Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Ultrafast Dynamics of Spin-Orbit Entangled Excitons Coupled to Magnetic Ordering in van der Waals Antiferromagnet NiPS3

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin-orbit entangled excitons in NiPS3 are dynamically coupled to the antiferromagnetic order: the exciton coherence collapses exactly as spin fluctuations slow down critically near the Néel temperature.

desk verdict Careful systematic transient reflectivity data on NiPS3 with two relaxation channels, but the central spin-coupling interpretation is undermined by an internal tau1 inconsistency and an overfit critical exponent. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04900 v2 pith:6LZS6OC4 submitted 2025-09-05 cond-mat.other cond-mat.str-el

Sidhanta Sahu , Anupama Chauhan , Poulami Ghosh , Sayan Routh , Ruturaj Puranik , Setti Thirupathaiah , Siddhartha Lal , Shriganesh Prabhu S
show 2 more authors
Chiranjib Mitra N. Kamaraju
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.othercond-mat.str-el
keywords spin-orbitentangledexcitonsNiPS3two-dimensionalantiferromagnettransientreflectivitypump-probespectroscopycriticalslowingdownexciton-spincouplingvanderWaalsmagnets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that spin-orbit entangled excitons (SOEEs) in the layered antiferromagnet NiPS$_3$ are dynamically coupled to the magnetic order, not merely influenced by it. Temperature-dependent pump-probe reflectivity shows two relaxation channels after photoexcitation: a fast decay ($\tau_1 = 1$–$9$ ps) assigned to SOEE coherence and a slow decay ($\tau_2 = 1$–$4$ ns) assigned to spin reordering. The slow channel grows and diverges near the Néel temperature ($T_N = 155$ K) with critical slowing down, while the fast channel simultaneously collapses near the exciton dissociation temperature ($T_\mathrm{ED} = 120$ K) and stays short above it. The authors read the coincidence of these two behaviours as the exciton coherence being destroyed by the same spin fluctuations that freeze at the transition. If correct, the work turns optical pump-probe into a tool for tracking and controlling correlated exciton-spin dynamics in two-dimensional antiferromagnets.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the decomposition of the measured $\Delta R/R(t)$ into a bi-exponential decay with a common rise time, convolved with the Gaussian instrument response, plus a damped harmonic oscillator representing a 27 GHz longitudinal coherent acoustic phonon. The fast exponent is identified with SOEE coherence by benchmarking $\tau_1$ against known exciton lifetimes and by the Rothwarf–Taylor fit; the slow exponent is identified with spin reordering by the power-law divergence of $\tau_2$ near $T_N$ and by the matching energy scale and critical exponent. The conceptual engine is the Ginzburg–Landau free energy with two coupled order parameters, $\psi$ for exciton coherence and $\zeta$ for antiferromagnetic order, whose coupling term $\lambda|\psi|^2\zeta^2$ lets the growth of spin order stabilise the exciton phase, and whose linearised time-dependent equation produces the critical slowing down observed in $\tau_2$.

What would settle it

Perform the same pump-probe measurement while sweeping an external magnetic field through the Néel point, or on a non-magnetic isostructural compound such as ZnPS$_3$: if the divergence of $\tau_2$ and the associated shortening of $\tau_1$ survive unchanged, the attribution to magnetic critical slowing down is wrong. A direct time-resolved measurement of the spin correlation time (for instance by magnetic X-ray or neutron scattering) compared point-by-point with $\tau_2(T)$ would settle the identification as well.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the transient reflectivity of NiPS$_3$ pumped at 3.14 eV and probed at 1.57 eV separates into two physical channels whose temperature dependence pins them to distinct degrees of freedom. The fast component $\tau_1$ matches the lifetime (~10 ps) of spin-orbit entangled excitons established by ultranarrow photoluminescence and THz studies, shortens from roughly 8–9 ps below $T_\mathrm{ED} = 120$ K to about 3 ps above it with a tail persisting past $T_N$, and fits a Rothwarf–Taylor bottleneck expression with $\Delta E = 66 \pm 12$ meV, about half the reported 132 meV exciton binding energy. The slow component $\tau_2$ grows near 120 K and follows $\tau_2 = [\Delta(1 - T/T_N)^m]^{-1}$ with $m = 0.44 \pm 0.18$, an exponent the authors identify with the three-dimensional Heisenberg universality class, and $\Delta \approx 1.07$ meV, matching the spin-wave gap measured by neutron scattering and electron spin resonance. The paper's central evidence for dynamical coupling is that the SOEE coherence is lost precisely as spin fluctuations undergo critical slowing down near $T_N$, a feedback captured in a Ginzburg–Landau free energy of two coupled order parameters, the exciton coherence $\psi$ and the AFM order $\zeta$, interacting through $\lambda|\psi|^2\zeta^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the slow nanosecond relaxation component is genuinely the antiferromagnetic spins reordering and that its growth near $T_N$ is magnetic critical slowing down; this identification rests on a three-parameter power-law fit whose exponent resembles the 3D Heisenberg value, without a control measurement such as an applied magnetic field or a non-magnetic isostructural crystal to rule out a non-magnetic origin such as thermal diffusion or phonon recovery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time-resolved reflectivity can separate excitonic coherence from spin-reordering dynamics in a 2D antiferromagnet, giving each degree of freedom its own optical readout in one measurement.
  • The slow-channel exponent $m \approx 0.44$ places the spin fluctuations of NiPS$_3$ near $T_N$ in the three-dimensional Heisenberg universality class, connecting nonequilibrium optical data to equilibrium critical phenomena.
  • Because spin fluctuations govern the exciton decoherence time, external control of magnetic correlations (strain, fields, heterostructure stacking) should translate directly into control of exciton coherence.
  • The fluence experiments near 135 K show mirror-image behaviour — $\tau_1$ shortens while $\tau_2$ lengthens with increasing pump fluence — indicating competing many-body channels that optical excitation can steer.
  • The 27 GHz acoustic phonon mode softens with temperature but is inert to fluence, providing an internal lattice response that stays independent of the spin channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A magnetic-field sweep through $T_N$ would test the coupling claim directly: the $\tau_2$ divergence and the $\tau_1$ collapse should both shift or smear with field if both channels are magnetic in origin, whereas a field-insensitive $\tau_1$ would point to a separate decoherence source.
  • The framework invites an exponent for the coupling itself: measuring the exciton coherence time as a function of reduced temperature $|T - T_N|/T_N$ could yield its own critical exponent for the exciton-spin interaction, beyond the qualitative feedback the paper describes.
  • If the singlet-polaron picture is right, the fast channel may not be pure exciton dephasing but the decoherence of a magnetically dressed quasiparticle; a two-pulse (pump-pump) experiment could distinguish local dephasing from transport of the dressed state.
  • Repeating the same protocol on isostructural $M$PS$_3$ compounds with different magnetic orders (or on the non-magnetic member) would map how the sign and strength of the coupling term $\lambda$ depend on the spin lattice, turning a single-material study into a design rule for exciton-magnet coupling.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved non-degenerate isotropic and anisotropic pump-probe reflectivity measurements on the van der Waals antiferromagnet NiPS3 over 5-294 K. The authors observe a biexponential decay following 3.1 eV excitation, with a fast component (1-9 ps) assigned to spin-orbit entangled exciton (SOEE) coherence and a slow component (1-4 ns) assigned to spin reordering dynamics. They also observe ~27 GHz coherent acoustic phonons. The central claims are that the slow component shows critical slowing down near the Neel temperature with an exponent consistent with the 3D Heisenberg universality class, that the fast component loses coherence near the exciton dissociation temperature, and that the coupled temperature dependence demonstrates dynamical exciton-spin coupling. A Ginzburg-Landau free energy with coupled order parameters is proposed to interpret the results, and fluence-dependent measurements are used to argue for a competing many-body scenario near 135 K.

Significance. If the assignments are correct, the paper would provide direct time-domain evidence for dynamical coupling between spin-orbit entangled excitons and antiferromagnetic order in a 2D van der Waals magnet, with implications for nonequilibrium critical phenomena and optical control of correlated excitations. The experimental work includes useful strengths: repeatability checks at several temperatures, a linear fluence-dependence check of the peak signal, temperature- and fluence-dependent characterization of the acoustic phonon mode, and consistency between isotropic and anisotropic (Kerr) measurements. However, the interpretive claims are currently undermined by internal inconsistencies and by the absence of control measurements that would rule out non-magnetic origins for the slow relaxation component. The significance of the paper as a definitive demonstration of exciton-spin dynamical coupling is therefore not yet established, although the data set is valuable and likely to be of interest to the community.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3(d) inset and SM S8] The power-law fit of τ2 that underlies the claim of magnetic critical slowing down uses the Neel temperature as a free parameter, with the fit returning TN = 157 ± 4.5 K, while the susceptibility measurement in SM S1.3 gives TN = 153 K and the main text elsewhere adopts 155 K. With three free parameters (m, Δ, TN), a divergence can be accommodated even for a non-magnetic process such as thermal diffusion. Moreover, SM S8 reports separate fits above and below TN with m = 0.43 ± 0.28 on the upper side; this uncertainty is large enough that the claimed agreement with the 3D Heisenberg exponent is not established. The main-text value of m = 0.44 ± 0.18 also differs materially from the SM S8 value of m = 0.44 ± 0.04 obtained from the log-log plot. Please fix TN to a value determined independently, report the fit with fixed TN, quantify the sensitivity of m to the choice of TN, and state the uncertainty honestly; the current presentation overstates the universality-class confirmation.
  2. [Main text, §3(b), vs. SM S7] There is a direct contradiction about the behavior of the fast relaxation time τ1 in the range 135-150 K. The main text states that τ1 decreases from about 9 ps at low temperature to about 4 ps near 120 K and then gradually decreases toward room temperature, with no mention of an increase. But SM S7 states that τ1 increases by about 20-25% in the range 135 < T < 150 K and that this increase is the signature of magnetic stabilization of excitonic coherence, explicitly referring to Fig. 3(b) of the main text. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the increase near TN is used as evidence for a dynamical coupling between SOEE coherence and the antiferromagnetic order. Please reconcile the two descriptions and present the actual temperature dependence of τ1 with appropriate uncertainties; if the increase is present, it must be shown in the main-text figure and analysis, and if it is not reproducible, the SM S7 statement should be corrected.
  3. [§3(d), SM S5, general assignment of τ2] The assignment of the slow component τ2 to spin reordering dynamics is not uniquely established because no control measurement is provided that would exclude a thermal or phonon origin. The only supporting line of argument is the temperature dependence of τ2 and its similarity to a power-law divergence, but a phonon-bottleneck or thermal-diffusion recovery can also produce a growing relaxation time near TN. The anisotropy measurement in SM S5 is presented as supporting the spin origin, yet the same section explicitly notes that the Kerr signal contains a phonon-modulated component, so the two channels are not cleanly separated. A measurement under applied magnetic field, a comparison with a non-magnetic isostructural compound, or a direct measurement of the spin correlation time (e.g., via time-resolved Faraday/Kerr rotation with a magnetic pump) would be needed to support the central claim. At minimum, the possible non-magnetic contributions to τ2 should be quantitatively estimated and discussed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and main text] There are several typographical errors: 'pronouns temperature dependence' should be 'pronounced temperature dependence', and 'exhibhits' should be 'exhibits'. These occur in the abstract and in §3(d) (or Fig. 4 discussion), respectively.
  2. [Reference [31] in §3(b)] The text cites 'Ho et al. [31]' for micro-thermoreflectance studies of A1 band-edge excitons, but reference [31] is actually Chu et al., Nat. Mater. 16, 200 (2017), while the Ho, Hsu, and Muhimmah paper appears as reference [33]. Please correct the citation to match the intended source.
  3. [SM S7] The equations in SM S7 are presented with unusual formatting, such as 'τζ ——— 1/(aζΓζ)' and 'τψ ——— 1/(aψΓψ)', which appears garbled. These should be written as standard equations for clarity.
  4. [Main text, §4 fluence dependence] The statement that at 135 K 'the pump excitation disrupts the spin fluctuations' and thereby prolongs τ2 is presented as an interpretation, but no microscopic calculation or independent measurement is given. Consider softening this claim or adding a more quantitative analysis of exciton-spin coupling in the fluence-dependent regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two relaxation times are measured directly and their magnetic/excitonic assignments are benchmarked against independent literature values; the only self-citation is peripheral and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central observable quantities (τ1, τ2) are extracted from measured ΔR/R traces using the biexponential fit of Eq. (1); neither timescale is defined in terms of the model it is used to support. The assignment of τ1 to SOEE coherence is checked against independent external data: Kang et al.'s ~400 μeV PL linewidth corresponds to a ~10 ps SOEE lifetime, close to the measured 8–9 ps, and OPTP/time-resolved PL studies give 10–17 ps. The assignment of τ2 to spin reordering is tested by comparing the fitted power-law parameters with external values: m ≈ 0.44 against the 3D Heisenberg exponent, Δ ≈ 1.07 meV against ESR/neutron spin-wave gaps, and TN ≈ 157 K against SQUID susceptibility (≈153 K). These comparisons do not reduce to the paper's own fitted inputs. The power-law fit with free TN is a weak independent test and the above-TN exponent uncertainty is large (m = 0.43 ± 0.28 in SM Table S8), but that is an evidence-strength/correctness concern, not a circularity: the fitted m and Δ are not re-used as the proof of the same fit. The Ginzburg–Landau section is explicitly a phenomenological interpretation adopted after the data, not a first-principles derivation of τ1 and τ2; its parameters TED and TN are taken from the data rather than independently predicted, so it cannot be the source of a circular prediction. The only self-citation (N. Kamaraju et al., SM Ref. [10]) appears in the peripheral LCAP anharmonic-frequency analysis and carries none of the weight of the exciton–spin coupling claim. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to another, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental study; its central claim relies on fitting phenomenological models (bi-exponential, Rothwarf-Taylor, power-law divergence) to time-resolved data, and on literature analogies for the physical assignment of the fitted lifetimes. No new entities or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Delta E (RT model) = 66 ± 12 meV
    Energy scale from Rothwarf-Taylor fit to tau1(T), interpreted as half the SOEE binding energy. K and L are also fit parameters, with L poorly constrained.
  • K (RT model) = 0.114 ± 0.003
    Fitted constant in the RT expression for tau1; no independent physical constraint.
  • L (RT model) = 7.184 ± 5.806
    Fitted prefactor in the RT expression; the large uncertainty indicates the fit is poorly constrained.
  • m (critical exponent) = 0.44 ± 0.18
    Exponent from power-law fit tau2 = [Delta(1 - T/TN)^m]^{-1}. The error bar overlaps mean-field (0.5) and 3D Heisenberg (0.367), so it does not uniquely confirm a universality class.
  • Delta (spin gap scale) = 1.07 ± 0.29 meV
    Energy scale from the tau2 power-law fit; compared with spin-wave gaps from literature.
  • TN (fit) = 157 ± 4.5 K
    Neel temperature treated as a free parameter in the power-law fit; differs from susceptibility-derived TN = 153 K and from the nominal TN = 155 K used in the paper.
  • TED = 120 K
    Exciton dissociation temperature introduced from the data (hump in 2D map, changes in slopes) rather than from an independent measurement; used as a boundary in the interpretation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The transient reflectivity is described by Eq. (1): two exponentials plus a damped cosine, convolved with a Gaussian instrument response.
    The validity of the bi-exponential decomposition and the assignment of each component to a specific physical process is assumed; no independent check with alternative models is provided.
  • domain assumption The fast component tau1 corresponds to SOEE coherence, based on comparison with PL linewidth-derived lifetimes from prior work.
    The paper relies on literature lifetime estimates to assign tau1; at T > TN it admits tau1 may be a mixture of channels, weakening the uniform assignment.
  • domain assumption The Rothwarf-Taylor model applies to exciton relaxation in NiPS3 and the extracted Delta E is a meaningful exciton-gap energy.
    RT was formulated for phonon bottlenecks in superconductors; its applicability to SOEE in a correlated insulator is assumed without derivation.
  • domain assumption The TDGL free energy with two coupled order parameters (psi, zeta) captures the dynamics, and the sign of lambda is inferred from the sign of A2.
    The GL theory is phenomenological; the coupling sign is read off the experimental amplitude, so it does not independently predict the observation.
  • domain assumption NiPS3 belongs to the 3D Heisenberg universality class for the spin-ordering transition.
    The paper compares the fitted exponent m ~ 0.44 to the 3D Heisenberg value, but the experimental error bar is too large to discriminate among mean-field, XY, or Heisenberg classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast Dynamics of Spin-Orbit Entangled Excitons Coupled to Magnetic Ordering in van der Waals Antiferromagnet NiPS3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6LZS6OC4

@misc{pith2026250904900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast Dynamics of Spin-Orbit Entangled Excitons Coupled to Magnetic Ordering in van der Waals Antiferromagnet NiPS3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6LZS6OC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04900}
}
read the original abstract

Spin-orbit entangled excitons (SOEE) in two-dimensional (2D) antiferromagnets provide direct access to explore unconventional many body interactions in correlated electron systems. In this work, we carry out a detailed investigation using non-degenerate isotropic and anisotropic pump-probe reflection spectroscopy to probe the ultrafast dynamics of SOEE and their coupling to spin fluctuations in NiPS3. Transient reflectivity data reveals acoustic phonon oscillations at ~ 27 GHz, along with two distinct relaxation timescales: fast (1-9 ps) and slower components (1-4 ns) associated with SOEE coherence and spin reordering, respectively. Both timescales exhibit pronounced temperature dependence near the exciton dissociation (TED = 120 K) and Neel (TN = 155 K) temperatures. The SOEE coherence shortens from ~ 8-9 ps at T < TED to ~ 3 ps at T > TED with a finite tail persisting beyond TN. The spin reordering time grows near 120 K, and shows critical slowing down around TN. Pump fluence studies further corroborate their spin origin. Our findings uncover the direct interplay between the excitonic and spin degrees of freedom across ultrafast and longer timescales, offering new opportunities to probe and engineer emergent many-body interactions in 2D antiferromagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Crystal and magnetic structure of NiPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Temperature-dependent photoinduced differential reflectivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Temperature dependence of the amplitude associated with the coherence of SOEE. (b) The coherence time ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Parameters extracted as a functions of excitation fluence. (a) Amplitude and (b) coherence time of the SOEE at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    H. Chu, L. Zhao, A. de la Torre, T. Hogan, S. Wilson, and D. Hsieh, Nat. Mater. 16, 200 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [33]

    C. Ho, T. Hsu, and L. Muhimmah, npj 2D Mater. Appl. 5, 8 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [1]

    S. Kang, K. Kim, B. H. Kim, J. Kim, K. I. Sim, J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, K. Park, S. Yun, T. Kim, et al., Nature (London) 583, 785 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    Klaproth, S

    T. Klaproth, S. Aswartham, Y . Shemerliuk, S. Selter, O. Janson, J. van den Brink, B. B¨uchner, M. Knupfer, S. Pazek, D. Mikhailova, and A. Efimenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256504 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    W. He, Y . Shen, K. Wohlfeld, J. Sears, J. Li, J. Pelliciari, M. Walicki, S. Johnston, E. Baldini, V . Bisogni, and M. Mitrano, Nat. Commun. 15, 3496 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    F. Song, Y . Lv, Y . Sun, S. Pang, H. Chang, S. Guan, J. Lai, X. Wang, B. Wu, C. Hu, and Z. Yuan, Nat. Commun.15, 7841 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    Hwangbo, Q

    K. Hwangbo, Q. Zhang, Q. Jiang, Y . Wang, J. Fonseca, C. Wang, G. M. Diederich, D. R. Gamelin, D. Xiao, J.-H. Chu, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 655 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    X. Wang, J. Cao, Z. Lu, A. Cohen, H. Kitadai, T. Li, Q. Tan, M. Wilson, C. H. Lui, D. Smirnov,et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 964 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Dirnberger, R

    F. Dirnberger, R. Bushati, B. Datta, A. Kumar, A. H. MacDonald, E. Baldini, and V . M. Menon, Nat. Nanotechnol.17, 1060 (2022)

    2022

  2. [8]

    J. Kim, W. Na, J. Kim, P. Park, K. Zhang, I. Hwang, Y .-W. Son, J. H. Kim, H. Cheong, and J.-G. Park, Nano Lett.23, 10189 (2023)

    2023

  3. [9]

    J.-H. Lee, S. Lee, Y . Choi, L. Gries, R. Klingeler, K. Raju, R. K. Ulaganathan, R. Sankar, M.-J. Seong, and K.-Y . Choi, Adv. Funct. Mater. 34, 2405153 (2024)

    2024

  4. [10]

    Chandrasekaran, C

    V . Chandrasekaran, C. R. DeLaney, C. T. Trinh, D. Parobek, C. A. Lane, J. Zhu, X. Li, H. Zhao, M. A. Campbell, L. Martin, et al. , Nanoscale Horiz. 10, 150 (2025)

    2025

  5. [11]

    K. Wang, Y . Peng, B. Huang, C. Zhou, Q. Sun, F. Tang, Z. Li, W. Xu, K. Du, X. Wang, and Y . Yang, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2508.06246 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [12]

    S. Kim, T. Kim, L. Sandilands, S. Sinn, M. Lee, J. Son, S. Lee, K. Choi, W. Kim, B. Park, and C. Jeon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 136402 (2018)

    2018

  7. [13]

    Afanasiev, J

    D. Afanasiev, J. Hortensius, M. Matthiesen, S. Ma ˜nas-Valero, M. ˇSiˇskins, M. Lee, E. Lesne, H. van der Zant, P. Steeneken, B. Ivanov, et al., Sci. Adv. 7, eabf3096 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Ergec ¸en, B

    E. Ergec ¸en, B. Ilyas, D. Mao, H. Po, M. Yilmaz, J. Kim, J. Park, T. Senthil, and N. Gedik, Nat. Commun.13, 98 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Warshauer, H

    J. Warshauer, H. Chen, D. Bustamante Lopez, Q. Tan, J. Tang, X. Ling, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 016901 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    C. J. Allington, C. A. Belvin, U. F. Seifert, M. Ye, T. Tai, E. Baldini, S. Son, J. Kim, J. Park, J.-G. Park, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 066903 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Warshauer, H

    J. Warshauer, H. Chen, Q. Tan, J. Tang, X. Ling, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. B111, 155111 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    D. Jana, P. Kapuscinski, I. Mohelsky, D. Vaclavkova, I. Breslavetz, M. Orlita, C. Faugeras, and M. Potemski, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115149 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  14. [22]

    Hamad, C

    I. Hamad, C. Helman, L. Manuel, A. Feiguin, and A. Aligia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 146502 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Nishimori and G

    H. Nishimori and G. Ortiz, Elements of Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena (Oxford University Press, New York, 2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    D. I. Khomskii, Basic Aspects of the Quantum Theory of Solids: Order and Elementary Excitations (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Lane and J

    C. Lane and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075124 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    See Supplementary Section S2 for details

    The pulse width is determined from the cross-correlation of the pump and probe beams. See Supplementary Section S2 for details

  19. [27]

    Trovatello, F

    C. Trovatello, F. Katsch, N. J. Borys, M. Selig, K. Yao, R. Borrego-Varillas, F. Scotognella, I. Kriegel, A. Yan, A. Zettl, et al. , Nat. Commun. 11, 5277 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Wright, Z

    D. Wright, Z. Ebrahim Nataj, E. Guzman, J. Polster, M. Bouman, F. Kargar, and A. A. Balandin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 162401 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    K. Kim, S. Lim, J. Lee, S. Lee, T. Kim, K. Park, G. Jeon, C. Park, J. Park, and H. Cheong, Nat. Commun. 10, 345 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    L. Hu, H. Wang, Y . Chen, K. Xu, M. Li, H. Liu, P. Gu, Y . Wang, M. Zhang, H. Yao, and Q. Xiong, Phys. Rev. B107, L220407 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Y . Tian, W. Zhang, F. Li, Y . Wu, Q. Wu, F. Sun, G. Zhou, L. Wang, X. Ma, Q.-K. Xue,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 107001 (2016)

    2016

  24. [34]

    Z. Gong, L. Yan, Q. He, D. Shen, Y . Yang, A. Ge, L. Sun, G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Opt. Mater. Express14, 1876 (2024)

    2024

  25. [35]

    D. Negi, S. Badola, S. Paul, N. Pistawala, L. Harnagea, and S. Saha, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094434 (2024). 8

    2024

  26. [36]

    Rothwarf and B

    A. Rothwarf and B. N. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 27 (1967)

    1967

  27. [37]

    Demsar, R

    J. Demsar, R. D. Averitt, A. J. Taylor, V . V . Kabanov, W. N. Kang, H. J. Kim, E. M. Choi, and S. I. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 267002 (2003)

    2003

  28. [38]

    Werdehausen, T

    D. Werdehausen, T. Takayama, T. Katsufuji, H. Takagi, and S. Kaiser, Sci. Adv.4, eaap8652 (2018)

    2018

  29. [43]

    Lovinger, M

    D. Lovinger, M. Brahlek, P. Kissin, D. Kennes, A. Millis, R. Engel-Herbert, and R. Averitt, Phys. Rev. B102, 115143 (2020)

    2020

  30. [44]

    Braun, Phys

    C. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 215 (1968)

    1968

  31. [45]

    Bergman and J

    A. Bergman and J. Jortner, Phys. Rev. B 9, 4560 (1974). 9 END MATTER Ginzburg–Landau theory To interpret the observed temperature dependence of the two relaxation components, we adopt a Ginzburg-Landau framework of coupled order parameters describing SOEE coherence (ψ) and AFM...

    1974

  32. [46]

    R. N. Jenjeti, R. Kumar, M. P. Austeria, and S. Sampath, Sci. Rep. 8, 8586 (2018)

    2018

  33. [47]

    Basnet, A

    R. Basnet, A. Wegner, K. Pandey, S. Storment, and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 064413 (2021)

    2021

  34. [48]

    J. Liu, X. Li, Y . Xu, Y . Ge, Y . Wang, F. Zhang, Y . Wang, Y . Fang, F. Yang, C. Wang,et al., Nanoscale 11, 14383 (2019)

    2019

  35. [49]

    C. A. Belvin, E. Baldini, I. O. Ozel, D. Mao, H. C. Po, C. J. Allington, S. Son, B. H. Kim, J. Kim, I. Hwang, et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 4837 (2021)

    2021

  36. [50]

    Bernasconi, G

    M. Bernasconi, G. Marra, G. Benedek, L. Miglio, M. Jouanne, C. Julien, M. Scagliotti, and M. Balkanski, Phys. Rev. B 38, 12089 (1988)

    1988

  37. [51]

    D. Negi, S. Badola, S. Paul, N. Pistawala, L. Harnagea, and S. Saha, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094434 (2024)

    2024

  38. [52]

    K. Kim, S. Y . Lim, J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, T. Y . Kim, K. Park, G. S. Jeon, C.-H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Nat. Commun.10, 345 (2019)

    2019

  39. [53]

    C.-T. Kuo, M. Neumann, K. Balamurugan, H. J. Park, S. Kang, H. W. Shiu, J. H. Kang, B. H. Hong, M. Han, T. W. Noh, et al., Sci. Rep. 6, 20904 (2016)

    2016

  40. [54]

    Y . Li, G. Liang, C. Kong, B. Sun, and X. Zhang, Adv. Funct. Mater.34, 2402161 (2024)

    2024

  41. [55]

    Kamaraju, S

    N. Kamaraju, S. Kumar, M. Anija, and A. Sood, Phys. Rev. B 82, 195202 (2010)

    2010

  42. [56]

    Balkanski, R

    M. Balkanski, R. Wallis, and E. Haro, Phys. Rev. B 28, 1928 (1983)

    1983

  43. [57]

    Men ´endez and M

    J. Men ´endez and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B 29, 2051 (1984)

    1984

  44. [58]

    S. Saha, S. Singh, B. Dkhil, S. Dhar, R. Suryanarayanan, G. Dhalenne, A. Revcolevschi, and A. Sood, Phys. Rev. B 78, 214102 (2008)

    2008

  45. [59]

    Liang, G

    G. Liang, G. Zhai, J. Ma, H. Wang, J. Zhao, X. Wu, and X. Zhang, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 8783 (2022)

    2022

  46. [60]

    Thomsen, J

    C. Thomsen, J. Strait, Z. Vardeny, H. J. Maris, J. Tauc, and J. Hauser, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 989 (1984)

    1984

  47. [61]

    F. Zhou, K. Hwangbo, Q. Zhang, C. Wang, L. Shen, J. Zhang, Q. Jiang, A. Zong, Y . Su, M. Zajac, and Y . Ahn, Nat. Commun.13, 6598 (2022)

    2022

  48. [62]

    Plumley, S

    R. Plumley, S. Mardanya, C. Peng, J. Nokelainen, T. Assefa, L. Shen, N. Burdet, Z. Porter, A. Petsch, A. Israelski, and H. Chen, npj Quantum Mater. 9, 95 (2024)

    2024

  49. [63]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Park, J. Villanova, G. Granroth, C. Sarkis, H. Zhang, M. Stone, J. Park, S. Okamoto, T. Berlijn, and D. Tennant, Phys. Rev. B 108, 104402 (2023)

    2023

  50. [64]

    Mehlawat, A

    K. Mehlawat, A. Alfonsov, S. Selter, Y . Shemerliuk, S. Aswartham, B. B¨uchner, and V . Kataev, Phys. Rev. B105, 214427 (2022)

    2022

  51. [65]

    D. Jana, P. Kapuscinski, I. Mohelsky, D. Vaclavkova, I. Breslavetz, M. Orlita, C. Faugeras, and M. Potemski, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115149 (2023). 28

    2023

  52. [66]

    P. T. Boggs, P. T. Boggs, J. E. Rogers, and R. B. Schnabel, User’s reference guide for odrpack version 2.01: Software for weighted orthogonal distance regression, Tech. Rep. (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1992)

    1992

  53. [67]

    L. T. Watson, P. T. Boggs, and J. W. Zwolak, ODRPACK95: a weighted orthogonal distance regression code with bound constraints , Tech. Rep. (Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA, 2005). ∗ nkamaraju@iiserkol.ac.in

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.