pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24857 · v1 · pith:AU373QEAnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Revisiting spin Hamiltonian parameters in a Kitaev material via Bayesian optimization of magnetization curves

Takahiro Misawa , Ryo Tamura , Kazuyoshi Yoshimi , Youhei Yamaji This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 00:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords α-RuCl3Kitaev materialspin HamiltonianBayesian optimizationmagnetization curvesΓ interactionquantum magnets
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian optimization of magnetization curves selects a spin Hamiltonian for α-RuCl₃ that favors large positive Γ over the small-g_c alternative.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper fits five parameters of the spin Hamiltonian for the Kitaev candidate α-RuCl₃ to experimental magnetization data along the b and c axes using Bayesian optimization. The cost function is minimized at (K, Γ, Γ', J, g_c) = (-6.0, 7.5, -0.3, -1.75, 2.3) meV, yet remains insensitive to the absolute scale of K and only weakly dependent on Γ' and J. Computations of the static spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and specific heat with this parameter set agree with experiment and prefer the large-Γ regime over a competing small-g_c regime. The method combines data-driven fitting with low-energy numerical solvers to extract Hamiltonian parameters directly from measurements.

Core claim

The parameter set that minimizes the cost function defined on b- and c-axis magnetization curves is (K,Γ,Γ',J,g_c)=(-6.0, 7.5, -0.3, -1.75, 2.3) meV. Magnetization data alone do not fix the energy scale of the Kitaev interaction K. The optimization favors a large positive Γ. When the static spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and specific heat are computed from this set, they match experiment and support the large-Γ scenario over the small-g_c scenario.

What carries the argument

Bayesian optimization of a cost function built from experimental magnetization curves, evaluated with low-energy numerical solvers for each candidate parameter set.

If this is right

  • The optimized parameters reproduce the measured b- and c-axis magnetization curves.
  • Static spin structure factor, susceptibility, and specific heat computed from the same set agree with experiment.
  • These thermodynamic and structural quantities distinguish the large-Γ regime from the small-g_c regime.
  • Magnetization data by themselves leave the absolute Kitaev scale undetermined.
  • The combination of Bayesian optimization and accurate solvers offers a systematic route to Hamiltonian parameters from experimental data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Additional observables such as neutron scattering intensities would be needed to constrain the Kitaev coupling scale that magnetization leaves free.
  • The same optimization workflow could be applied to other quantum magnets once magnetization curves along principal axes are available.
  • If the five-term form is incomplete, the apparent preference for large Γ could shift when further interaction terms are included.

Load-bearing premise

The spin Hamiltonian is completely captured by the five fitted terms and the numerical solvers accurately reproduce the magnetization curves for any values of those terms.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of specific heat or magnetic susceptibility at temperatures and fields where the optimized parameters predict a clear mismatch with existing data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24857 by Kazuyoshi Yoshimi, Ryo Tamura, Takahiro Misawa, Youhei Yamaji.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Honeycomb network of Ru atoms in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Schematic of the Bayesian optimization work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Optimization process of the cost function ∆ for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predictive landscapes of the cost function ∆ around the optimal parameters. In each panel, two parameters are varied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ground-state spin structure factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Temperature dependence of the specific heat per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Temperature dependence of the magnetic suscepti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Determining the spin Hamiltonian of a magnetic compound is crucial for understanding its magnetic properties. A standard approach is to derive model parameters from $ab$ $initio$ calculations based on the crystal structure. However, the resulting Hamiltonian can depend sensitively on methodological details of the $ab$ $initio$ procedure. This issue is particularly evident in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$, a candidate Kitaev material. Here, we present an alternative, data-driven approach to determine the spin Hamiltonian parameters of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ by Bayesian optimization of experimental magnetization curves along the $b$- and $c$-axis directions. We optimize five parameters, namely the Kitaev interaction $K$, off-diagonal interactions $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$, the Heisenberg interaction $J$, and the $c$-axis $g$-factor $g_c$. The parameter set that minimizes the cost function is $(K,\Gamma,\Gamma',J,g_c)=(-6.0,\,7.5,\,-0.3,\,-1.75,\,2.3)$, where the exchange couplings are in meV. We find that the cost function is insensitive to the absolute value of the Kitaev coupling $K$. Thus, the magnetization data alone do not determine its energy scale. The cost function also depends only weakly on $\Gamma'$ and $J$, while the optimization favors a large positive $\Gamma$. By computing the static spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and specific heat, we show that these quantities favor the large-$\Gamma$ scenario over the small-$g_c$ scenario and that the parameter set that minimizes the cost function yields good agreement with experiment. The combination of Bayesian optimization and accurate low-energy solvers provides an effective approach for determining parameters of spin Hamiltonians. This methodology opens a systematic route to determining spin Hamiltonians in quantum magnets from experimental data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using Bayesian optimization to fit five parameters of the spin Hamiltonian for α-RuCl₃ (K, Γ, Γ', J, g_c) directly to experimental magnetization curves along the b- and c-axes. The minimizing set is reported as (K, Γ, Γ', J, g_c) = (-6.0, 7.5, -0.3, -1.75, 2.3) meV; the cost function is insensitive to |K| and depends only weakly on Γ' and J while favoring large positive Γ. The authors then evaluate the static spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and specific heat for this set, claiming it yields good agreement with experiment and supports the large-Γ scenario over the small-g_c alternative.

Significance. A reliable data-driven route to spin-Hamiltonian parameters would usefully complement ab-initio methods whose results can vary with methodological details. The explicit use of Bayesian optimization together with low-energy solvers, the transparent reporting of cost-function insensitivity, and the cross-validation on three additional observables constitute concrete strengths that, if the numerical procedures are shown to be robust, would make the methodology transferable to other quantum magnets.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the cost function is stated to be insensitive to the absolute value of K, yet the reported minimizing set fixes K = -6.0 meV. Because specific heat, susceptibility and the structure factor depend on the overall energy scale, it is necessary to show that the reported agreement with experiment and the preference for large Γ remain stable when K is varied over the range that keeps the magnetization cost function comparably low.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and the description of the optimization procedure): the central claim that the fitted parameters yield good agreement with experiment rests on the premise that the low-energy numerical solvers inside the cost function accurately reproduce the b- and c-axis magnetization for arbitrary parameter values. No convergence tests, error estimates, or cross-checks against exact diagonalization on small clusters are referenced, leaving the reliability of the entire optimization chain unquantified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the recommendation for minor revision. The two major comments identify important aspects of robustness that we address point by point below. Both can be resolved with targeted additions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the cost function is stated to be insensitive to the absolute value of K, yet the reported minimizing set fixes K = -6.0 meV. Because specific heat, susceptibility and the structure factor depend on the overall energy scale, it is necessary to show that the reported agreement with experiment and the preference for large Γ remain stable when K is varied over the range that keeps the magnetization cost function comparably low.

    Authors: We agree that, although the manuscript already states the insensitivity of the magnetization cost function to |K|, it is necessary to demonstrate that the conclusions drawn from the other observables remain stable. In the revised manuscript we will add calculations for several values of K lying within the low-cost region of parameter space and show that both the preference for large positive Γ and the level of agreement with the static structure factor, susceptibility, and specific heat are preserved. This will make explicit that the support for the large-Γ scenario is independent of the precise overall energy scale chosen for K. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the description of the optimization procedure): the central claim that the fitted parameters yield good agreement with experiment rests on the premise that the low-energy numerical solvers inside the cost function accurately reproduce the b- and c-axis magnetization for arbitrary parameter values. No convergence tests, error estimates, or cross-checks against exact diagonalization on small clusters are referenced, leaving the reliability of the entire optimization chain unquantified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit convergence tests, error estimates, and cross-checks against exact diagonalization were not included in the original manuscript. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that reports convergence tests of the low-energy solvers with respect to bond dimension, truncation error, and cluster size, together with direct comparisons to exact diagonalization on small clusters for representative parameter points. Quantitative error estimates on the magnetization curves will also be provided to quantify the reliability of the cost function. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard fitting to magnetization data followed by independent validation on other observables

full rationale

The paper defines a cost function over experimental b- and c-axis magnetization curves and uses Bayesian optimization to minimize it with respect to five Hamiltonian parameters. The resulting parameter set is then used to compute static spin structure factor, magnetic susceptibility, and specific heat, which are compared to separate experimental data. These computed quantities are not part of the cost function and are not forced by construction to match the fitted magnetization; the procedure is therefore a conventional fit-plus-validation workflow. The noted insensitivity of the cost to |K| (and weak dependence on Γ', J) is an explicit limitation of the data, not a hidden self-definition. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present in the provided text. The central claim therefore rests on external experimental benchmarks rather than reducing to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five free parameters fitted to magnetization data plus the domain assumption that the Kitaev-Heisenberg model with Γ and Γ' terms is the correct functional form; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • K = -6.0 meV
    Kitaev interaction fitted to magnetization curves
  • Γ = 7.5 meV
    Off-diagonal interaction fitted to magnetization curves
  • Γ' = -0.3 meV
    Off-diagonal interaction fitted to magnetization curves
  • J = -1.75 meV
    Heisenberg interaction fitted to magnetization curves
  • g_c = 2.3
    c-axis g-factor fitted to magnetization curves
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The magnetic interactions in α-RuCl₃ are described by a spin Hamiltonian containing Kitaev (K), Heisenberg (J), and off-diagonal (Γ, Γ') terms.
    This is the standard model form assumed for Kitaev materials and is used to define the five parameters being optimized.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5895 in / 1510 out tokens · 51448 ms · 2026-06-30T00:09:39.554001+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism(Springer, 1994)

    A. Auerbach,Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism(Springer, 1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    Fazekas,Lecture Notes on Electron Correlation and Magnetism(World Scientific, 1999)

    P. Fazekas,Lecture Notes on Electron Correlation and Magnetism(World Scientific, 1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Tasaki,Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Many- Body Systems(Springer, 2020)

    H. Tasaki,Physics and Mathematics of Quantum Many- Body Systems(Springer, 2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Metal-insulator transitions, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Doping a Mott insulator: Physics of high-temperature superconductiv- ity, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 17 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Imada and T

    M. Imada and T. Miyake, Electronic Structure Calcula- tion by First Principles for Strongly Correlated Electron Systems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.79, 112001 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Aryasetiawan, M

    F. Aryasetiawan, M. Imada, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, S. Biermann, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Frequency- Dependent Local Interactions and Low-Energy Effective Models from Electronic Structure Calculations, Phys. Rev. B70, 195104 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Nakamura, T

    K. Nakamura, T. Koretsune, and R. Arita, Ab initio derivation of the low-energy model for alkali-cluster- loaded sodalites, Phys. Rev. B80, 174420 (2009)

    2009

  9. [9]

    Nohara, K

    Y. Nohara, K. Nakamura, and R. Arita, Ab initio derivation of correlated superatom model for potassium loaded zeolite a, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.80, 124705 (2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    T. O. Wehling, E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C. Friedrich, A. I. Lichten- stein, M. I. Katsnelson, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Strength of Ef- fective Coulomb Interactions in Graphene and Graphite, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 236805 (2011)

    2011

  11. [11]

    S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C

    E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, C. Friedrich, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Strength of the Effective Coulomb Interaction at Metal and Insulator Surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 146401 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Nomura, K

    Y. Nomura, K. Nakamura, and R. Arita, Ab initio derivation of electronic low-energy models for C 60 and aromatic compounds, Phys. Rev. B85, 155452 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    Vaugier, H

    L. Vaugier, H. Jiang, and S. Biermann, HubbardUand Hund exchangeJin transition metal oxides: Screen- ing versus localization trends from constrained random phase approximation, Phys. Rev. B86, 165105 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    Arita, J

    R. Arita, J. Kuneˇ s, A. V. Kozhevnikov, A. G. Eguiluz, and M. Imada, Ab initio Studies on the Interplay be- tween Spin-Orbit Interaction and Coulomb Correlation in Sr 2IrO4 and Ba 2IrO4, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 086403 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    Nilsson, R

    F. Nilsson, R. Sakuma, and F. Aryasetiawan, Ab ini- tio calculations of the HubbardUfor the early lan- thanides using the constrained random-phase approx- imation, Phys. Rev. B88, 125123 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    Hansmann, L

    P. Hansmann, L. Vaugier, H. Jiang, and S. Biermann, What about U on surfaces? Extended Hubbard mod- els for adatom systems from first principles, J. Phys. Condens. Matter25, 094005 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    Yamaji, Y

    Y. Yamaji, Y. Nomura, M. Kurita, R. Arita, and M. Imada, First-Principles Study of the Honeycomb- Lattice Iridates Na2IrO3 in the Presence of Strong Spin- Orbit Interaction and Electron Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 107201 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Okamoto, W

    S. Okamoto, W. Zhu, Y. Nomura, R. Arita, D. Xiao, and N. Nagaosa, Correlation effects in (111) bilayers of perovskite transition-metal oxides, Phys. Rev. B89, 195121 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Amadon, T

    B. Amadon, T. Applencourt, and F. Bruneval, Screened Coulomb interaction calculations: cRPA implementa- tion and applications to dynamical screening and self- consistency in uranium dioxide and cerium, Phys. Rev. B89, 125110 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    M. Kim, Y. Nomura, M. Ferrero, P. Seth, O. Parcollet, and A. Georges, Enhancing superconductivity inA 3C60 fullerides, Phys. Rev. B94, 155152 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    P. Seth, P. Hansmann, A. van Roekeghem, L. Vaugier, and S. Biermann, Towards a First-Principles Deter- mination of Effective Coulomb Interactions in Corre- lated Electron Materials: Role of Intershell Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 056401 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Mor´ ee and B

    J.-B. Mor´ ee and B. Amadon, First-principles calcula- tion of Coulomb interaction parameters for lanthanides: Role of self-consistence and screening processes, Phys. Rev. B98, 205101 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Nomura, M

    Y. Nomura, M. Hirayama, T. Tadano, Y. Yoshimoto, K. Nakamura, and R. Arita, Formation of a two- dimensional single-component correlated electron sys- tem and band engineering in the nickelate superconduc- tor NdNiO2, Phys. Rev. B100, 205138 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    Hirayama, T

    M. Hirayama, T. Tadano, Y. Nomura, and R. Arita, Materials design of dynamically stabled 9 layered nick- elates, Phys. Rev. B101, 075107 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Nakamura, R

    K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, Ab initio deriva- tion of low-energy model for iron-based superconductors LaFeAsO and LaFePO, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.77, 093711 (2008)

    2008

  26. [26]

    Miyake, K

    T. Miyake, K. Nakamura, R. Arita, and M. Imada, Comparison of ab initio low-energy models for LaFePO, LaFeAsO, BaFe2As2, LiFeAs, FeSe, and FeTe: electron correlation and covalency, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.79, 044705 (2010)

    2010

  27. [27]

    Misawa, K

    T. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Imada, Magnetic 11 Properties ofAb initioModel of Iron-Based Supercon- ductors LaFeAsO, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.80, 023704 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Misawa and M

    T. Misawa and M. Imada, Superconductivity and its mechanism in an ab initio model for electron-doped LaFeAsO, Nat. Commun.5, 6738 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Hirayama, T

    M. Hirayama, T. Misawa, T. Miyake, and M. Imada, Ab initio Studies of Magnetism in the Iron Chalcogenides FeTe and FeSe, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.84, 093703 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Hirayama, Y

    M. Hirayama, Y. Yamaji, T. Misawa, and M. Imada, Ab initio effective Hamiltonians for cuprate supercon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B98, 134501 (2018)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Tadano, Y

    T. Tadano, Y. Nomura, and M. Imada, Ab ini- tio derivation of an effective Hamiltonian for the La2CuO4/La1.55Sr0.45CuO4 heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B99, 155148 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Hirayama, T

    M. Hirayama, T. Misawa, T. Ohgoe, Y. Yamaji, and M. Imada, Effective Hamiltonian for cuprate supercon- ductors derived from multiscale ab initio scheme with level renormalization, Phys. Rev. B99, 245155 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Nakamura, Y

    K. Nakamura, Y. Yoshimoto, T. Kosugi, R. Arita, and M. Imada, Ab initio derivation of low-energy model for κ-ET type organic conductors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.78, 083710 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    Nakamura, Y

    K. Nakamura, Y. Yoshimoto, and M. Imada, Ab ini- tio two-dimensional multiband low-energy models of EtMe3Sb[Pd(dmit)2]2 andκ-(BEDT-TTF) 2Cu(NCS)2 with comparisons to single-band models, Phys. Rev. B 86, 205117 (2012)

    2012

  35. [35]

    Shinaoka, T

    H. Shinaoka, T. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Imada, Mott Transition and Phase Diagram ofκ-(BEDT- TTF)2Cu(NCS)2 Studied by Two-Dimensional Model Derived fromAb initioMethod, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.81, 034701 (2012)

    2012

  36. [36]

    Misawa, K

    T. Misawa, K. Yoshimi, and T. Tsumuraya, Electronic correlation and geometrical frustration in molecular solids: A systematic ab initio study ofβ ′-X[Pd(dmit)2]2, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032072 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Yoshimi, T

    K. Yoshimi, T. Tsumuraya, and T. Misawa, Ab ini- tio derivation and exact diagonalization analysis of low-energy effective Hamiltonians forβ ′-X[Pd(dmit)2]2, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043224 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    K. Ido, K. Yoshimi, T. Misawa, and M. Imada, Uncon- ventional dual 1D–2D quantum spin liquid revealed by ab initio studies on organic solids family, npj Quantum Mater.7, 48 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    D. Ohki, K. Yoshimi, A. Kobayashi, and T. Mis- awa, Gap opening mechanism for correlated Dirac elec- trons in organic compoundsα-(BEDT-TTF) 2I3 andα- (BEDT-TSeF)2I3, Phys. Rev. B107, L041108 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Yoshimi, T

    K. Yoshimi, T. Misawa, T. Tsumuraya, and H. Seo, Comprehensive Ab Initio Investigation of the Phase Dia- gram of Quasi-One-Dimensional Molecular Solids, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 036401 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Kawamura, K

    T. Kawamura, K. Yoshimi, K. Hashimoto, A. Kobayashi, and T. Misawa, Compensated Fer- rimagnets with Colossal Spin Splitting in Organic Compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 156502 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    M. Itoi, K. Yoshimi, H. Ma, T. Misawa, T. Tsumuraya, D. Bhoi, T. Komatsu, H. Mori, Y. Uwatoko, and H. Seo, Combined x-ray diffraction, electrical resistivity, and ab initio study of (TMTTF) 2PF6 under pressure: Implica- tions for the unified phase diagram, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043308 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    T. Kato, H. Ma, K. Yoshimi, T. Misawa, S. Kumagai, Y. Iida, Y. Sasaki, M. Sawada, J. Gouchi, T. Kobayashi, H. Taniguchi, Y. Uwatoko, H. Sato, N. Matsunaga, A. Kawamoto, and K. Nomura, Pressure-induced nearly perfect rectangular lattice and superconductivity in the organic molecular crystal (DMET-TTF) 2AuBr2, Phys. Rev. B112, 104513 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    I. V. Solovyev, V. V. Mazurenko, and A. A. Katanin, Validity and limitations of the superexchange model for the magnetic properties of Sr 2IrO4 and Ba 2IrO4 medi- ated by the strong spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B92, 235109 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Eichstaedt, Y

    C. Eichstaedt, Y. Zhang, P. Laurell, S. Okamoto, A. G. Eguiluz, and T. Berlijn, Deriving models for the Kitaev spin-liquid candidate materialα-RuCl 3 from first prin- ciples, Phys. Rev. B100, 075110 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    J. W. Villanova, A. O. Scheie, D. A. Tennant, S. Okamoto, and T. Berlijn, First-principles derivation of magnetic interactions in the triangular quantum spin liquid candidates KYbCh2 (Ch = S, Se, Te) and AYbSe2 (A = Na, Rb), Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033050 (2023)

    2023

  47. [47]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, V. P. Antropov, and V. A. Gubanov, Local spin density functional ap- proach to the theory of exchange interactions in ferro- magnetic metals and alloys, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.67, 65 (1987)

    1987

  48. [48]

    Udvardi, L

    L. Udvardi, L. Szunyogh, K. Palot´ as, and P. Weinberger, First-principles relativistic study of spin waves in thin magnetic films, Phys. Rev. B68, 104436 (2003)

    2003

  49. [49]

    M. I. Katsnelson, Y. O. Kvashnin, V. V. Mazurenko, and A. I. Lichtenstein, Correlated band theory of spin and orbital contributions to Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya in- teractions, Phys. Rev. B82, 100403(R) (2010)

    2010

  50. [50]

    Szilva, Y

    A. Szilva, Y. Kvashnin, E. A. Stepanov, L. Nordstr¨ om, O. Eriksson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Quantitative theory of magnetic interactions in solids, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035004 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    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)

    2014

  52. [52]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Magnetic order inα-RuCl 3: A honeycomb-lattice quantum mag- net with strong spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B91, 144420 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

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

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

    2006

  54. [54]

    Jackeli and G

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

    2009

  55. [55]

    Motome and J

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

    2020

  56. [56]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev quan- tum spin liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045003 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    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., Majorana quantization and half-integer thermal quantum Hall effect in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nature559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    Yokoi, S

    T. Yokoi, S. Ma, Y. Kasahara, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Mo- tome, C. Hickey, S. Trebst, and Y. Matsuda, Half- integer quantized anomalous thermal Hall effect in the 12 Kitaev material candidateα-RuCl 3, Science373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    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, Oscillations of the thermal conductivity in the spin-liquid state ofα-RuCl 3, Nat. Phys.17, 915 (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    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, Nature Physics18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Crystal structure and mag- netism inα-RuCl 3: An ab initio study, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155143 (2016)

    2016

  62. [62]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent´ ı, Challenges in design of Kitaev materials: Magnetic in- teractions from competing energy scales, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Kitaev exchange and field-induced quantum spin-liquid states in honey- combα-RuCl 3, Sci. Rep.6, 37925 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    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

  65. [65]

    Wang, Z.-Y

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

    2017

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    Suzuki and S.-i

    T. Suzuki and S.-i. Suga, Effective model with strong Ki- taev interactions forα-RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B97, 134424 (2018)

    2018

  68. [68]

    I. O. Ozel, C. A. Belvin, E. Baldini, I. Kimchi, S. Do, K.-Y. Choi, and N. Gedik, Magnetic field-dependent low-energy magnon dynamics inα-RuCl 3, Phys. Rev. B100, 085108 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    Laurell and S

    P. Laurell and S. Okamoto, Dynamical and thermal magnetic properties of the Kitaev spin liquid candidate α-RuCl3, npj Quantum Mater.5, 2 (2020)

    2020

  70. [70]

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

    2020

  71. [71]

    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, Nat. Phys.16, 837 (2020)

    2020

  72. [72]

    Li, H.-K

    H. Li, H.-K. Zhang, J. Wang, H.-Q. Wu, Y. Gao, D.- W. Qu, Z.-X. Liu, S.-S. Gong, and W. Li, Identification of magnetic interactions and high-field quantum spin liquid inα-RuCl 3, Nat. Commun.12, 4007 (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    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 Kitaev model materialα-RuCl 3, Nat. Com- mun.12, 4512 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    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 inter- action parameters forα-RuCl 3 from neutron data using machine learning, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022061 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    M¨ oller, P

    M. M¨ oller, P. A. Maksimov, S. Jiang, S. R. White, R. Valent´ ı, and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinkingα-RuCl3: Parameters, models, and phase diagram, Phys. Rev. B 112, 104403 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Singh and P

    Y. Singh and P. Gegenwart, Antiferromagnetic Mott in- sulating state in single crystals of the honeycomb lattice material Na2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B82, 064412 (2010)

    2010

  77. [77]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Singleton, 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)

    2015

  78. [78]

    Gohlke, G

    M. Gohlke, G. Wachtel, Y. Yamaji, F. Pollmann, and Y. B. Kim, Quantum spin liquid signatures in kitaev-like frustrated magnets, Phys. Rev. B97, 075126 (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    Miyahara and K

    S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Theory of the orthogonal dimer Heisenberg spin model for SrCu 2(BO3)2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter15, R327 (2003)

    2003

  80. [80]

    Takigawa and F

    M. Takigawa and F. Mila, Magnetization Plateaus, in Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism: Materials, Ex- periments, Theory(Springer, 2011) pp. 241–267

    2011

Showing first 80 references.