Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Resonant inelastic x-ray scattering study of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: a progress report

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Ru M3-edge RIXS resolves an unsplit spin-orbit exciton in α-RuCl3, confirming its jeff=1/2 nature with λ=154 meV.

desk verdict First M-edge RIXS on a 4d system, with a clean spin-orbit exciton measurement and a soft but probably correct trigonal-field bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01190 v1 pith:CBTM7Q7M submitted 2019-08-03 cond-mat.str-el

Blair W Lebert , Subin Kim , Valentina Bisogni , Ignace Jarrige , Andi M Barbour , Young-June Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Kitaevquantumspinliquidα-RuCl3spin-orbitexcitonjeff=1/2pseudospinM-edgeRIXScouplingtrigonaldistortionresonantinelasticx-rayscattering
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 sets out to show that α-RuCl3, the leading Kitaev quantum spin-liquid candidate among 4d magnets, retains its jeff=1/2 electronic ground state despite the small trigonal distortion of its RuCl6 octahedra. Using Ru M3-edge RIXS at 27 meV resolution, it observes the spin-orbit exciton—the jeff=3/2 to jeff=1/2 dd transition—as a single unsplit peak at 231±3 meV. From that energy it extracts a spin-orbit coupling constant λ=154±2 meV and, from two-peak fits with fixed splittings, an upper bound on the trigonal field of |Δ|<65 meV, so the required hierarchy |Δ| ≪ λ ≪ 10Dq is satisfied. A sympathetic reader would care because an intact jeff=1/2 pseudospin is the precondition for Kitaev bond-dependent interactions, and because the result demonstrates that M-edge RIXS can deliver ultra-high-resolution spectra of 4d compounds on existing soft x-ray beamlines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-orbit exciton: the dipole-forbidden d-d excitation from the filled $j_{\rm eff}=3/2$ doublet to the half-filled $j_{\rm eff}=1/2$ doublet, whose energy equals $3\lambda/2$ in the ideal octahedral limit. The paper detects it at the Ru $M_3$ edge through the second-order RIXS process $3p_{3/2}\to 4d\to 3p_{3/2}$, whose strong resonant enhancement separates $t_{2g}$ from $e_g$ final states. To bound the trigonal distortion it fits the A1 peak with two pseudo-Voigt components of equal intensity, width, and Lorentzian/Gaussian ratio at fixed separations $|D_{\rm trig}|$ from 10 to 80 meV, and uses the splitting formula $D_{\rm trig}/\lambda=\tfrac14[\sqrt{8+(1+\delta)^2}-3+\delta]$, $\delta=2\Delta/\lambda$, to convert the observed non-splitting into the bound $|\Delta|<65$ meV.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution, polarization-dependent M3-edge RIXS measurement at low temperature that resolves the 231 meV peak into two components separated by 40 meV or more, or an ab initio calculation of the Ru M3 RIXS cross-section showing that the A1 peak's main weight comes from a final state other than the jeff=1/2 doublet, would overturn the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the low-energy dd excitation spectrum of α-RuCl3 contains an unsplit spin-orbit exciton at 231±3 meV, which the paper identifies as the transition from the filled jeff=3/2 doublet to the half-filled jeff=1/2 doublet of the Ru3+ t2g manifold. Since the ideal octahedral splitting of these levels is 3λ/2, this places the spin-orbit coupling constant at λ=154±2 meV. Fitting the A1 peak with pairs of pseudo-Voigt lines separated by fixed Dtrig values leads to an upper bound |Dtrig|<40 meV, which translates, through the relation Dtrig/λ = 1/4[√(8+(1+δ)^2) − 3 + δ] with δ = 2Δ/λ, into |Δ|<65 meV for trigonal elongation and |Δ|<55 meV for compression. The paper concludes that the energy hierarchy |Δ| ≪ λ ≪ 10Dq required for jeff=1/2 physics is satisfied, that the g factor should be nearly isotropic, and that previous assignments of the A1–A3 peaks to SOC-split eg states were incorrect. It also reports, as a methodological first, that M-edge RIXS on a 4d transition-metal system is feasible and already provides sub-30 meV resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on whether the 231 meV peak is the transition between the two spin-orbit-split energy levels, rather than a lattice vibration, a charge-transfer excitation, or some other electronic transition; the paper does not compute the scattering probability for that peak, and its fits assume the two split components are equally intense.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hierarchy holds, α-RuCl3's magnetism is carried by jeff=1/2 pseudospins, so the trigonal distortion does not quench the orbital angular momentum and Kitaev bond-dependent interactions remain viable.
  • The g factor should be nearly isotropic (g⊥/g‖ ≈ 1), consistent with L-edge XAS linear dichroism.
  • The earlier optical assignment of A1–A3 as transitions to SOC-split eg states is ruled out; A1 is the spin-orbit exciton and its optical counterpart is phonon-assisted, explaining the 30–40 meV shift.
  • M-edge RIXS for 4d systems can achieve sub-30 meV resolution now on existing soft x-ray beamlines, roughly five times better than current L-edge RIXS instruments, so it is the practical route until L-edge instrumentation improves.
  • The A2 and A3 peaks are not multiparticle spin-orbit excitons; their near-identical energies in RIXS and optical spectra point to a common origin likely involving Ru 4d–Cl 3p hybridization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A tractable extension is to compute the M3-edge RIXS matrix elements for the two trigonally split components; if their intensity ratio differs from 1, the |Dtrig|<40 meV bound could tighten or shift, and the sign of Dtrig (compression vs elongation) might be read off from the asymmetry.
  • The measured λ=154±2 meV nearly equals the free Ru3+ ion value (155 meV), suggesting the solid hardly screens the spin-orbit interaction; comparing λ across 4d honeycomb halides by the same M-edge method would show whether this is generic.
  • Because the M edge restricts momentum transfer to a small part of the Brillouin zone, the technique is best suited to small magnetic Brillouin zones; a testable prediction is that in magnetically ordered 4d compounds the full zone can be mapped, while gapless Majorana signatures in α-RuCl3 remain within reach.
  • If later sub-20 meV resolution still shows no splitting, the trigonal field would be pushed well below the MRCI prediction of 39 meV, which would indicate the static distortion is dynamically averaged or the MRCI estimate is too large.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports Ru M3-edge resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS) measurements on α-RuCl3 with 27 meV resolution. The central feature is a low-energy peak A1 at 231±3 meV, which the authors identify as the spin-orbit exciton (transition between jeff=3/2 and jeff=1/2 levels). From the peak position they extract a spin-orbit coupling constant λ=154±2 meV. They further perform two-peak fits with fixed splittings to argue that the trigonal distortion splitting satisfies |Dtrig|<40 meV, which they convert to |Δ|<65 meV, establishing the hierarchy |Δ| < λ ≪ 10Dq required for jeff=1/2 physics. The paper also discusses the general feasibility of M-edge RIXS for 4d systems, comparing it with L-edge RIXS and addressing the elastic line, cross-section, and Brillouin-zone coverage. The manuscript is written as a progress report and includes comparisons with optical spectroscopy, Raman scattering, and MRCI calculations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a direct, high-resolution RIXS measurement of the spin-orbit exciton in α-RuCl3, giving a precise λ value and an upper bound on the trigonal distortion that supports the jeff=1/2 description essential for Kitaev physics. It also demonstrates that M-edge RIXS can achieve better resolution than current L-edge instruments for 4d transition-metal compounds, which is methodologically valuable. The paper's strengths include the clean identification of A1 as a d-d excitation via resonant behavior, the consistency with MRCI calculations and recent Raman data, and the careful comparison with earlier misassignments. However, the quantitative upper bound on the trigonal splitting rests on an equal-intensity fitting assumption that is acknowledged but not validated by a computed RIXS cross-section, and the bound criterion is not statistically quantified. These issues affect the rigor of the main hierarchy claim, though they appear addressable with additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 4(b–i); Section 4] The upper bound |Dtrig|<40 meV (hence |Δ|<65 meV) is derived from two-peak fits in which the two trigonally split components are constrained to equal intensity, equal width, and equal pseudo-Voigt ratio. The paper acknowledges in Section 4 that "the use of equal intensity peaks for our fitting in figure 4(b–i) is an approximation, the peaks should actually have different relative intensities depending on the RIXS matrix elements." Because the RIXS cross-section is not computed, it is not demonstrated that allowing unequal intensities would still force a single-peak fit to diverge at |Dtrig|≥40 meV. The equal-intensity constraint is therefore load-bearing for the central conclusion that |Δ|<65 meV, and the bound is not a rigorous upper limit without a cross-section calculation or an unequal-intensity fitting analysis.
  2. [Section 3, upper-bound criterion] The criterion for the upper bound is qualitative. The text states "We notice the fit diverging from our data at |Dtrig|<40 meV which we define as our upper bound," but no goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced chi-squared, AIC, or a statistical test) is reported. Without a quantitative measure, the reader cannot assess whether the divergence is statistically meaningful or reproduce the bound. A quantitative comparison of the fits at different fixed splittings is needed to support the claimed |Dtrig|<40 meV limit.
  3. [Section 3, λ extraction] The quoted uncertainty on λ=154±2 meV is the statistical fitting error. Systematic contributions from the choice of background (constant plus linear term only in the energy-loss region), the line-shape model (Lorentzian for A1), and the possible unresolved trigonal splitting are not estimated. Since the abstract presents λ with two-meV precision, a discussion of systematic errors is necessary to justify this precision and to assess whether the identification of A1 with an unsplit 3λ/2 transition is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] There are typographical errors: "consant" should be "constant," and "the the" appears in the sentence about the P3112 space group.
  2. [Section 3] "consisent" should be "consistent" in the sentence about the branching ratio.
  3. [Section 3] The formula Dtrig/λ = (1/4)[√(8+(1+δ)^2) − 3 + δ] with δ=2Δ/λ is presented without derivation; a citation to Chaloupka and Khaliullin [25] is given, but a brief derivation or an explicit statement of the model assumptions would help the reader understand the conversion from Dtrig to Δ.
  4. [Section 4] The sentence "The limit |Dtrig| < 40 meV is likely an overestimation" is confusingly worded; the authors presumably mean that the limit is a conservative upper bound, but the phrasing could be interpreted as contradicting the preceding analysis. Clarifying this would improve readability.
  5. [Figure 3] The inset showing the Brillouin zone uses dark and light blue regions, but the caption does not explicitly label which region corresponds to 2θ=90° and which to 2θ=150°; the text describes them, but a direct label in the figure would aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured RIXS peak energy is converted to λ via the standard j_eff model, and the trigonal-field bound is a fit with explicitly acknowledged modeling approximations, not a construction from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper reports a Ru M3-edge RIXS measurement and extracts λ = 154 ± 2 meV from the observed A1 peak at 231 ± 3 meV using the standard atomic j_eff relation ΔE = 3λ/2. This is a parameter extraction from newly measured data, not a prediction of a quantity that was already used as input. Similarly, the trigonal-distortion upper bound is obtained by fitting the A1 feature with two fixed-splitting pseudo-Voigt peaks and determining when the fit visibly diverges from the data; although the equal-intensity constraint is an approximation explicitly acknowledged in Section 4, that is a modeling caveat and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The assignment of A1 as the j_eff = 3/2 → 1/2 spin-orbit exciton is supported by its resonant enhancement, agreement with MRCI calculations, and consistency with independent Raman and optical work; it is not derived from the λ value that it is later used to extract. Citations to the authors' prior work concern sample preparation, crystal characterization, and earlier optical/XAS assignments, and they are background material rather than load-bearing premises for the central RIXS conclusion. No equation in the paper equates the extracted parameters to the fitted inputs by construction, and no central claim depends on an unverified self-citation chain. The identified limitations—especially the untested equal-intensity fitting assumption—are legitimate scientific caveats, but they do not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers are extracted from measured spectra using standard models; the only fitted quantities are the peak parameters and the scanned Dtrig. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • A1 spin-orbit exciton energy E_A1 = 231 ± 3 meV
    Central fit result from Fig. 4(a); used to compute λ = 2E_A1/3 = 154 ± 2 meV.
  • Upper bound threshold for |Dtrig| = 40 meV (by fit divergence)
    The authors scanned fixed |Dtrig| from 10 to 80 meV and defined the bound where the fit starts to diverge from data. This is a judgment, not a rigorous confidence interval.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The energy difference between jeff=3/2 and jeff=1/2 states in a t2g manifold is 3λ/2.
    Used in Section 3 to convert the A1 peak energy to λ. This is a textbook atomic physics relation.
  • domain assumption The trigonal distortion splitting of the jeff=3/2 doublets is given by Dtrig/λ = [√(8+(1+δ)^2) - 3 + δ]/4 with δ=2Δ/λ, from Chaloupka and Khaliullin (Ref [25]).
    Used in Section 3 to convert the Dtrig upper bound into |Δ| upper bound. Assumes the single-ion model of RuCl6 octahedra with trigonal distortion is valid for α-RuCl3.
  • domain assumption The A1 RIXS feature is the spin-orbit exciton, not a phonon or charge-transfer excitation.
    Stated in Section 3; essential for the extraction of λ. Supported by resonance behavior and MRCI calculations, but not by a computed RIXS cross-section.
  • domain assumption The measured RIXS energy loss is not significantly shifted by the 3p core-hole potential or by resonant effects; the peak position equals the bare d-d excitation energy.
    Implicit in the analysis. The paper mentions lifetime broadening but does not quantify possible shifts from the core-hole interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resonant inelastic x-ray scattering study of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: a progress report." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBTM7Q7M

@misc{pith2026190801190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resonant inelastic x-ray scattering study of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$: a progress report},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBTM7Q7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01190}
}
abstract

Ru M$_3$-edge resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS) measurements of RuCl$_3$ with 27 meV resolution reveals a spin-orbit exciton without noticeable splitting. We extract values for the spin-orbit coupling constant ($\lambda=154\pm2$ meV) and trigonal distortion field energy ($\left|\Delta\right|<65$ meV) which support the $j_{\rm eff}=1/2$ nature of RuCl$_3$. We demonstrate the feasibility of M-edge RIXS for $4d$ systems, which allows ultra high-resolution RIXS of $4d$ systems until instrumentation for L-edge RIXS improves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic energy level diagram of Ru 4d orbitals in α-RuCl3 under the influence of crystal field splitting (CFS) and spin-orbit coupling (SOC). On the left we show an ideal RuCl6 octahedron, i.e. with no trigonal distortion (∆ = 0). Under this octahedral crystal field the degeneracy of the 4d energy levels is lifted and they split into t2g and eg (not shown) manifolds. Turning on SOC splits the t2g manifold in α-RuC… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Ru M3-edge RIXS spectra on α-RuCl3 as a function incident energy, Ei. The lower (higher) energy features resonate at a lower (higher) energy and correspond to t2g (eg) excitations. The green and magenta bars represent the energy range integrated over to extract the intensity for t2g and eg respectively. (b) Total electron yield x-ray absorption spectroscopy (TEY￾XAS) measurement on α-RuCl3. The integrated intens… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ru M3-edge RIXS (Ei = 461 eV) spectrum of α-RuCl3 single crystals measured at 300 K. A 2θ = 90◦ scattering angle was used and the incident beam was in 20◦ grazing incidence with the sample, giving a measurement at q = (0.13 0) r.l.u. (black diamond in Brillouin zone inset). The features are labeled using the notation of Sandilands et al [26]. Predicted dd excitation energies from quantum chemistry calculations [27] … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Low-energy region of the RIXS spectrum from figure 3. The elastic (orange), A2 (red), and A3 (green) peaks are fit with Gaussian functions while the A1 peak is fit with a Lorentzian function. A constant background and linear background only in the energy loss regio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kitaev A 2006 Annals of Physics 321 2 – 111 ISSN 0003-4916 january Special Issue

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Trebst S 2017 arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07056

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Winter S M, Tsirlin A A, Daghofer M, van den Brink J, Singh Y, Gegenwart P and Valenti R 2017 Journal of Physics - Condensed Matter 29 ISSN 0953-8984

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Hermanns M, Kimchi I and Knolle J 2018 Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 9 17–33

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Jackeli G and Khaliullin G 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(1) 017205

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Chaloupka J, Jackeli G and Khaliullin G 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(2) 027204

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

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

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Singh Y, Manni S, Reuther J, Berlijn T, Thomale R, Ku W, Trebst S and Gegenwart P 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(12) 127203

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Modic K A, Smidt T E, Kimchi I, Breznay N P, Biffin A, Choi S, Johnson R D, Coldea R, Watkins-Curry P, McCandless G T, Chan J Y, Gandara F, Islam Z, Vishwanath A, Shekhter A, McDonald R D and Analytis J G 2014 Nature Communications 5 4203

    2014

  2. [10]

    Takayama T, Kato A, Dinnebier R, Nuss J, Kono H, Veiga L S I, Fabbris G, Haskel D and Takagi H 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(7) 077202

    2015

  3. [11]

    Takagi H, Takayama T, Jackeli G, Khaliullin G and Nagler S E 2019 Nature Reviews Physics 1 264–280

    2019

  4. [12]

    Plumb K W, Clancy J P, Sandilands L J, Shankar V V, Hu Y F, Burch K S, Kee H Y and Kim Y J 2014 Phys. Rev. B 90(4) 041112

    2014

  5. [13]

    Banerjee A, Yan J, Knolle J, Bridges C A, Stone M B, Lumsden M D, Mandrus D G, Tennant D A, Moessner R and Nagler S E 2017 Science 356 1055–1059 ISSN 0036-8075

    2017

  6. [14]

    Do S H, Park S Y, Yoshitake J, Nasu J, Motome Y, Kwon Y S, Adroja D T, Voneshen D J, Kim K, Jang T H, Park J H, Choi K Y and Ji S 2017 Nat. Phys. 13 1079–1084

    2017

  7. [15]

    Sandilands L J, Tian Y, Plumb K W, Kim Y J and Burch K S 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(14) 147201

    2015

  8. [16]

    Kasahara Y, Ohnishi T, Mizukami Y, Tanaka O, Ma S, Sugii K, Kurita N, Tanaka H, Nasu J, Motome Y, Shibauchi T and Matsuda Y 2018 Nature 559 227–231 ISSN 1476-4687

    2018

  9. [17]

    Stroganov E V and Ovchinnikov K V 1957 Ser. Fiz. i Khim. 12 152

    1957

  10. [18]

    Banerjee A, Bridges C A, Yan J Q, Aczel A A, Li L, Stone M B, Granroth G E, Lumsden M D, Yiu Y, Knolle J, Bhattacharjee S, Kovrizhin D L, Moessner R, Tennant D A, Mandrus D G and Nagler S E 2016 Nature Materials 15 733–740

    2016

  11. [19]

    Cao H B, Banerjee A, Yan J Q, Bridges C A, Lumsden M D, Mandrus D G, Tennant D A, Chakoumakos B C and Nagler S E 2016Phys. Rev. B 93(13) 134423

  12. [20]

    Gretarsson H, Clancy J P, Liu X, Hill J P, Bozin E, Singh Y, Manni S, Gegenwart P, Kim J, Said A H, Casa D, Gog T, Upton M H, Kim H S, Yu J, Katukuri V M, Hozoi L, van den Brink J and Kim Y J 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110(7) 076402

    2013

  13. [21]

    Agrestini S, Kuo C Y, Ko K T, Hu Z, Kasinathan D, Vasili H B, Herrero-Martin J, Valvidares S M, Pellegrin E, Jang L Y, Henschel A, Schmidt M, Tanaka A and Tjeng L H 2017 Phys. Rev. B 96(16) 161107

    2017

  14. [22]

    Sears J A, Songvilay M, Plumb K W, Clancy J P, Qiu Y, Zhao Y, Parshall D and Kim Y J 2015 Phys. Rev. B 91(14) 144420

    2015

  15. [23]

    Dvorak J, Jarrige I, Bisogni V, Coburn S and Leonhardt W 2016 Review of Scientific Instruments 87 115109

    2016

  16. [24]

    Jarrige I, Bisogni V, Zhu Y, Leonhardt W and Dvorak J 2018 Synchrotron Radiation News 31 7–13

    2018

  17. [25]

    Chaloupka J and Khaliullin G 2016 Phys. Rev. B 94(6) 064435

    2016

  18. [26]

    Sandilands L J, Tian Y, Reijnders A A, Kim H S, Plumb K W, Kim Y J, Kee H Y and Burch K S 2016 Phys. Rev. B 93(7) 075144

    2016

  19. [27]

    Yadav R, Bogdanov N A, Katukuri V M, Nishimoto S, Van Den Brink J and Hozoi L 2016 Scientific reports 6 37925

    2016

  20. [28]

    Johnson R D, Williams S C, Haghighirad A A, Singleton J, Zapf V, Manuel P, Mazin I I, Li Y, Jeschke H O, Valent´ ı R and Coldea R 2015Phys. Rev. B 92(23) 235119

  21. [29]

    thesis University of Toronto

    Sears J A 2017 Neutron and X-ray Diffraction Studies of Structure and Magnetism in α-RuCl3 Ph.D. thesis University of Toronto

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kim J, Casa D, Upton M H, Gog T, Kim Y J, Mitchell J F, van Veenendaal M, Daghofer M, van den Brink J, Khaliullin G and Kim B J 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(17) 177003

    2012

  23. [31]

    Kim J, Daghofer M, Said A H, Gog T, van den Brink J, Khaliullin G and Kim B J 2014 Nature Communications 5 4453

    2014

  24. [32]

    thesis Universit¨ at zu K¨ oln URL https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/9187/

    Borgwardt N 2019 Optics on materials with strong spin-orbit coupling: topological insulators Bi2- xSbxTe3-ySey and the j=1/2 compounds Na2IrO3 REFERENCES 9 and alpha-RuCl3 Ph.D. thesis Universit¨ at zu K¨ oln URL https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/9187/

    2019

  25. [33]

    Plotnikova E M, Daghofer M, van den Brink J and Wohlfeld K 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(10) 106401

    2016

  26. [34]

    Porterfield W 2013 Inorganic Chemistry (Elsevier Science) ISBN 9780323138949

    2013

  27. [35]

    Reschke S, Mayr F, Wang Z, Do S H, Choi K Y and Loidl A 2017 Phys. Rev. B 96(16) 165120

    2017

  28. [36]

    Kuiper P, Guo J H, S˚ athe C, Duda L C, Nordgren J, Pothuizen J J M, de Groot F M F and Sawatzky G A 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(23) 5204–5207

    1998

  29. [37]

    Lai C H, Fung H S, Wu W B, Huang H Y, Fu H W, Lin S W, Huang S W, Chiu C C, Wang D J, Huang L J, Tseng T C, Chung S C, Chen C T and Huang D J 2014 Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 21 325–332

    2014

  30. [38]

    Brookes N, Yakhou-Harris F, Kummer K, Fondac- aro A, Cezar J, Betto D, Velez-Fort E, Amorese A, Ghiringhelli G, Braicovich L, Barrett R, Berruyer G, Cianciosi F, Eybert L, Marion P, van der Lin- den P and Zhang L 2018 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section...

    2018

  31. [39]

    Diamond light source: I21 beamline homepage https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Instruments/ Magnetic-Materials/I21.html

  32. [40]

    Max iv: Veritas beamline homepage https: //www.maxiv.lu.se/accelerators-beamlines/ beamlines/veritas/

  33. [41]

    Wray L A, Huang S W, Jarrige I, Ikeuchi K, Ishii K, Li J, Qiu Z Q, Hussain Z and Chuang Y D 2015 Frontiers in Physics 3 32 ISSN 2296-424X

    2015

  34. [42]

    Bambynek W, Crasemann B, Fink R W, Freund H U, Mark H, Swift C D, Price R E and Rao P V 1972 Rev. Mod. Phys. 44(4) 716–813

    1972

  35. [43]

    Hal´ asz G B, Perkins N B and van den Brink J 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(12) 127203

    2016

  36. [44]

    Ament L J P, van Veenendaal M, Devereaux T P, Hill J P and van den Brink J 2011Rev. Mod. Phys. 83(2) 705–767

  37. [45]

    Suzuki H, Gretarsson H, Ishikawa H, Ueda K, Yang Z, Liu H, Kim H, Kukusta D, Yaresko A, Minola M, Sears J A, Francoual S, Wille H C, Nuss J, Takagi H, Kim B J, Khaliullin G, Yavas H and Keimer B 2019 Nature Materials 18 563– 567 ISSN 1476-4660

    2019

  38. [46]

    Gretarsson H, Suzuki H, Kim H, Ueda K, Krautloher M, Kim B J, Yava¸ s H, Khaliullin G and Keimer B 2019 Phys. Rev. B 100(4) 045123

    2019

Pith tools

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