Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Magnetic excitations in biaxial-strain detwinned $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read theorists have argued that the continuum in RuCl3 is from magnon breakdown, but this paper uses biaxial strain to detwin crystals and reveal a sixfold-symmetric, high-energy continuum that conventional magnons cannot explain—pointing to fra

desk verdict Biaxial-strain detwinning gives the field a genuinely new experimental handle and a convincing M-point magnon result, but the fractionalized-continuum conclusion overreaches: strain-induced defects and a scaled bimagnon subtraction are not quantitatively excluded. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06753 v1 pith:GYCUIDCD submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.str-el

Yi Li , Yanyan Shangguan , Xinzhe Wang , Ruixian Liu , Chang Liu , Yongqi Han , Zhaosheng Wang , Christian Balz
show 5 more authors
Ross Stewart Shun-Li Yu Jinsheng Wen Jian-Xin Li Xingye Lu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.10.Kt75.25.-j75.30.Ds75.50.Ee75.60.-d78.70.Nx
keywords α-RuCl3Kitaevquantumspinliquidbiaxialstraindetwinningfractionalizedexcitationsinelasticneutronscatteringextendedmodelzigzagmagneticorder
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 claims that the intrinsic magnetic excitations of the honeycomb magnet α-RuCl3, previously obscured by crystal twinning, can be directly visualized by applying biaxial anisotropic strain to detwin single crystals. Using inelastic neutron scattering on the detwinned crystals, the authors find that the low-energy spin waves emerge from the M points in reciprocal space rather than from the magnetic Bragg Y points—a direct signature of strongly bond-directional anisotropic magnetic interactions. More importantly, they uncover a high-energy excitation continuum extending to ~16 meV with sixfold symmetry that cannot be explained by conventional magnons or by bimagnon scattering alone, which they interpret as evidence for fractionalized excitations—a hallmark of Kitaev quantum spin liquid physics. The central message is that a symmetry-breaking strain probe reveals intrinsic, direction-resolved spin dynamics that support a proximate Kitaev spin-liquid description, and that this technique can be generalized to other candidate Kitaev materials.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the use of biaxial anisotropic strain—compressive along one Ru-Ru bond direction and tensile along the perpendicular axis—to detwin the magnetic domains of α-RuCl3, aligning approximately 60% of the zigzag domains along a single in-plane direction. This detwinning breaks the artificial C6 symmetry of the twinned crystal and reveals the intrinsic C2 symmetry of the zigzag-ordered state, allowing the authors to resolve where the magnon spectral weight actually originates (at M/M' points) and how the excitation symmetry evolves with energy. The second key machinery is the extended Kitaev model, a spin Hamiltonian with Heisenberg, Kitaev, and off-diagonal exchange terms,

What would settle it

A specific falsifier would be a comparative inelastic neutron scattering (or resonant inelastic x-ray scattering) measurement of the high-energy continuum in the same detwinned sample both under strain and after releasing the strain: if the sixfold-symmetric continuum width and spectral weight are significantly broader under strain than in the same crystal measured unstrained (with twin-domain averaging accounted for), then strain-induced defects, not intrinsic fractionalized excitations, would carry a substantial part of the spectral weight, undermining the Kitaev-QSL interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in biaxial-strain detwinned α-RuCl3, the low-energy magnons emerge from the M and M' points—transverse to the magnetic Bragg peaks at the Y points—providing direct experimental evidence that anisotropic, bond-directional magnetic interactions shift the low-energy spin-wave spectral weight away from the magnetic ordering wavevector. Above the magnon band, the authors find a broad excitation continuum: a twofold-symmetric feature near 6 meV at the Γ point is consistent with bimagnon scattering, but the dominant spectral weight forms a sixfold-symmetric continuum extending up to ~16 meV that cannot be accounted for by conventional magnons or by bimagnon processes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the applied biaxial strain—which the authors concede introduces stacking faults and defects and alters the relative populations of the two TN phases—does not itself materially create or broaden the high-energy (4–16 meV) continuum attributed to fractionalized excitations; if the strain-induced disorder contributes significantly to that continuum, the fractionalized interpretation would be weakened, even if the M-point magnon observation still

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the fractionalized continuum interpretation is correct, the sixfold-symmetric high-energy scattering in α-RuCl3 provides a direct spectroscopic fingerprint of Kitaev quantum spin liquid physics, even in a magnetically ordered state.
  • The refined exchange parameters—with dominant ferromagnetic Kitaev K and substantial off-diagonal Γ—provide a more accurate microscopic basis for testing theories of the field-induced quantum spin liquid and the half-integer thermal Hall effect in α-RuCl3.
  • The demonstration that biaxial strain can detwin RuCl3 establishes a practical experimental diagnostic for revealing intrinsic anisotropic interactions in other candidate Kitaev materials, where twinning similarly obscures the intrinsic spin dynamics.
  • The observed dichotomy between the magnetic Bragg peaks (Y points) and the low-energy magnon minima (M/M' points) gives a new, directly testable signature of strongly anisotropic magnetic interactions that should be sought in other zigzag-ordered magnets.
  • The finding that the continuum extends to ~16 meV, far beyond the bimagnon band, suggests that fractionalized excitations coexist with magnon modes in the ordered phase, which could motivate new theoretical models of how fractionalization emerges in proximity to magnetic order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's symmetry-based argument—that the low-energy C2 magnons and the high-energy C6 continuum belong to different excitation species—could be tested with polarized neutron scattering, which would distinguish magnetic and possibly non-magnetic scattering contributions to the continuum and could separate single-magnon from multi-particle responses.
  • A natural extension of the strain technique would be to apply it under finite magnetic fields: if the sixfold continuum is truly of Kitaev fractionalized origin, it should strengthen or sharpen as the system approaches the reported field-induced quantum spin liquid state, whereas a magnon-breakdown continuum would be expected to weaken as the magnon gap changes.
  • The refined parameter set implies specific predictions for other observable quantities, such as the temperature dependence of the thermal Hall conductivity or the magnon heat capacity, that could be checked in thermodynamic measurements to further validate the Hamiltonian.
  • The same strain-detwinning approach could be applied to other zigzag-ordered Kitaev candidates (e.g., Na2IrO3 or other honeycomb ruthenates) to reveal whether the M-point magnon dichotomy and the high-energy continuum are generic features of the Kitaev physics or specific to RuCl3.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports inelastic neutron scattering measurements on α-RuCl3 single crystals that were partially detwinned by biaxial anisotropic strain. The authors find that low-energy spin waves emerge from the M/M′ points rather than from the magnetic Bragg Y points, yielding a C2-symmetric magnon dispersion in the detwinned state. They fit the observed dispersion to the extended Kitaev model with six exchange parameters (J = −1.47, K = −11, Γ = 3.52, Γ′ = 0.33, J2 = −0.91, J3 = 1.89 meV) and reproduce the data after including a ~40% minority twin contribution. Above the magnon band, they identify a ~6 meV peak at Γ that they assign to bimagnon scattering, and a broad continuum extending to ~16 meV that they attribute predominantly to fractionalized excitations, concluding that this supports proximate Kitaev quantum spin liquid physics.

Significance. If the central low-energy result holds, the observation that magnons emerge from the M points rather than the magnetic Bragg Y points is a clear, symmetry-based confirmation of bond-directional anisotropic interactions in α-RuCl3. The detwinning technique itself, using biaxial strain to align zigzag domains, is a useful methodological contribution. The high-energy continuum claim, if substantiated, would strengthen the case for fractionalized excitations. The present manuscript, however, does not yet provide the quantitative support needed for that high-energy conclusion: the bimagnon subtraction is not absolute, strain-induced defects are acknowledged but their magnetic scattering contribution is not assessed, and the six-parameter fit lacks uncertainty estimates. These issues are local in the sense that they concern analysis rather than the raw data, but they are load-bearing for the abstract's central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4(f) and surrounding text] The conclusion that bimagnons account for 'only a small fraction' of the continuum rests on scaling the calculated bimagnon DOS to match the observed ~6 meV peak. This is circular: the residual after subtraction depends entirely on the normalization. Without absolute intensity calibration, an independent estimate of the bimagnon intensity, or a calculation normalized to the single-magnon cross-section, the red dashed residual in Fig. 4(f) cannot be interpreted as fractionalized spectral weight. Please provide a normalization that does not use the feature being explained.
  2. [Section 'Biaxial-strain detwinning of RuCl3'] The authors state that external strain 'introduces stacking faults and defects' and changes the population of TN≈7.5 K and TN≈10–14 K phases. The response then argues only that the strain is too small to renormalize J/K/Γ and that low-energy magnon dispersions match unstrained samples. This addresses Hamiltonian modification, not incoherent defect/stacking-fault scattering in the 4–16 meV window. Since the continuum is the primary evidence for fractionalized excitations, a strain-disorder control or a quantitative estimate of defect-induced scattering is required before assigning the residual continuum to fractionalized excitations.
  3. [Section 'Magnetic interactions' and Fig. 1(k)] The six-parameter LSWT fit is presented without uncertainties or a robustness analysis. The refined exchange set is a central quantitative claim, and the extracted E_min2 ≈ 4.5 ± 0.5 meV used to separate bimagnons from fractionalized continuum is computed from these same parameters. Parameter degeneracies and fit residuals along different high-symmetry directions need to be reported. Error bars on the eigenenergies and a covariance or bootstrap analysis would clarify whether the bimagnon minimum and the bimagnon DOS are stable.
  4. [Captions of Fig. 3(h) and Fig. 3(l)] The abstract and summary state that 'the dominant spectral weight forms a sixfold-symmetric continuum extending up to ~16 meV.' However, at E = 12.5 ± 1.5 meV, Fig. 3(h) and Fig. 3(l) show an 'essentially featureless, isotropic cloud around Γ', and the 8 and 10 meV maps retain a recognizable C2 elongation. The sixfold character is most clearly supported at 4.3 meV. Please specify the energy range over which the sixfold symmetry actually holds and adjust the wording of the abstract if the high-energy response is isotropic rather than sixfold.
  5. [Section 'C2 and C6 symmetric excitations'] The argument that the C6-symmetric continuum below E_min2 is fractionalized relies on the C2 multi-magnon contributions being absent below 4.5 meV. But the same LSWT parameters that produce this threshold also yield the single-magnon dispersion that was fitted. Since no independent constraint fixes the full parameter set (e.g., from magnetic susceptibility, specific heat, or polarized neutron data), the threshold E_min2 and the resulting assignment are not robust. A supplementary check varying the couplings within their uncertainties would show how much of the 'below-bimagnon continuum' remains non-magnonic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typos: 'high-precesion' should be 'high-precision', 'privious' should be 'previous', 'continuua' should be 'continua', and the reference in the text to 'Fig. (c)' and 'Fig. S2' is ambiguous because the figure numbering is not fully defined in the main text.
  2. [Fig. 4] The orange dashed curve in Fig. 4(f) is said to be a peak at ~6 meV, but the figure does not distinguish between the raw data and the fitted Lorentzian. Please clarify which curve is data and which is the fit, and show the fitted background.
  3. [Fig. 1(h)-(i)] The intensity ratio IY : IM : IM′ = 3:1:1 is stated to imply 60% single-domain population, but the conversion to a domain fraction depends on the domain geometry and on the integrated Q ranges. State the assumed twin domain orientations and the explicit mapping between intensity ratios and percentages.
  4. [References] The paper cites ref. [24] for 'supplementary information' and 'details' but the supplementary material is not included in the arXiv posting. Since several load-bearing points (thermal expansion cycles, minority-twin model, additional cuts) are deferred there, the main text should include enough of those details for the reader to assess the claims, or the supplement should be made available with the preprint.
  5. [Section 'Dichotomy between zigzag order and magnons'] The phrase 'spin waves typically originate from magnetic wavevectors' is too absolute: for anisotropic models, low-energy magnons can appear away from the ordering wavevector. The authors themselves cite refs. 17, 28, 36, 43. Please rephrase to avoid implying that the M-point minimum is unprecedented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-wave fit is openly a fit, the bimagnon calculation is a derived prediction from the fitted Hamiltonian, and the fractionalized interpretation rests on independent symmetry arguments and external citations rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The exchange parameters (J=-1.47, K=-11, Gamma=3.52, etc.) are explicitly 'fit to the spin-wave energy dispersions' in the Magnetic interactions section; this is an honest fit to the single-magnon data, not a disguised prediction. The bimagnon minimum E_min2 = 4.5 +/- 0.5 meV and the 6 meV bimagnon DOS peak are computed from that same Hamiltonian, but they are genuinely derived quantities of a different calculation (two-magnon DOS) and are then compared with the measured continuum. The choice to scale the calculated 6 meV bimagnon peak to the observed 6 meV peak is a normalization convention; if anything, over-normalizing the bimagnon contribution makes the residual fractionalized weight smaller, so the conclusion that bimagnons account for only a small fraction is conservative. The C2-vs-C6 symmetry diagnostic is not definitional: the sample is only 60% detwinned, yet the low-energy magnons remain C2, so the near-C6 high-energy continuum is not merely the twinned average. The fractionalized interpretation cites the external Kitaev-QSL dynamical calculation (Knolle et al., ref 44) as well as the overlapping-author experimental paper (ref 27); the latter is corroborating prior evidence, not the sole load-bearing support. The acknowledged strain-induced stacking faults/defects are a real potential confound for attributing the 4-16 meV continuum to fractionalized excitations, but that is a scientific risk/alternative interpretation, not a circularity of the derivation. The paper does not define the prediction in terms of the conclusion, nor rename a fitted parameter as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a six-parameter exchange Hamiltonian fitted to the neutron data, on the validity of LSWT for the zigzag state, on the assumption that the strain does not renormalize the couplings or create the observed continuum, and on the interpretation of C6-symmetric high-energy scattering as Kitaev fractionalized excitations. These are domain assumptions rather than standard math.

free parameters (8)
  • J (Heisenberg exchange) = -1.47 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion along high-symmetry directions (Fig. 1(k)).
  • K (Kitaev exchange) = -11 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion (Section 'Magnetic interactions').
  • Gamma (symmetric off-diagonal exchange) = 3.52 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion.
  • Gamma' (symmetric off-diagonal exchange) = 0.33 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion.
  • J2 (second-neighbor Heisenberg exchange) = -0.91 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion.
  • J3 (third-neighbor Heisenberg exchange) = 1.89 meV
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion.
  • Minority twin fraction = about 40% (inferred from IY:IM:IM' = 3:1:1)
    Used to model the residual Y-point intensity as the M/M' points of minority twin domains.
  • Bimagnon intensity scale factor = chosen to match the observed 6 meV peak
    The calculated bimagnon DOS is scaled to the measured 6 meV peak before the residual spectral weight is attributed to fractionalized excitations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 2D extended Kitaev model (Eq. 1) with J, K, Gamma, Gamma', J2, J3 is the correct minimal Hamiltonian for alpha-RuCl3.
    Invoked in the 'Magnetic interactions' section for the LSWT fit; prior works use the same model.
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory is quantitatively reliable for the zigzag ordered state at T = 2 K.
    Used to compute the magnon dispersion and the bimagnon DOS; assumes quantum fluctuations do not qualitatively renormalize the spectrum.
  • domain assumption The applied strain (epsilon_xx - epsilon_yy <~ 0.4%) leaves the exchange couplings unrenormalized.
    Supported by refs [39-41] and by comparison of the M-Gamma-M dispersion with unstrained samples; load-bearing for the claim that the measured spectra are intrinsic.
  • domain assumption The observed high-energy continuum is magnetic in origin and not dominated by phonons, multiple scattering, or strain-induced defect scattering.
    The paper does not present a phonon or background subtraction analysis; the continuum is attributed to magnetic excitations.
  • domain assumption A C6-symmetric high-energy continuum is a signature of Kitaev fractionalized excitations (per Knolle et al. [44]).
    Used to interpret the symmetry of the measured continuum as evidence for fractionalization.
  • domain assumption The minority twin domains have their M/M' points overlapping the Y point of the majority domain in the twinned geometry.
    Required for the decomposition of the Y-point intensity into minority-twin magnon contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic excitations in biaxial-strain detwinned $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYCUIDCD

@misc{pith2026250906753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic excitations in biaxial-strain detwinned $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYCUIDCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06753}
}
abstract

The honeycomb magnet $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$ has been a leading candidate for realizing the Kitaev quantum spin liquid (QSL), but its intrinsic spin dynamics have remained obscured by crystal twinning. Here we apply biaxial anisotropic strain to detwin $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$ single crystals and directly visualize the intrinsic magnetic excitations using inelastic neutron scattering. We discover that the low-energy spin waves emerge from the $M$ points -- transverse to the magnetic Bragg peaks -- providing direct evidence of anisotropic magnetic interactions in $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$. The intrinsic spin-wave spectrum imposes stringent constraints on the extended Kitaev Hamiltonian, yielding a refined, quantitatively consistent set of exchange couplings for the zigzag ground state and its low-energy dynamics. Above the magnon band, we uncover broad excitation continua: while a twofold-symmetric feature near 6 meV at $\Gamma$ is consistent with bimagnon scattering, the dominant spectral weight forms a sixfold-symmetric continuum extending up to $\sim 16$ meV that cannot be explained by conventional magnons. This strongly supports the presence of fractionalized excitations-a hallmark of Kitaev QSL physics. Our findings establish biaxial strain as a powerful symmetry-breaking probe to access the intrinsic spin dynamics of Kitaev materials and provide critical benchmarks for refining theoretical models of quantum magnetism in $\alpha$-RuCl$_{3}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the magnetic excitations over a broader energy range (E ≈ 2 − 16 meV) measured with Ei = 22 meV. The excitation continuum around Γ is widespread in reciprocal space [Figs. 3 and 4(a),(b)], leading to broad continua in the energy cuts at the M, Y , and Γ points…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Annals of Physics321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

    2006

  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]

    Motome and J

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

    2020

  5. [5]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev Quan- tum Spin Liquid, arXiv preprintarXiv:2501.05608, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05608 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.05608 2025

  6. [6]

    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,α-RuCl 3: A spin-orbit assisted mott insulator on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B90, 041112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  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 ofα-RuCl 3 and the zigzag antiferromagnetic ground state, Phys. Rev. B92, 235119 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    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 ofα-RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B93, 134423 (2016)

    2016

Show all 47 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 liquidα-RuCl 3, Science356, 1055 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    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 systemα-RuCl 3, Nature Physics13, 1079 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    K. Ran, J. Wang, W. Wang, Z.-Y. Dong, X. Ren, S. Bao, S. Li, Z. Ma, Y. Gan, Y. Zhang, J. T. Park, G. Deng, S. Danilkin, S.-L. Yu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Spin-Wave Excitations Evidencing the Kitaev Interaction in Sin- gle Crystallineα-RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 107203 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Baek, S.-H

    S.-H. Baek, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Y. S. Kwon, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Evidence for a field-induced quantum spin liquid inα- RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 037201 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    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”, Nature559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    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- didateα-RuCl 3, Science373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    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 inα-RuCl 3, Nat. Phys. 18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. v. d. Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent ´ ı, Models and ma- terials for generalized kitaev magnetism, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter29, 493002 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P. A. Maksimov, A. L. Chernyshev, A. Honecker, and R. Valent ´ ı, Breakdown of magnons in a strongly spin-orbital coupled magnet, Nature Communications8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    S. Kim, E. Horsley, J. P. C. Ruff, B. D. Moreno, and Y.- J. Kim, Structural transition and magnetic anisotropy in α−RuCl3, Phys. Rev. B109, L140101 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    S. Kim, B. Yuan, and Y.-J. Kim,α-RuCl 3 and other Kitaev materials, APL Materials10, 10.1063/5.0101512 (2022), 080903

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Park, S.-H

    S.-Y. Park, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, D. Jang, T.-H. Jang, J. Scheffer, C.-M. Wu, J. S. Gardner, J. M. S. Park, and J.-H. Park, Emergence of the isotropic Kitaev honeycomb latticeα-RuCl 3 and its magnetic properties, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36, 215803 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    J. A. Sears, L. E. Chern, S. Kim, P. J. Bereciartua, S. Francoual, Y. B. Kim, and Y.-J. Kim, Ferromag- netic Kitaev interaction and the origin of large magnetic anisotropy inα-RuCl 3, Nature Physics16, 837 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Braden, X

    M. Braden, X. Wang, A. Bertin, P. Steffens, and Y. Su, Direct evidence for anisotropic magnetic interaction inα- RuCl3 from polarized inelastic neutron scattering, arXiv 2409.08854, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.08854 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. Kim, E. Horsley, C. Nelson, J. Ruff, and Y.-J. Kim, Re-investigation of Moment Direction in a Kitaev Materialα-RuCl 3, arXiv preprintarXiv:2403.04176, 10.48550/arXiv.2403.04176 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    See supplementary information for details

  17. [25]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic spin model for the honeycomb iridates beyond the kitaev limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinking α−rucl3, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033011 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    K. Ran, J. Wang, S. Bao, Z. Cai, Y. Shangguan, Z. Ma, W. Wang, Z.-Y. Dong, P. ˇCerm´ ak, A. Schneidewind, S. Meng, Z. Lu, S.-L. Yu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Ev- idence for Magnetic Fractional Excitations in a Ki- taev Quantum-Spin-Liquid Candidateα-RuCl 3, Chinese Phys. Lett.39, ...

    2022

  20. [28]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, D. Kaib, R. Coldea, and R. Va- lent ´ ı, Probingα−rucl3 beyond magnetic order: Effects of temperature and magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077203 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    A. M. Samarakoon, P. Laurell, C. Balz, A. Baner- jee, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, S. Okamoto, and D. A. Tennant, Extraction of interac- tion parameters forα-RuCl 3 from neutron data using 8 machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022061 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    L. Wu, A. Little, E. E. Aldape, D. Rees, E. Thewalt, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, D. Boone, S. Patankar, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, D. Man- drus, S. E. Nagler, E. Altman, and J. Orenstein, Field evolution of magnons inα−RuCl 3 by high-resolution po- lariz...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Laurell and S

    P. Laurell and S. Okamoto, Dynamical and thermal mag- netic properties of the Kitaev spin liquid candidateα- RuCl3, npj Quantum Materials5, 2 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Cookmeyer and J

    T. Cookmeyer and J. E. Moore, Spin-wave analysis of the low-temperature thermal hall effect in the candidate kitaev spin liquidα−RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B98, 060412 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Sahasrabudhe, D

    A. Sahasrabudhe, D. A. S. Kaib, S. Reschke, R. Ger- man, T. C. Koethe, J. Buhot, D. Kamenskyi, C. Hickey, P. Becker, V. Tsurkan, A. Loidl, S. H. Do, K. Y. Choi, M. Gr¨ uninger, S. M. Winter, Z. Wang, R. Valent ´ ı, and P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, High-field quantum disordered sta...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Suzuki and S.-i

    T. Suzuki and S.-i. Suga, Effective model with strong kitaev interactions forα−rucl 3, Phys. Rev. B97, 134424 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    W. Wang, Z.-Y. Dong, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Theoretical investigation of magnetic dynamics inα−RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B96, 115103 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Lu, K.-F

    X. Lu, K.-F. Tseng, T. Keller, W. Zhang, D. Hu, Y. Song, H. Man, J. T. Park, H. Luo, S. Li, A. H. Nevidomskyy, and P. Dai, Impact of uniaxial pressure on structural and magnetic phase transitions in electron-doped iron pnic- tides, Phys. Rev. B93, 134519 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    R. Liu, M. B. Stone, S. Gao, M. Nakamura, K. Ka- mazawa, A. Krajewska, H. C. Walker, P. Cheng, R. Yu, Q. Si, P. Dai, and X. Lu, Spin correlations in the ne- matic quantum disordered state of fese, Nature Commu- nications16, 5212 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    D. A. S. Kaib, S. Biswas, K. Riedl, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent ´ ı, Magnetoelastic coupling and effects of uniax- ial strain inα-rucl 3 from first principles, Phys. Rev. B 103, L140402 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Yadav, S

    R. Yadav, S. Rachel, L. Hozoi, J. van den Brink, and G. Jackeli, Strain- and pressure-tuned magnetic interac- tions in honeycomb kitaev materials, Phys. Rev. B98, 121107 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Vatansever, S

    E. Vatansever, S. Sarikurt, F. Ersan, Y. Kadioglu, O. ¨Uzengi Akt¨ urk, Y. Y¨ uksel, C. Ataca, E. Akt¨ urk, and U. Akıncı, Strain effects on electronic and magnetic properties of the monolayerα-rucl 3: A first-principles and monte carlo study, Journal of Applied Physics125, 08...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Nakajima, Y

    K. Nakajima, Y. Kojima, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, De- tailed measurement on non-Kitaev term spin dynamics inα-RuCl 3 using inelastic neutron scattering (Physical Society of Japan, 2022) pp. ROMBUNNO.15pGB32–3

    2022

  35. [43]

    S. H. Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, C. C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. F. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, Y. Singh, Y. Choi, T. Gog, A. Al-Zein, M. Moretti Sala, M. Krisch, J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Direct evidence for dominant bond-directional inter...

    2015

  36. [44]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moess- ner, Dynamics of a two-dimensional quantum spin liquid: Signatures of emergent majorana fermions and fluxes, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 207203 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    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- ...

    2021

  38. [46]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. A. Aczel, L. Li, M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, M. D. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, S. Bhattacharjee, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moess- ner, D. A. Tennant, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Proximate Kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honey...

    2016

  39. [47]

    Stewart, X

    R. Stewart, X. Lu, Y. Li, C. Liu, R. Liu, and X. Fu, Magnetic excitations in uniaxial-strainedα- RuCl3, STFC ISIS Neutron and Muon Source , https://doi.org/10.5286/ISIS.E.RB2320266 (2023)

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.