Wilke, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184418 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.184418

    2023 doi

  51. [58]

    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, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2215509119 (2023), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2215509119, URL https://www...

    2023 doi

  52. [59]

    J. M. Fletcher, W. E. Gardner, A. C. Fox, and G. Top- ping, J. Chem. Soc. A pp. 1038–1045 (1967), URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1039/J19670001038

    1967 doi

  53. [60]

    Kubota, H

    Y. Kubota, H. Tanaka, T. Ono, Y. Narumi, and K. Kindo, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094422 (2015), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.094422

    2015 doi

  54. [61]

    D. A. S. Kaib, S. Biswas, K. Riedl, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent ´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 103, L140402 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 103.L140402

    2021 doi

  55. [62]

    H.-S. Kim, V. S. V., A. Catuneanu, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 91, 241110 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.241110

    2015 doi

  56. [63]

    Sarikurt, Y

    S. Sarikurt, Y. Kadioglu, F. Ersan, E. Vatansever, O. U. Akturk, Y. Yuksel, U. Akıncı, and E. Ak- turk, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 997 (2018), ISSN 1463-9084, URL https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ articlelanding/2018/cp/c7cp07953b

    2018

  57. [64]

    Iyikanat, M

    F. Iyikanat, M. Yagmurcukardes, R. T. Senger, and H. Sahin, J. Mater. Chem. C 6, 2019 (2018), ISSN 2050-7534, URL https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ articlelanding/2018/tc/c7tc05266a

    2018

  58. [66]

    L. Liu, K. Yang, G. Wang, D. Lu, Y. Ma, and H. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 107, 165134 (2023), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.165134

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Samanta, D

    S. Samanta, D. Hong, and H.-S. Kim, Nanomaterials 14, 9 (2024), ISSN 2079-4991, URL https://www.mdpi.com/ 2079-4991/14/1/9

    2024

  60. [68]

    Sugano, Y

    S. Sugano, Y. Tanabe, and H. Kamimura, Multiplets of Transition-Metal Ions in Crystals, vol. 33 of Pure and Applied Physics (Academic Press, New York, 1970)

    1970

  61. [69]

    P. Noh, K. Hwang, and E.-G. Moon, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201105 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.109.L201105

    2024

  62. [70]

    Hwang, A

    K. Hwang, A. Go, J. H. Seong, T. Shibauchi, and E.-G. Moon, Nature Communications 13, 323 (2022), ISSN 2041-1723, URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-021-27943-9

    2022

  63. [71]

    Imamura, S

    K. Imamura, S. Suetsugu, Y. Mizukami, Y. Yoshida, K. Hashimoto, K. Ohtsuka, Y. Kasahara, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, P. Noh, et al., Science Advances 10, eadk3539 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adk3539, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ sciadv.adk3539

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    G.-H. Kim, M. Park, S. Samanta, U. Choi, B. Kang, U. Seo, G. Ji, S. Noh, D.-Y. Cho, J.-W. Yoo, et al., Science Advances 10, eadn8694 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn8694, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ sciadv.adn8694

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  66. [74]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Ma- terials Science 6, 15 (1996), ISSN 0927-0256, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0927025696000080

    1996

  67. [75]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.54.11169

    1996

  68. [76]

    Ozaki, Phys

    T. Ozaki, Phys. Rev. B 67, 155108 (2003), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.155108

    2003 doi

  69. [77]

    Kim, H.-S

    K.-H. Kim, H.-S. Kim, and M. J. Han, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26, 185501 (2014), ISSN 0953-8984, URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/26/18/185501

    2014 doi

  70. [78]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.57.1505

    1998

  71. [79]

    M. J. Han, T. Ozaki, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 73, 045110 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.73.045110

    2006

  72. [80]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 165902 (2020), ISSN 0953-8984, URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1361-648X/ab51ff

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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