Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Spin waves in Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ studied by high-frequency/high-field ESR: Successes and failures of the triple-$\mathbf{q}$ model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that the ordered magnetic ground state of Na2Co2TeO6 carries three low-energy spin-wave branches, a count that rules out every published zigzag model and leaves the triple-q model incomplete.

desk verdict A careful ESR study that sharpens the case against the triple-q model; the extra-mode argument holds up better than the stress-test suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03789 v1 pith:H3I2CJP2 submitted 2025-06-04 cond-mat.str-el

Luca Bischof , Jan Arneth , Raju Kalaivanan , Raman Sankar , Kwang-Yong Choi , Rüdiger Klingeler This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.30.Ds76.30.-v75.50.Ee
keywords Na2Co2TeO6Kitaevquantumspinliquidhigh-fieldelectronresonancewavestriple-qmagneticorderHeisenberg-Kitaevmodelzigzagmagnetismmagnonsoftening
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

High-frequency electron spin resonance on Na2Co2TeO6 single crystals resolves the low-energy magnetic excitations and uses them to test proposed spin models. For fields along the c axis, the paper finds three distinct spin-wave modes with a split zero-field gap, $\Delta = 211$ GHz and $\Delta_2 = 237$ GHz, where earlier bulk probes had seen only one broad gap. One mode softens at $B_{\rm c1} = 4.7$ T, matching a kink in the magnetization and indicating a field-induced phase transition. Comparing the measured modes with linear spin-wave calculations, the paper argues that all published zigzag-based extended Heisenberg-Kitaev models fail, while the only reported triple-q model reproduces two modes but misses the softening one. The conclusion is that the triple-q ground-state picture is incomplete and that interlayer interactions are a likely missing ingredient.

What carries the argument

The discriminating observable is the number and field dependence of zero-wave-vector magnon modes for $B \parallel c$, measured by high-frequency electron spin resonance; in an ordered magnet the mode count equals the number of magnetic sublattices in the ground-state unit cell. The calculations are linear spin wave theory on classically relaxed ground states for the extended Heisenberg-Kitaev Hamiltonian, with a Zeeman term built from the measured anisotropic g-factors, and for the triple-q case a non-bilinear ring-exchange term approximated as effective local fields. The split gaps and non-zero effective g-factors are traced to the difference $J_{2A} - J_{2B}$ between next-neighbor couplings on the two Co sublattices.

What would settle it

Measure the low-energy $B \parallel c$ spin-wave spectrum of a detwinned single crystal with a bulk momentum-sensitive probe such as high-resolution inelastic neutron scattering and show that fewer than three distinct branches exist, or that the third line is an impurity, domain, or two-magnon artifact; conversely, a slightly adjusted or interlayer-extended triple-q model that reproduces all three branches including the softening would confirm the paper's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental discovery is that the antiferromagnetic ground state of Na2Co2TeO6 has three low-energy magnon branches for $B \parallel c$, with zero-field gaps of $\Delta = 211$ GHz and $\Delta_2 = 237$ GHz, and that the lowest branch softens at $B_{\rm c1} = 4.7$ T. Linear spin-wave calculations for every published zigzag Heisenberg-Kitaev parameter set produce at most two low-energy modes, almost field-independent mode frequencies at low field, and softening only above 10 T, in direct contradiction with the data. The triple-q model reproduces the rising modes c2 and c3, including the split-gap structure tied to the sublattice difference $J_{2A} \neq J_{2B}$, but it does not predict the softening mode c1. Because the number of magnon branches equals the number of magnetic sublattices, the extra mode means the true magnetic unit cell must be larger than the one assumed by the triple-q model; the paper proposes interlayer coupling as the most plausible way to enlarge it.

Load-bearing premise

The ESR lines c1, c2, and c3 are intrinsic magnon branches of a single magnetic domain in the bulk antiferromagnetic phase, and the triple-q model's fixed parameters do not shift significantly with field; if any line has a non-magnon origin or the model parameters are strongly field-dependent, the mode count that invalidates the triple-q model collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All published zigzag parameter sets for Na2Co2TeO6 are excluded: they predict at most two low-energy modes, near-zero effective g-factors at low field, and softening only above 10 T for $B \parallel c$.
  • The zero-field gap structure of the antiferromagnetic phase is a split pair, $\Delta = 211$ GHz and $\Delta_2 = 237$ GHz, which any future model must reproduce.
  • The softening of mode c1 at $B_{\rm c1} = 4.7$ T anchors a field-induced phase transition that also appears as a kink in isothermal magnetization and in magnetostriction.
  • The triple-q model remains partly correct: it captures c2 and c3 and the split-gap structure, but its eight-sublattice unit cell cannot generate the extra c1 branch, so the true magnetic unit cell must be larger, e.g. through interlayer coupling giving 16 modes.
  • A complete model will need a combined analysis of in-field ESR data with zero-field single-crystal inelastic neutron scattering, including $J_{2A} \neq J_{2B}$, non-bilinear interactions treated without approximation, and interlayer couplings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing c1 mode comes from interlayer coupling, the same coupling should create a small but finite out-of-plane dispersion of the spin-wave branches, which a dedicated search along the out-of-plane momentum direction in existing single-crystal neutron data could directly test.
  • The mode-count argument implies that any correct Hamiltonian must have at least as many magnetic sublattices as observed branches; enlarged in-plane supercells such as $(2\times4)$ or $(4\times4)$ would also produce zone-folding signatures in neutron or resonant x-ray scattering, distinguishing them from the interlayer scenario.
  • Because $J_{2A} - J_{2B}$ controls both the split gaps and the ferrimagnetic moment, a controlled tuning of the two Co sublattices, by strain or chemical substitution, should continuously change the gap difference and the magnetization, a testable prediction the paper does not state.
  • Applying the same ESR protocol to other honeycomb cobaltates could show whether an extra magnon branch is a generic feature of triple-q Kitaev candidates or specific to Na2Co2TeO6.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-frequency/high-field electron spin resonance (HF-ESR) measurements on single-crystal Na2Co2TeO6 for magnetic fields along both the c axis and the in-plane a* axis. For B||c, three distinct spin-wave modes (c1, c2, c3) are observed in the antiferromagnetic phase; linear extrapolations yield zero-field gaps Delta = 211(6) GHz and Delta_2 = 237(5) GHz. Mode c1 softens near 4.7 T, coincident with a kink in the isothermal magnetization. Spin-wave calculations using published extended Heisenberg-Kitaev parameters, with no refitting to the ESR data, show that all published zigzag ground-state models are incompatible with the observed strong field dependence and softening field, while the triple-q model of Krüger et al. reproduces modes c2 and c3 but fails to reproduce mode c1. The authors conclude that the triple-q ground-state model is incomplete and suggest the relevance of interlayer interactions.

Significance. If the mode assignment is correct, the paper provides a decisive experimental test of published spin models for Na2Co2TeO6: all reported zigzag models are excluded by the strong field dependence and by the softening field near 5 T, and the only published triple-q model is shown to describe two of the three observed low-energy modes. The use of literature parameters without refitting makes this a genuine, non-circular model comparison, which is a notable strength. The concurrence of the c1 softening with a magnetization kink at Bc1 = 4.7 T also establishes a well-characterized field-induced transition. These results, if confirmed, constitute an important step toward constraining the microscopic Hamiltonian of a leading Kitaev candidate material.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A and IV B] The inference that c1 is an additional magnon branch of the bulk single-domain ground state is load-bearing for the central claim that the triple-q model is incomplete. HF-ESR is a k=0 probe with no momentum resolution, and the paper does not discuss whether magnetic domain multiplicity, surface excitations, or minority phases could produce an extra resonance. The authors carefully exclude a paramagnetic impurity mode (p), but c1 is not subjected to equivalent scrutiny. Please add an explicit argument that all possible domains of the triple-q state remain equivalent under B||c, or provide an additional control (e.g., a second crystal, angular dependence, or a domain-sensitive comparison). Without this, the mode-counting argument for a larger magnetic supercell is incomplete.
  2. [Fig. 3b and Section III A] The zero-field gaps Delta = 211 GHz and Delta_2 = 237 GHz are obtained by linear extrapolation from data at B > 1.5 T. The paper acknowledges that flattening near zero field cannot be excluded, yet the abstract presents these extrapolated values without qualification. Please quantify the uncertainty in the extrapolation (for example, by fitting alternative functional forms) or explicitly state the range of zero-field gaps consistent with the data. This is not fatal to the extra-mode conclusion, but it is needed to support the quantitative gap values quoted in the abstract and conclusions.
  3. [Section IV B and Eq. (3)] The triple-q calculation assumes field-independent effective local fields h and field-independent renormalized bilinear couplings. The paper acknowledges this is an approximation for B != 0. The conclusion that c1 cannot be one of the high-energy modes relies on the qualitative argument that a reordering is 'highly unlikely'. This argument would be strengthened by a controlled test, such as allowing h to vary linearly with field and examining whether a high-energy branch can be brought down to the observed c1 frequency without destroying the agreement for c2 and c3. As written, the exclusion of field-induced mode reordering remains plausible but not demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the zero-field excitation gap splits into Delta = 211 GHz and Delta_2 = 237 GHz without noting that these values are extrapolated; please add 'extrapolated' or a similar qualifier, as the main text correctly acknowledges that flattening near zero field cannot be excluded.
  2. [Section IV C] The phrase 'spreads over at least 16 magnetic sides for a (2 x 4) cell' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read '16 magnetic sites' or '16 spins'.
  3. [Section III A] The sentence 'In contrast, upon reducing f below 259 GHz, the resonance mode c1 is found at increasing magnetic fields' is confusingly worded; it would be clearer to state that lower frequencies require higher resonance fields for c1.
  4. [Fig. 3b caption] The dashed line representing the non-linear extrapolation of c1 is described in the caption, but the functional form (e.g., parabolic or square-root) is not given; specifying the form would help readers assess the extrapolation to Bc1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model parameters are taken from prior literature and never refit to the new ESR data, so the falsification of the triple-q model is an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's central negative claim—that all published zigzag models fail and the Krüger triple-q model reproduces only c2/c3—is derived by taking the reported parameter sets (Sanders tx+, Lin, Songvilay, Kim, Samarakoon, Krüger et al.) as fixed inputs, computing linear spin-wave spectra with SpinW, and comparing them with ESR resonance positions measured in this work. No parameter is fitted to the ESR data before the comparison: the resonance gaps and effective g-factors are obtained by standard linear fits to the measured frequency-field data, and the model spectra are then evaluated at the same fields. The extra-mode conclusion follows from the count of calculated branches versus the observed three low-energy resonances, not from any quantity that was defined in terms of the conclusion. The only same-group citation used as external support (Ref. [41], unpublished magnetostriction) is non-load-bearing because the phase transition is already indicated by the measured softening of c1 and by the magnetization kink obtained in this work. The admitted inability to exclude zero-field flattening is an uncertainty about the gap values, not a circularity. Potential domain-multiplicity interpretations of c1 are a scientific vulnerability of the mode-counting argument, but they do not make the model comparison circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters beyond the standard fits to resonance positions; it uses published Hamiltonian parameters. The main assumptions are the validity of linear spin wave theory, the single-domain magnon assignment, and the field-independence of the effective local fields capturing ring exchange.

free parameters (6)
  • Zero-field gap of mode c1 (Delta_1) = 215(4) GHz
    From linear fit of c1 resonance frequencies vs field (Fig. 3b).
  • Zero-field gap of mode c2 (Delta_2) = 237(5) GHz
    From linear fit of c2; distinguishably larger than Delta_1; central to the split-gap claim.
  • Zero-field gap of mode c3 (Delta_3) = 206(11) GHz
    From linear fit of c3; within error of Delta_1, so Delta is their average.
  • Effective g-factor of mode c1 = -2.81(11)
    Slope of hf vs B for c1; negative slope indicates softening.
  • Effective g-factor of mode c2 = 4.63(9)
    Slope for c2; compared to the triple-q model's predicted positive slopes.
  • Effective g-factor of mode c3 = 3.81(11)
    Slope for c3; part of the three-mode pattern used in the model comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The low-energy physics is governed by the extended Heisenberg-Kitaev Hamiltonian HHK (Eq. 2) with an effective spin-1/2 Kramers doublet.
    Taken from prior literature on Co-based Kitaev materials; all spin-wave calculations in Section IV and Appendix A assume this Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Linear spin wave theory correctly describes the low-energy magnon spectrum of the ordered states.
    Used for all theoretical curves (Figs. 5, 6, A3); assumes small fluctuations around classical ground states, standard for this material class.
  • domain assumption The published interaction parameter sets (Table II) faithfully represent the proposed models.
    The exclusion of zigzag models and the failure of the triple-q model are tested only for these published parameter sets; the paper does not scan the full parameter space.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-bilinear ring-exchange interaction is captured by field-independent effective local fields (Eq. 3) with h=0.88 meV for all applied fields.
    Explicitly stated as an approximation in Section IV B; if these terms acquire field dependence, the in-field spectrum of the triple-q model could change, affecting the comparison.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic g-tensor components gc=2.3 and gab=4.13 from Ref. [14] are used in the Zeeman term.
    Limits the quantitative accuracy of the calculated field dependence; at high fields, deviations from the experimental g factors are already noted in Section III B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin waves in Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ studied by high-frequency/high-field ESR: Successes and failures of the triple-$\mathbf{q}$ model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3I2CJP2

@misc{pith2026250603789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin waves in Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ studied by high-frequency/high-field ESR: Successes and failures of the triple-$\mathbfq$ model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3I2CJP2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03789}
}
abstract

The Kitaev candidate material Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ is proposed to be proximate to a quantum spin liquid state but a suitable spin model and the nature of its ground states are still under debate. Our high-frequency/high-field electron spin resonance spectroscopy studies of Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ single-crystals under in-plane and out-of-plane magnetic fields elucidate the ground state by investigating its low-energy spin wave excitations. Several excitation modes are observed in the low-field phase and in the phases induced by $B\parallel a^*$. In addition, the spectra exhibit a frequency-independent feature at the phase boundary connected to the putative quantum phase transition. For magnetic fields applied along the $c$ axis, the observation of three distinct spin wave modes in the antiferromagnetic (AFM) ground state reveals a previously unresolved splitting of the zero-field excitation gap into $\Delta = 211\,$GHz and $\Delta_2 = 237\,$GHz. The softening of one of these modes evidences a field-induced phase transition at $B_{\rm c1} = 4.7\,$T, which is corroborated by a clear anomaly in the isothermal magnetization. Spin wave calculations based on the extended Heisenberg-Kitaev model exclude a zigzag ground state of the AFM phase. A triple-q spin configuration correctly predicts two spin wave modes, but fails to reproduce the softening mode. Our analysis shows that the triple-q ground state model of Na$_2$Co$_2$TeO$_6$ is incomplete and suggests the relevance of interlayer interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal structure and proposed magnetic structures of the ground state of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. HF-ESR spectra of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin waves and magnetization for out-of-plane magnetic fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. HF-ESR of Na [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Characteristics of the zigzag state in the extended Heisenberg-Kitaev model tx+ for out-of-plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spin wave modes of the triple- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lefran¸ cois, M

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

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of Applied Crystallography 44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Kitaev, Annals of Physics 321, 2 (2006), january Special Issue

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

    2006

  4. [4]

    Jackeli and G

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

    2009

  5. [5]

    Takagi, T

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

    2019

  6. [6]

    Hwan Chun, J.-W

    S. Hwan Chun, J.-W. Kim, J. Kim, H. Zheng, C. C. Stoumpos, C. Malliakas, J. Mitchell, K. Mehlawat, 19 Y. Singh, Y. Choi, et al. , Nature Physics 11, 462 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    J. c. v. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 097204 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Do, S.-Y

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

    work page 2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Kasahara, T

    Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Nature 559, 227 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Janssen, E

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

    2017

  3. [11]

    Liu and G

    H. Liu and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014407 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    R. Sano, Y. Kato, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014408 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

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

    2020

  6. [14]

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

    2021

  7. [15]

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    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. B102, 224429 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

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

    2022

  11. [19]

    Arneth, K.-Y

    J. Arneth, K.-Y. Choi, R. Kalaivanan, R. Sankar, and R. Klingeler, Phys. Rev. B 110, L140402 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Kikuchi, T

    J. Kikuchi, T. Kamoda, N. Mera, Y. Takahashi, K. Okumura, and Y. Yasui, Phys. Rev. B 106, 224416 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    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. B 108, 064421 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    X. Hong, M. Gillig, R. Hentrich, W. Yao, V. Kocsis, A. R. Witte, T. Schreiner, D. Baumann, N. P´ erez, A. U. B. Wolter, Y. Li, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, Phys. Rev. B 104, 144426 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Yao and Y

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

    2020

  17. [25]

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

    2017

  18. [26]

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

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. A. Paddison, H. Zhang, J. Yan, M. J. Cliffe, M. A. McGuire, S.-H. Do, S. Gao, M. B. Stone, D. Dahlbom, K. Barros, et al. , npj Quantum Materials 9, 48 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    W. Yao, Y. Zhao, Y. Qiu, C. Balz, J. R. Stewart, J. W. Lynn, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L022045 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    X. Jin, M. Geng, F. Orlandi, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, Y. Liu, and Y. Li, Robust triple-q magnetic order with trainable spin vorticity in na 2co2teo6 (2025), arXiv:2501.07843 [cond-mat.str-el]. 20

    2025

  22. [30]

    Francini and L

    N. Francini and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B 110, 235118 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Xiang, R

    L. Xiang, R. Dhakal, M. Ozerov, Y. Jiang, B. S. Mou, A. Ozarowski, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, J. Fang, S. M. Winter, Z. Jiang, and D. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 076701 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    J. Jiao, X. Li, G. Lin, M. Shu, W. Xu, O. Zaharko, T. Shiroka, T. Hong, A. I. Kolesnikov, G. Deng, et al. , Commun Mater 5, 159 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Comba, M

    P. Comba, M. Großhauser, R. Klingeler, C. Koo, Y. Lan, D. M¨ uller, J. Park, A. Powell, M. J. Riley, and H. Wadepohl, Inorg. Chem. 54, 11247 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Werner, W

    J. Werner, W. Hergett, M. Gertig, J. Park, C. Koo, and R. Klingeler, Phys. Rev. B 95, 214414 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    R. S. Fishman, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, and T. R˜ o˜ om,Spin-wave theory and its applications to neutron scattering and THz spectroscopy (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, 2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Jonak, E

    M. Jonak, E. Walendy, J. Arneth, M. Abdel-Hafiez, and R. Klingeler, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214412 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    A. K. Bera, S. M. Yusuf, F. Orlandi, P. Manuel, L. Bhaskaran, and S. A. Zvyagin, Phys. Rev. B 108, 214419 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    A. I. Kurbakov, A. N. Korshunov, S. Y. Podchezertsev, A. L. Malyshev, M. A. Evstigneeva, F. Damay, J. Park, C. Koo, R. Klingeler, E. A. Zvereva, and V. B. Nalbandyan, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024417 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Arneth, R

    J. Arneth, R. Kalaivanan, R. Sankar, K.-Y. Choi, and R. Klingeler, unpublished

  34. [42]

    E. A. Turov, Physical Properties of Magnetically Ordered Crystals (Academic Press, New York, 1965)

    1965

  35. [43]

    Werner, W

    J. Werner, W. Hergett, J. Park, C. Koo, E. Zvereva, A. Vasiliev, and R. Klingeler, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 481, 100 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    X. Hong, M. Gillig, W. Yao, L. Janssen, V. Kocsis, S. Gass, Y. Li, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, and C. Hess, npj Quantum Mater. 9, 18 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    P. Miao, X. Jin, W. Yao, Y. Chen, A. Koda, Z. Tan, W. Xie, W. Ji, T. Kamiyama, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. B 109, 134431 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by publisher] which contains further high- frequency/high-field electron spin resonance data on Na 2Co2TeO6

  40. [48]

    Takeda, J

    H. Takeda, J. Mai, M. Akazawa, K. Tamura, J. Yan, K. Moovendaran, K. Raju, R. Sankar, K.-Y. Choi, and M. Yamashita, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042035 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Pilch, L

    P. Pilch, L. Peedu, A. K. Bera, S. M. Yusuf, U. Nagel, T. R˜ o om, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 108, L140406 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    J. c. v. Chaloupka and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024413 (2015). 21

    2015

  44. [52]

    Zhang, S

    S. Zhang, S. Lee, E. Brosha, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, V. S. Zapf, and M. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144431 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Wang and Z.-X

    J. Wang and Z.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 108, 014437 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Francini and L

    N. Francini and L. Janssen, Phys. Rev. B 109, 075104 (2024). APPENDIX Appendix A: Spin wave calculations for Na 2Co2T eO6 Spin wave frequencies were calculated using linear spin wave theory for the Heisenberg-Kitaev Hamiltonian HHK defined in Eq. (2). The interactions of HHK i...

    2024

  47. [55]

    [14, 17, 46, 50] are shown in Fig

    Zigzag ground state models The spin wave frequencies of zigzag ground state models for Na2Co2TeO6 reported in Refs. [14, 17, 46, 50] are shown in Fig. A3a-e. In the zigzag phase at low fields, all reported models exhibit the three characteristic properties discussed in the mai...

  48. [56]

    II) are generally not energetically minimal states of the Kitaev-Heisenberg-model and exhibit higher classical energy than the zigzag ground states

    T riple-q ground state model The studied triple- q configurations (see Sec. II) are generally not energetically minimal states of the Kitaev-Heisenberg-model and exhibit higher classical energy than the zigzag ground states. 23 FIG. A2. Characteristic quantities of the triple-...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.