Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Field-induced spin continuum in twin-free Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ revealed by magneto-THz spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In twin-free Na3Co2SbO6, an in-plane magnetic field transforms the zero-field 0.5 THz magnon into a magnetic continuum over an intermediate field range, with strong a-b anisotropy.

desk verdict Careful new THz data on twin-free Na3Co2SbO6 show robust a-b anisotropy and a field-induced broad response, but the continuum interpretation is not yet established—and the paper says so itself. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11213 v1 pith:ZIZ5JZ47 submitted 2025-07-15 cond-mat.str-el

Rongsheng Li , Liyu Shi , Yuchen Gu , Yue Chen , Xintong Li , Qiong Wu , Shuxiang Xu , Dong Wu
show 4 more authors
Yuan Li Fa Wang Tao Dong Nanlin Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Na3Co2SbO6magneto-THzspectroscopyspincontinuumKitaevquantumliquidmagneticanisotropyspin-wavetheoryfractionalizedexcitationstwin-freecrystal
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

Using magneto-terahertz spectroscopy on a twin-free crystal of the honeycomb magnet Na3Co2SbO6, the paper traces what happens to the 0.5 THz (2 meV) spin-wave mode as an in-plane magnetic field is applied. In an intermediate field range, 1.3 to 1.7 T for field along the a axis and 0.5 to 0.8 T for field along the b axis, the sharp magnon disappears and is replaced by a broad magnetic continuum before the system enters a spin-polarized state at higher fields. The same measurements show a strong difference between the a and b crystallographic axes in both magnon intensity and field threshold, which the authors take as evidence that any successful spin model for this material must be strongly anisotropic. Because the crystals are twin-free, the continuum cannot be blamed on twinning domains, strengthening the case that it reflects intrinsic, possibly fractionalized, excitations in a Kitaev-candidate material. The microscopic origin of the continuum is left open.

What carries the argument

The central experimental object is the imaginary part of the dynamic magnetic susceptibility, $\chi_2(\omega)$, obtained from time-domain THz transmission through a twin-free crystal; it gives direct access to $q = 0$ spin excitations with polarization selection rules controlled by the THz magnetic field. The theoretical engine is a $q = 0$ linear spin-wave treatment of a fully polarized honeycomb magnet with an anisotropic g-tensor, which produces the magnon energies $\epsilon_{a,+}$ and $\epsilon_{b,+}$ in terms of the applied field and the Curie-Weiss temperatures $\Theta_a$, $\Theta_b$, and $\Theta_{c^*}$. To make the $q = 0$ interaction diagonal in the crystallographic basis, the paper assumes that the particular parameter combination $\Delta = (K_X - K_Z) - (\Gamma_X + \Gamma'_X + \Gamma'_Z) + (2\Gamma''_X + \Gamma_Z)$ vanishes; under that assumption the measured field dependence fixes $g_a$, $g_b$, and the Curie-Weiss temperature differences, which in turn constrain a strongly anisotropic Kitaev-Heisenberg-Gamma Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Fit the high-field one-magnon energies without imposing the simplifying cancellation among exchange couplings and without assuming the g-tensor is diagonal: if a model with a nonzero value of that combination or a rotated g-tensor matches the data equally well, then the extracted g-factors and Curie-Weiss temperature differences do not uniquely support the proposed anisotropic Hamiltonian, and the description of the high-field state as a fully polarized spin-wave state would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At zero field and below the Neel temperature of 6.6 K, the zone-center spin excitation spectrum of Na3Co2SbO6 consists of a single magnon at 0.5 THz (2 meV) whose spectral weight accounts for the full dc magnetic susceptibility, while above the ordering temperature a low-energy continuum appears. The central experimental discovery is that an in-plane field does not simply soften and close this magnon: over a wide intermediate range, 1.3 to 1.7 T for B along a and 0.5 to 0.8 T for B along b, the magnon is replaced by a magnetic continuum, and only above the upper critical field do sharp spin waves reappear in a spin-polarized state. The field evolution differs strongly for the two in-plane axes, and the magnon intensities for THz polarization along a and b differ by roughly a factor of two, which the paper argues rules out a simple zigzag state with spins along b and favors a double-q structure or two tilted zigzag domains. In the high-field phase the one-magnon modes fit a linear spin-wave model with anisotropic g-factors ($g_a = 6.31$, $g_b = 7.14$) and Curie-Weiss temperature differences ($\Theta_b - \Theta_a = 3.66$ K, $\Theta_b - \Theta_{c^*} = 9.78$ K), while the coexistence of two-magnon features shows the high-field state is not fully polarized.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that in the high-field phase the spins are almost fully polarized along the field and the interaction tensor at zero momentum is diagonal in the crystal axes, so that a particular combination of exchange couplings can be set to zero; the observed two-magnon excitations show this polarized limit is not fully reached, and if the assumption is relaxed the fitted g-factors and Curie-Weiss differences may change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the observations are correct, Na3Co2SbO6 becomes a model system for field-tunable quantum magnetism in a clean twin-free honeycomb lattice, with a continuum window much wider than the one seen in BaCo2(AsO4)2.
  • The strong a-b anisotropy rules out the simple zigzag spin structure with moments along b, so any acceptable spin Hamiltonian must be strongly anisotropic and must reproduce a double-q structure or two tilted zigzag domains.
  • The continuum above the ordering temperature and inside the intermediate field range is consistent with fractionalized excitations of a Kitaev-type spin liquid, although an XXZ-$J_1$-$J_3$ spinon scenario remains open and the paper does not claim to distinguish them.
  • The high-field phase is not truly fully polarized because two-magnon excitations persist, so the linear spin-wave fits describe only the dominant one-magnon response.
  • The spectral-weight analysis shows the zero-field magnon exhausts the dc magnetic susceptibility, implying the THz continuum appears through field- and temperature-driven changes in the spectrum rather than coexisting with a sharp magnon in the ordered state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: a direct test of the fractionalized-excitation scenario would be to extend measurements below 0.2 THz; the paper's sum-rule analysis leaves room for a low-energy asymmetric peak near $\omega/J_1 \sim 0.1$ predicted by parton mean-field theory, and finding or failing to find it would discriminate between that scenario and a multi-magnon origin.
  • Extension: the high-field fit could be redone without setting the exchange combination $\Delta$ to zero and without assuming a diagonal g-tensor; if a model with nonzero $\Delta$ or a rotated g-tensor fits equally well, the extracted g-factors and Curie-Weiss differences would no longer pin down the proposed anisotropic Hamiltonian.
  • Extension: measuring the same spectra on deliberately twinned crystals of NCSO would quantify how much of the continuum is intrinsic rather than disorder-related, since the twin-free choice already removes twinning as a source of spectral continua.
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 manuscript reports magneto-THz spectroscopy on a twin-free single crystal of Na3Co2SbO6. It identifies a 0.47 THz magnon below the N\'eel temperature, a continuum-like response above TN, and a broad low-energy field-induced response between the two critical fields for both B\|\|a (1.3\u20131.7 T) and B\|\|b (0.5\u20130.8 T). In the high-field regime, well-defined one-magnon and two-magnon modes are observed, and the field dependence of the one-magnon energies is fitted with a phenomenological linear spin-wave model that yields anisotropic g-factors and Curie-Weiss temperature differences. The authors interpret the intermediate-field response as a possible magnetic continuum and emphasize the strong a\u2013b anisotropy as evidence for a strongly anisotropic spin model.

Significance. If the intermediate-field response is an intrinsic magnetic continuum, this would be a significant result: NCSO is a relatively disorder-free 3d7 honeycomb Kitaev candidate, and the continuum spans a broader field range than in BaCo2(AsO4)2, providing a potentially clean platform for studying field-tunable quantum magnetism. The paper contains solid experimental assets, including the use of a twin-free crystal, clear polarization- and field-dependent data, and a spectral-weight sum-rule check that matches the dc susceptibility. However, the fractionalized-excitation interpretation is not established: the two-domain magnon scenario is explicitly left open, and the high-field quantitative model relies on assumptions that the paper itself calls into question.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'To further investigate the in-plane anisotropy' paragraph; SM, 'Magnetic susceptibility with B\|\|b'] The central claim that the intermediate-field response is an intrinsic magnetic continuum is not established because the manuscript explicitly concedes that the two-domain zigzag scenario is not excluded ('our results have no obvious contradiction with a double-q structure, they don\u2019t definitively exclude the two-domain zigzag scenario'). A structurally twin-free crystal can still host two magnetic domains, and if those domains have different field-dependent q=0 magnon energies, their overlapping modes can produce a broad, continuum-like envelope without any intrinsic continuum. The absence of domain repopulation in the B \u22a5 hTHz configuration is not a test of domain coexistence. The authors need either a discriminating measurement (for example, the field-training polarimetry they mention) or a quantitative comparison of the predicted two-domain magnon envelope with the observed line shape; absent that, the abstract\u2019s statement that spin waves 'transform to a magnetic continuum' overstates what the data demonstrate.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Eqs. (S9), (S15); main text Table I] The high-field parameter extraction assumes a fully polarized state, a g-tensor diagonal in the crystallographic basis, and the Delta = 0 condition that diagonalizes the q=0 interaction. The main text states that the observation of two-magnon excitations 'suggest[s] the high-field phase has not been fully polarized'; if that is true, Eq. (S9) is not the correct dispersion and the fitted values ga = 6.31, gb = 7.14, and the Curie-Weiss temperature differences in Table I do not have the claimed Hamiltonian interpretation. The Delta = 0 assumption is introduced ad hoc in the SM ('To simplify the discussion, we assume \u2026 = 0') and is load-bearing: without it JAB is not diagonal and Eq. (S9) does not follow. The authors should either justify these assumptions from independent data or explicitly reframe the fit as a purely phenomenological description.
  3. [Main text, 'Field-dependent mode frequencies' paragraph; SM, text after Eq. (S16)] The agreement between the fit curves and the measured high-field mode frequencies, and the statement that epsilon_{a,+} vanishes at about 1.72 T 'close to the measured polarizing field', are presented as support for the model. Since the parameters in Table I were obtained by minimizing the squared deviations of these same data in Eq. (S15), the visual agreement is a measure of fit quality rather than an independent verification, and the 1.72 T value is an extrapolation that inherits all of the fit\u2019s assumptions. This should be stated explicitly, and the 1.72 T value should not be presented as an independent prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and panel labels] The caption says panels (b) and (c) show hTHz \|\| a and hTHz \|\| b, but the panel labels in the figure place hTHz \|\| b on panel (b) and hTHz \|\| a on panel (c); please correct the mismatch.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S1 caption] The caption reads 'for magnetic fields along the a axis and a axis'; the second axis should presumably be b.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S2 caption] Both subcaptions state '(a) hTHz \u22a5 b. (b) hTHz \u22a5 b.'; one of them should be hTHz \|\| b, or the geometry labels should be corrected to match the figure.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'Temperatures and fields evolution' should be 'Temperature and field evolution' for grammatical clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central continuum and anisotropy claims are direct experimental observations, and the high-field model is an explicitly labeled fit with stated assumptions rather than a hidden reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central spectroscopic claims are raw data observations: the zero-field magnon, the continuum above T_N, the field-induced continuum between Bc1 and Bc2, and the a/b anisotropy are all read directly from the measured χ₂(ω) spectra and magnetization data, with no model output fed back into them. The high-field magnon analysis is explicitly a fit: the main text states 'The dashed lines in Fig. 3(c) represent the fitting curves, with corresponding parameters summarized in Table I,' so the agreement between curves and data is not presented as an independent first-principles prediction. The Supplemental Material derives Eqs. S9/S15 under stated assumptions (diagonal g-tensor, linear spin-wave theory for a fully polarized state, and Δ = 0 chosen 'to simplify the discussion'); these are acknowledged model assumptions, not inputs smuggled in via citation, and they weaken the quantitative interpretation rather than making it circular. The statement that 'with these fitting parameters, εₐ,₊(B) vanishes at B ≈ 1.72 T which is close to the measured polarizing field 1.7 T' is a postdiction from fitted parameters, but the 1.7 T polarizing field comes from independent magnetization data, so the comparison is a genuine consistency check and not a fit to that field. Self-citations such as Refs. [45,48] for twin-free crystal growth and the double-q/domain structure are prior experimental characterizations with external techniques, and they are not used to forbid alternative interpretations in a load-bearing way. The paper's own caveat that 'our results have no obvious contradiction with a double-q structure, they don’t definitively exclude the two-domain zigzag scenario' is an interpretation limitation, not a circular step; likewise, the observation that two-magnon features 'suggest the high-field phase has not been fully polarized' is an acknowledged model inconsistency, not a circular derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular: the raw observations stand independently, and the modeling is explicitly fit-based with its limitations stated.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameters are the fitted g-factors and Curie-Weiss temperature differences used in the phenomenological magnon model. The key modeling assumptions are the linear spin-wave treatment, the C2h symmetry with diagonal g-tensor, the ad hoc Delta = 0 choice, and the quasi-2D single-layer approximation. These assumptions are reasonable for a first analysis but are not all independently justified, and the authors note that some of them differ from or are stronger than those in previous work.

free parameters (4)
  • ga = 6.31
    Anisotropic g-factor along the a axis, fitted to the field-dependent magnon energies in the polarized phase (Supplemental Material, fitting section).
  • gb = 7.14
    Anisotropic g-factor along the b axis, fitted to the field-dependent magnon energies in the polarized phase (Supplemental Material, fitting section).
  • Theta_b - Theta_a = 3.66 K
    Difference of Curie-Weiss temperatures along b and a, fitted to the field-dependent magnon frequencies and used in Eqs. (1)-(2).
  • Theta_b - Theta_c* = 9.78 K
    Difference of Curie-Weiss temperatures along b and c*, fitted to the field-dependent magnon frequencies and used in Eqs. (1)-(2).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Linear spin wave theory via Holstein-Primakoff bosons is valid for the high-field state at 2 K.
    The model formulas in the Supplemental Material rely on standard spin-wave expansion about a fully polarized state; the authors use this to derive Eqs. (1)-(2).
  • ad hoc to paper The crystal has C2h symmetry, the g-tensor is diagonal in the crystallographic basis, and the q = 0 interaction matrix can be diagonalized by setting Delta = 0.
    In the Supplemental Material, the authors state 'To simplify the discussion, we assume that Delta = ... = 0' and note that the diagonal g-tensor assumption 'differs from that in Ref. [69]'. These assumptions are made to obtain a closed form for the magnon energies.
  • domain assumption The relation kB Theta_d = -S(S+1)/3 J_+,d for S = 1/2 connects Curie-Weiss temperatures to the q = 0 exchange parameters.
    This relation is taken from Ref. [69] and used to express magnon energies in terms of Curie-Weiss temperature differences; it is a standard but approximate relation for localized spins.
  • domain assumption The material can be treated as a quasi-two-dimensional single honeycomb layer.
    The model in the Supplemental Material begins with 'We assume that Na3Co2SbO6 is quasi-two-dimensional and consider a single layer' to reduce the spin Hamiltonian to a single-layer honeycomb model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-induced spin continuum in twin-free Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ revealed by magneto-THz spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIZ5JZ47

@misc{pith2026250711213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-induced spin continuum in twin-free Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ revealed by magneto-THz spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIZ5JZ47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11213}
}
abstract

The honeycomb magnet Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ recently emerged as a promising candidate for realizing Kitaev quantum spin liquid with relatively low levels of structural disorder. While the precise spin Hamiltonian remains controversial, the potential existence of a quantum spin liquid or other novel quantum magnetic phases continues to stimulate investigation. Here, we study the temperature and magnetic field-dependent spin excitations of Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ on a twin-free single crystal using magneto-terahertz (THz) spectroscopy, focusing on magnetic anisotropy and field-induced unusual phases. We observe a low-energy continuum excitation above $T_N$ and a 0.5 THz (2 meV) spin wave excitation in magnetic order under zero field. Upon applying an in-plane magnetic field, the spin waves transform to a magnetic continuum over an intermediate field range, above which the system enters a spin-polarized state. Crucially, the spin excitation spectra reveal striking anisotropy between the $\textbf{a}$ and $\textbf{b}$ crystallographic axes, demanding description by a strongly anisotropic spin model. These findings establish Na$_3$Co$_2$SbO$_6$ as a model system for investigating field-tunable quantum magnetism and potential spin liquid behavior in highly anisotropic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the THz transmission measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperatures and fields evolution of the magnetic s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The terahertz transmission spectrum with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973)

    P . Anderson, Materials Research Bulletin 8, 153 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Balents, nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, nature 464, 199 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Takagi, T

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

    2019

  5. [5]

    Freedman, A

    M. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 40, 31 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Motome and J

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

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

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

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

    2006

  8. [8]

    Banerjee, J

    A. Banerjee, J. Yan, J. Knolle, C. A. Bridges, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, and S . E. Nagler, Science 356, 1055 (2017) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aah6015

    doi:10.1126/science.aah6015 2017

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Hermanns, I

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

    2018

  2. [10]

    Takagi, T

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

    2019

  3. [11]

    J. Nasu, J. Y oshitake, and Y . Motome, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 127204 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    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, A. T. Savici, B. C. Chakoumakos, M. D. Lumsden, D. A. Tennant, R. Moessner, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, npj Quantum Materials 3, 8 (2018)

    2018

  5. [14]

    S. M. Winter, K. Riedl, P . A. Maksimov, A. L. Chernyshev, A. Honecker, and R. V alent´ ı,Nature Communications 8, 1152 (2017)

    2017

  6. [15]

    Hickey and S

    C. Hickey and S. Trebst, Nature Communications 10, 530 (2019)

    2019

  7. [16]

    Do, S.-Y

    S.-H. Do, S.-Y . Park, J. Y oshitake, J. Nasu, Y . Motome, Y . Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. V oneshen, K. Kim, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, K.-Y . Choi, and S. Ji, Nature Physics 13, 1079 (2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    Wulferding, Y

    D. Wulferding, Y . Choi, S.-H. Do, C. H. Lee, P . Lemmens, C . Faugeras, Y . Gallais, and K.-Y . Choi, Nature Communications 11, 1603 (2020)

    2020

  9. [18]

    J. A. N. Bruin, R. R. Claus, Y . Matsumoto, N. Kurita, H. Ta naka, and H. Takagi, Nature Physics 18, 401 (2022)

    2022

  10. [19]

    Czajka, T

    P . Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P . Lampen-Kelley, A . Banerjee, N. Quirk, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P . Ong , Nature Materials 22, 36 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    Wen, S.-L

    J. Wen, S.-L. Y u, S. Li, W. Y u, and J.-X. Li, npj Quantum Materials 4, 12 (2019)

    2019

  12. [21]

    Witczak-Krempa, G

    W. Witczak-Krempa, G. Chen, Y . B. Kim, and L. Balents, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5, 57 (2014) , https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125138

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

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

    2014

  14. [23]

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

    2010

  15. [24]

    Kimchi and Y .-Z

    I. Kimchi and Y .-Z. Y ou,Phys. Rev. B 84, 180407 (2011)

    2011

  16. [25]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    W. Wang, Z.-Y . Dong, S.-L. Y u, and J.-X. Li,Phys. Rev. B 96, 115103 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Janssen, E

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

    2017

  18. [27]

    Rusnaˇ cko, D

    J. Rusnaˇ cko, D. Gotfryd, and J. c. v. Chaloupka, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064425 (2019)

    2019

  19. [28]

    P . A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033011 (2020)

    2020

  20. [29]

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

    2018

  21. [30]

    Z. Wang, J. Guo, F. F. Tafti, A. Hegg, S. Sen, V . A. Sidorov , L. Wang, S. Cai, W. Yi, Y . Zhou, H. Wang, S. Zhang, K. Yang, A. L i, X. Li, Y . Li, J. Liu, Y . Shi, W. Ku, Q. Wu, R. J. Cava, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. B 97, 245149 (2018)

    2018

  22. [31]

    Liu and G

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

    2018

  23. [32]

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

    2018

  24. [33]

    Zhong, T

    R. Zhong, T. Gao, N. P . Ong, and R. J. Cava,Science Advances 6, eaay6953 (2020) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay6953

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    Lefranc ¸ois, M

    E. Lefranc ¸ois, M. Songvilay, J. Robert, G. Nataf, E. Jo rdan, L. Chaix, C. V . Colin, P . Lejay, A. Hadj-Azzem, R. Ballou, and V . Simonet, 6 Phys. Rev. B 94, 214416 (2016)

    2016

  26. [35]

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

    2017

  27. [36]

    Viciu, Q

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

    2007

  28. [37]

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

    2020

  29. [38]

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

    2021

  30. [39]

    V avilova, T

    E. V avilova, T. V asilchikova, A. V asiliev, D. Mikhailo va, V . Nalbandyan, E. Zvereva, and S. V . Streltsov, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054411 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    C. Wong, M. Avdeev, and C. D. Ling, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 243, 18 (2016)

    2016

  32. [41]

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

    2019

  33. [42]

    M. I. Stratan, I. L. Shukaev, T. M. V asilchikova, A. N. V asiliev, A. N. Korshunov, A. I. Kurbakov, V . B. Nalbandyan, and E. A. Zvereva, New J. Chem. 43, 13545 (2019)

    2019

  34. [43]

    Songvilay, J

    M. Songvilay, J. Robert, S. Petit, J. A. Rodriguez-Rive ra, 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

  35. [44]

    Kim, H.-S

    C. Kim, H.-S. Kim, and J.-G. Park, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 34, 023001 (2021)

    2021

  36. [45]

    Y . Gu, X. Li, Y . Chen, K. Iida, A. Nakao, K. Munakata, V . O. Garlea, Y . Li, G. Deng, I. A. Zaliznyak, J. M. Tranquada, and Y . Li, Phys. Rev. B 109, L060410 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Merino and A

    J. Merino and A. Ralko, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205112 (2018)

    2018

  38. [47]

    A. Bose, M. Routh, S. V oleti, S. K. Saha, M. Kumar, T. Saha -Dasgupta, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174422 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    X. Li, Y . Gu, Y . Chen, V . O. Garlea, K. Iida, K. Kamazawa, 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

  40. [49]

    Z. Hu, Y . Chen, Y . Cui, S. Li, C. Li, X. Xu, Y . Chen, X. Li, Y .Gu, R. Y u, R. Zhou, Y . Li, and W. Y u,Phys. Rev. B 109, 054411 (2024)

    2024

  41. [50]

    Sheng, L

    J. Sheng, L. Wang, W. Jiang, H. Ge, N. Zhao, T. Li, M. Kofu, D. Y u, W. Zhu, J.-W. Mei, Z. Wang, and L. Wu, The Innovation 6, 10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100769 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    Z. Ma, J. Wang, Z.-Y . Dong, J. Zhang, S. Li, S.-H. Zheng, Y . Y u, W. Wang, L. Che, K. Ran, S. Bao, Z. Cai, P . ˇCerm´ ak, A. Schneidewind, S. Yano, J. S. Gardner, X. Lu, S.-L. Y u, J.-M. Liu, S. Li, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 087201 (2018)

    2018

  43. [52]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodrig uez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y . S. Lee, Nature 492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  44. [53]

    See Supplemental Material for sample characterizatio n, methods

  45. [54]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y . Xu, T. Halloran, R. Zhong, C. Broholm, R. Cav a, N. Drichko, and N. Armitage, Nature Materials 22, 58 (2023)

    2023

  46. [55]

    Knolle, D

    J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessne r, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 207203 (2014)

    2014

  47. [56]

    Little, L

    A. Little, L. Wu, P . Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, S. Pata nkar, D. Rees, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagl er, and J. Oren- stein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227201 (2017)

    2017

  48. [57]

    J. A. Sears, Y . Zhao, Z. Xu, J. W. Lynn, and Y .-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 95, 180411 (2017)

    2017

  49. [58]

    L. Y . Shi, X. M. Wang, R. D. Zhong, Z. X. Wang, T. C. Hu, S. J. Zhang, Q. M. Liu, T. Dong, F. Wang, and N. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 104, 144408 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    L. Y . Shi, Y . Q. Liu, T. Lin, M. Y . Zhang, S. J. Zhang, L. Wang, Y . G. Shi, T. Dong, and N. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094414 (2018)

    2018

  51. [60]

    L. Wu, A. Little, E. E. Aldape, D. Rees, E. Thewalt, P . Lam pen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, C. A. Bridges, J.-Q. Yan, D. Boone, S. Patankar, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, D. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, E. Altman, an d J. Orenstein, Phys. Rev. B 98, 094425 (2018)

    2018

  52. [61]

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

    2015

  53. [62]

    Z. Wang, S. Reschke, D. H¨ uvonen, S.-H. Do, K.-Y . Choi, M . Gensch, U. Nagel, T. R˜ o om, and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227202 (2017)

    2017

  54. [63]

    Sahasrabudhe, D

    A. Sahasrabudhe, D. A. S. Kaib, S. Reschke, R. German, T. C. Koethe, J. Buhot, D. Kamenskyi, C. Hickey, P . Becker, V . Tsurkan, A. Loidl, S. H. Do, K. Y . Choi, M. Gr¨ uninger, S. M. Winter, Z. Wang, R. V alent´ ı, and P . H. M. van Loosdrecht,Phys. Rev. B 101, 140410 (2020)

    2020

  55. [64]

    Pilch, L

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

    2023

  56. [65]

    Xiang, R

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

    2023

  57. [66]

    Jiang, S

    S. Jiang, S. R. White, and A. L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180406 (2023)

    2023

  58. [67]

    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

  59. [68]

    Yao and Y

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

    2020

  60. [69]

    Lampen-Kelley, S

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

    2018

  61. [70]

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

    2016

  62. [71]

    1” on the ( i, j) and ( j, i) elements and entries “0

    P . A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Phys. Rev. B 106, 214411 (2022) . 7 Supplementary Information for ”Field-induced spin contin uum in twin-free Na 3Co2SbO6 revealed by magneto-THz spectroscopy” SINGLE CRYSTAL GROWTH Single crystals of NCSO were synthesized using a flux meth...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.