Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

In the near-Ising triangular antiferromagnet K2Co(SeO3)2, the supersolid state survives with a transverse ordered moment only about 11% of the longitudinal one, and low-energy spin fluctuations are predominantly longitudinal.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 04:35 UTC pith:P5ICI3RN

load-bearing objection The paper credibly detects a transverse ordered moment in the near-Ising supersolid, but both headline numbers — the 11% moment ratio and the longitudinal-fluctuation decomposition — rest on an interlayer-correlation factorization that the paper never actually tests. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13635 v2 pith:P5ICI3RN submitted 2026-07-15 cond-mat.str-el

Transverse order and longitudinal fluctuations in a near-Ising spin supersolid

Mengze Zhu , V. Romerio , S. Raymond , N. Murai , S. Ohira-Kawamura , K. Yu. Povarov , S. A. Zvyagin , R. Sibille
show 4 more authors
A. Minelli Z. Yan S. Gvasaliya A. Zheludev
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords spin supersolidtriangular lattice antiferromagnetXXZ modelnear-Ising anisotropyBKT transitionspolarized neutron diffractionlongitudinal spin fluctuationsK2Co(SeO3)2
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to settle whether the spin supersolid state survives in a triangular-lattice antiferromagnet very close to the Ising limit, where several recent calculations predict the transverse (Bose-condensed) order parameter should vanish. Using polarized neutron diffraction on K2Co(SeO3)2, it shows that a small transverse ordered moment appears only below the lowest of three BKT-type transitions, reaching about 11% of the longitudinal moment at 0.035 K. It further shows, from the momentum-transfer dependence of inelastic neutron scattering, that the low-energy spin fluctuations are predominantly longitudinal, not transverse as conventional spin-wave theory would expect. If correct, this provides direct experimental evidence that supersolidity persists at J_xy/J_z approximately 0.07 and sets a quantitative benchmark for microscopic theories of the easy-axis XXZ model.

Core claim

On the paper's own account, the central discovery is that in K2Co(SeO3)2 the supersolid state is real even in the near-Ising regime: the transverse ordered moment emerges only below T_BKT,3 approximately 0.35 K, coinciding with a change in interlayer correlations, and reaches S_perp/S_zz approximately 0.017, i.e. m_perp/m_z approximately 11(1)% (a spin ratio <S_perp>/<S_z> approximately 32(2)% after g-factor correction) at the lowest measured temperature. At the same time, the low-energy excitation spectrum is dominated by longitudinal spin fluctuations, as shown by a suppression of spectral weight with out-of-plane momentum transfer that is stronger than the magnetic form factor alone can e

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is polarization-resolved neutron diffraction: with incident polarization perpendicular to the scattering plane, the non-spin-flip and spin-flip channels probe different combinations of the longitudinal static structure factor S_zz and the transverse S_perp (the Fourier transforms of the out-of-plane and in-plane spin correlation functions), so the temperature dependence of the flipping ratio isolates the onset of transverse order. The companion tool is the polarization factor in the unpolarized neutron cross section, I proportional to (1 - Q_z^2/Q^2) S_zz + 1/2(1+Q_z^2/Q^2) S_perp, which makes the l-dependence of the inelastic intensity at fixed (h,k) a filter for longi

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the low-energy excitations are predominantly longitudinal rests on treating the out-of-plane momentum dependence of the inelastic intensity as coming only from the magnetic form factor and the polarization factor; if interlayer correlations significantly reshape the spectrum along l — an ingredient taken from earlier work rather than verified in these data — the longitudinal conclusion would not follow.

What would settle it

A polarized inelastic neutron scattering measurement at Q=(1/6,1/6,l) with energy transfer near 0.3 meV, resolving spin-flip and non-spin-flip channels at l=0 and l=3.5, would directly measure S_perp(Q,omega) and S_zz(Q,omega). If the transverse channel is found to contribute a significant fraction of the spectral weight at l=3.5, the paper's central claim that low-energy fluctuations are predominantly longitudinal fails. Alternatively, if the l-dependence looks different in a material with the same in-plane exchange but a different stacking sequence, the assumption of negligible interlayer co

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The BEC order parameter is nonzero at J_xy/J_z approximately 0.07, so the easy-axis triangular XXZ model supports supersolidity in the near-Ising regime; theories that predict a vanishing transverse moment there are contradicted by this experiment.
  • The successive-ordering scenario is confirmed: longitudinal order sets in near 10 K and 0.8 K, while transverse order condenses only at T_BKT,3 approximately 0.35 K, accompanied by a switch in dominant interlayer correlations.
  • The measured spin ratio <S_perp>/<S_z> approximately 32(2)% is substantially larger than a recent DMRG estimate of about 5%, so microscopic calculations must be revised to reproduce the robustness of transverse order.
  • The low-energy dynamics being predominantly longitudinal explains why quantum Monte Carlo simulations based on longitudinal fluctuations reproduce the continuum and roton features; linear spin-wave theory, which predicts transverse excitations, does not apply to this regime.
  • The change of interlayer stacking across T_BKT,3 is a measurable correlate of the transverse condensation and can serve as a thermodynamic marker in other quasi-2D supersolid candidates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to measure the superfluid (transverse) stiffness directly, for example via the field-dependence of the transverse moment; the BEC picture predicts a specific response to a small in-plane field that distinguishes it from a classical canted state.
  • Because the g-factor anisotropy is large (g_z/g_perp approximately 2.9), comparisons with theory should always use spin ratios rather than moment ratios; the paper's approximately 32% spin ratio makes the near-Ising model less extreme than the 11% moment ratio suggests.
  • The longitudinal-fluctuation signature could be tested in the sister compound Rb2Co(SeO3)2: if the same l-dependent suppression appears despite different interlayer stacking, the interpretation in terms of intrinsic longitudinal dynamics would be strengthened.
  • If the longitudinal-dominance result holds generally, roton-like minima in other triangular supersolid candidates may be density modes rather than magnons, changing how those materials are modeled.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a neutron-scattering study of the near-Ising triangular-lattice antiferromagnet K2Co(SeO3)2, with the goal of detecting a transverse ordered moment and characterizing the polarization of low-energy spin fluctuations in the purported spin-supersolid phase. Polarized neutron diffraction at Q=(1/3,1/3,0) shows a drop in the flipping ratio at T≈0.35 K, which the authors interpret as the onset of a transverse (BEC-like) ordered component. Using an alpha-calibration from 0.5–2 K, they extract S_zz and S_perp, obtaining S_perp/S_zz ≈ 0.017(2) at 0.035 K, which they convert to m_perp/m_z ≈ 11(1)% and, after g-factor correction, ⟨S_perp⟩/⟨S_z⟩ ≈ 32(2)%. Unpolarized l-scans at Q=(2/3,2/3,l) are fitted with interlayer correlation parameters A_nm, showing a change in the dominant stacking from A_03 at 0.5 K to A_02 at 0.06 K. Inelastic neutron scattering at l=0 and l=3.5 finds a suppression of spectral weight at large l stronger than expected from the magnetic form factor alone, which is interpreted as evidence that low-energy fluctuations are predominantly longitudinal. The paper concludes that the supersolid state survives in the near-Ising regime, with a small transverse moment and longitudinal-dominated dynamics.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is an important experimental benchmark: direct detection of a small transverse ordered moment in a near-Ising triangular-lattice antiferromagnet (J_xy/J_z ≈ 0.07) would confirm the existence of BEC-type supersolid order in a regime where some numerical methods predict its absence. The observation of longitudinal-dominated low-energy fluctuations would also impose strong constraints on theories of the XXZ triangular lattice. The paper uses a clever combination of polarized diffraction and unpolarized inelastic scattering, with data collected on multiple instruments (CORELLI, ZEBRA, IN12, AMATERAS), and the raw data are deposited at ILL, which is a strength for reproducibility. The qualitative flipping-ratio drop at T_BKT,3 is a relatively model-independent signature. However, the quantitative extraction of the moment ratio and the decomposition of the inelastic spectrum rely on nontrivial factorization and calibration assumptions that are not fully tested in the present dataset. In particular, the common-interlayer-correlation assumption for S_zz and S_perp, and the assumed l-independence of the inelastic structure factor, are load-bearing and n

major comments (3)
  1. [Polarized diffraction and conversion to m_perp/m_z (Fig. 2 and the S(Q)∝G(l)S_2D discussion)] The conversion S_perp/S_zz = 0.017(2) → m_perp/m_z ≈ 11% uses |⟨m_perp(Q)⟩|² = 3m_perp² and |⟨m_z(Q)⟩|² = (9/4)m_z², which presupposes that the longitudinal and transverse components share the same interlayer correlation function G(l). The paper's own l-scan fits, however, show that the dominant interlayer correlations change at T_BKT,3: A_03 = -0.029(4) at 0.5 K but A_02 = 0.022(4) at 0.06 K. Since S_perp appears only below T_BKT,3, there is no evidence that the transverse order parameter has the same stacking sequence as the longitudinal one. If the transverse component orders with a different G_perp(l), then the measured S_perp/S_zz at l=0 is not simply the ratio of Fourier components of the ordered moments, and the quoted 11% and 32% ratios are not the true ordered-moment ratios. This is a central quantitative claim. The authors should either provide a symmetry argument for common G(
  2. [Alpha calibration (Fig. 2(c) inset and the NSF/SF intensity equations)] The beam-polarization fraction alpha = 0.9628(5) is fixed from the average flipping ratio between 0.5 and 2 K, assuming S_perp = 0 in that temperature window. A constant flipping ratio in this range is also consistent with a constant nonzero S_perp/S_zz, since the flipping ratio depends on the ratio of the two channels, not on their absolute magnitudes. Any finite transverse contribution in the calibration window would directly bias the extracted S_zz, S_perp, and hence the reported S_perp/S_zz at all temperatures. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the final ratio to this assumption, for example by fitting alpha and S_perp/S_zz simultaneously over the full temperature range, or by placing an upper bound on S_perp above 0.5 K from the data themselves.
  3. [INS decomposition into C_zz and C_perp (Eq. for I(Q,ω) and Fig. 4)] The extraction of the two-dimensional longitudinal and transverse dynamical structure factors from I(l=0) and I(l=3.5) assumes the inelastic intensity factorizes as |F(Q)|²[(1/2)(1+Q_z²/Q²)S_perp_2D + (1-Q_z²/Q²)S_zz_2D], with S_2D independent of l. This 'largely uncorrelated' interlayer assumption is imported from Ref. [26] and is not verified in the present data. If there are finite interlayer correlations in the excitation spectrum, l-dependent interference terms could suppress intensity at l=3.5 even for transverse fluctuations, and the extracted C_zz and C_perp maps in Fig. 4 would not represent the true 2D correlations. The authors should test the assumed l-dependence by fitting the full l-scan of Fig. 3(d) (and, if possible, additional l values at several (h,k) points) to the form-factor/polarization-factor expression, rather than comparing only two l values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental material] The phrase 'consistence check' should be 'consistency check'; 'based sorely' should be 'based solely'.
  2. [Notation for A_nm] In the main text, A_nm is defined as ⟨Ŝ_nŜ_m⟩/⟨Ŝ_n²⟩, while in the Supplemental Material it is defined as ⟨η_n η_m⟩. These are equivalent only if the denominator is assumed constant. Please use one consistent definition throughout.
  3. [INS equation and Fig. 4] The equation for I(Q,ω) in the INS section omits the g-factor factors that appear in the Fig. 4 caption (I ∝ g_zz² C_zz + g_perp² (1/2) C_perp). Including g_zz² and g_perp² explicitly in the main equation, or stating that the 2D structure factors absorb them, would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 2(d) inset and text] The text states S_perp/S_zz = |⟨m_perp⟩/⟨m_z⟩|², but the inset in Fig. 2(d) labels the vertical axis as 'm_perp/m_z'. Since the ratio is a squared quantity, the plot and the text should be explicitly reconciled to avoid confusion about which quantity is plotted.
  5. [Fig. 3(d)] The red solid line is described as the intensity drop due to the squared magnetic form factor alone. If the longitudinal interpretation is intended, the comparison should include the polarization factor for a longitudinal-only spectrum; please specify exactly what functional form is plotted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central quantities are measured directly; the few imported assumptions are model assumptions, not reductions to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's main claims rest on direct measurements rather than on fitting a parameter to one subset and then 'predicting' a closely related quantity. The transverse ordered moment is inferred from the temperature dependence of the NSF/SF flipping ratio at Q=(1/3,1/3,0), with the beam polarization α=0.9628(5) calibrated from the high-temperature ratio via the standard assumption that S⊥=0 above T_BKT,3; this is an external beam calibration, not a circular construction. The conversion S⊥/Szz=0.017(2) to m⊥/m_z≈11% uses geometric factors |⟨m⊥(Q)⟩|²=3m⊥² and |⟨m_z(Q)⟩|²=(9/4)m_z² for the zero-net-moment quantum Y structure, which are structure-specific coefficients, not fitted outputs. The interlayer-correlation fits constrain S⊥2D/Szz2D to the independently measured polarized-neutron values and then extract A_nm; this is a legitimate use of a measured input, not a prediction of the input. The INS analysis uses the standard neutron cross-section polarization factor to decompose l=0 and l=3.5 spectra into Czz and C⊥; this is an inversion of the data, and the conclusion that fluctuations are longitudinal follows from the observed stronger-than-form-factor suppression at large l. The 'largely uncorrelated between triangular-lattice layers [26]' assumption and the common interlayer factor G(l) are physical approximations that could affect the quantitative result, but they are not reductions by construction: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input. Self-citations to Refs. [24,25,45,46] provide prior characterization (BKT temperatures, QMC comparison, previous INS), but the present data independently reproduce the relevant temperature scales and the enhancement at T_BKT,3, so these citations are corroborative rather than load-bearing. No circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on several imported structural and measurement assumptions (three-sublattice Y order, negligible interlayer correlations in INS, alpha calibration window, ABC stacking) and on fitted calibration parameters (alpha, interlayer correlations, g_perp). No new physical entities are postulated. The quantitative ratios therefore carry model dependence beyond the raw neutron intensities.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (neutron beam polarization fraction) = 0.9628(5)
    Determined from the average flipping ratio between 0.5 and 2 K under the assumption that no transverse order exists there; used to separate S_zz and S_perp. If alpha changes with temperature, the extracted transverse signal is biased.
  • Interlayer correlation amplitudes A01, A02, A03 = At 0.5 K: A03 = -0.029(4); at 0.06 K: A02 = 0.022(4)
    Fitted to the l-dependence of unpolarized diffraction at Q = (2/3,2/3,l), with S_perp/Szz fixed from polarized data; used to infer the stacking change across T_BKT,3.
  • g_perp = 2.75
    From ESR frequency-field slope (Fig. S2); used together with g_zz = 7.9 (from Ref. [42]) to convert the moment ratio to a spin ratio.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The magnetic order in each triangular layer is a three-sublattice quantum Y structure with no net moment.
    Used to convert S_perp/Szz into m_perp/m_z via |<m_perp(Q)>|^2 = 3 m_perp^2 and |<m_z(Q)>|^2 = (9/4) m_z^2; taken from prior theory [12,27] and cited as [42].
  • domain assumption Interlayer spin correlations do not affect the inelastic intensity beyond the elastic interlayer correlation factor, i.e., layers are effectively uncorrelated for excitations.
    Eq. (4) and the interpretation of Fig. 3(d) rely on this from Ref. [26]; not independently verified in the present data.
  • domain assumption No transverse ordered component exists between 0.5 and 2 K, so the average flipping ratio there calibrates alpha.
    Used to set alpha = 0.9628(5); if transverse order or temperature-dependent beam depolarization exists in the calibration window, S_perp is misestimated.
  • standard math Standard neutron scattering cross-section and form-factor formulas, including domain averaging over U(1) degenerate Y domains.
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(4); standard neutron scattering theory, but the domain-averaging form is an assumption about the sample's domain population.
  • domain assumption ABC-type stacking of triangular-lattice layers separated by c/3.
    Used in the interlayer phase exp(i 2π l (n-m)/3); based on the known crystal structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13683 in / 12235 out tokens · 118432 ms · 2026-08-02T04:35:35.923891+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the polarization of the ordered moments and low-energy spin fluctuations in the spin supersolid state of the S = 1/2 triangular-lattice easy-axis antiferromagnet K2Co(SeO3)2 using neutron scattering. The supersolid order develops through successive BKT transitions: the longitudinal order appears at higher temperature, while the transverse component associated with the Bose-Einstein condensate emerges only below a lower-temperature transition accompanied by a change in the interlayer correlations. At the lowest measured temperature, the transverse ordered moment reaches only 11% of the longitudinal component. Moreover, the low-energy spin fluctuations are found to be predominantly longitudinal in character. These results provide direct evidence that the supersolid ground state survives even in the near-Ising regime and exhibits longitudinal low-energy dynamics, imposing stringent constraints on microscopic theories of triangular-lattice XXZ antiferromagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13635 by A. Minelli, A. Zheludev, K. Yu. Povarov, Mengze Zhu, N. Murai, R. Sibille, S. A. Zvyagin, S. Gvasaliya, S. Ohira-Kawamura, S. Raymond, V. Romerio, Z. Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Elastic neutron-scattering intensity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Temperature dependence of the magnetic intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a),(b) Magnetic excitation spectra of K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Miyashita and H

    S. Miyashita and H. Kawamura, Phase transitions of anisotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnets on the triangu- lar lattice, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan54, 3385 (1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    Miyashita, Magnetic properties of Ising-like Heisen- berg antiferromagnets on the triangular lattice, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan55, 3605 (1986)

    S. Miyashita, Magnetic properties of Ising-like Heisen- berg antiferromagnets on the triangular lattice, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan55, 3605 (1986)

    1986

  3. [3]

    Wessel and M

    S. Wessel and M. Troyer, Supersolid hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 127205 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    R. G. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. A. Burkov, A. Vish- wanath, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid order from disorder: Hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 127207 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Heidarian and K

    D. Heidarian and K. Damle, Persistent supersolid phase of hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 127206 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    F. Wang, F. Pollmann, and A. Vishwanath, Extended supersolid phase of frustrated hard-core bosons on a tri- angular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 017203 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    H. C. Jiang, M. Q. Weng, Z. Y. Weng, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid order of frustrated hard-core bosons in a triangular lattice system, Phys. Rev. B79, 020409 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Heidarian and A

    D. Heidarian and A. Paramekanti, Supersolidity in the triangular lattice spin-1/2 XXZ model: A variational per- spective, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 015301 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Zhang, R

    X.-F. Zhang, R. Dillenschneider, Y. Yu, and S. Eggert, Supersolid phase transitions for hard-core bosons on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B84, 174515 (2011)

    2011

  10. [10]

    Yamamoto, G

    D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, Quantum phase diagram of the triangular-lattice XXZ model in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 127203 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    Sellmann, X.-F

    D. Sellmann, X.-F. Zhang, and S. Eggert, Phase diagram of the antiferromagnetic XXZ model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B91, 081104 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    C. A. Gallegos, S. Jiang, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Phase diagram of the easy-axis triangular-lattice J1−J2 model, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 196702 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Ulaga, J

    M. Ulaga, J. Kokalj, A. Wietek, A. Zorko, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Finite-temperature properties of the easy- 6 axis Heisenberg model on frustrated lattices, Phys. Rev. B109, 035110 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Ulaga, J

    M. Ulaga, J. Kokalj, T. Tohyama, and P. Prelovˇ sek, Easy- axis heisenberg model on the triangular lattice: From a supersolid to a gapped solid, Phys. Rev. B111, 174442 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Y. Xu, J. Hasik, B. Ponsioen, and A. H. Nevidomskyy, Simulating spin dynamics of supersolid states in a quan- tum ising magnet, Phys. Rev. B111, L060402 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    J. Ma, Y. Kamiya, T. Hong, H. B. Cao, G. Ehlers, W. Tian, C. D. Batista, Z. L. Dun, H. D. Zhou, and M. Matsuda, Static and dynamical properties of the spin-1/2 equilateral triangular-lattice antiferromag- net Ba3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 087201 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Macdougal, S

    D. Macdougal, S. Williams, D. Prabhakaran, R. I. Be- wley, D. J. Voneshen, and R. Coldea, Avoided quasi- particle decay and enhanced excitation continuum in the spin- 1 2 near-Heisenberg triangular antiferromagnet Ba3CoSb2O9, Phys. Rev. B102, 064421 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Sheng, L

    J. Sheng, L. Wang, A. Candini, and L. Wu, Two- dimensional quantum universality in the spin- 1/2 triangular-lattice quantum antiferromagnet Na2BaCo(PO4)2, PNAS119, e2211193119 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Gao, Y.-C

    Y. Gao, Y.-C. Fan, H. Li, F. Yang, X.-T. Zeng, X.-L. Sheng, R. Zhong, Y. Qi, Y. Wan, and W. Li, Spin su- persolidity in nearly ideal easy-axis triangular quantum antiferromagnet Na2BaCo(PO4)2, npj Quantum Materi- als7, 89 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Woodland, R

    L. Woodland, R. Okuma, J. R. Stewart, C. Balz, and R. Coldea, From continuum excitations to sharp magnons via transverse magnetic field in the spin- 1 2 Ising-like tri- angular lattice antiferromagnet Na 2BaCo(PO4)2, Phys. Rev. B112, 104413 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    T. Arh, B. Sana, M. Pregelj, P. Khuntia, Z. Jagliˇ ci´ c, M. D. Le, P. K. Biswas, P. Manuel, L. Mangin-Thro, A. Ozarowski, and A. Zorko, The ising triangular-lattice antiferromagnet neodymium heptatantalate as a quan- tum spin liquid candidate, Nature Materials21, 416 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    A. O. Scheie, E. A. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. A. M. Paddi- son, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. D. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, D. Abernathy, D. M. Pajerowski, T. J. Williams, S.-S. Zhang, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. D. Pemmaraju, A. S. Sefat, D. S. Parker, T. P. Dev- ereaux, R. Movshovich, J. E. Moore, C. D. Batista, and D. A. Tennant, Proximate spin liqui...

    2024

  23. [23]

    Zhong, S

    R. Zhong, S. Guo, and R. J. Cava, Frustrated magnetism in the layered triangular lattice materials K 2Co(SeO3)2 and Rb2Co(SeO3)2, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 084406 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    M. Zhu, V. Romerio, N. Steiger, S. D. Nabi, N. Mu- rai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, K. Y. Povarov, Y. Skourski, R. Sibille, L. Keller, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, and A. Zhe- ludev, Continuum excitations in a spin supersolid on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 186704 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    M. Zhu, L. M. Chinellato, V. Romerio, N. Murai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, C. Balz, Z. Yan, S. Gvasaliya, Y. Kato, C. D. Batista, and A. Zheludev, Wannier states and spin supersolid physics in the triangular antiferro- magnet K 2Co(SeO3)2, npj Quantum Materials10, 74 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    T. Chen, A. Ghasemi, J. Zhang, L. Shi, Z. Tagay, Y. Chen, L. Chen, E. S. Choi, M. Jaime, M. Lee, Y. Hao, H. Cao, B. L. Winn, A. A. Podlesnyak, D. M. Pajerowski, R. Zhong, X. Xu, N. P. Armitage, R. Cava, and C. Bro- holm, Phase diagram and spectroscopic signatures of a supersolid in the quantum ising magnet K 2Co(SeO3)2, Nature Communications17, 2914 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Kleine, E

    B. Kleine, E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, K. Frahm, and P. Fazekas, Spin-wave analysis of easy-axis quantum an- tiferromagnets on the triangular lattice, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter87, 103 (1992)

    1992

  28. [28]

    Kleine, P

    B. Kleine, P. Fazekas, and E. M¨ uller-Hartmann, Pertur- bation theory for the triangular Heisenberg antiferromag- net with Ising-like anisotropy, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter86, 405 (1992)

    1992

  29. [29]

    H. Jia, B. Ma, Z. D. Wang, and G. Chen, Quantum spin supersolid as a precursory Dirac spin liquid in a trian- gular lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033031 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Y. Gao, C. Zhang, J. Xiang, D. Yu, X. Lu, P. Sun, W. Jin, G. Su, and W. Li, Double magnon-roton excitations in the triangular-lattice spin supersolid, Phys. Rev. B110, 214408 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    R. Chi, J. Hu, H.-J. Liao, and T. Xiang, Dynamical spec- tra of spin supersolid states in triangular antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. B110, L180404 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Sheng, L

    J. Sheng, L. Wang, W. Jiang, H. Ge, N. Zhao, T. Li, M. Kofu, D. Yu, W. Zhu, J.-W. Mei, Z. Wang, and L. Wu, Continuum of spin excitations in an ordered magnet, The Innovation6, 100769 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    A. Bose, K. Hart, R. Sutcliffe, and A. Paramekanti, Mod- ified large-napproach to gapless spin liquids, magnetic orders, and dynamics: Application to triangular lattice antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B111, 214410 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Mauri, S

    A. Mauri, S. Roose, and F. Mila, Nonlinear spin wave theory in the strong easy-axis limit of the triangular XXZ model, Phys. Rev. B113, 174433 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    J. V. Jos´ e, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nel- son, Renormalization, vortices, and symmetry-breaking perturbations in the two-dimensional planar model, Phys. Rev. B16, 1217 (1977)

    1977

  36. [36]

    Sheng and C

    Q. Sheng and C. L. Henley, Ordering due to disorder in a triangular Heisenberg antiferromagnet with exchange anisotropy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter4, 2937 (1992)

    1992

  37. [37]

    Stephan and B

    W. Stephan and B. W. Southern, Monte Carlo study of the anisotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the trian- gular lattice, Phys. Rev. B61, 11514 (2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    Melchy and M

    P.-E. Melchy and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Interplay of anisotropy and frustration: Triple transitions in a triangular-lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B80, 064411 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Heidarian and K

    D. Heidarian and K. Damle, Two-step melting of three- sublattice order in S = 1 easy-axis triangular lattice anti- ferromagnets, The European Physical Journal B91, 202 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    F. Ye, Y. Liu, R. Whitfield, R. Osborn, and S. Rosenkranz, Implementation of cross correlation for energy discrimination on the time-of-flight spectrometer CORELLI, Journal of Applied Crystallography51, 315 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Leli` evre-Berna, E

    E. Leli` evre-Berna, E. Bourgeat-Lami, P. Fouilloux, B. Geffray, Y. Gibert, K. Kakurai, N. Kernavanois, B. Longuet, F. Mantegezza, M. Nakamura, S. Pujol, L.- P. Regnault, F. Tasset, M. Takeda, M. Thomas, and X. Tonon, Advances in spherical neutron polarimetry 7 with Cryopad, Physica B: Condensed Matter356, 131 (2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    See Supplemental Material

  43. [43]

    Nakajima, S

    K. Nakajima, S. Ohira-Kawamura, T. Kikuchi, M. Naka- mura, R. Kajimoto, Y. Inamura, N. Takahashi, K. Aizawa, K. Suzuya, K. Shibata, T. Nakatani, K. Soyama, R. Maruyama, H. Tanaka, W. Kambara, T. Iwahashi, Y. Itoh, T. Osakabe, S. Wakimoto, K. Kaku- rai, F. Maekawa, M. Harada, K. Oikawa, R. E. Lechner, F. Mezei, and M. Arai, AMATERAS: A cold-neutron disk ch...

    2011

  44. [44]

    G. H. Wannier, Antiferromagnetism. the triangular Ising net, Phys. Rev.79, 357 (1950)

    1950

  45. [45]

    M. Zhu, S. Raymond, V. Romerio, A. Stunault, and A. Zheludev, Magnetic structure of spin supersolid phase of K 2Co(SeO3)2 studied by polarized neutrons, Insti- tut Laue-Langevin (ILL), 10.5291/ILL-DATA.CRG-3155 (2024)

    work page doi:10.5291/ill-data.crg-3155 2024

  46. [46]

    M. Zhu, S. Raymond, V. Romerio, K. Schmalzl, and A. Zheludev, Direct measurement of superfluid density in a spin supersolid by polarized neutrons, Institut Laue- Langevin (ILL), 10.5291/ILL-DATA.5-55-36 (2025). Transverse order and longitudinal fluctuations in a near-Ising spin supersolid Mengze Zhu, 1 V. Romerio, 1 S. Raymond, 2 N. Murai, 3 S. Ohira-Kawa...

    work page doi:10.5291/ill-data.5-55-36 2025

  47. [47]

    G. L. Squires,Introduction To The theory Of Thermal neu- tron Scattering(Cambridge University Press, 1978)

    1978

  48. [48]

    S. A. Zvyagin, J. Krzystek, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, High-field ESR study of the dimerized-incommensurate phase transition in the spin-Peierls compound CuGeO 3, Physica B346-347, 1 (2004)

    2004