Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Electronic properties of {\alpha}-RuCl3 in proximity to graphene

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 This paper argues that putting a monolayer of α-RuCl3 on graphene stretches the layer and electron-dopes it, turning the Mott insulator into a metal and strengthening its Kitaev exchange by more than 50 percent.

desk verdict A plausible but stacking-dependent claim of Kitaev enhancement in alpha-RuCl3/graphene; worth refereeing, but the headline number is computed for only one of the two structures the paper itself reports. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04793 v2 pith:GDKPOEXM submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sananda Biswas , Ying Li , Stephen M. Winter , Johannes Knolle , Roser Valenti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.15.Mb71.30.+h73.20.-r75.10.Jm75.70.-i
keywords alpha-RuCl3grapheneheterostructureKitaevinteractionchargetransferMottinsulatorexactdiagonalizationdensityfunctionaltheoryquantumspinliquid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that placing a monolayer of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ on graphene does two things at once: the lattice mismatch stretches the RuCl$_3$ layer, and electrons flow from graphene into it (about $\delta \approx 0.06$ electrons per RuCl$_3$ unit). The transferred charge moves the Fermi level into the upper Hubbard band of the Ru $t_{2g}$ manifold, turning the Mott insulator metallic. In the same strained geometry, the bond-dependent Kitaev exchange grows by more than 50 percent relative to bulk, pushing the ratio $|K/J|$ from about 2.4 to between 33 and 43. If correct, the heterostructure is a practical way to reach lightly doped Kitaev physics, with possible unconventional superconducting states, and a route to the undoped Kitaev quantum spin liquid by neutralizing the transferred charge.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is interface strain acting through the Ru-Cl-Ru bond angle: in the relaxed heterostructure the angle opens from about 94 degrees (bulk) to about 96.5 degrees, suppressing the direct Ru-Ru hopping that generates the non-Kitaev couplings and the itinerant hopping $t_0$; what remains is the ligand-mediated hopping that produces the Kitaev exchange, so the ratio $|K/J|$ jumps from 2.43 to 33-43. The other load-bearing element is the charge-transfer analysis on the DFT densities, which fixes $\delta \approx 0.064$ e per RuCl$_3$ and places the Fermi level at the lower edge of the upper Hubbard band. The exchange couplings are computed by projecting the DFT band structure onto Wannier orbitals and exactly diagonalizing a two-site multiorbital Hubbard cluster, following the method of Ref. [10].

What would settle it

Measure the Hall carrier density or the shift of the graphene Dirac cone in a clean $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$/graphene device: it should show close to 0.06 electrons per RuCl$_3$ unit transferred and the RuCl$_3$ layer should be gapless at the Fermi level. On the magnetic side, inelastic neutron or resonant inelastic x-ray scattering on a strained monolayer should show $|K/J|$ well above the bulk value near 2.4; if the ratio stays near 2.4, the claimed >50% Kitaev enhancement is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ in contact with graphene forms a commensurate interface in which graphene stays unstrained and $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ takes up a tensile strain of about 2.5 percent (or, in the rectangular supercell, a compressive strain with mild bond disproportionation). Charge partitioning analysis gives a charge transfer $\delta \approx 0.064$ e per RuCl$_3$ unit, so the formerly Mott-insulating $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ becomes lightly electron-doped and its Fermi energy sits at the bottom of the upper Hubbard band, while graphene is correspondingly hole-doped. Exact diagonalization of two-site clusters with Wannier-derived hoppings shows that the strain opens the Ru-Cl-Ru bond angle from about 94 degrees to about 96.5 degrees, suppressing direct Ru-Ru hopping, which in turn suppresses the non-Kitaev $J$ and $\Gamma$ couplings and the effective hopping $t_0 \approx 7$ meV while enhancing the Kitaev coupling $K$ from about 7 meV to about 17 meV. The paper reads this as placing the system near the $K = t_0$ condition where doped Kitaev-Heisenberg models host p-wave superconductivity, and notes that the undoped strained geometry satisfies $|K/J| > 8$, the region where the Kitaev quantum spin liquid is expected. It also proposes that two recent transport experiments on $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$/graphene can be explained either by spin-fluctuation scattering or by hybridization-induced anomalous quantum oscillations, distinguishable by an in-plane magnetic field.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions rest on correlation parameters that are inherited from earlier bulk studies rather than derived here: $U=1.5$ eV for the relaxations and $U=3$ eV, $J_H=0.6$ eV, $\lambda=0.15$ eV for the exchange calculations, with no demonstration that the charge transfer $\delta\approx0.06$, the metallization, or the >50% Kitaev enhancement survives over a realistic range of these parameters, exchange-correlation functionals, van der Waals schemes, or stacking arrangements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$/graphene interface is a tunable doped Kitaev system: charge transfer dopes the layer while strain tunes the exchange, so the same device can explore both doped and undoped regimes.
  • With $K \approx 17$ meV and $t_0 \approx 7$ meV the system sits near the $K = t_0$ condition where doped Kitaev-Heisenberg models predict p-wave superconductivity, though the small $t_0$ implies low carrier mobility.
  • Applying a gate voltage could increase the doping and shift the heterostructure into the nontrivial topological superconducting region predicted for hole dopings of 0.25-0.4.
  • If the transferred charge is removed (by a spacer layer or by saturating graphene), the strained monolayer would have $|K/J| > 8$ and so approach the Kitaev quantum spin liquid phase.
  • The two proposed transport scenarios (spin-fluctuation scattering versus hybridization-induced anomalous quantum oscillations) can be distinguished by an in-plane magnetic field, which suppresses the magnetic order but not the hybridization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Other substrates with different lattice constants could tune strain and charge transfer continuously, offering a generic way to move layered Kitaev candidates through the doped phase diagram without chemical substitution.
  • The paper's quantitative claims would be tested by a systematic sensitivity study over $U$, exchange-correlation functional, and van der Waals scheme; without it, the exact $\delta$ and the size of the Kitaev enhancement remain parameter-dependent.
  • If the strain mechanism is generic, the same bond-angle argument should apply to other 4d/5d honeycomb halides, making interface strain a control knob for non-Kitaev couplings beyond $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$.
  • The proposed in-plane-field experiment not only distinguishes the two transport scenarios; it also directly probes whether the magnetic order survives in the doped monolayer, which would constrain any superconductivity mechanism.
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. The manuscript investigates the electronic and magnetic properties of α-RuCl3 monolayers placed on graphene using DFT+U (VASP), Wannier projection, and two-site exact diagonalization. It reports that, in a hexagonal commensurate supercell, α-RuCl3 develops +2.5% tensile strain and becomes electron-doped (δ ≈ 0.064 e per RuCl3 unit), that the Fermi level lies at the bottom of the upper Hubbard band, and that the extracted exchange parameters show a greater-than-50% enhancement of the Kitaev coupling relative to bulk, with |K/J| rising from 2.43 to 33–43. The paper also discusses possible p-wave superconducting states and proposes transport experiments to distinguish magnetic-scattering versus hybridization scenarios.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work offers a concrete substrate-engineering route to enhance Kitaev interactions and to dope a candidate Kitaev material, with quantitative predictions for charge transfer and exchange constants. The paper's strengths are its explicit workflow from DFT to Wannier hoppings to exact diagonalization, the cross-checking between VASP and WIEN2k, and the falsifiable predictions for charge transfer and magnetotransport. However, the key quantitative results depend on model parameters inherited from earlier studies without sensitivity analysis and on one particular stacking geometry; the significance is therefore conditional until those dependencies are quantified and the stacking issue is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (Table I and supercell discussion)] The magnetic couplings and the >50% Kitaev enhancement are reported only for the hexagonal supercell with +2.5% tensile strain and undistorted Ru hexagons. The paper itself states that the relaxed structures depend on relative stacking, and it reports a second rectangular supercell with compressive strain, Ru-Ru bond disproportionation ll/ls = 1.05, and Ru-Cl-Ru angles of 85°–91°, yet no exchange parameters are given for this geometry. Since the enhancement is attributed to the larger Ru-Cl-Ru angle (96.54°), a compressive, bond-disproportionated stacking is expected to yield substantially different couplings. The abstract's claim that 'in the strained α-RuCl3 monolayer the Kitaev interactions are enhanced' is therefore not established as a robust property of α-RuCl3/graphene; it is conditional on a specific commensurate stacking. The authors should either compute the magnetic couplings for the rectangular geometry, or explicitly restrict the claim to the hexagonal stacking and provide a structural or energetic argument that this stacking is the relevant one for exfoliated samples.
  2. [Table I caption and Methods] The central exchange parameters are obtained from exact diagonalization with U = 3 eV, JH = 0.6 eV, and λ = 0.15 eV, while the DFT structural relaxations use U = 1.5 eV; all of these values are taken from previous work without any sensitivity analysis. Because the central conclusions (|K| enhancement of more than 50%, |K/J| ≈ 33–43, and small t0 ≈ 7 meV) are quantitative, a moderate change in these parameters could alter the balance of K, J, Γ, and Γ′ and could affect the inferred phase-diagram position. The authors should report at least a few variations (for example, U = 2.5–3.5 eV, JH = 0.4–0.8 eV, λ = 0.1–0.2 eV, and perhaps a different functional or U in the relaxation) and demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions survive, or state the resulting uncertainty explicitly.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Section A (constrained magnetism)] The self-consistent calculation for the zigzag antiferromagnetic state collapsed to ferromagnetic moments and had to be stabilized with a penalty constraint, and the paper reports that FM and zzAFM configurations are almost degenerate. The band structure in Fig. 3(a) of the main text, including the Fermi-level position at the bottom of the upper Hubbard band, is obtained from this constrained zzAFM state. This makes the metallization and the precise placement of EF less robust than the text implies. The authors should show the corresponding GGA+SOC+U band structure for the unconstrained FM (or nonmagnetic) state and discuss whether the Fermi-level position and the hybridization near EF survive, or explicitly state that the transport interpretation assumes zzAFM order.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Discussion (superconductivity paragraph)] The text states 'K≈ 17 eV', which should be '17 meV'. Also, the statement that α-RuCl3/gr is 'close to satisfying' the criterion K = t0 should be quantified, since K/t0 ≈ 2.4 is not obviously close.
  2. [Abstract vs Conclusions] The abstract says the Kitaev interactions are 'enhanced by more than 50%' while the Conclusions say 'enhanced by a factor of two'; these should be made consistent.
  3. [Results and Supplemental Material, Table I] The main text gives the Ru-Cl-Ru bond angle as 96.54° for the hexagonal supercell, while Supplemental Material Table I lists 96.92°; this discrepancy should be reconciled.
  4. [Results (charge transfer paragraph)] The main text says the rectangular supercell shows 'essentially the same degree of charge transfer' as the hexagonal supercell, but Supplemental Material Table II lists 0.046–0.059 e per RuCl3 versus 0.064 e; the variation should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Results (strain discussion)] The phrase 'negative (compressive) strain (-5% tensile)' is confusing; it should be rephrased as 'compressive strain of -5%' or similar.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'augemented' and 'impletemented' in the Supplemental Material and 'supperconductivity' in the Conclusions; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Kitaev enhancement is computed from the relaxed heterostructure geometry via Wannier projection and exact diagonalization, not imposed by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: DFT relaxation of the α-RuCl3/graphene heterostructure produces a strained geometry; Wannier projection gives hopping integrals; exact diagonalization of a multiorbital Hubbard model on two-site clusters yields the exchange parameters J, K, Γ, Γ′. The claimed >50% Kitaev enhancement follows from comparing these computed values for the strained hexagonal geometry with previously published bulk values (Ref. [10], Winter, Li, Jeschke, and Valentí). The bulk comparison values are not fitted to the present target, and the strained values are not adjusted to reproduce any desired K or |K/J|. The correlation parameters U = 3 eV, JH = 0.6 eV, λ = 0.15 eV are inherited from earlier work rather than derived here, which is a parameter-transferability concern but not circularity under the stated rules. No self-citation functions as an unverified load-bearing theorem, no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in through citation: the extended Kitaev model and the two-site ED extraction method are standard and are applied to the new geometry. The paper's own admission that the relaxed structure depends on stacking, and its decision to report magnetic couplings only for the hexagonal supercell, raise a robustness/selection question about how general the enhancement is; that is a correctness or scope limitation, not a circularity. Accordingly, the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by definition, and no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the heterostructure is a real proposed device geometry. The central numerical predictions rest instead on inherited correlation parameters and DFT modeling assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • DFT Hubbard U (Ru d) = 1.5 eV
    Chosen to match prior work (Ref. [3], with overlapping authors); controls band gap, charge transfer, and relaxed geometry. No sensitivity scan is provided.
  • Hubbard U in two-site ED = 3 eV
    Used in Table I to extract J, K, Γ, Γ'; inherited from Ref. [10], not derived from DFT for this strained geometry.
  • Hund coupling JH in ED = 0.6 eV
    Used in Table I; inherited from prior model work; affects exchange parameters and hence the claimed Kitaev enhancement.
  • Spin-orbit coupling λ in ED = 0.15 eV
    Used in Table I; inherited from prior model work; affects the jeff=1/2 projection and exchange constants.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Density functional theory with GGA+U, including SOC, accurately describes the ground state and band structure of α-RuCl3/graphene.
    The entire band-structure and charge-transfer analysis rests on the reliability of the chosen DFT functional and U.
  • domain assumption The chosen commensurate supercells with unstrained graphene and strained α-RuCl3 represent the real experimental interface.
    The strain and charge-transfer values depend on this commensuration; other stackings or twist angles could give different results.
  • domain assumption A two-site cluster exact diagonalization of a multiorbital Hubbard model captures the effective magnetic couplings of the extended Kitaev model.
    Exchange parameters in Table I are obtained from two-site clusters; longer-range or multi-site processes are not included.
  • domain assumption The low-energy physics is restricted to collinear magnetic configurations, and the constrained zzAFM state is representative.
    Supplemental states noncollinear ground states are not ruled out; the zzAFM calculation required a penalty constraint because SCF converged to FM.
  • domain assumption Bader charge analysis provides a quantitative measure of interlayer charge transfer.
    The doping level δ is obtained from Bader charges; the method is known to be basis-set dependent.
  • domain assumption The doped Kitaev-Heisenberg phase diagram of Refs. [33-36] applies to α-RuCl3/graphene at the calculated doping and parameters.
    The discussion of p-wave and topological superconductivity assumes the cited model phase diagram is relevant to this material.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electronic properties of {\alpha}-RuCl3 in proximity to graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDKPOEXM

@misc{pith2026190804793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electronic properties of \alpha-RuCl3 in proximity to graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDKPOEXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04793}
}
read the original abstract

In the pursuit of developing routes to enhance magnetic Kitaev interactions in {\alpha}-RuCl3, as well as probing doping effects, we investigate the electronic properties of {\alpha}-RuCl3 in proximity to graphene. We study {\alpha}-RuCl3/graphene heterostructures via ab initio density functional theory calculations, Wannier projection and non-perturbative exact diagonalization methods. We show that {\alpha}-RuCl3 becomes strained when placed on graphene and charge transfer occurs between the two layers, making {\alpha}-RuCl3 (graphene) lightly electron-doped (hole-doped). This gives rise to an insulator to metal transition in {\alpha}-RuCl3 with the Fermi energy located close to the bottom of the upper Hubbard band of the t2g manifold. These results suggest the possibility of realizing metallic and even exotic superconducting states. Moreover, we show that in the strained {\alpha}-RuCl3 monolayer the Kitaev interactions are enhanced by more than 50% compared to the unstrained bulk structure. Finally, we discuss scenarios related to transport experiments in {\alpha}-RuCl3/graphene heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Van der Waals bilayer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Top views of two supercells of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Calculated band structure along the high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top (a) and side (b) views of the α-RuCl3/h-BN system in the relaxed geometry using the hexagonal supercell. The buckling of the h-BN layer is clearly shown in the side view. Pink and violet colors represent boron and nitrogen atoms, respectively. ling of ≈ 0.5 ˚A is o…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Non-spin-polarized band structure within (a) GGA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hunting Majorana Fermions in Kitaev Magnets

    cond-mat.str-el 2019-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review of theoretical and experimental evidence that Kitaev magnets exhibit thermal fractionalization into Majorana fermions and Z2 fluxes, with the half-quantized thermal Hall effect as the strongest proposed signature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 300, 2 (2003)

    A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 300, 2 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. R. Norman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 041002 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

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

    2015

  8. [8]

    H.-S. Kim, V. V., A. Catuneanu, and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 91, 241110(R) (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Banerjee, C

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

    2016

  2. [11]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Phys. Rev. B 93, 155143 (2016)

    2016

  3. [12]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 7, 195 (2016)

    2016

  4. [13]

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

    2017

  5. [14]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics (2017)

    2017

  6. [15]

    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

  7. [16]

    Takagi, T

    H. Takagi, T. Takayama, G. Jackeli, G. Khaliullin, and S. E. Nagler, Nature Reviews Physics1, 264 (2019), ISSN 2522-5820

    2019

  8. [17]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Sin- gleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent´ ı, et al., Phys. Rev. B 92, 235119 (2015)

    2015

  9. [18]

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

    2016

  10. [19]

    Yadav, N

    R. Yadav, N. A. Bogdanov, V. M. Katukuri, S. Nishi- moto, J. van den Brink, and L. Hozoi, Scientific Reports 6 (2016)

    2016

  11. [20]

    Baek, S.-H

    S.-H. Baek, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Y. S. Kwon, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Nishimoto, J. van den Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 037201 (2017)

    2017

  12. [21]

    Banerjee, P

    A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J.-Q. Yan, C. Bridges, et al., arXiv:1706.07003 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Hentrich, A

    R. Hentrich, A. U. B. Wolter, X. Zotos, W. Brenig, D. Nowak, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, A. Banerjee, P. Lampen- Kelley, D. G. Mandrus, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117204 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    Koitzsch, C

    A. Koitzsch, C. Habenicht, E. M¨ uller, M. Knupfer, B. B¨ uchner, S. Kretschmer, M. Richter, J. van den Brink, F. B¨ orrnert, D. Nowak, et al., Phys. Rev. Materials 1, 052001 (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, D. Kaib, R. Coldea, and R. Va- lent´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 077203 (2018)

    2018

  16. [25]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 197202 (2019)

    2019

  17. [26]

    Z. Wang, J. Guo, F. F. Tafti, A. Hegg, S. Sen, V. A. Sidorov, L. Wang, S. Cai, W. Yi, Y. Zhou, et al., arXiv:1705.06139 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Y. Cui, J. Zheng, K. Ran, J. Wen, Z.-X. Liu, B. Liu, W. Guo, and W. Yu, Phys. Rev. B 96, 205147 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    Jackeli and G

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

    2009

  20. [29]

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

    2014

  21. [30]

    E.-H. Lee, R. Schaffer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 89, 045117 (2014)

    2014

  22. [31]

    Schaffer, S

    R. Schaffer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 86, 224417 (2012)

    2012

  23. [32]

    Biesner, S

    T. Biesner, S. Biswas, W. Li, Y. Saito, A. Pustogow, M. Altmeyer, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, M. Roslova, T. Doert, et al., Phys. Rev. B 97, 220401(R) (2018)

    2018

  24. [33]

    Y.-Z. You, I. Kimchi, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B 86, 085145 (2012)

    2012

  25. [34]

    Hyart, A

    T. Hyart, A. R. Wright, G. Khaliullin, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. B 85, 140510(R) (2012)

    2012

  26. [35]

    Okamoto, Phys

    S. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. B 87, 064508 (2013)

    2013

  27. [36]

    W. Choi, P. W. Klein, A. Rosch, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155123 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Schmidt, D

    J. Schmidt, D. D. Scherer, and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014504 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    Weber, L

    D. Weber, L. M. Schoop, V. Duppel, J. M. Lippmann, J. Nuss, and B. V. Lotsch, Nano Letters 16, 3578 (2016)

    2016

  30. [39]

    B. Zhou, Y. Wang, G. B. Osterhoudt, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. Mandrus, R. He, K. S. Burch, and E. A. Henrik- sen, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 128, 291 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    B. Zhou, J. Balgley, P. Lampen-Kelley, J.-Q. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, and E. A. Henriksen, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04838 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Mashhadi, Y

    S. Mashhadi, Y. Kim, J. Kim, D. Weber, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, N. Park, B. Lotsch, J. H. Smet, M. Burghard, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10405 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [42]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  34. [49]

    see Suplementary Information for details (2019)

    2019

  35. [50]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, R. Valent, and S. M. Winter, phys. status solidi (b) 0, 1800684 (????)

  36. [52]

    Reschke, F

    S. Reschke, F. Mayr, S. Widmann, H.-A. K. von Nidda, V. Tsurkan, M. V. Eremin, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Z. Wang, and A. Loidl, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 475604 (2018)

    2018

  37. [53]

    T. T. Mai, A. McCreary, P. Lampen-Kelley, N. Butch, J. R. Simpson, J.-Q. Yan, S. E. Nagler, D. Mandrus, A. R. H. Walker, and R. V. Aguilar, arXiv preprint 6 arXiv:1908.01021 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  38. [54]

    The strains are calculated with respect to the ideal bond length in the hexagonalαRuCl3 in order the compare the values in the two supercell on the same ground

  39. [55]

    Gerber, Y

    E. Gerber, Y. Yao, T. A. Arias, and E.-A. Kim, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09550 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  40. [56]

    Knolle and N

    J. Knolle and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 146401 (2015)

    2015

  41. [57]

    Zhang, X.-Y

    L. Zhang, X.-Y. Song, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 046404 (2016). Electronic properties of α-RuCl3 in proximity to graphene Sananda Biswas,1 Ying Li,1, 2 Stephen M. Winter, 1 Johannes Knolle, 3, 4, 5 and Roser Valent´ ı1 1Institut f¨ ur Theoretische Physik, Goethe-Univer...

    2016

  42. [58]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  43. [59]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  44. [60]

    Biesner, S

    T. Biesner, S. Biswas, W. Li, Y. Saito, A. Pustogow, M. Altmeyer, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, M. Roslova, T. Doert, et al., Phys. Rev. B 97, 220401 (2018)

    2018

  45. [61]

    Grimme, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 27, 1787 (2006)

    S. Grimme, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 27, 1787 (2006)

    2006

  46. [62]

    P. H. Dederichs, S. Bl¨ ugel, R. Zeller, and H. Akai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 2512 (1984)

    1984

  47. [63]

    Henkelman, A

    G. Henkelman, A. Arnaldsson, and J´ onsson, Computa- tional Material Science 36, 354 (2006)

    2006

  48. [64]

    Foyevtsova, H

    K. Foyevtsova, H. O. Jeschke, I. I. Mazin, D. I. Khomskii, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B88, 035107 (2013)

    2013

  49. [65]

    Aichhorn, L

    M. Aichhorn, L. Pourovskii, V. Vildosola, M. Ferrero, O. Parcollet, T. Miyake, A. Georges, and S. Biermann, Phys. Rev. B 80, 085101 (2009)

    2009

  50. [66]

    Ferber, K

    J. Ferber, K. Foyevtsova, H. O. Jeschke, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B 89, 205106 (2014)

    2014

  51. [67]

    Blaha, K

    P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz (2001)

    2001

  52. [68]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  53. [69]

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

    2016

Pith tools

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