Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Susceptibility anisotropy and absence of ferroelectric order in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that single crystals of Na2Co2TeO6 show no finite electric polarization or magnetoelectric coupling below 100 K, suggesting the zig-zag antiferromagnetic order is more favorable than triple-Q.

desk verdict Repeats a known null result in a new geometry; the data are careful but the field-dependent I_p claims in the abstract aren't backed by shown measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01580 v2 pith:7PPHQEYW submitted 2025-02-03 cond-mat.str-el

C. Dhanasekhar , Monika Jawale , Rahul Kumar , D. Chandrasekhar Kakarla , Sagar Mahapatra , Mitch M.C. Chou , A. Sundaresan , H.D. Yang
show 1 more author
A.V. Mahajan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords KitaevspinliquidNa2Co2TeO6magnetoelectriccouplingpyroelectriccurrentferroelectricitysusceptibilityanisotropyzig-zagantiferromagneticordertriple-Qmagneticstructure
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

Na2Co2TeO6 (NCTO) is a leading candidate for a Kitaev spin liquid, a state where bond-dependent spin interactions can fractionalize spins into Majorana fermions. The paper tries to settle two open questions about this material: whether its magnetic susceptibility is captured by the anisotropic Kitaev model, and whether it is simultaneously ferroelectric. By measuring magnetization, dielectric response, and pyroelectric current on single crystals in a magnetic field parallel to the honeycomb plane and electric field perpendicular to it, the authors find strong magnetic anisotropy but no finite electric polarization below 100 K. They conclude that the observed absence of magnetoelectric coupling makes the nonpolar zig-zag antiferromagnetic structure more plausible than the recently proposed triple-Q structure. If true, this narrows the possible ground states of a material often discussed as a platform for topological quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The central discriminating object is the pyroelectric current $I_p$ measured after electric poling and dc-bias poling with $H\parallel ab$ and $E\perp ab$; a genuine spin-driven ferroelectric would show sharp asymmetric $I_p$ peaks at magnetic transitions, and the paper finds none. The interpretive machinery is the HK$\Gamma\Gamma'$ model of bond-dependent Kitaev exchange, with Curie-Weiss temperatures $$\theta_{\mathrm{CW}}^{ab} = -c/3[3(J_1+J_3)+K-(\Gamma+2\Gamma')]$$ and $$\theta_{\mathrm{CW}}^{c} = -c/3[3(J_1+J_3)+K+2(\Gamma+2\Gamma')]$$ for $c=S(S+1)$. The argument that the null $I_p$ favors zig-zag order uses the toroidal-moment order parameter: a triple-Q structure would be odd under both spatial inversion and time reversal and should produce a linear magnetoelectric polarization, whose absence shifts weight to the nonpolar zig-zag structure.

What would settle it

Measure the pyroelectric current with the electric field along the honeycomb plane and the magnetic field along the c axis; a sharp current peak or a linear polarization versus field appearing in that geometry would contradict the claim that no magnetoelectric coupling exists in NCTO.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is a null result with structural consequences. Pyroelectric-current measurements under electric poling and dc-bias poling show no sharp asymmetric current peaks in the temperature range of the three magnetic transitions, and no linear electric polarization develops as a function of magnetic field in the $H\parallel ab$, $E\perp ab$ geometry. The dielectric constant shows clear magnetodielectric anomalies and hysteresis, so spin-charge coupling is not simply absent; the authors interpret the absence of $I_p$ peaks as the absence of spin-driven ferroelectricity. Because the zig-zag antiferromagnetic order is nonpolar while a triple-Q order would carry a toroidal moment and a linear magnetoelectric response, the null polarization result is read as evidence that the zig-zag structure is the zero-field ground state of NCTO.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the zig-zag order is favored assumes that a triple-Q magnetic structure, if it were present, would necessarily produce a measurable linear electric polarization in the particular field and electrode directions used here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below 100 K, NCTO single crystals are not ferroelectric in the measured geometry, so any spin-driven polarization claimed for polycrystalline samples must be an extrinsic artifact or a different mechanism.
  • The zero-field magnetic ground state should be described as a zig-zag antiferromagnet, not a triple-Q state, at least for antiferromagnetic Kitaev interactions.
  • The HK$\Gamma\Gamma'$ exchange parameters extracted from neutron scattering reproduce the measured sign and rough magnitude of the anisotropic Curie-Weiss temperatures.
  • Magnetodielectric response in NCTO can occur without linear magnetoelectric coupling; the two phenomena should be treated as independent probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The experiment probes one geometry, so a triple-Q state with polarization along an in-plane direction or along the c axis would not be excluded by this null result.
  • If the dielectric humps and hysteresis arise from Na+ freezing or stacking faults, then the conflicting ferroelectric reports on polycrystalline NCTO may be resolved by measuring all symmetry directions with higher poling fields.
  • The same pyroelectric test could be applied to other honeycomb Kitaev candidates to determine whether magnetoelectric coupling is a generic feature of these materials or a sample-dependent property.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper reports magnetization, magnetodielectric, and pyroelectric measurements on single crystals of the Kitaev spin liquid candidate Na2Co2TeO6 (NCTO). The authors observe magnetic transitions near 26, 16, and 5 K, find strong anisotropy in the susceptibility and in the Curie-Weiss temperatures obtained by fitting χ(T) between 100 and 300 K, and compare the anisotropic Curie-Weiss temperatures with predictions of the HKΓΓ' model using exchange parameters from the literature. The dielectric constant shows field- and frequency-dependent features, while pyroelectric current measurements under electric poling (with H||ab and E⊥ab) show no sharp peaks. On this basis the paper claims the absence of electric polarization and magnetoelectric coupling below 100 K, and argues that the zig-zag antiferromagnetic structure is more favorable than the triple-Q structure with AFM Kitaev interactions.

Significance. If the central null result is established, the paper strengthens the evidence that NCTO does not develop a spontaneous electric polarization in the measured geometry and that the zero-field ground state is more likely zig-zag like than triple-Q. The study is useful because it uses a well-oriented single crystal and compares measured anisotropic Curie-Weiss temperatures with independently fitted exchange parameters, which is a valuable cross-check of theory. The dielectric data around the magnetic transitions and the observed magnetodielectric hysteresis are interesting additions. However, the key interpretive step—that the pyroelectric null measurement rules out a linear magnetoelectric effect and thus disfavors triple-Q order—requires field-dependent pyroelectric measurements that are not reported. As it stands, the paper's strongest conclusion goes beyond what the data can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section II; Section III.C] The abstract states that the paper reports 'temperature- and field-dependent dielectric and pyroelectric (I_p) current studies (H||ab and E⊥ab)', but the Methods section (Section II) describes the pyroelectric current measurement only as thermal sweeps under conventional and dc-bias electric poling, with no mention of varying the magnetic field during I_p measurements. Figure 6 shows I_p versus temperature; it does not show I_p as a function of magnetic field. Consequently, the data can rule out a spontaneous (zero-field) electric polarization in the E⊥ab geometry, but they cannot test the linear magnetoelectric polarization that the authors themselves predict for triple-Q order in Section III.D. The claim that the I_p studies 'confirm the absence of a magnetoelectric coupling' is therefore not substantiated by the reported measurements.
  2. [Section III.D] The inference that the absence of sharp I_p peaks favors zig-zag over triple-Q order rests on the assumption that the triple-Q structure, if present, would produce a measurable linear magnetoelectric response specifically in the H||ab, E⊥ab geometry. The text states that the triple-Q structure would be expected to show a toroidal moment order parameter and a linear increase of polarization with magnetic field, but it does not provide a symmetry analysis specific to the proposed triple-Q order of NCTO, nor an estimate of the expected magnitude of the effect. Without such an analysis, or without field-dependent I_p data that actually probe the linear magnetoelectric channel, the null zero-field pyroelectric measurement cannot discriminate between the zig-zag and triple-Q structures.
  3. [Section III.B; Table II; Equations (1) and (2)] The claim that the experimental anisotropic Curie-Weiss temperatures 'qualitatively match' the theoretical values is only supported by one row of Table II (the Kim et al. parameters), which gives θ_ab = −5.5 K and θ_c = −17.6 K, close to the measured −4.77 and −17.62 K. Four of the six listed parameter sets predict θ_ab with a positive sign, opposite to the measured value, and several predict θ_c values far from experiment. The paper should either explain why only the Kim et al. parameter set is appropriate for NCTO or substantially soften the claim of qualitative agreement, since the comparison is highly selective as written.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'field-dependent ... pyroelectric (I_p) current studies' should be corrected if the pyroelectric current was not actually measured as a function of magnetic field, to avoid overstating the experimental scope.
  2. [Section II] The pyroelectric current section would benefit from specifying the poling field magnitudes, the temperature sweep rate, and whether the sample was measured in a zero-field-cooled or field-cooled protocol; these details are needed to evaluate the null result.
  3. [Section III.C] Figure 6 is described as showing I_p under normal poling and dc-bias poling, but the caption and text do not identify which panel corresponds to which condition, nor whether the measurements were repeated to confirm the absence of peaks; a clearer caption would help.
  4. [Section III.B; Table I] The units in Table I are inconsistently formatted (e.g., 'µef f( µB Co2+ )' and 'θCW (in K)'), and the table would be easier to read if the column headers were harmonized and the values aligned.
  5. [Section III.D] The sentence 'The earlier proposed zig-zag AFM spin structure of the NCTO is non-polar with and without magnetic field' is asserted without a supporting citation or symmetry argument; this is a central assumption for the main conclusion and should be justified or referenced.
  6. [Equations (1) and (2)] There is a typo in the text before Eq. (1) ('can expressed as bellow'), and the notation 'θCW ||/θCW ⊥' is used interchangeably with 'θCW ab/θCW c' in the following paragraph; the notation should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are an experimental null measurement and a comparison against independent neutron-scattering exchange parameters; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental: a null pyroelectric-current result and an anisotropic Curie-Weiss comparison. The C-W comparison in Sections III.B and III.D uses exchange parameters J1, J3, K, Gamma, and Gamma' taken from published inelastic-neutron-scattering fits (Table II, Refs. [13,14,52,55,56]) and inserts them into Eqs. (1)-(2) from Liu et al. (Ref. [12]); these parameters were not fitted to the present susceptibility data, so the qualitative agreement is a genuine comparison rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The pyroelectric null result is a direct measurement; the inference that triple-Q order would produce a linear magnetoelectric polarization is a literature-based symmetry argument (Refs. [57-60]), not a quantity defined in terms of the paper's own fit. The only author-overlapping citations are method citations for pyroelectric poling procedures (Refs. [44-46]) and are not load-bearing. A caveat, noted in the Experimental section, is that field-dependent pyroelectric data are not explicitly reported even though the abstract refers to 'field-dependent ... pyroelectric current studies'; this is an experimental-support concern, not circularity, and does not make the derivation self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The paper's load-bearing assumptions are the applicability of the HKGammaGamma' model, the effective S=1/2 description of Co2+, and the symmetry expectation that triple-Q order would produce a linear magnetoelectric response in the measured geometry.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_CW_ab = -4.77(29) K
    Extracted from Curie-Weiss fit of chi_ab in 100-300 K; central to the anisotropy comparison with theory.
  • theta_CW_c = -17.62(35) K
    Extracted from Curie-Weiss fit of chi_c in 100-300 K; central to the anisotropy comparison with theory.
  • chi0_ab = -9.9(0.2) x 10^-4 emu/mol.Oe
    Temperature-independent susceptibility from the C-W fit; the negative value is attributed to sample holder subtraction error, yet it enters the derived theta_ab.
  • chi0_c = +15.7(0.1) x 10^-4 emu/mol.Oe
    Temperature-independent susceptibility from the C-W fit of chi_c.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HKGammaGamma' model equations (1) and (2) correctly express the Curie-Weiss temperatures of NCTO in terms of J1, J3, K, Gamma, and Gamma'.
    Used in Section III D to calculate theoretical theta values; taken from Liu et al. [12] without independent verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption Co2+ in NCTO is in the high-spin t2g^5 eg^2 configuration with effective spin S=1/2, justifying c=S(S+1) in the C-W calculation.
    Based on XAS comparison with CoO (Fig. 1b) and standard ligand-field arguments; invoked when computing theta from Eqs. (1)-(2).
  • domain assumption The triple-Q magnetic order in NCTO, if realized, would produce a toroidal moment and a linear magnetoelectric response detectable in the H||ab, E perpendicular to ab geometry.
    Central to the inference from null pyroelectric current to the zig-zag ground state; cited from Refs [57-60] but not derived for this compound.
  • domain assumption The frequency-dependent dielectric humps in epsilon'(T) arise from freezing of Na+ positions rather than from any polar order.
    Adopted from Zhang et al. [42] and used in Section III C to interpret the dielectric data as non-ferroelectric.
  • standard math The Curie-Weiss law with a temperature-independent chi0 describes the susceptibility in the 100-300 K window.
    Standard high-temperature expansion assumption; used to extract theta and mu_eff in Section III B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Susceptibility anisotropy and absence of ferroelectric order in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PPHQEYW

@misc{pith2026250201580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Susceptibility anisotropy and absence of ferroelectric order in the Kitaev spin liquid candidate Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PPHQEYW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01580}
}
abstract

We report the magnetic, magnetodielectric, and electric polarization properties of single crystals of the Co-based Kitaev Spin Liquid (KSL) candidate Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ (NCTO). The sample shows magnetic transitions at 26 K, 16 K, and 5 K, consistent with the literature. The magnetic measurements along and perpendicular to the Co-honeycomb planes show a strong anisotropy in susceptibility and in Curie-Weiss (C-W) temperatures. The experimental anisotropic C-W temperatures of NCTO qualitatively match with the theoretical C-W temperatures, calculated using the HKTF model [C. Kim \textit{et al.}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter \textbf{34}, 045802 (2021)]. We find from our temperature- and field-dependent dielectric and pyroelectric ($I_p$) current studies ($H\parallel ab$ and $E\perp ab$) that our single crystal NCTO samples do not have a finite electric polarization below 100 K. These $I_p$ studies confirm the absence of a magnetoelectric coupling and electric polarization properties in the title compound and suggest that the zig-zag AFM structure is more favorable than the triple-$Q$ structure with AFM Kitaev interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01580 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Room temperature XRD pattern of a large hexag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The main figure in (a) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Display of 1/( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The figure shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 264 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Physics Reports 950, 1 (2022), kitaev materials

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, M. Daghofer, J. van den Brink, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and R. Valent ´ ı, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 493002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    T. E. O’Brien, P. Ro˙ zek, and A. R. Akhmerov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 220504 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Motome and J

    Y. Motome and J. Nasu, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 89, 012002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Jackeli and G

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

    2009

  8. [8]

    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)

    work page 2012

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Chakraborty, V

    A. Chakraborty, V. Kumar, S. Bachhar, N. B¨ uttgen, K. Yokoyama, P. K. Biswas, V. Siruguri, S. Pujari, I. Das- gupta, and A. V. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115106 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Bahrami, W

    F. Bahrami, W. Lafargue-Dit-Hauret, O. I. Lebedev, R. Movshovich, H.-Y. Yang, D. Broido, X. Rocquefelte, and F. Tafti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 237203 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    (h,li) 6ru2o6 : a zero-field ru 3+-based kitaev quantum spin liquid,

    S. Bachhar, M. Baenitz, H. Luetkens, S. Pujari, and A. V. Mahajan, “(h,li) 6ru2o6 : a zero-field ru 3+-based kitaev quantum spin liquid,” (2024), arXiv:2405.06380 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. Liu, J. c. v. Chaloupka, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 047201 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, W. D. Ratcliff, F. Damay, V. Bal´ edent, M. Jim´ enez-Ruiz, P. Lejay, E. Pachoud, A. Hadj-Azzem, V. Simonet, and C. Stock, Phys. Rev. B 102, 224429 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    A. L. Sanders, R. A. Mole, J. Liu, A. J. Brown, D. Yu, C. D. Ling, and S. Rachel, Phys. Rev. B 106, 014413 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    S. M. Winter., Journal of Physics: Materials 5, 045003 (2022). 7

    2022

  8. [16]

    J.-Q. Yan, S. Okamoto, Y. Wu, Q. Zheng, H. D. Zhou, H. B. Cao, and M. A. McGuire, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 074405 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Gillig, X

    M. Gillig, X. Hong, C. Wellm, V. Kataev, W. Yao, Y. Li, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043110 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Kubota, H

    Y. Kubota, H. Tanaka, T. Ono, Y. Narumi, and K. Kindo, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094422 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 91, 144420 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Majumder, M

    M. Majumder, M. Schmidt, H. Rosner, A. A. Tsirlin, H. Yasuoka, and M. Baenitz, Phys. Rev. B 91, 180401 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Singh and P

    Y. Singh and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. B 82, 064412 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    E. C. Andrade, L. Janssen, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 102, 115160 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Janssen, E

    L. Janssen, E. C. Andrade, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064430 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    R. R. P. Singh and J. Oitmaa, Phys. Rev. B 96, 144414 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

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

    2016

  19. [27]

    R. G. Pereira and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 227202 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Chari, R

    R. Chari, R. Moessner, and J. G. Rau, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134444 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    P. Noh, K. Hwang, and E.-G. Moon, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201105 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Geirhos, P

    K. Geirhos, P. Lunkenheimer, M. Blankenhorn, R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, K. Kitagawa, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, I. K´ ezsm´ arki, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. B101, 184410 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Zheng, Z.-X

    X. Zheng, Z.-X. Liu, C. Zhang, H. Zhou, C. Yang, Y. Shi, K. Tanigaki, and R.-R. Du, Nature Communications 15, 7658 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    X. Mi, X. Wang, H. Gui, M. Pi, T. Zheng, K. Yang, Y. Gan, P. Wang, A. Li, A. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Su, Y. Chai, and M. He, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174413 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    X. Mi, D. Hou, X. Wang, S. Hammouda, C. Liu, Z. Xiong, H. Li, Y. Liu, G. Wang, A. Wang, et al. , Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 67, 297511 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    W. Chen, X. Li, Z. Hu, Z. Hu, L. Yue, R. Sutarto, F. He, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, W. Yu, X. Lin, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. B 103, L180404 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    W. Yao, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 147202 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    G. Lin, J. Jeong, C. Kim, Y. Wang, Q. Huang, S. Masuda, Takatsugu.and Asai, S. Itoh, G. G¨ unther, M. Russina, Z. Lu, L. Sheng, Jieming.and Wang, J. Wang, Q. Wang, Guohua.and Ren, C. Xi, W. Tong, L. Ling, Z. Liu, L. Wu, J. Mei, H. Qu, Zhe.and Zhou, X. Wang, J.-G. Park, Y. Wan,...

    2021

  29. [37]

    A. K. Bera, S. M. Yusuf, A. Kumar, and C. Ritter, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094424 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    W. G. F. Kr¨ uger, W. Chen, X. Jin, Y. Li, and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 146702 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    C. H. Lee, S. Lee, Y. S. Choi, Z. H. Jang, R. Kalaivanan, R. Sankar, and K.-Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. B 103, 214447 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    [41], they have claimed the presence of a finite coupling

    show the absence of coupling between the spin and charge degrees of freedom, whereas in Ref. [41], they have claimed the presence of a finite coupling. More re- cently, Zhang et al. [42] reported the absence of electric polarization along the a∗-axis in NCTO single crystals by...

  33. [41]

    Patnaik., AIP Con- ference Proceedings 1 1942, 1 (2018)

    S.Chaudhary., P.Srivastava, and S. Patnaik., AIP Con- ference Proceedings 1 1942, 1 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Mukherjee, G

    S. Mukherjee, G. Manna, P. Saha, S. Majumdar, and S. Giri, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 054407 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Zhang, S

    S. Zhang, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, W. K. Peria, S. M. Thomas, R. Movshovich, E. Brosha, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, V. S. Zapf, and M. Lee, Phys. Rev. B108, 064421 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Yao and Y

    W. Yao and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. B 101, 085120 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Kumar and A

    R. Kumar and A. Sundaresan, Phys. Rev. B 107, 184420 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Tiwari, D

    A. Tiwari, D. C. Kakarla, M.-J. Hsieh, J.-Y. Lin, C. W. Wang, L. K. Tseng, C. E. Lu, A. Pal, T. W. Kuo, M. M. C. Chou, and H. D. Yang, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 094412 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Dhanasekhar, A

    C. Dhanasekhar, A. Das, and A. Venimadhav, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 418, 76 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Burnus, Z

    T. Burnus, Z. Hu, H. H. Hsieh, V. L. J. Joly, P. A. Joy, M. W. Haverkort, H. Wu, A. Tanaka, H.-J. Lin, C. T. Chen, and L. H. Tjeng, Phys. Rev. B 77, 125124 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Lefran¸ cois, M

    E. Lefran¸ cois, M. Songvilay, J. Robert, G. Nataf, E. Jor- dan, L. Chaix, C. V. Colin, P. Lejay, A. Hadj-Azzem, R. Ballou, and V. Simonet, Phys. Rev. B 94, 214416 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    G. Xiao, Z. Xia, W. Zhang, X. Yue, S. Huang, X. Zhang, F. Yang, Y. Song, M. Wei, H. Deng, and D. Jiang, Crys- tal Growth & Design 19, 2658 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Out-of-plane magnetic phase diagram of kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate na2co2teo6,

    S. Zhang, S. Lee, E. Brosha, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, V. S. Zapf, and M. Lee, “Out-of-plane magnetic phase diagram of kitaev quantum spin liquid candidate na2co2teo6,” (2024), arXiv:2405.13935 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Tanaka, A

    H. Tanaka, A. Matsuo, and K. Kindo, Phys. Rev. B 109, 094414 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    G. Lin, J. Jeong, C. Kim, Y. Wang, Q. Huang, T. Ma- suda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, G. G¨ unther, M. Russina, et al. , Nature communications 12, 5559 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    X. Li, Y. Gu, Y. Chen, V. O. Garlea, K. Iida, K. Ka- mazawa, Y. Li, G. Deng, Q. Xiao, X. Zheng, Z. Ye, Y. Peng, I. A. Zaliznyak, J. M. Tranquada, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. X 12, 041024 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Viciu, Q

    L. Viciu, Q. Huang, E. Morosan, H. Zandbergen, N. Greenbaum, T. McQueen, and R. Cava, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 180, 1060 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    C. Kim, J. Jeong, G. Lin, P. Park, T. Masuda, S. Asai, S. Itoh, H.-S. Kim, H. Zhou, J. Ma, and J.-G. Park, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 34, 045802 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    A. M. Samarakoon, Q. Chen, H. Zhou, and V. O. Garlea, Phys. Rev. B 104, 184415 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    N. A. Spaldin, M. Fiebig, and M. Mostovoy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 434203 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Gnewuch and E

    S. Gnewuch and E. E. Rodriguez, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 271, 175 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    B. B. Van Aken, J.-P. Rivera, H. Schmid, and M. Fiebig, Nature 449, 702 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    A. A. Gorbatsevich and Y. V. Kopaev, Ferroelectrics 161, 321 (1994)

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.