Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Large off diagonal exchange couplings and spin liquid states in $\mathbf{C_3}$ symmetric iridates

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In C3-symmetric K2IrO3, off-diagonal exchange dominates magnetism and stabilizes a spin liquid.

desk verdict The MRCI result is genuinely new and the C3 mechanism is worth taking seriously, but the paper's experimental spin-liquid claim is weaker than the abstract suggests because the no-order conclusion comes from fitted J2/J3, not from the ab initio couplings alone. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02277 v1 pith:746KC63Z submitted 2019-09-05 cond-mat.str-el

Ravi Yadav , Satoshi Nishimoto , Manuel Richter , Jeroen van den Brink , Rajyavardhan Ray This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords spinliquidhoneycomblatticeiridatesoff-diagonalexchangeKitaevmodelC3symmetrymagneticfrustrationexactdiagonalization
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 tries to establish that in the C3-symmetric honeycomb iridate K2IrO3, the nearest-neighbor magnetic couplings are dominated by off-diagonal exchange terms (the $\Gamma$ couplings, which mix different spin components on neighboring sites), with $\Gamma_{xy}\approx 5.2$ meV and $\Gamma_{yz}\approx -8.9$ meV, roughly ten times larger than in Na2IrO3. It traces this dominance to the threefold rotational symmetry at each iridium site, which locks the oxygen-oxygen edges into a 120-degree arrangement that constrains the exchange paths. The consequence is a strongly anisotropic and frustrated magnet in which long-range order is suppressed, matching the absence of magnetic order observed in experiments down to 1.8 K. Exact diagonalization of the fully anisotropic $K$-$J$-$\Gamma$ model then shows that negative off-diagonal couplings stabilize a spin-liquid state over a wide parameter region, even when the Kitaev coupling is ferromagnetic. If true, this provides a symmetry-based alternative to the usual strategy of tuning the Kitaev-to-Heisenberg ratio in the search for spin liquids.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the fully anisotropic nearest-neighbor spin Hamiltonian $H_{ij}=J\,\tilde{\mathbf{S}}_i\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{S}}_j + K\,\tilde{S}_i^\gamma \tilde{S}_j^\gamma + \sum_{\alpha\neq\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(\tilde{S}_i^\alpha \tilde{S}_j^\beta+\tilde{S}_i^\beta \tilde{S}_j^\alpha)$, written in a local Kitaev frame for each Ir-Ir bond, with the $z$ axis perpendicular to each Ir2O2 plaquette. The couplings are obtained by mapping spin-orbit multi-reference configuration-interaction data onto the lowest four pseudospin states of an Ir2O10 dimer. The structural mechanism is the C3 point-group symmetry at each Ir site: the projections of O-O links on the honeycomb plane are arranged at 120 degrees, a constraint imposed by the large interlayer K ions, and the deviation from this arrangement is quantified by a single twist angle $\varphi$. In the exact-diagonalization analysis, the Kitaev-type spin liquid is identified through the hexagonal plaquette operator, whose expectation value is large only in the spin-liquid region of the $\Gamma_{xy}$-$\Gamma_{yz}$ plane.

What would settle it

A stoichiometric K2IrO3 crystal that shows long-range magnetic order below about 2 K in neutron or muon-spin-rotation measurements would contradict the predicted suppression of ordering; alternatively, a structural refinement showing that the local O-O twist angle deviates by more than a few degrees from the 120-degree C3 arrangement, together with measured $\Gamma$ couplings an order of magnitude smaller, would undercut the symmetry-origin claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that K2IrO3, taken in its proposed C3-symmetric structure, is a $\Gamma$-dominated rather than a Kitaev-dominated magnetic material. Spin-orbit multi-reference configuration-interaction calculations on the Ir2O10 cluster yield nearest-neighbor couplings $K=-6.3$ meV, $J=1.3$ meV, $\Gamma_{xy}=5.2$ meV, and $\Gamma_{yz}=-8.9$ meV, with the off-diagonal terms about ten times larger than the corresponding values in Na2IrO3. The paper identifies the origin in the C3 point-group symmetry: the in-plane projections of the O-O edges on neighboring Ir2O2 plaquettes are locked at 120 degrees by the large interlayer K ions, and rotating these edges away from that arrangement (a twist angle $\varphi$) shrinks the $\Gamma$ terms and grows $K$. Exact diagonalization of the resulting fully anisotropic $K$-$J$-$\Gamma$ Hamiltonian on a 24-site cluster places the pure ab initio parameter set near a boundary between a threefold spin-density-wave state and a zigzag state, and adding small second- and third-neighbor Heisenberg couplings reproduces the broad specific-heat maximum near 30 K and the finite $C/T$ down to 1.8 K seen in experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the real synthesized KxIryO2 material is faithfully represented by the idealized stoichiometric C3-symmetric K2IrO3 structure; the paper itself notes that the samples are non-stoichiometric, with K-layer vacancies and Ir/K occupancy at hexagon centers, and that such disorder can significantly change the magnetic couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the calculated couplings are correct, K2IrO3 is a $\Gamma$-dominated honeycomb magnet in which magnetic order is suppressed below 2 K, explaining the experimentally observed absence of ordering and spin freezing down to 1.8 K.
  • A spin liquid can be stabilized for ferromagnetic Kitaev coupling $K<0$ when the off-diagonal couplings are negative, so tuning $\Gamma$ rather than $K/J$ becomes a practical design route.
  • The ferromagnet-to-Kitaev-spin-liquid-to-stripy sequence known from the $K$-$J$ model reappears in the $\Gamma_{xy}$-$\Gamma_{yz}$ plane, so off-diagonal couplings can effectively control the ratio $K/J$.
  • The pure ab initio couplings place the system at a competing threefold spin-density-wave/zigzag boundary, implying that modest changes in environment, strain, or stoichiometry could switch the ground state between different ordered states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the C3 oxygen-edge arrangement is generic across the KxIryO2 family, then the whole family, not just the K2IrO3 end member, should be $\Gamma$-dominated and magnetically disordered; this is a testable family-wide prediction the paper only hints at.
  • The twist-angle sweep suggests a concrete control knob: epitaxial strain or K-vacancy disorder that rotates O-O links by a few degrees should shrink the $\Gamma$ couplings and restore ordered phases, which could be checked by combining structural refinement with magnetic measurements on the same samples.
  • One could extend the exact-diagonalization analysis to a distribution of $\Gamma$ values representing the local disorder noted in Section II.D; such a distribution, rather than the single clean parameter set, may be what actually produces the gapless spin-liquid-like response seen in the synthesized material.
  • The sign tendency seen in the calculated phase diagram (negative $\Gamma$ favors spin liquid, positive $\Gamma$ favors ferromagnetism) gives a screening criterion: look for C3-symmetric honeycomb iridates whose off-diagonal exchange is negative, perhaps by choosing interlayer cations large enough to lock the 120-degree oxygen arrangement.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports ab initio quantum-chemistry (MRCI) calculations of the nearest-neighbor magnetic couplings for the proposed C3-symmetric honeycomb iridate K2IrO3, finding unusually large off-diagonal exchange terms, Γxy≈5.2 meV and Γyz≈−8.9 meV, roughly an order of magnitude larger than in Na2IrO3. The authors attribute the enhancement to the C3 point-group symmetry at the Ir sites, which constrains the O-O link orientations, and support this with reduced-cluster twist-angle calculations. Exact diagonalization of the fully anisotropic K-J-Γ model yields a phase diagram with a Γ-driven spin-liquid region, but the pure MRCI parameter set falls in a 3-fold SDW ordered phase. By adding extended-range Heisenberg couplings J2~2 meV and J3~2-3 meV chosen to reproduce the experimental specific heat, the system is placed near the zigzag/3-fold SDW boundary, with a calculated ordering temperature below 2 K, which the authors take to be consistent with the absence of magnetic order in KxIryO2 samples.

Significance. The ab initio finding of large off-diagonal exchange couplings in a C3-symmetric honeycomb iridate is timely and, if correct, identifies a new parameter regime for spin-liquid candidates. The ED phase diagram for the fully anisotropic K-J-Γ model is a useful reference for future studies. The authors are also transparent about the qualitative nature of the twist-angle tests and the disorder in the real samples. However, the central claim that the large Γ terms suppress magnetic ordering is not directly demonstrated by the ab initio model; the paper's experimental link rests on fitted J2 and J3 values. This limits the strength of the conclusions as they stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.D, Fig. 3(a)] The pure MRCI nearest-neighbor parameter set (Γxy=5.2 meV, Γyz=−8.9 meV) is stated in Section II.D to lie in the 3-fold SDW ordered phase in Fig. 3(a). The abstract's claim that "large quantum fluctuations imply lack of magnetic ordering consistent with the experiments" is therefore not a prediction of the ab initio NN model. The no-order conclusion is achieved only after adding J2~2 meV and J3~2-3 meV, which are explicitly fitted to reproduce the experimental specific-heat maximum at ~30 K. This makes the explanation of the absence of order circular with respect to the data it is meant to explain. To make the central claim load-bearing, the authors should either obtain J2 and J3 from independent ab initio calculations or demonstrate that the MRCI Γ values suppress order for a robust range of J2,J3 values without fitting to the target observable.
  2. [II.D, final paragraph] The comparison to experiment depends on the idealized stoichiometric C3-symmetric K2IrO3 structure, while the synthesized KxIryO2 samples are acknowledged to be non-stoichiometric with K-layer vacancies and Ir/K occupancy at hexagon centers, and the paper notes that such disorder can significantly influence the magnetic couplings. Since the headline result is that the calculated couplings are consistent with the measured absence of order, the authors should quantify the effect of the dominant disorder configurations on the NN couplings (for example, by additional cluster calculations with representative local environments) or explicitly restrict the experimental comparison to the idealized end member. Without this, the structural idealization remains an unquantified caveat that could invalidate the application of the calculated Γ values to the measured compound.
  3. [II.D, phase diagram discussion] The statement that "the zigzag state is the most probable ground state" is made without presenting the energy difference between the zigzag and 3-fold SDW states at the fitted J2,J3 point, nor any finite-size scaling analysis. Given that the point is chosen to be near the phase boundary, this claim needs quantitative support to justify the conclusion that no long-range order is expected. The paper should also discuss how robust the TN<2 K result is to small variations of J2 and J3 around the chosen values.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The MRCI couplings are reported without error bars or an estimate of the uncertainty from the mapping procedure; given the sensitivity of the phase diagram to the coupling values, a statement of the expected accuracy is needed.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The wording "large quantum fluctuations imply lack of magnetic ordering" overstates the result because Fig. 3(a) shows the pure MRCI point in an ordered phase; the role of extended couplings should be acknowledged explicitly in the abstract.
  3. [II.B, Table I] The comparison with the couplings quoted in Ref. [23] is only qualitative ("similar"); a table listing the values from that work would allow the reader to assess the claimed agreement.
  4. [Fig. 2] The filled symbols in Fig. 2 correspond to the reduced-cluster calculations, not the full embedded-cluster values in Table I; the caption should state this distinction explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [II.D, Fig. 3(e)] The computed Curie-Weiss temperature θ≈−135 K differs from the experimental −180 K by about 25%; describing this as "somewhat smaller" underplays the discrepancy, and its implications for the fitted model should be discussed.
  6. [II.D and Methods D] The specific-heat fits in Fig. 3(c,d) use a 12-site cluster while the phase diagram in Fig. 3(b) is computed on a 24-site cluster; the effect of this cluster-size mismatch on the extracted J2 and J3 values should be commented on.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The no-order conclusion for K2IrO3 is obtained only after fitting J2 and J3 to the same experimental specific heat data, while the ab initio Γ couplings alone place the system in a 3-fold SDW ordered phase.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.D, paragraph following Fig. 3(a) (phase diagram for the K-J-Γ model).]
    "The pure MRCI parameter set (Γxy = 5.2 meV, Γyz = −8.9 meV) stands on the 3-fold SDW ordered phase. ... To estimate realistic values of J2 and J3 for K2IrO3, we turn towards the recent experimental observations. ... the broad peak at ∼30K can be numerically reproduced by setting J2∼2 and J3∼2-3. Given these values, the system is just near the boundary between the zigzag and 3-fold SDW phases ... possibly explaining why no long-range order has been observed down to ∼2K."

    The first-principles nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian does not by itself produce the claimed suppression of magnetic order; the text explicitly says the MRCI parameter set lies in the 3-fold SDW ordered phase. The no-order outcome is restored by choosing J2 and J3 from the same experimental observations (specific-heat maximum near 30 K and finite C/T to 1.8 K) that are then cited as evidence of no long-range order. Hence the statement in the abstract that large Γ couplings imply lack of magnetic ordering consistent with experiments is not an independent prediction: for K2IrO3 the consistency is obtained by fitting longer-range couplings to the measured data. The Γ values and the general phase diagram are independent, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The central quantitative result, the large off-diagonal Γ couplings (Γxy ≈ 5.2 meV, Γyz ≈ −8.9 meV), is derived from multi-reference configuration-interaction calculations on embedded clusters and is cross-checked against independent values in Ref. [23]; this part of the derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The general ED phase diagram of the fully anisotropic K-J-Γ model is also an independent theoretical result. The circular step is the material-specific inference of suppressed magnetic ordering: the pure MRCI NN set is admitted to be in a 3-fold SDW ordered phase, and the proximity to the zigzag/SDW boundary that leads to TN < 2 K is achieved by tuning J2 ∼ 2 meV and J3 ∼ 2-3 meV to reproduce the experimental specific-heat features from Ref. [24]. Therefore the abstract's causal claim that large Γ couplings 'imply lack of magnetic ordering consistent with the experiments' reduces in part to a fit to those same experiments. The paper is honest about the idealization of the C3 structure and the non-stoichiometric nature of the synthesized samples, but that honesty does not repair the fitted-input status of the no-order prediction. Score 6 reflects one partial circularity in a central material-specific claim, while the ab initio coupling computation and the phase-diagram mapping retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central ab initio result is grounded in established electronic structure methods and external structural data, but the experimental interpretation rests on the C3 structural model and on J2/J3 values fitted to the specific heat.

free parameters (2)
  • J2 = ~2 meV
    Extended Heisenberg second-neighbor coupling estimated by matching the specific heat broad maximum near 30 K (Section II.D).
  • J3 = ~2-3 meV
    Third-neighbor coupling estimated together with J2 to reproduce the experimental specific heat (Section II.D).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The proposed P6322 structural model with C3 point group symmetry at Ir sites represents K2IrO3.
    Used throughout Sections II.A and II.B; the paper calls it a structural model and the synthesized samples are disordered.
  • domain assumption The bilinear Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) with negligible Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term is valid for each Ir-Ir bond.
    Justified by approximate C2h symmetry with deviations under 0.1 percent (Supplemental Material).
  • domain assumption The CASSCF/MRCI mapping onto an effective spin-1/2 K-J-Gamma Hamiltonian accurately captures the low-energy physics.
    Methods section assumes only the lowest four spin-orbit states are relevant and higher states lie far away.
  • domain assumption Exact diagonalization on the 24-site cluster faithfully represents thermodynamic phases.
    Finite-size effects are discussed in the Supplemental Material for phase identification.
  • domain assumption DFT with GGA+U and U=1.2 eV, J=0.3 eV provides reliable optimized structures and electronic properties.
    Used for structure optimization and DOS; the U and J parameters are taken from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large off diagonal exchange couplings and spin liquid states in $\mathbf{C_3}$ symmetric iridates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/746KC63Z

@misc{pith2026190902277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large off diagonal exchange couplings and spin liquid states in $\mathbfC_3$ symmetric iridates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/746KC63Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02277}
}
abstract

Iridate oxides on a honeycomb lattice are considered promising candidates for realization of quantum spin liquid states. We investigate the magnetic couplings in a structural model for a honeycomb iridate K$_2$IrO$_3$, with $C_3$ point group symmetry at the Ir sites, which is an end member of the recently synthesized iridate family K$_x$Ir$_y$O$_2$. Using \textit{ab-initio} quantum chemical methods, we elucidate the subtle relationship between the real space symmetry and magnetic anisotropy and show that the higher point group symmetry leads to high frustration with strong magnetic anisotropy driven by the unusually large off-diagonal exchange couplings ($\Gamma$'s) as opposed to other spin-liquid candidates considered so far. Consequently, large quantum fluctuations imply lack of magnetic ordering consistent with the experiments. Exact diagonalization calculations for the fully anisotropic $K$-$J$-$\Gamma$ Hamiltonian reveal the importance of the off-diagonal anisotropic exchange couplings in stabilizing a spin liquid state and highlight an alternative route to stabilize spin liquid states for ferromagnetic $K$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal structure of K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Effects of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ground state phase diagram by ED with a 24-site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Yadav, R

    R. Yadav, R. Ray, M. S. Eldeeb, S. Nishimoto, L. Hozoi, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 197203 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. Aczel, L. Li, M. Stone, G. Granroth, M. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, et al. , Nature materials 15, 733 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    conventional

    crystallizes in the high symmetry space group P 6322 (# 182) [23] as opposed to C2/m for the related iridate Na2IrO3 [6]. For brevity, we focus on the stoichiometric end member K 2IrO3, corresponding to x = 4 /3 and y = 2/3. Starting from the experimental values of the external parameters, the atomic positions were optimized using DFT utilizing the space ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    twist angle

    Given these values, the system is just near the boundary between the zigzag and 3-fold SDW phases (see Fig. 3(b)). Therefore, a strong competition between different orders is naturally expected, possibly explaining why no long-range order has been observed down to ∼ 2K. Actually, the related N´ eel temperature is found to be TN < 2K in the numerical calcul...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Helgaker, P

    T. Helgaker, P. Jørgensen, and J. Olsen”, ”Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory” (”Wiley, Chichester”, ”2000”)

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    J. ”Kim, M. Daghofer, A. H. Said, T. Gog, J. van den Brink, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Nat. Commun. 5, 4453 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Lupascu, J

    A. Lupascu, J. P. Clancy, H. Gretarsson, Z. Nie, J. Nichols, J. Terzic, G. Cao, S. S. A. Seo, Z. Islam, M. H. Upton, J. Kim, A. H. Said, D. Casa, T. Gog, V. M. Katukuri, H. Stoll, L. Hozoi, J. van den Brink, and Y.-J. Kim”, ”Phys. Rev. Lett.” ”112”, ”147201” (”2014”)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 027204 (2010)

    2010

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    S. K. Choi, R. Coldea, A. N. Kolmogorov, T. Lancaster, I. I. Mazin, S. J. Blundell, P. G. Radaelli, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, K. R. Choi, S.-W. Cheong, P. J. Baker, C. Stock, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127204 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    S. H. Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, C. C. Stoumpos, C. D. Malliakas, J. F. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, Y. Singh, Y. Choi, T. Gog, A. Al-Zein, M. M. Sala, M. Krisch, J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and B. J. Kim, Nat. Phys. 11, 462 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Singh, S

    Y. Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127203 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    I. I. Mazin, S. Manni, K. Foyevtsova, H. O. Jeschke, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B88, 035115 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, L. J. Sandilands, V. V. Shankar, Y. F. Hu, K. S. Burch, H.-Y. Kee, and Y.- J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 90, 041112 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Banerjee, C

    A. Banerjee, C. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, A. Aczel, L. Li, M. Stone, G. Granroth, M. Lumsden, Y. Yiu, J. Knolle, et al. , Nature Materials 15, 733 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Sci. Rep. 6, 37925 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Kimchi and Y.-Z

    I. Kimchi and Y.-Z. You, Phys. Rev. B84, 180407 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishimoto, V. Yushankhai, A. Stoyanova, H. Kandpal, S. Choi, R. Coldea, I. Rousochatzakis, L. Hozoi, and J. van den Brink, New J. Phys. 16, 013056 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Nishimoto, V

    S. Nishimoto, V. M. Katukuri, V. Yushankhai, H. Stoll, U. K. R¨ oßler, L. Hozoi, I. Rousochatzakis, and J. van den Brink, Nat. Commun. 7, 10273 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, et al. , npj Quantum Materials 3, 8 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Bastien, G

    G. Bastien, G. Garbarino, R. Yadav, F. J. Martinez- Casado, R. Beltr´ an Rodr´ ıguez, Q. Stahl, M. Kusch, S. P. Limandri, R. Ray, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, M. Roslova, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, L. Hozoi, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, J. Geck, and J. van den Br...

    2018

  14. [21]

    Majumder, R

    M. Majumder, R. S. Manna, G. Simutis, J. C. Orain, T. Dey, F. Freund, A. Jesche, R. Khasanov, P. K. Biswas, E. Bykova, N. Dubrovinskaia, L. S. Dubrovinsky, R. Yadav, L. Hozoi, S. Nishimoto, A. A. Tsirlin, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 237202 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Simutis, N

    G. Simutis, N. Barbero, K. Rolfs, P. Leroy- Calatayud, K. Mehlawat, R. Khasanov, H. Luetkens, E. Pomjakushina, Y. Singh, H.-R. Ott, J. Mesot, A. Amato, and T. Shiroka, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104421 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Koitzsch, C

    A. Koitzsch, C. Habenicht, E. Mueller, M. Knupfer, B. B¨ uchner, S. Kretschmer, M. Richter, J. van den Brink, F. Boerrnert, D. Nowak,et al., Physical Review Materials 8 1, 052001 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    R. D. Johnson, I. Broeders, K. Mehlawat, Y. Li, Y. Singh, R. Valenti, and R. Coldea, (2019), arXiv:1908.04584

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mehlawat and Y

    K. Mehlawat and Y. Singh, (2019), arXiv:1908.08475

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rousochatzakis and N

    I. Rousochatzakis and N. B. Perkins, Physical review letters 118, 147204 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Catuneanu, Y

    A. Catuneanu, Y. Yamaji, G. Wachtel, Y. B. Kim, and H.-Y. Kee, npj Quantum Materials 3, 23 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Lampen-Kelley, S

    P. Lampen-Kelley, S. Rachel, J. Reuther, J.-Q. Yan, A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, H. B. Cao, S. E. Nagler, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B 98, 100403 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gohlke, G

    M. Gohlke, G. Wachtel, Y. Yamaji, F. Pollmann, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 97, 075126 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Gretarsson, J

    H. Gretarsson, J. P. Clancy, X. Liu, J. P. Hill, E. Bozin, Y. Singh, S. Manni, P. Gegenwart, J. Kim, A. H. Said, D. Casa, T. Gog, M. H. Upton, H.-S. Kim, J. Yu, V. M. Katukuri, L. Hozoi, J. van den Brink, and Y.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 076402 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 017205 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Abragam and B

    A. Abragam and B. Bleaney, Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions (Clarendon Press, 1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    B. J. Kim, H. Jin, S. J. Moon, J.-Y. Kim, B.-G. Park, C. S. Leem, J. Yu, T. W. Noh, C. Kim, S.-J. Oh, J.- H. Park, V. Durairaj, G. Cao, and E. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 076402 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Yadav, S

    R. Yadav, S. Rachel, L. Hozoi, J. van den Brink, and G. Jackeli, Physical Review B 98, 121107 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, J. Romh´ anyi, V. Yushankhai, V. Kataev, B. B¨ uchner, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Nat. Commun. 6, 7306 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Yadav, M

    R. Yadav, M. Pereiro, N. A. Bogdanov, S. Nishimoto, A. Bergman, O. Eriksson, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Phys. Rev. Materials 2, 074408 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, H. Stoll, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Phys. Rev. B 85, 235147 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    V. M. Katukuri, R. Yadav, L. Hozoi, S. Nishimoto, and J. van den Brink, Sci. Rep. 6, 29585 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Yadav, M

    R. Yadav, M. S. Eldeeb, R. Ray, S. Aswartham, M. I. Sturza, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Chemical science 10, 1866 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    S. M. Winter, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 93, 214431 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Nishimoto, V

    S. Nishimoto, V. M. Katukuri, V. Yushankhai, H. Stoll, U. K. R¨ oßler, L. Hozoi, I. Rousochatzakis, and J. Van Den Brink, Nature communications 7, 10273 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Chaloupka and G

    J. Chaloupka and G. Khaliullin, Physical Review B 92, 024413 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Koepernik and H

    K. Koepernik and H. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1743 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    Figgen, K

    D. Figgen, K. A. Peterson, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 130, 164108 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    T. H. Dunning, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Pierloot, B

    K. Pierloot, B. Dumez, P.-O. Widmark, and B. O. Roos, Theor. Chim. Acta 90, 87 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    Fuentealba, H

    P. Fuentealba, H. Preuss, H. Stoll, and L. V. Szentply, Chemical Physics Letters 89, 418 (1982)

    1982

  41. [49]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 321, 2 (2006). 9 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL I. STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND ELECTRONIC PROPERTIES A. Optimized structure The optimal atomic positions for K 2IrO3 are listed in Table S1, and are in good agreement with the reported values [23]. Note that the nearest n...

    2006

  42. [50]

    The d-t2g andd-eg states are also marked

    and optimized internal parameters, and with the same U and J values for the Ir-5d states is also shown. The d-t2g andd-eg states are also marked. The clear splitting of the d-t2g bands into jeff = 3 /2 and 1 /2 states is evident, implying that K2IrO3 is a spin-orbit driven Mott...

  43. [51]

    Replace all K ions by Na ions

  44. [52]

    Tune a (and b) such that the Ir-Ir distances are comparable to that of Na 2IrO3

  45. [53]

    Reduce c such that the unit cell volumes match while the inter-layer separations and the Ir-O distances are comparable to Na 2IrO3

  46. [54]

    The atomic positions and structural details of both the structures are presented in Table S3

    Optimize the atomic positions of the resulting structure. The atomic positions and structural details of both the structures are presented in Table S3. D. Structures away from C3 point group symmetry In order to test the effects of C3 point group symmetry on the magnetic coupli...

  47. [55]

    Top: Total spin, Middle: Expectation value of the hexagonal plaquette operator, Bottom: Ground-state energy per site E0/N and its second derivative−∂2E0/∂Γ2 yz

    in (a). Top: Total spin, Middle: Expectation value of the hexagonal plaquette operator, Bottom: Ground-state energy per site E0/N and its second derivative−∂2E0/∂Γ2 yz. is defined as [48]: Oh = 26 ˜Sx 1 ˜Sy 2 ˜Sz 3 ˜Sx 4 ˜Sy 5 ˜Sz 6, (2) where the labeling of links and sites is...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.