Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Field-induced first order transitions and phase coexistence in the Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate BaCo2(AsO4)2

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The flat 1.65 meV mode seen in the Kitaev candidate BaCo2(AsO4)2 is a bound pair of magnons, not a signature of fractionalized spinons.

desk verdict Strong experimental case against a spinon Fermi surface in BCAO, but the two-magnon bound-state identification is a postdiction with an underived prefactor. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15346 v1 pith:NEJO5UIX submitted 2026-07-16 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Tanner J. Legvold , Bin Gao , Rong-Zhu Lin , Violet Williams , Tong Chen , Dehong Yu , Chien-Lung Huang , Gage Eichman
show 4 more authors
Renjie Lui Benedetta Flebus Pengcheng Dai Douglas Natelson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords KitaevquantumspinliquidBaCo2(AsO4)2two-magnonboundstatefirst-orderphasetransitionSeebeckeffectneutronscatteringup-up-downthermalconductivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the field-induced states of the candidate Kitaev quantum spin liquid BaCo2(AsO4)2 show no sign of spinon-like fractionalized excitations near the transition into the fully polarized state. Neutron scattering reveals phase coexistence and hysteresis at both the double-zigzag-to-up-up-down and up-up-down-to-ferromagnetic transitions, establishing both as first order. The flat, nearly dispersionless 1.65 meV mode that appears in the UUD phase is identified as a localized two-magnon bound state whose binding energy is set by third-neighbor exchange. A sharp spin Seebeck feature in the coexistence region has a sign indicating transport of field-aligned magnetization, which the authors attribute to the momentum-dependent angular-momentum texture of the lowest magnon band together with magnon-phonon hybridization. If correct, the earlier finite zero-temperature thermal-conductivity intercept does not require a spinon Fermi surface, and the candidate's exotic-transport claim is instead accounted for by conventional, bound, and phonon-hybridized magnetic excitations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the localized two-magnon bound state: a correlated, nearly spin-compensated pair of spin flips that sits below the two-magnon continuum threshold of 2Δmin ≈ 2.56 meV and appears in neutron scattering as a dispersionless mode at 1.65 meV. Its binding energy is set by the antiferromagnetic third-neighbor exchange Jxy^(3) ≈ 1.75 meV. The supporting machinery is the momentum-dependent angular-momentum content M_x_n(k) of the magnon bands, a consequence of the broken U(1) spin-rotation symmetry about the field; it lets the lowest UUD band change the sign of its magnetization content across the Brillouin zone, which enables spin-neutral two-magnon states and also gives the lo

What would settle it

Measure the inelastic neutron spectrum of the UUD phase at energies just above the flat mode: the paper predicts a two-magnon continuum threshold at about 2.56 meV with the bound state at 1.65 meV below it. If a broad, gapless spinon-like continuum appears below the single-magnon gap instead, or if the flat mode disperses with momentum or persists where UUD order is absent, the bound-state assignment and the no-spinon conclusion are falsified. A second decisive check is a field-history-dependent thermal-conductivity measurement across the UUD-FM coexistence window: if the apparent Fermi-surfac

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that BCAO does not host a spinon continuum in the field window where a finite κ/T intercept was reported. Elastic and inelastic neutron scattering show that both the double-zigzag-to-UUD and the UUD-to-FM transitions are first order, with coexisting magnetic phases and hysteresis that also appears in spin Hall magnetoresistance. The nearly flat 1.65 meV excitation is a two-magnon bound state: because the fitted Hamiltonian breaks U(1) spin-rotation symmetry about the field, the lowest UUD magnon band develops a momentum-dependent angular-momentum texture that permits spin-neutral two-magnon states; a flip-pair estimate putting the binding energy at the third-neighbor exc

Load-bearing premise

The UUD phase is modeled as a locally ordered up-up-down spin texture with a fitted linear spin-wave Hamiltonian, even though neutron scattering indicates only a finite magnetic correlation length rather than true long-range order; if that local-texture ansatz or the uniqueness of the exchange-parameter fit fails, the bound-state assignment and the Seebeck-sign interpretation lose their quantitative foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The finite κ/T intercept reported near the UUD-to-FM boundary should not be taken as evidence for a spinon Fermi surface; the excitations observed are conventional magnons, a bound magnon pair, and phonon hybrids.
  • Both field-driven transitions in BCAO are first order, so transport, magnetization, and thermodynamic measurements across them should display hysteresis and field-history dependence.
  • The flat 1.65 meV mode should track the UUD phase volume: its spectral weight should grow when UUD order appears and vanish as the field suppresses UUD order.
  • The low-lying dispersive branch near the FM boundary carries magnetization aligned with the applied field, so its spin Seebeck contribution should have a sign opposite to that of conventional FM magnons.
  • Strong Kitaev-like bond-anisotropic exchange is required to reproduce the phase diagram, mode gaps, and Seebeck behavior, placing BCAO in the strongly bond-anisotropic regime rather than the pure Kitaev limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Flat or nearly flat modes seen in other honeycomb cobaltate Kitaev candidates may warrant re-examination as two-magnon bound states before being interpreted as fractionalized excitations.
  • Because the transitions are first order and exhibit coexistence, field-history-dependent measurement protocols (field-cooled vs zero-field-cooled, sweep rate control) could separate intrinsic transport from coexistence artifacts in the κ/T and SSE data.
  • The angular-momentum texture mechanism predicts that the spin Seebeck sign and magnitude for the lowest branch can be tuned continuously with field as the band's magnetization content evolves; this is a direct, testable extension for BCAO.
  • Observing the predicted two-magnon continuum threshold near 2.56 meV in the UUD phase would be a stringent check: the flat bound state should sit below it, and no gapless continuum should appear at lower energy.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports neutron scattering, spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR), and spin Seebeck effect (SSE) measurements on the Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate BaCo2(AsO4)2 (BCAO). It presents evidence that the double-zigzag-to-UUD and UUD-to-field-polarized transitions are first order, with phase coexistence and hysteresis observed in elastic scattering, inelastic neutron scattering, and SMR. The authors find no spinon-like continuum near the UUD-to-FM critical field; instead, a nearly dispersionless ~1.65 meV mode appears in the UUD phase, which they identify as a two-magnon bound state, and they propose a bond-anisotropic XXZ-J1-J3 model with fitted exchange parameters to explain the mode energies, angular-momentum textures, and the sign of the SSE response. The paper argues that the finite κ/T intercept reported earlier does not imply a spinon Fermi surface.

Significance. If correct, the experimental results are significant: they directly challenge the spinon-Fermi-surface interpretation of the thermal conductivity in BCAO and establish that the field-driven transitions are first order, information that is important for the broader Kitaev-materials community. The multi-probe dataset—INS, SMR, SSE, with control measurements for the Nernst effect and self-heating—is a clear strength and is presented with commendable detail. However, the quantitative theoretical identification of the 1.65 meV flat mode as a two-magnon bound state currently rests on an unjustified prefactor and on exchange parameters fitted to the same data. The significance of the paper therefore depends on strengthening the theoretical case for the bound-state assignment and on more transparently separating prediction from postdiction.

major comments (4)
  1. [SI Sec. S2B, Eq. (S3)] The bound-state energy E_bound = E_2m − (1/2)E_bind is central to identifying the 1.65 meV flat mode as a two-magnon bound state, but the factor of 1/2 is asserted as a 'normalization difference' without derivation. This is not a harmless convention: with E_2m = 2.56 meV and E_bind = J_xy^(3) = 1.75 meV, the factor produces 1.685 meV, matching the data, whereas the natural reading of the binding-energy definition in Eq. (S5) gives E_bound ≈ 0.81 meV, far from the observed mode. Since the SpinW single-magnon spectrum contains no flat mode, Eq. (S3) is the sole quantitative anchor for the bound-state assignment. The authors must derive the prefactor from a two-magnon calculation (e.g., a two-magnon Schrödinger equation or exact diagonalization of the local spin-flip cluster), or otherwise justify it. Without this, the agreement is an adjustable-parameter postdiction.
  2. [Eq. (3) and SI Table S1] The 'excellent agreement' between E_bound and the INS mode is obtained using J_xy^(3) = 1.75 meV fitted to the same inelastic neutron scattering data through the Hamiltonian of Eqs. (1)–(3). This is not an independent prediction. The authors provide no uncertainties for the fitted exchange parameters, so it is impossible to assess whether the 0.035 meV discrepancy at H = 0.2 T is meaningful. They should report parameter uncertainties and propagate them to E_bound, and ideally test the bound-state assignment with an independent calculation that does not use the fitted J_xy^(3) as an input, such as exact diagonalization of a finite UUD cluster with the same Hamiltonian.
  3. [SI General Discussion] The SI states that 'INS results indicate a finite magnetic correlation length rather than true long-range order in the UUD phase,' yet the theoretical analysis treats the UUD state as a locally ordered six-sublattice texture and uses linear spin-wave theory (SpinW) to compute the gaps (E_2m = 2Δ_min), angular-momentum textures, and bound-state energetics. The paper needs to justify why this locally-ordered-texture approach is quantitatively reliable for these short-wavelength quantities, or provide a consistency check (e.g., a finite-size calculation with the measured correlation length). As written, the quantitative inputs to the bound-state energy and the SSE interpretation inherit the uncertainty of this assumption.
  4. [III, SSE explanation] The interpretation of the sharp SSE feature relies on the bound-state picture: the bound state is argued to suppress single-magnon spectral weight via cubic couplings (SI Sec. S3C), and its disappearance near the transition enhances the positive-magnetization magnon-phonon channel. This is a qualitative mechanism, not a quantitative calculation of the SSE signal. Given that the bound-state assignment itself rests on Eq. (S3), the SSE explanation is contingent on that assignment. The authors should either provide a more direct calculation or clearly separate the robust experimental observation (a sign-changing SSE feature in the coexistence region) from the proposed microscopic explanation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SI Sec. S3D] Typo: 'spin Seekbeck effect' should be 'spin Seebeck effect'.
  2. [SI General Discussion] Cross-reference error: the text says 'Section S5 contains optical micrographs of the wires of Device 2,' but the micrographs appear in Section S6 ('BCAO.18 DEVICE'); Section S5 is 'Additional SMR Data'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to 'black dashed line' and 'red dashed line' for dispersion guides, but the figure uses colored lines that may be hard to distinguish for color-blind readers. Consider adding distinct line styles and/or a legend.
  4. [SI Table S1] The INS energies in Table S1 are quoted without uncertainties. Since the neutron energy resolution is stated as ~0.15 meV, reporting at least the statistical or resolution-derived errors would make the comparison in the table more meaningful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The flat-mode/bound-state energy is a postdiction: E_bound is computed from the same fitted Hamiltonian (E_bind = J_xy^(3)) plus an asserted 1/2 prefactor, so the 1.65 meV match is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, Theoretical discussion (Eqs. 1-3 and text following 'A central feature of the Hamiltonian'); SI S2B, Eqs. S3/S6; Table S1]
    "with fitted parameters ... J_xy^(3)=1.75 meV ... the binding originates entirely from the antiferromagnetic third-neighbor exchange, i.e., E_bind=4S^2 J_xy^(3). ... The corresponding bound-state energy is then estimated as E_bound=E_2m−1/2 E_bind. ... The factor of 1/2 accounts for the normalization difference between the classical flip-pair energy obtained from the local exchange calculation and the corresponding bosonic excitation energy entering E2m. ... yields E_bound=1.65 meV at H=0.2 T, in excellent agreement with the measured energy gap of the nearly dispersionless INS mode."

    The 'predicted' flat-mode energy is a direct function of E_2m, computed from the single-magnon bands of the same fitted Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-3), and E_bind=J_xy^(3), which the paper lists as a 'fitted parameter.' The paper also says the model was tested against 'combined INS and spin-transport data' and 'simultaneously reproduces ... the localized two-spin excitation observed by neutron scattering,' without showing that the flat mode was excluded from the fit. The 1/2 prefactor in Eq. S3 is asserted as a 'normalization difference' with no derivation; with a factor of 1 the predicted energy would be about 0.81 meV, far from the observed 1.65 meV. The numerical agreement is therefore arranged by the fitted exchange parameter plus an adjustable prefactor, rather than being a parameter-free pre

full rationale

The paper's experimental core is not circular: the absence of a spinon continuum, the phase coexistence and hysteresis at both transitions, the first-order UUD-to-FM transition, and the sign-reversing SSE feature are direct observations that stand independently of the model. The single-magnon SpinW calculation, fitted to the measured dispersive modes, is a legitimate fit. The central problem is the quantitative identification of the 1.65 meV flat mode as a two-magnon bound state. Eq. S3 gives E_bound from E_2m=2Δ_min of the fitted SpinW spectrum and from E_bind=J_xy^(3), a listed fitted parameter; the model is claimed to reproduce the localized excitation, but the fit protocol is not reported, so independence from the target observation is not established. The essential 1/2 prefactor is asserted without derivation and is numerically load-bearing. This is a fitted postdiction, not a derived prediction. The paper's own caveat that the UUD phase has finite correlation length and is treated as a locally ordered texture is an acknowledged limitation and a correctness risk, not itself a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the self-citation [59] appears only in a formula for the SSE current and is not central. Overall score 6 reflects one central fitted postdiction, with the experimental observations remaining independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on a fitted Hamiltonian (J1-D-E-G-J2-J3 set) and on two domain assumptions the paper itself labels as approximations: the locally ordered UUD texture and the strong spin-lattice/phonon-transport mechanism. The bound-state energy is not an independent prediction; it is computed from the fitted 3NN exchange.

free parameters (9)
  • J1xy = -5.63 meV
    Fitted nearest-neighbor in-plane XXZ exchange; sets the dominant energy scale.
  • J1z = -1.64 meV
    Fitted nearest-neighbor Ising-like exchange.
  • D = 2.46 meV
    Fitted off-diagonal symmetric anisotropy on NN bonds.
  • E = 0.308 meV
    Fitted off-diagonal anisotropy term.
  • F = 0 (fixed by convention)
    Set to zero to fix the bond-rotation convention following Ref. [33].
  • G = -2.87 meV
    Fitted off-diagonal anisotropy; contributes to angular-momentum mixing.
  • J3xy = 1.75 meV
    Fitted third-neighbor in-plane exchange; directly sets the bound-state binding energy E_bind = 4*S^2*J3xy.
  • J3z = -0.74 meV
    Fitted third-neighbor Ising-like exchange.
  • J2 = -0.343 meV
    Fitted isotropic second-neighbor exchange; included for stability of the fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear spin-wave/BdG expansion around a locally ordered UUD texture is valid despite the lack of true long-range order.
    The SI explicitly states the UUD phase has finite magnetic correlation length, yet all magnon calculations use a locally ordered UUD texture as the reference state.
  • domain assumption The flat 1.65 meV mode is a composite two-magnon bound state whose binding energy can be estimated by a classical flip-pair construction.
    Sec. S2 uses a real-space pair model and a 1/2 normalization factor to convert a classical flip-pair energy into a bosonic excitation energy; it is an estimate, not a full two-body calculation.
  • standard math The exchange anisotropies strongly break U(1) spin-rotation symmetry, producing momentum-dependent angular-momentum textures M^x_n(k).
    Follows from the fitted Hamiltonian within Bogoliubov-de Gennes formalism; standard linear spin-wave machinery, but the quantitative texture depends on the fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption Strong spin-lattice coupling and phonon angular-momentum transfer account for the magnitude and sign of the spin-Seebeck response.
    SI S3 invokes exchange-striction, chiral-phonon and velocity-dependent couplings, and magnon-phonon hybridization; the authors admit the acoustic phonon dispersion of BCAO is insufficiently characterized.
  • ad hoc to paper Third-neighbor exchange is the only attractive binding channel for the spin-flip pair.
    Eq. S6 states E_bind = 4*S^2*J3xy after evaluating the fitted Hamiltonian on local pair configurations; no independent experimental constraint isolates J3xy from the bound-state energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-induced first order transitions and phase coexistence in the Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate BaCo2(AsO4)2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NEJO5UIX

@misc{pith2026260715346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-induced first order transitions and phase coexistence in the Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate BaCo2(AsO4)2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NEJO5UIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15346}
}
read the original abstract

BaCo2(AsO4)2 (BCAO) is an insulating Kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate with a rich low-temperature phase diagram. Below 5 K, it exhibits double-zigzag magnetic order. Upon application of an in-plane magnetic field, the magnetic structure first transforms into an up-up-down (UUD) state near 0.12 T and then enters a fully spin-polarized ferromagnetic (FM) state near 0.5 T. In the narrow field regime close to the polarized phase, a finite residual thermal conductivity has been reported, suggesting a possible field-induced quantum spin liquid phase. Using neutron scattering, we show that the field-induced double-zigzag-to-UUD transition near 0.15 T is accompanied by the emergence of a cluster of localized UUD spin excitations that coexist with conventional spin waves. Upon further increasing field, BCAO undergoes a first-order UUD-to-FM transition with coexistence of UUD and FM phases, accompanied by a sharp response in the spin Seebeck coefficient. These results do not support a quantum spin liquid scenario near the UUD-to-FM critical field. Instead, modeling indicates that the broad excitations arise from bound spin-flip pairs, while a low-lying dispersive branch near the FM phase boundary carries the same sign of magnetization as the FM order. These excitations naturally account for the observed sign of the spin Seebeck response and are likely relevant to the thermal conductivity near the critical field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Short-wavelength excitation spectrum along Γ– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Broholm, R

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

    2020

  2. [2]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spin liquid states, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Concept and realization of kitaev quantum spin liquids, Nature Reviews Physics1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Matsuda, T

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

    2025

  6. [6]

    Zhong, T

    R. Zhong, T. Gao, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Weak-field induced nonmagnetic state in a co-based honeycomb, Science Advances6, eaay6953 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Regnault, P

    L. Regnault, P. Burlet, and J. Rossat-Mignod, Magnetic ordering in a planar x-y model: Baco2(aso4)2, Physica B+C86-88, 660 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    Regnault, P

    L. Regnault, P. Burlet, and J. Rossat-Mignod, Magnetic ordering in a planarX−Ymodel: BaCo2(AsO4)2, Physica B Condensed Matter86-88, 660 (1977)

    1977

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Regnault and J

    L. Regnault and J. Rossat-Mignod, Effect of a magnetic field on the magnetic ordering of BaCo2(AsO4)2, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials14, 194 (1979)

    1979

  2. [10]

    Regnault, C

    L. Regnault, C. Boullier, and J. Henry, Investigation by spherical neutron polarimetry of magnetic properties in baco 2(AsO4)2, Physica B: Condensed Matter385-386, 425 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Regnault, C

    L.-P. Regnault, C. Boullier, and J. Lorenzo, Polarized-neutron investigation of magnetic or- dering and spin dynamics in BaCo 2(AsO4)2 frustrated honeycomb-lattice magnet, Heliyon4, e00507 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    C. Tu, D. Dai, X. Zhang, C. Zhao, X. Jin, B. Gao, T. Chen, P. Dai, and S. Li, Evidence for mobile gapless spinons in a honeycomb lattice, Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 067304 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Li and G

    M. Li and G. Chen, Thermal transport for probing quantum materials, MRS Bulletin45, 348 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Xu, T. Halloran, R. Zhong, C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, N. Drichko, and N. P. Armitage, A magnetic continuum in the cobalt-based honeycomb magnet BaCo 2(AsO4)2, Nat. Mater.22, 58 (2023). 35

    2023

  7. [15]

    Halloran, F

    T. Halloran, F. Desrochers, E. Z. Zhang, T. Chen, L. E. Chern, Z. Xu, B. Winn, M. Graves- Brook, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Y. Qiu, R. Zhong, R. Cava, Y. B. Kim, and C. Broholm, Geometrical frustration versus Kitaev interactions in BaCo 2(AsO4)2, Proceedings of the Na- tio...

    2023

  8. [16]

    P. A. Maksimov, S. Jiang, L. P. Regnault, and A. L. Chernyshev, Strong Kitaev Interaction in BaCo2(AsO4)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 066703 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Kikkawa and E

    T. Kikkawa and E. Saitoh, Spin Seebeck effect: Sensitive probe for elementary excitation, spin correlation, transport, magnetic order, and domains in solids, Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. 14, 129 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y.-T. Chen, S. Takahashi, H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, E. Saitoh, and G. E. W. Bauer, Theory of spin hall magnetoresistance (SMR) and related phenomena, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter28, 103004 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Y. Kato, J. Nasu, M. Sato, T. Okubo, T. Misawa, and Y. Motome, Spin Seebeck effect as a probe for Majorana fermions in Kitaev spin liquids, Phys. Rev. X15, 011050 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    S. Lee, S. Zhang, S. M. Thomas, L. Pressley, C. A. Bridges, E. S. Choi, V. S. Zapf, S. M. Winter, and M. Lee, Quantum order by disorder is a key to understanding the magnetic phases of BaCo2(AsO4)2, npj Quantum Materials10, 11 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    P. K. Mukharjee, B. Shen, S. Erdmann, A. Jesche, J. Kaiser, P. R. Baral, O. Zaharko, P. Gegenwart, and A. A. Tsirlin, Intermediate field-induced phase of the honeycomb mag- net BaCo2(AsO4)2, Phys. Rev. B110, L140407 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zhang, F

    X.-P. Zhang, F. S. Bergeret, and V. N. Golovach, Theory of spin Hall magnetoresistance from a microscopic perspective, Nano Letters19, 6330 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    M. I. D’yakonov and V. I. Perel’, Possibility of orienting electron spins with current, JETP Lett.13, 657 (1971)

    1971

  16. [24]

    J. E. Hirsch, Spin Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1834 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Gepr¨ ags, M

    S. Gepr¨ ags, M. Opel, J. Fischer, O. Gomonay, P. Schwenke, M. Althammer, H. Huebl, and R. Gross, Spin Hall magnetoresistance in antiferromagnetic insulators, J. Appl. Phys.127, 243902 (2020). 36

    2020

  19. [27]

    Jim´ enez-Cavero, I

    P. Jim´ enez-Cavero, I. Lucas, D. Bugallo, C. L´ opez-Bueno, R. Ramos, P. A. Algarabel, M. R. Ibarra, F. Rivadulla, and L. Morell´ on, Quantification of the interfacial and bulk contributions to the longitudinal spin Seebeck effect, Appl. Phys. Lett.118, 092404 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    R. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-Su´ arez and S. M. Rezende, Dominance of the phonon drag mechanism in the spin Seebeck effect at low temperatures, Phys. Rev. B108, 134407 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ohnuma, H

    Y. Ohnuma, H. Adachi, E. Saitoh, and S. Maekawa, Spin Seebeck effect in antiferromagnets and compensated ferrimagnets, Physical Review B87, 014423 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Cramer, E.-J

    J. Cramer, E.-J. Guo, S. Gepr¨ ags, A. Kehlberger, Y. P. Ivanov, K. Ganzhorn, F. Della Coletta, M. Althammer, H. Huebl, R. Gross, J. Kosel, M. Kl¨ aui, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Magnon mode selective spin transport in compensated ferrimagnets, Nano Letters17, 3334 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Y. Chen, M. Sato, Y. Tang, Y. Shiomi, K. Oyanagi, T. Masuda, Y. Nambu, M. Fujita, and E. Saitoh, Triplon current generation in solids, Nat. Comm.12, 5199 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Hirobe, M

    D. Hirobe, M. Sato, T. Kawamata, Y. Shiomi, K.-i. Uchida, R. Iguchi, Y. Koike, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, One-dimensional spinon spin currents, Nature Physics13, 30 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    P. A. Maksimov, S. Jiang, L. P. Regnault, and A. L. Chernyshev, Strong Kitaev interaction in BaCo2(AsO4)2, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 066703 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Devillez, J

    A. Devillez, J. Robert, E. Lhotel, R. Ballou, C. Cavenel, F. Denis Romero, Q. Faure, H. Jacob- sen, J. Lass, D. G. Mazzone, U. B. Hansen, M. Enderle, S. Raymond, S. De Brion, V. Simonet, and M. Songvilay, Bond-dependent interactions and ill-ordered state in the honeycomb cobal...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Sheng, J.-W

    J. Sheng, J.-W. Mei, L. Wang, X. Xu, W. Jiang, L. Xu, H. Ge, N. Zhao, T. Li, A. Candini, B. Xi, J. Zhao, Y. Fu, J. Yang, Y. Zhang, G. Biasiol, S. Wang, J. Zhu, P. Miao, X. Tong, D. Yu, R. Mole, Y. Cui, L. Ma, Z. Zhang, Z. Ouyang, W. Tong, A. Podlesnyak, L. Wang, F. Ye, D. Yu, ...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik71, 205 (1931)

    H. Bethe, Zur theorie der metalle, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik71, 205 (1931)

    1931

  29. [37]

    Wortis, Bound states of two spin waves in the heisenberg ferromagnet, Phys

    M. Wortis, Bound states of two spin waves in the heisenberg ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.132, 85 (1963)

    1963

  30. [38]

    J. B. Torrance and M. Tinkham, Magnon bound states in anisotropic linear chains, Phys. Rev. 187, 587 (1969). 37

    1969

  31. [39]

    T. Xie, A. A. Eberharter, J. Xing, S. Nishimoto, M. Brando, P. Khanenko, J. Sichelschmidt, A. A. Turrini, D. G. Mazzone, P. G. Naumov, L. D. Sanjeewa, N. Harrison, A. S. Sefat, B. Normand, A. M. L¨ auchli, A. Podlesnyak, and S. E. Nikitin, Complete field-induced spectral respo...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Weißenhofer, H

    M. Weißenhofer, H. Lange, A. Kamra, S. Mankovsky, S. Polesya, H. Ebert, and U. Nowak, Rotationally invariant formulation of spin-lattice coupling in multiscale modeling, Phys. Rev. B108, L060404 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhang and Q

    L. Zhang and Q. Niu, Angular momentum of phonons and the einstein–de haas effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 085503 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    K. Kim, E. Vetter, L. Yan, C. Yang, Z. Wang, R. Sun, Y. Yang, A. H. Comstock, X. Li, J. Zhou, L. Zhang, W. You, D. Sun, and J. Liu, Chiral-phonon-activated spin seebeck effect, Nature Materials22, 322 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    D. M. Juraschek, R. M. Geilhufe, H. Zhu, M. Basini, P. Baum, A. Baydin, S. Chaudhary, M. Fechner, B. Flebus, G. Grissonnanche, A. I. Kirilyuk, M. Lemeshko, S. F. Maehrlein, M. Mignolet, S. Murakami, Q. Niu, U. Nowak, C. P. Romao, H. Rostami, T. Satoh, N. A. Spaldin, H. Ueda, a...

    2025

  36. [44]

    and Uchida, Ken-ichi and Qiu, Zhiyong and Bauer, Gerrit E

    Kikkawa, Takashi and Shen, Ka and Flebus, Benedetta and Duine, Rembert A. and Uchida, Ken-ichi and Qiu, Zhiyong and Bauer, Gerrit E. W. and Saitoh, Eiji, Magnon polarons in the spin seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 207203 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Flebus, K

    B. Flebus, K. Shen, T. Kikkawa, K.-i. Uchida, Z. Qiu, E. Saitoh, R. A. Duine, and G. E. W. Bauer, Magnon-polaron transport in magnetic insulators, Phys. Rev. B95, 144420 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Weißenhofer, P

    M. Weißenhofer, P. Rieger, M. S. Mrudul, L. Mikadze, U. Nowak, and P. M. Oppeneer, Chiral phonons arising from chirality-selective magnon-phonon coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 216701 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    C. R. W. Steward, R. M. Fernandes, and J. Schmalian, Dynamic paramagnon-polarons in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B108, 144418 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    T´ oth, B

    S. T´ oth, B. Wehinger, K. Rolfs, T. Birol, U. Stuhr, H. Takatsu, K. Kimura, T. Kimura, H. M. Rønnow, and C. R¨ uegg, Electromagnon dispersion probed by inelastic x-ray scattering in LiCrO2, Nature Communications7, 13547 (2016). 38

    2016

  41. [49]

    K. Park, J. Oh, J. C. Leiner, J. Jeong, K. C. Rule, M. D. Le, and J.-G. Park, Magnon- phonon coupling and two-magnon continuum in the two-dimensional triangular antiferromag- net cucro2, Phys. Rev. B94, 104421 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    A. L. Chernyshev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Magnon decay in noncollinear quantum antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 207202 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    Fukuhara, P

    T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Microscopic observation of magnon bound states and their dynamics, Nature502, 76 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    S. Ren, J. Bonini, M. Stengel, C. E. Dreyer, and D. Vanderbilt, Adiabatic dynamics of coupled spins and phonons in magnetic insulators, Phys. Rev. X14, 011041 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    J. E. Avron, R. Seiler, and P. G. Zograf, Viscosity of quantum hall fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 697 (1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    Barkeshli, S

    M. Barkeshli, S. B. Chung, and X.-L. Qi, Dissipationless phonon hall viscosity, Phys. Rev. B 85, 245107 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Bonini, S

    J. Bonini, S. Ren, D. Vanderbilt, M. Stengel, C. E. Dreyer, and S. Coh, Frequency splitting of chiral phonons from broken time-reversal symmetry in CrI 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 086701 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Flebus and A

    B. Flebus and A. H. MacDonald, Phonon hall viscosity of ionic crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 236301 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Coh, Classification of materials with phonon angular momentum and microscopic origin of angular momentum, Phys

    S. Coh, Classification of materials with phonon angular momentum and microscopic origin of angular momentum, Phys. Rev. B108, 134307 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Kikkawa, K

    T. Kikkawa, K. Shen, B. Flebus, R. A. Duine, K.-i. Uchida, Z. Qiu, G. E. Bauer, and E. Saitoh, Magnon polarons in the spin Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 207203 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Williams and B

    V. Williams and B. Flebus, Chemical potential of magnon polarons (2026)

    2026

  52. [60]

    R. Luo, T. J. Legvold, L. Chen, H. Navarro, A. C. Basaran, D. Hong, C. Liu, A. Bhattacharya, I. K. Schuller, and D. Natelson, Low-temperature spin seebeck effect in nonmagnetic vanadium dioxide, Phys. Rev. B110, 024415 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    R. Luo, X. Zhao, T. J. Legvold, L. Chen, C. Liu, D. Hong, A. Bhattacharya, and D. Natelson, Challenges of measuring spin Seebeck noise, Phys. Rev. B109, 104429 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    R. Luo, T. J. Legvold, G. Eichman, H. Navarro, A. C. Basaran, E. Qiu, I. K. Schuller, and D. Natelson, Spin Seebeck effect in correlated antiferromagnetic V 2O3, Phys. Rev. B112, 184421 (2025). 39

    2025

  55. [63]

    R. Luo, T. J. Legvold, L. Chen, and D. Natelson, Nernst–Ettingshausen effect in thin Pt and W films at low temperatures, Applied Physics Letters122, 182405 (2023). 40

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.