Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 72 references

Sizable Ligand-Mediated Bond-Dependent Interactions in a Spin-1 Triangular Antiferromagnet NiI$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Experiments show that the spin-1 triangular magnet NiI2 hosts a sizable Kitaev interaction driven by the spin-orbit coupling of iodine ligands rather than by the nickel ions themselves.

desk verdict Good new data, careful fit, but the headline overclaims: the model drops Γ′ without a test, so the Kitaev parameters are conditional, not confirmed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14893 v1 pith:ASCUNMC5 submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.str-el

Hao Xu , Weiqin Zhu , Shufan Cheng , Yanyan Shangguan , Song Bao , Junbo Liao , Bo Zhang , Zihang Song
show 6 more authors
Shuai Dong Maofeng Wu Stanislav E. Nikitin Travis J. Williams Changsong Xu Jinsheng Wen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Kitaevinteractionligandspin-orbitcouplingtriangularlatticeNiI2spin-1magnetinelasticneutronscatteringspin-wavegapbond-dependentanisotropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish that NiI2, a spin-1 triangular-lattice antiferromagnet, is a genuine platform for Kitaev physics — bond-dependent exchange anisotropy where the coupling strength depends on the spatial direction of the bond — even though its magnetic Ni2+ ions have no orbital angular momentum. By combining inelastic neutron scattering, magnetization measurements, magnetic-structure analysis, first-principles calculations, and linear spin-wave fits, the authors extract a minimal Hamiltonian with a large Kitaev term K = 3.33 meV, a second bond-dependent term Gamma = 0.37 meV, and a ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor coupling J1 = -5.86 meV. The claimed origin is the strong spin-orbit coupling of the iodine ligands, which transfers bond-dependent anisotropy through the Ni-I-Ni exchange paths. If this is correct, it provides a concrete route to Kitaev materials in high-spin systems with weak magnetic-ion spin-orbit coupling and extends Kitaev physics to the triangular lattice.

What carries the argument

The key object is a minimal spin Hamiltonian on the triangular lattice written in the Kitaev basis, in which each nearest-neighbor bond is labeled X, Y, or Z by the normal to its Ni-I-Ni bond plane: nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange J1 plus the Kitaev interaction K and off-diagonal Gamma, further-neighbor Heisenberg exchanges J2 and J3, and an interlayer coupling Jp2. Within the model, the Gamma term produces the spin-wave gap, the Kitaev term controls the canting angle of the spin-rotation plane out of the layer, and the competition between ferromagnetic J1 and antiferromagnetic J3 sets the incommensurate period. The parameter set is obtained by iteratively constraining linear spin-wave

What would settle it

Refit the same inelastic neutron scattering data with a model that includes in-plane single-ion anisotropy terms (or Gamma-prime) while allowing K and Gamma to be zero; if an equally good fit to the gap, the kink, and the canting angle emerges, the claim that the anisotropy is bond-dependent collapses. A polarized-neutron measurement that directly resolves the anisotropy contribution would settle the question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed canted proper-screw magnetic ground state — a spiral whose rotation plane is tilted out of the layer — and the 3.1 meV gap in the spin-wave spectrum of NiI2 require substantial bond-dependent Kitaev and Gamma interactions. The optimal minimal model gives K = 3.33(0.032) meV, Gamma = 0.37(0.007) meV, J1 = -5.86(0.122) meV, J2 = 0.28(0.089) meV, J3 = 1.99(0.024) meV, and interlayer Jp2 = 0.78(0.005) meV. These parameters reproduce the measured dispersion, the gap, the 5.2 meV kink, the flat band top, and the magnetic structure's canting angle of 53.4 degrees versus the reported 55 degrees. Because Ni2+ is an S = 1 ion with quenched orbital moment, the pap

Load-bearing premise

The whole parameter extraction rests on the assumption that the observed in-plane easy-axis anisotropy cannot come from single-ion anisotropy, which symmetry allows only along the z-axis, so the anisotropy must be dominated by the bond-dependent K and Gamma terms; a finite in-plane single-ion term, anisotropic g-factor, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, or omitted Gamma-prime term at even a modest level would shift the fitted values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NiI2 becomes a concrete spin-1 triangular-lattice system with sizable K and Gamma, showing that ligand-only spin-orbit coupling can generate Kitaev-like bond anisotropy.
  • The minimal model quantitatively reproduces the canted proper-screw ground state and the 3.1 meV gap, including the 53.4-degree canting angle and the propagation direction along [1-10].
  • The flat band top and the 5.2 meV kink in the neutron data are assigned to J2 and J3 respectively, giving direct spectral handles for exchange parameters.
  • The mechanism broadens the search for Kitaev materials beyond Jeff = 1/2 ions with strong magnetic-ion spin-orbit coupling to high-spin systems with heavy ligands.
  • The discrepancy with a previously reported sub-0.3 meV gap is explained by different magnon branches and gap definitions, reconciling the two datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the ligand-driven mechanism is the dominant source of bond anisotropy, isostructural nickel dihalides with lighter halogens (chloride, bromide) should show systematically weaker Kitaev terms, a testable trend across the series.
  • Inference: The extracted K/Gamma ratio of about 9 may fingerprint the microscopic coupling route; first-principles calculations that tune ligand spin-orbit coupling strength could refine or falsify the mechanism without new neutron data.
  • Inference: Because the paper explicitly excludes biquadratic and Gamma-prime terms from the minimal model, future resonant inelastic x-ray scattering or high-field torque experiments could reveal additional anisotropy that shifts the quoted values, so the fitted K is best read as a working estimate within the minimal model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports inelastic neutron scattering, magnetization, magnetic-structure, and linear-spin-wave studies of the S=1 triangular-lattice van der Waals antiferromagnet NiI2. The authors construct a minimal spin Hamiltonian containing nearest-neighbor Heisenberg, Kitaev, and off-diagonal Γ exchange, together with in-plane J2 and J3 and interlayer Jp2. Fitting the spin-wave dispersions and the canted proper-screw ground state yields J1=-5.86 meV, K=3.33 meV, Γ=0.37 meV, J2=0.28 meV, J3=1.99 meV, and Jp2=0.78 meV. They argue that these bond-dependent interactions explain the 3.1 meV spin-wave gap, the 5.2 meV kink, the flat band top, and the in-plane easy axis, and they conclude that NiI2 provides compelling experimental evidence for a ligand-driven Kitaev mechanism.

Significance. If the extracted parameters are reliable, this is an important result: it would establish a sizable Kitaev-type interaction in a high-spin triangular-lattice magnet where the magnetic Ni2+ ion has quenched orbital angular momentum, thereby supporting the ligand-SOC route to bond-dependent anisotropy. The manuscript has notable strengths: high-quality single-crystal INS data that resolve the band top and a 3.1 meV gap not seen in previous work, a phase diagram that connects K and Γ to the canted proper-screw state, and a clear comparison with prior transport and thermodynamic studies. However, the central quantitative claim is based on a constrained fit to a model that excludes a symmetry-allowed Γ′ term, and the reported uncertainties are purely statistical. No sensitivity or identifiability analysis is presented to show that K and Γ are uniquely determined by the data rather than by the model restriction. The claim of 'compelling experimental evidence' is therefore not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Model, Eq. (1) and preceding paragraph] The symmetry analysis explicitly lists 'Kitaev interaction K, and off-diagonal interactions Γ and Γ′' as allowed anisotropic terms, but Eq. (1) contains only K and Γ. The exclusion argument for single-ion anisotropy is sound—only the z-axis easy axis is symmetry-allowed for SIA—but that argument does not constrain Γ′. Γ′ can contribute to the in-plane anisotropy, to the 3.1 meV gap, and to the canting angle, all of which are used to fix K and Γ. As written, the extracted K=3.33 meV and Γ=0.37 meV are conditional on Γ′=0, a restriction that is neither derived from symmetry nor tested against the data. I request a quantitative benchmark: fit the same INS and magnetic-structure constraints with Eq. (1) plus Γ′ (and, if desired, a symmetry-breaking in-plane SIA associated with the small lattice distortion at TN2), and report the resulting Γ′ and the renormalized K and Γ, or a bound such as |
  2. [Parameter extraction and reported uncertainties after Eq. (1)] The paper states that parameters were obtained by 'jointly and self-consistently constraining the spin-wave spectra and the magnetic structure—specifically the canting angle, in-plane propagation direction, and period.' However, no identifiability analysis is shown. The reported uncertainties (e.g., K=3.33(0.032) meV) are statistical only, and no correlation matrix or leave-one-out tests are given. The canting angle that is central to constraining K is reported experimentally as 55±10 degrees, a relative uncertainty of about 18%; it is not clear how this propagates into K. Moreover, the statement that 'K/Γ≈9 will give a proper canting angle' is not accompanied by a plot of the low-energy gap, spin-wave dispersions, or canting angle as functions of K and Γ with other parameters fixed. Please provide a sensitivity analysis for at least the pairs (K, Γ), (K, Γ′), and (K, SIA), showing that
  3. [Fig. 2(b) and high-energy spectral weight discussion] The paper openly acknowledges that the LSWT intensity near the K point is 'significantly weaker in the experimental data than in the LSWT calculation,' and attributes this to magnon decay/anharmonicity and omitted Umklapp processes. This is a relevant discrepancy because the affected region includes the high-energy constraints used to determine J2 and J3. The two-magnon density of states shown in Fig. S6 is offered as support, but no quantitative calculation of the one-magnon spectral function with decay is presented, nor is the effect of the Umklapp processes estimated. If the high-energy part of the fit is unreliable, the extracted J2 and J3—and indirectly the low-energy parameters through the global fit—could be affected. Please quantify the spectral-weight mismatch, e.g., by convoluting LSWT with an energy-dependent broadening or by showing that the fitted parameters are insensitive
  4. [Biquadratic term, last paragraph before Fig. 4] The manuscript notes that a biquadratic term B(Si·Sj)2 'may be present' and that INS is only weakly sensitive to it, so it is not included. For S=1 Ni2+ with strong Hund coupling, ligand-mediated biquadratic exchange can be non-negligible, as the authors themselves cite (Ref. [47] and [57]). Since a biquadratic term can affect the magnetic ground state, the spin-wave gap, and the intensity distribution, the assertion that the minimal model 'captures the essence' should be accompanied by at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of B from first principles or a statement of the INS constraint on B. This is a supporting point rather than a block on the central claim, but it adds to the concern that the reported K is model-dependent.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and grammar: 'stabalizes' for 'stabilizes' (twice), 'experimentlly' in Fig. 4 caption, 'the our model parameters', 'first-principle calculations' instead of 'first-principles calculations', and 'Lattice Bragg peaks' should be 'nuclear Bragg peaks' or simply 'Bragg peaks'.
  2. [Parameter list after Eq. (1)] The notation '3.33(0.032)' is not standard in this journal. Please state explicitly that the parentheses contain one standard deviation or 95% confidence intervals, and clarify whether these are from the LSWT fit to INS only or from the joint fit including magnetic-structure constraints.
  3. [References] The reference list contains several very recent items (e.g., Refs. [34], [44], [45], [49], [55], [58], [59]) that are appropriate for the field, but the main text does not cite any reference for the 'first-principles calculations' that are said to guide the model. If those calculations are reported in the SM, the main text should point the reader to them explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported 'reproduction' of the canting angle, propagation direction and period is a restatement of fit constraints, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, parameter-determination paragraph and following validation paragraph (after Eq. 1); Fig. 3 caption]
    "By jointly and self-consistently constraining the spin-wave spectra and the magnetic structure—specifically the canting angle, in-plane propagation direction, and period—we iteratively refine the model and obtain the following optimal parameters: ... Under these parameters, the magnetic structure stabalizes into the canted PS state with a canting angle of 53.4°... Both values are in excellent agreement with the experimental results, which report a canting angle of 55° and a period of 7.23a[32]."

    The canting angle, in-plane propagation direction, and period are explicitly listed as constraints entering the iterative fit. Reporting afterward that the fitted model reproduces these same observables (53.4° vs 55°, 7a vs 7.23a, along [1̄10]) is a restatement of the fitting target, not an independent prediction. This circular validation is used to support the extracted K = 3.33 meV, which is central to the paper's claim of a sizable Kitaev interaction.

full rationale

The paper's core procedure is a fit: INS dispersions, the 3.1 meV gap, the 5.2 meV kink, and the magnetic-structure parameters are jointly used to determine J1, K, Γ, J2, J3, and Jp2. Reproducing those same dispersion features with the fitted parameters is normal model validation, not circularity. The clear circular step is the presentation of the canting angle, propagation direction, and period as 'excellent agreement' when those quantities were explicitly used as fitting constraints. The Kitaev value is not purely circular—the spin-wave spectra provide independent constraints—so the central claim retains substantial independent content. The omission of the symmetry-allowed Γ′ term and the biquadratic term is a model-selection / correctness risk, not a circular reduction under this rubric. Self-citation to Ref. [47] (co-author C. Xu) is used for guidance rather than as a uniqueness proof, and the experimental data are independent, so it is not load-bearing circularity. Overall, one or more reported 'predictions' reduce by construction, giving partial circularity: score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All six exchange parameters (J1, K, Gamma, J2, J3, Jp2) are free parameters jointly fitted to INS spectra and known magnetic-structure constraints. The K/Gamma ratio is tuned to the measured canting angle, and the model completeness (no SIA, Gamma-prime, or biquadratic) is assumed rather than fitted. The causal attribution to ligand SOC is also an axiom inherited from prior theory, not derived here. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • J1 = -5.86 meV
    Nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange; fitted to the overall spin-wave dispersion and the magnetic period/band energy scale.
  • K = 3.33 meV
    Bond-dependent Kitaev interaction; constrained mainly by the magnetic canting angle (K/Gamma ~ 9) together with INS spectra.
  • Gamma = 0.37 meV
    Off-diagonal bond-dependent exchange; set by the 3.1 meV spin-wave gap via LSWT.
  • J2 = 0.28 meV
    Second-neighbor exchange; set by the flat band top along Gamma0-M2-Gamma2.
  • J3 = 1.99 meV
    Third-neighbor exchange; set by the 5.2 meV kink and the incommensurate magnetic period.
  • Jp2 = 0.78 meV
    Second-neighbor interlayer coupling; the only interlayer term retained, set by asymmetric group velocities and weak L-dispersion.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nearest-neighbor exchange is fully described by J1, K, and Gamma; single-ion anisotropy, Gamma-prime, and other bond-dependent terms are negligible.
    Used in Eq. (1). The paper argues SIA cannot produce the in-plane easy axis and that neutrons cannot constrain the biquadratic term, but it does not fit or quantitatively bound SIA, Gamma-prime, or biquadratic exchange.
  • domain assumption The observed in-plane easy-axis anisotropy cannot be explained by single-ion anisotropy because the only symmetry-allowed SIA easy axis is the c-axis.
    Main text after Eq. (1): 'the only symmetry-allowed easy axis is the z-axis... origin of the anisotropy must be dominated by bond-dependent anisotropic interactions.' This is load-bearing for the existence of K/Gamma but is not checked against alternative sources such as anisotropic g-factors.
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave theory with SpinW's rotating-frame method gives reliable magnon energies for the incommensurate canted proper-screw state, despite the strong anharmonicity acknowledged in the paper.
    Used to compute spectra in Fig. 2(b). The high-energy intensity mismatch is attributed to anharmonic effects and Umklapp processes not in LSWT, so the computed energy positions are assumed unaffected by these omitted physics.
  • domain assumption Classical Monte Carlo on Eq. (1) captures the ground-state phase diagram and canting angle sufficiently to constrain K/Gamma.
    Fig. 3 uses classical Monte Carlo to show the K-Gamma balance sets the canting angle; quantum corrections at S=1 are implicitly assumed not to change this qualitative balance.
  • domain assumption With the Ni2+ orbital moment quenched, the fitted bond-dependent anisotropy must arise from ligand spin-orbit coupling, as predicted in Refs. 21 and 30.
    This is the paper's causal claim. No microscopic calculation or direct ligand-SOC decomposition is performed in the main text; the paper relies on previous theory plus the observation of sizable K in a quenched-orbital-moment system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sizable Ligand-Mediated Bond-Dependent Interactions in a Spin-1 Triangular Antiferromagnet NiI$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASCUNMC5

@misc{pith2026260714893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sizable Ligand-Mediated Bond-Dependent Interactions in a Spin-1 Triangular Antiferromagnet NiI$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASCUNMC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14893}
}
abstract

The bond-dependent anisotropic Kitaev interactions are the key for the Kitaev model, which has attracted intense interest for its potential to host quantum-spin-liquid states and fractional excitations. However, experimental realizations of such interactions remain scarce. Here, we investigate the magnetic excitations of NiI$_2$, a van der Waals magnet with spin $S=1$. By combining inelastic neutron scattering, magnetization measurements, magnetic structure analysis, first-principles calculations, and linear-spin-wave simulations, we identify a minimal model that features substantial Kitaev and off-diagonal $\Gamma$ interactions, which together stabilize the canted magnetic ground state and open a gap in the spin-wave spectrum. Notably, these interactions arise from strong spin-orbit coupling on the ligand ions, despite the quenched orbital moment of the magnetic Ni$^{2+}$ ions. Our results provide compelling experimental evidence for the ligand-driven Kitaev mechanism. This demonstrates a concrete pathway to generating strong bond-dependent anisotropy in systems where the magnetic ions themselves have weak spin-orbit coupling, thereby substantially broadening the range of potential Kitaev materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic structure, Kitaev geometry, and mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. INS data and LSWT calculations in the canted PS phase of NiI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Phase diagram of Eq. 1. Parameters are fixed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. List of experimentlly identified Kitaev materials.The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    X. Li, C. Xu, B. Liu, X. Li, L. Bellaiche, and H. Xiang, Realistic Spin Model for Multiferroic NiI 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 036701 (2023)

    2023

  2. [57]

    J. Y. Ni, X. Y. Li, D. Amoroso, X. He, J. S. Feng, E. J. Kan, S. Picozzi, and H. J. Xiang, Giant Biquadratic Ex- change in 2D Magnets and Its Role in Stabilizing Ferro- magnetism of NiCl 2 Monolayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 247204 (2021)

    2021

  3. [1]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann

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

    2006

  4. [2]

    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

  5. [3]

    Chou, C.-Y

    P.-H. Chou, C.-Y. Mou, C.-H. Chung, and S. Yip, Quan- tum spin liquid phases in Kitaev materials, npj Quantum Mater.10, 90 (2025)

    2025

  6. [4]

    A. Yu. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Ann. Phys.303, 2 (2003)

    2003

  7. [5]

    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

  8. [6]

    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

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    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, Nat. Commun.8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  2. [8]

    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

  3. [9]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinkingα- RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033011 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    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

  5. [11]

    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, Nat. Phys.13, 1079 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    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 materialα- RuCl3, Science373, 568 (2021)

    2021

  7. [13]

    X.-G. Zhou, H. Li, Y. H. Matsuda, A. Matsuo, W. Li, N. Kurita, G. Su, K. Kindo, and H. Tanaka, Possible in- termediate quantum spin liquid phase inα-RuCl 3 under high magnetic fields up to 100 T, Nat. Commun.14, 5613 (2023)

    2023

  8. [14]

    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

  9. [15]

    Kimchi and A

    I. Kimchi and A. Vishwanath, Kitaev-Heisenberg models for iridates on the triangular, hyperkagome, kagome, fcc, and pyrochlore lattices, Phys. Rev. B89, 14414 (2014)

    2014

  10. [16]

    Jackeli and A

    G. Jackeli and A. Avella, Quantum order by disorder in the Kitaev model on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 92, 184416 (2015)

    2015

  11. [17]

    S. Wang, Z. Qi, B. Xi, W. Wang, S.-L. Yu, and J.-X. Li, Comprehensive study of the global phase diagram of the J−K−Γ model on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 103, 54410 (2021)

    2021

  12. [18]

    C. Kim, S. Kim, P. Park, T. Kim, J. Jeong, S. Ohira- Kawamura, N. Murai, K. Nakajima, A. L. Chernyshev, M. Mourigal, S.-J. Kim, and J.-G. Park, Bond-dependent anisotropy and magnon decay in cobalt-based Kitaev tri- angular antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys.19, 1624 (2023)

    2023

  13. [19]

    S. R. Ghazanfari and H. Mokhtari, Topological phase transition in the field induced Kitaev model on the kagome lattice, Physica B521, 221 (2017)

    2017

  14. [20]

    Morita, M

    K. Morita, M. Kishimoto, and T. Tohyama, Ground- state phase diagram of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model on a kagome lattice, Phys. Rev. B98, 134437 (2018)

    2018

  15. [21]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, D. Pereira, and H.-Y. Kee, Micro- scopic Mechanism for a Higher-Spin Kitaev Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 037203 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Y. Gu, Y. Gu, F. Liu, S. Ohira-Kawamura, N. Murai, and J. Zhao, Signatures of Kitaev Interactions in the van der Waals Ferromagnet VI 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246702 (2024)

    2024

  17. [23]

    Shangguan, S

    Y. Shangguan, S. Bao, Z.-Y. Dong, N. Xi, Y.-P. Gao, Z. Ma, W. Wang, Z. Qi, S. Zhang, Z. Huang, J. Liao, X. Zhao, B. Zhang, S. Cheng, H. Xu, D. Yu, R. A. Mole, N. Murai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, L. He, J. Hao, Q.-B. Yan, F. Song, W. Li, S.-L. Yu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, A one- third ma...

    2023

  18. [24]

    A. Koga, H. Tomishige, and J. Nasu, Ground-state and Thermodynamic Properties of an S = 1 Kitaev Model, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.87, 063703 (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    Z. Zhu, Z.-Y. Weng, and D. N. Sheng, Magnetic field induced spin liquids inS= 1 Kitaev honeycomb model, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 22047 (2020)

    2020

  20. [26]

    H.-Y. Lee, N. Kawashima, and Y. B. Kim, Tensor net- work wave function ofS= 1 Kitaev spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 33318 (2020)

    2020

  21. [27]

    Khait, P

    I. Khait, P. P. Stavropoulos, H.-Y. Kee, and Y. B. Kim, Characterizing spin-one Kitaev quantum spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 13160 (2021)

    2021

  22. [28]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Interplay between Kitaev interaction and single ion anisotropy in ferromagnetic CrI 3 and CrGeTe3monolayers, NPJ Com- put. Mater.4, 57 (2018)

    2018

  23. [29]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, M. Kawamura, Y. Yamaji, Y. Nahas, S. Prokhorenko, Y. Qi, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Pos- sible Kitaev quantum spin liquid state in 2D materials withS= 3/2, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 87205 (2020)

    2020

  24. [30]

    C. Peng, S. Mardanya, A. N. Petsch, V. K. Sharma, S. Li, C. Jia, A. Bansil, S. Chowdhury, and J. J. Turner, Kitaev physics in the two-dimensional magnet NiPSe 3, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 33206 (2024)

    2024

  25. [31]

    Abragam and B

    A. Abragam and B. Bleaney,Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions(Dover Publications, New York, 1970)

    1970

  26. [32]

    Kuindersma, J

    S. Kuindersma, J. Sanchez, and C. Haas, Magnetic and structural investigations on NiI2 and CoI2, Physica 111B 111, 231 (1981)

    1981

  27. [33]

    Kurumaji, S

    T. Kurumaji, S. Seki, S. Ishiwata, H. Murakawa, Y. Kaneko, and Y. Tokura, Magnetoelectric responses induced by domain rearrangement and spin structural change in triangular-lattice helimagnets NiI 2 and CoI 2, Phys. Rev. B87, 014429 (2013)

    2013

  28. [34]

    Q. Song, S. Stavri´ c, P. Barone, A. Droghetti, D. S. An- tonenko, J. W. F. Venderbos, C. A. Occhialini, B. Ilyas, E. Erge¸ cen, N. Gedik, S.-W. Cheong, R. M. Fernandes, S. Picozzi, and R. Comin, Electrical switching of a p-wave magnet, Nature , 1 (2025)

    2025

  29. [35]

    Amini, A

    M. Amini, A. O. Fumega, H. Gonz´ alez-Herrero, V. Vaˇ no, S. Kezilebieke, J. L. Lado, and P. Liljeroth, Atomic-scale visualization of multiferroicity in monolayer NiI 2, Adv. Mater.36, 2311342 (2024)

    2024

  30. [36]

    T. V. C. Ant˜ ao, J. L. Lado, and A. O. Fumega, Electric field control of moir´ e skyrmion phases in twisted multi- ferroic NiI2 bilayers, Nano Lett.24, 15767 (2024)

    2024

  31. [37]

    M. Liu, L. Zhang, J. Liu, T. L. Wan, A. Du, Y. Gu, and L. Kou, Density functional theory studies on magnetic manipulation in NiI2 layers, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 5, 920 (2023)

    2023

  32. [38]

    Q. Song, C. A. Occhialini, E. Erge¸ cen, B. Ilyas, D. Amoroso, P. Barone, J. Kapeghian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. S. Botana, S. Picozzi, N. Gedik, and R. Comin, Evidence for a single-layer van der Waals mul- tiferroic, Nature602, 601 (2022)

    2022

  33. [39]

    Jiang, Y

    Y. Jiang, Y. Wu, J. Zhang, J. Wei, B. Peng, and C.- W. Qiu, Dilemma in optical identification of single-layer multiferroics, Nature619, E40 (2023)

    2023

  34. [40]

    S. Wu, X. Chen, C. Hong, X. Hou, Z. Wang, Z. Sheng, Z. Sun, Y. Guo, and S. Wu, Layer thick- ness crossover of type-II multiferroic magnetism in NiI 2 (2023), arXiv:2307.10686

    2023 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Y. Wang, X. Zhao, L. Yao, H. Liu, P. Cheng, Y. Zhang, B. Feng, F. Ma, J. Zhao, J. Sun, K. Wu, and L. Chen, Orientation-selective spin-polarized edge states in mono- layer NiI2, Nat. Commun.15, 10916 (2024)

    2024

  36. [42]

    M.-P. Miao, N. Liu, W.-H. Zhang, J.-W. Zhou, D.-B. Wang, C. Wang, W. Ji, and Y.-S. Fu, Spin-resolved imag- ing of atomic-scale helimagnetism in mono- and bilayer NiI2, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.122, e2422868122 (2025)

    2025

  37. [43]

    Liu, Competing multiferroic phases in monolayer and few-layer NiI 2, Phys

    N. Liu, Competing multiferroic phases in monolayer and few-layer NiI 2, Phys. Rev. B109, 10.1103/Phys- RevB.109.195422 (2024)

    2024 doi

  38. [44]

    Q. Liu, W. Su, Y. Gu, X. Zhang, X. Xia, L. Wang, K. Xiao, N. Zhang, X. Cui, M. Huang, C. Wei, X. Zou, B. Xi, J.-W. Mei, and J.-F. Dai, Surprising pressure- induced magnetic transformations from helimagnetic or- der to antiferromagnetic state in NiI2, Nat. Commun.16, 4221 (2025)

    2025

  39. [45]

    H. Wang, T. Jiang, W. Pan, X. Wang, H. Wang, J. Tian, L. Li, D. Zhao, Q. Zhang, C. Wang, Y. Yang, H. Xiang, C. Xu, D. Feng, and T. Zhang, Microscopic evidence of spin-driven multiferroicity and topological spin textures in monolayer NiI2, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 26402 (2026)

    2026

  40. [46]

    Cong and K

    A. Cong and K. Shen, Soft magnons in van der Waals multiferroic NiI2, Phys. Rev. B109, 224419 (2024)

    2024

  41. [48]

    See Supplemental Material at URL for experimental de- tails, calculations and additional discussions, which in- cludes Refs. [68-72]

  42. [49]

    C. Kim, O. Vilella, Y. Lee, P. Park, Y. An, W. Cho, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Y. Hao, S. Asai, S. Itoh, T. Masuda, S. Matin, Y. Kim, S.-J. Kim, M. Mourigal, and J.-G. Park, Kitaev interaction and proximate higher- order skyrmion crystal in the triangular lattice van der w...

    2026

  43. [50]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-Q incommensurate magnetic structures, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  44. [51]

    T. Xie, S. Gozel, J. Xing, N. Zhao, S. M. Avdoshenko, L. Wu, A. S. Sefat, A. L. Chernyshev, A. M. L¨ auchli, A. Podlesnyak, and S. E. Nikitin, Quantum spin dynam- ics due to strong Kitaev interactions in the triangular- lattice antiferromagnet CsCeSe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 96...

    2024

  45. [52]

    C. Kim, J. Jeong, G. Lin, P. Park, T. Masuda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, H.-S. Kim, H. Zhou, J. Ma, and J.-G. Park, An- tiferromagnetic Kitaev interaction in J eff = 1/2 cobalt honeycomb materials Na 3Co2SbO6and Na 2Co2TeO6, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter34, 045802 (2022)

    2022

  46. [53]

    P. A. Maksimov, S. Jiang, L. P. Regnault, and A. L. Chernyshev, Strong Kitaev interaction in BaCo2(AsO4)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 66703 (2025)

    2025

  47. [54]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhang, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, F. Ye, C. D. Batista, and M. Mourigal, Hybridized quadrupolar ex- citations in the spin-anisotropic frustrated magnet FeI 2, Nat. Phys.17, 467 (2021)

    2021

  48. [55]

    Z. Kao, Y. Gu, Y. Gu, H. Zhang, S. Zheng, N. Murai, S. Ohira-Kawamura, and J. Zhao, Kitaev interactions in the van der waals antiferromagnet VBr 3, Sci. Bull. 10.1016/j.scib.2026.01.040 (2026). viii

    2026 doi

  49. [56]

    J. Kim, S. Banerjee, J. Kim, M. Lee, S. Son, J. Kim, T. S. Jung, K. I. Sim, J.-G. Park, and J. H. Kim, Spin and lattice dynamics of the two-dimensional van der waals ferromagnet CrI3, npj Quantum Mater.9, 55 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    E. Shen, T. I. Popescu, N. Gora, G. Kaur, E. Chan, H. Lane, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, G. Xu, P. M. Gehring, R. A. Ewings, A. N. Fitch, and C. Stock, Magnetoelas- tic honeycomb fragmentation in VI 3, Phys. Rev. B113, 14439 (2026)

    2026

  51. [59]

    Gupta, O

    S. Gupta, O. O. Emmanuel, P. Zhang, and X. Ke, Angular-dependent thermal hall effect in a honey- comb magnet: Disentangling Kitaev and Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. B113, L020404 (2026)

    2026

  52. [60]

    Chen, J.-H

    L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, T. Chen, C. Duan, A. Schnei- dewind, I. Radelytskyi, D. J. Voneshen, R. A. Ewings, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, B. Winn, S. Chi, R. A. Mole, D. H. Yu, B. Gao, and P. Dai, Magnetic anisotropy in ferromagnetic CrI3, Phys. Rev. B101, 134418 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Lee, Fundamental spin interactions underlying the magnetic anisotropy in the Kitaev ferromagnet CrI 3, Phys

    I. Lee, Fundamental spin interactions underlying the magnetic anisotropy in the Kitaev ferromagnet CrI 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.017201 (2020)

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, X. Liu, and H.-Y. Kee, Magnetic anisotropy in spin-3/2 with heavy ligand in honeycomb mott insulators: Application to CrI 3, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 13216 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Z. Cai, S. Bao, Z.-L. Gu, Y.-P. Gao, Z. Ma, Y. Shang- guan, W. Si, Z.-Y. Dong, W. Wang, Y. Wu, D. Lin, J. Wang, K. Ran, S. Li, D. Adroja, X. Xi, S.-L. Yu, X. Wu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Topological magnon insu- lator spin excitations in the two-dimensional ferromagnet CrBr3, Phy...

    2021

  56. [64]

    S. E. Nikitin, B. F ˚ ak, K. W. Kr¨ amer, T. Fennell, B. Nor- mand, A. M. L¨ auchli, and Ch. R¨ uegg, Thermal evolution of Dirac magnons in the honeycomb ferromagnet CrBr 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 127201 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    S.-H. Do, J. A. M. Paddison, G. Sala, T. J. Williams, K. Kaneko, K. Kuwahara, A. F. May, J. Yan, M. A. McGuire, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, and A. D. Chris- tianson, Gaps in topological magnon spectra: Intrin- sic versus extrinsic effects, Phys. Rev. B106, L060408 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    M. Xie, Z. Zhang, W. Zhuo, W. Xu, J. Zhu, J. Embs, L. Wang, Z. Li, H. Bu, A. Zhang, F. Jin, J. Ji, Z. Ouyang, L. Wu, J. Ma, and Q. Zhang, Dominant Kitaev in- teraction and field-induced quantum phase transitions in triangular-lattice KCeSe 2, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 23198 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    B. R. Ortiz, P. M. Sarte, A. H. Avidor, A. Hay, E. Ken- ney, A. I. Kolesnikov, D. M. Pajerowski, A. A. Aczel, K. M. Taddei, C. M. Brown, C. Wang, M. J. Graf, R. Seshadri, L. Balents, and S. D. Wilson, Quantum disordered ground state in the triangular-lattice magnet NaRuO2, Nat...

    2023

  60. [68]

    R. A. Ewings, J. R. Stewart, T. G. Perring, R. I. Bew- ley, M. D. Le, D. Raspino, D. E. Pooley, G. ˇSkoro, S. P. Waller, D. Zacek, C. A. Smith, and R. C. Riehl-Shaw, Upgrade to the MAPS neutron time-of-flight chopper spectrometer, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 10.1063/1.5086255 (2019)

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Arnold, J

    O. Arnold, J. Bilheux, J. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. Camp- bell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. Ferraz Leal, M. Gigg, V. Lynch, A. Markvardsen, D. Mikkelson, R. Mikkelson, R. Miller, K. Palmen, P. Parker, G. Passos, T. Perring, P. Peterson, S. Ren, M. Reuter, A. Savici, J. T...

    2014

  62. [70]

    R. A. Ewings, A. Buts, M. D. Le, J. van Duijn, I. Bustin- duy, and T. G. Perring, Horace: Software for the analysis of data from single crystal spectroscopy experiments at time-of-flight neutron instruments, Nucl. Instrum. Meth- ods Phys. Res. Sect. A834, 132 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Stuhr, B

    U. Stuhr, B. Roessli, S. Gvasaliya, H. M. Rønnow, U. Filges, D. Graf, A. Bollhalder, D. Hohl, R. B¨ urge, M. Schild, L. Holitzner, C. Kaegi, P. Keller, and T. M¨ uhlebach, The thermal triple-axis-spectrometer EIGER at the continuous spallation source SINQ, Nucl. Instrum. Metho...

    2017

  64. [72]

    Hao, EnjoyXu/NeutronScatteringCoverageSimulation: V0.0.3, Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.17299399 (2025)

    X. Hao, EnjoyXu/NeutronScatteringCoverageSimulation: V0.0.3, Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.17299399 (2025)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.