arxiv: 2605.06291 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: unknown

Winding feature and thermal evolution of the Dirac magnons in CrI₃

Colin L. Sarkis, Matthew B. Stone, Pengcheng Dai, Ruixian Liu, Weiliang Yao, Xingye Lu, Yi Li

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

keywords Dirac magnonsCrI3inelastic neutron scatteringtopological magnonsmagnon-magnon interactionsvan der Waals magnetsspin excitations

0 comments

The pith

Inelastic neutron scattering reveals a winding feature in the magnon dispersion around the K-point in CrI3, confirming the Dirac character of its topological magnons along with T squared energy renormalization from interactions.

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

The authors use inelastic neutron scattering on improved CrI3 crystals to map its magnon spectrum in detail. They detect a characteristic winding of the magnon bands as they approach the K point in the hexagonal Brillouin zone, which serves as direct evidence for Dirac magnons on the honeycomb lattice. The data further show that magnon energies shift with temperature according to a T squared dependence, matching expectations for magnon-magnon scattering. These observations fill gaps in the known spin excitation spectrum of this van der Waals ferromagnet and strengthen evidence for its nontrivial topological properties.

Core claim

Using inelastic neutron scattering together with improved sample quality, we uncover the magnon winding feature around the K-point of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, a key signature of Dirac magnons. In addition, we find that the magnon energy follows a T^2-renormalization behavior at elevated temperatures, consistent with magnon-magnon interactions. These results provide previously missing information on the magnon spectrum of CrI3 and further consolidate the topological nature of its spin excitations.

What carries the argument

The magnon winding feature around the K-point of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, which functions as the direct experimental signature of Dirac magnons in the spin excitation spectrum.

If this is right

The topological Dirac nature of magnons in CrI3 receives direct experimental confirmation via the winding signature.
Magnon-magnon interactions are established as the dominant mechanism for thermal renormalization of the excitation energies.
CrI3 is validated as a model platform for studying Dirac magnons in two-dimensional van der Waals ferromagnets.
The results supply concrete spectral details needed for theoretical modeling of spin excitations in honeycomb magnets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The winding signature could serve as an experimental benchmark for identifying Dirac magnons in related layered magnets such as other chromium trihalides.
Temperature-dependent studies may help isolate magnon interaction effects from phonon or impurity scattering in similar systems.
This confirmation opens routes to engineer magnonic devices that exploit topological protection in atomically thin magnetic layers.

Load-bearing premise

The observed winding feature arises from the intrinsic topological Dirac character of the magnons rather than from sample defects, impurities, or finite instrumental resolution.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution inelastic neutron scattering measurement on higher-purity CrI3 crystals that detects no winding around the K-point or a linear rather than quadratic temperature dependence would falsify the claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06291 by Colin L. Sarkis, Matthew B. Stone, Pengcheng Dai, Ruixian Liu, Weiliang Yao, Xingye Lu, Yi Li.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Structural and magnetic characterization of CrI view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. INS-measured magnon spectrum and evidence for the view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: ], where only one magnon mode at ∼20 meV can view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Two-dimensional honeycomb lattice ferromagnet chromium tri-iodide (CrI$_3$) has attracted tremendous interest because it retains ferromagnetism down to the monolayer limit and hosts intriguing topological magnons. As a prototypical van der Waals magnet, CrI$_3$ provides an ideal platform for exploring the interplay between reduced dimensionality, magnetic order, and nontrivial spin excitations. Here, using inelastic neutron scattering together with improved sample quality, we uncover the magnon winding feature around the $K$-point of the hexagonal Brillouin zone, a key signature of Dirac magnons. In addition, we find that the magnon energy follows a $T^2$-renormalization behavior at elevated temperatures, consistent with magnon-magnon interactions. These results provide previously missing information on the magnon spectrum of CrI$_3$ and further consolidate the topological nature of its spin excitations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Improved samples let them resolve the predicted magnon winding around K in CrI3 plus a clean T^2 thermal shift, but the direct tie to Dirac topology still needs explicit resolution modeling to rule out artifacts.

read the letter

The main news is that better CrI3 crystals finally let inelastic neutron scattering pick up the winding of the magnon dispersion around the K point, plus a T^2 drop in magnon energy with rising temperature. Both match long-standing predictions for Dirac magnons and magnon-magnon scattering in this material. The sample improvement is the practical step that makes the difference from earlier lower-quality work. The data give a concrete experimental anchor for the topological interpretation that theory papers had been waiting for. The T^2 renormalization looks particularly straightforward and consistent with standard interaction theory. The soft spot is the winding claim. Even with clearer data, inelastic neutron scattering has finite resolution and the hexagonal zone can produce apparent rotational features from broadening or multiple scattering. Without seeing resolution-convolved spin-wave calculations or a direct test of linear versus quadratic curvature at K, the topological assignment rests on the assumption that the feature survives only in the ideal Dirac case. That assumption is plausible but not yet locked down by the visible analysis. This paper is for people working on van der Waals magnets and topological magnons. A reader who needs experimental benchmarks for CrI3 excitations will get useful numbers here. It deserves peer review because the observations are new, the sample advance is real, and the remaining questions are addressable with standard modeling rather than fatal gaps.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports inelastic neutron scattering measurements on high-quality CrI3 crystals, claiming to resolve a winding feature in the magnon dispersion around the K-point of the hexagonal Brillouin zone as direct evidence for Dirac magnons, together with a T^2 renormalization of magnon energies at elevated temperatures that is attributed to magnon-magnon interactions.

Significance. If the winding feature can be shown to arise from the intrinsic topological character rather than experimental artifacts, the work would supply long-sought experimental confirmation of Dirac magnons in a 2D van der Waals ferromagnet and add quantitative information on their thermal evolution, both of which are relevant to the growing field of topological magnonics.

major comments (2)

[Results (magnon dispersion around K)] The central claim that the observed winding around K is a signature of Dirac topology (linear cones with Berry-phase winding) is load-bearing yet rests on an untested assumption. The results section presenting the constant-energy maps and dispersion cuts must include an explicit comparison of the measured intensity distribution to spin-wave calculations that have been convolved with the instrumental resolution function and sample mosaicity; without this, finite-resolution broadening or multiple-scattering effects cannot be ruled out as the origin of the apparent rotational feature.
[Thermal evolution of magnon energy] The T^2 renormalization of magnon energy is presented as arising purely from magnon-magnon interactions. The thermal-evolution analysis should quantify possible contributions from phonon scattering or impurity effects and demonstrate that the extracted temperature dependence remains T^2 after background subtraction and resolution deconvolution; the current consistency statement is insufficient to support the interaction interpretation.

minor comments (2)

[Figure 4 and associated text] Error bars are not reported on the extracted magnon energies or intensities in the temperature-dependence plots; these must be added together with a description of how they were obtained from the fitting procedure.
[Experimental methods] The manuscript should state the instrumental energy and momentum resolution explicitly and indicate how the resolution function was determined or modeled.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the presentation and strengthen the supporting analysis. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results (magnon dispersion around K)] The central claim that the observed winding around K is a signature of Dirac topology (linear cones with Berry-phase winding) is load-bearing yet rests on an untested assumption. The results section presenting the constant-energy maps and dispersion cuts must include an explicit comparison of the measured intensity distribution to spin-wave calculations that have been convolved with the instrumental resolution function and sample mosaicity; without this, finite-resolution broadening or multiple-scattering effects cannot be ruled out as the origin of the apparent rotational feature.

Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison to resolution-convolved spin-wave calculations is required to confirm the intrinsic origin of the winding feature. In the revised manuscript we have added this analysis to the Results section. Linear spin-wave calculations for the CrI3 magnon dispersion were performed and convolved with the measured instrumental resolution function together with the sample mosaicity. The resulting intensity distributions in constant-energy maps reproduce the observed rotational winding around the K point. Multiple-scattering contributions are shown to be negligible given the sample quality and scattering geometry used. These additions directly address the concern and support the topological interpretation. revision: yes
Referee: [Thermal evolution of magnon energy] The T^2 renormalization of magnon energy is presented as arising purely from magnon-magnon interactions. The thermal-evolution analysis should quantify possible contributions from phonon scattering or impurity effects and demonstrate that the extracted temperature dependence remains T^2 after background subtraction and resolution deconvolution; the current consistency statement is insufficient to support the interaction interpretation.

Authors: We acknowledge that the original analysis relied on a consistency statement and did not fully quantify alternative contributions. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the thermal-evolution section to include estimates of phonon-scattering and impurity effects based on literature values for CrI3 and our sample characterization data. These contributions are shown to be sub-dominant and do not change the leading T^2 dependence. We have also applied background subtraction and resolution deconvolution to the temperature-dependent spectra; the T^2 renormalization remains robust. New text and supporting figures have been added to document these steps. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental observations from INS data with no load-bearing derivations or self-citations reducing claims to inputs.

full rationale

The paper reports inelastic neutron scattering measurements on CrI3 samples, directly extracting the magnon winding feature around the K-point and the T^2 temperature renormalization from the measured spectra and intensities. These are empirical observations rather than theoretical predictions or derivations. No equations are presented that define a quantity in terms of itself or rename a fit as a prediction. The central claims rest on new data with improved sample quality, not on prior self-citations or ansatze imported from the authors' earlier work. The topological interpretation is presented as consistent with the data but is not required for the reported features themselves, which are measured quantities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard spin-wave theory for honeycomb ferromagnets and the assumption that neutron scattering intensities map directly to magnon dispersion without significant multi-magnon or phonon contributions. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Magnon dispersion in CrI3 is described by a Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice with nearest-neighbor exchange and anisotropy terms.
Invoked implicitly when interpreting the observed energies as Dirac magnons.
domain assumption T^2 renormalization arises from magnon-magnon interactions rather than other scattering channels.
Stated as consistent with the data but not derived from first principles in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5474 in / 1479 out tokens · 53634 ms · 2026-05-08T08:34:20.216223+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Nature563, 47 (2018)

2018
[2]

Gibertini, M

M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Nanotechnology14, 408 (2019)

2019
[3]

Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya-Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y. Liu, Q.-C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. Vool, J.- X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, 6 R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. Mishchenko, C. Petrovic, R. He, L. Zhao, A. W. Tsen, B. D. Gerardot, M. Brotons- Gisbert, Z. Guguchia, X. Roy, S...

work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.1c09150 2022
[4]

J.-G. Park, K. Zhang, H. Cheong, J. H. Kim, C. Belvin, D. Hsieh, H. Ning, and N. Gedik, Reviews of Modern Physics (2026), 10.1103/2pff-xy6n

work page doi:10.1103/2pff-xy6n 2026
[5]

Huang, G

B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden,et al., Nature546, 270 (2017)

2017
[6]

M. A. McGuire, H. Dixit, V. R. Cooper, and B. C. Sales, Chemistry of Materials27, 612 (2015)

2015
[7]

J. L. Lado and J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, 2D Materials4, 035002 (2017)

2017
[8]

S. A. Owerre, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter28, 386001 (2016)

2016
[9]

S. S. Pershoguba, S. Banerjee, J. C. Lashley, J. Park, H. ˚Agren, G. Aeppli, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011010 (2018)

2018
[10]

A. Mook, K. Plekhanov, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. X11, 021061 (2021)

2021
[11]

P. A. McClarty, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics13, 171 (2022)

2022
[12]

Fransson, A

J. Fransson, A. M. Black-Schaffer, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. B94, 075401 (2016)

2016
[13]

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

2009
[14]

Neutron scattering signatures of magnon weyl points,

S. Shivam, R. Coldea, R. Moessner, and P. McClarty, “Neutron scattering signatures of magnon weyl points,” (2017), arXiv:1712.08535 [cond-mat.str-el]

work page arXiv 2017
[15]

Chen, J.-H

L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, B. Gao, T. Chen, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Q. Huang, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041028 (2018)

2018
[16]

Chen, J.-H

L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, T. Chen, C. Duan, A. Schnei- dewind, I. Radelytskyi, D. J. Voneshen, R. A. Ewings, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, B. Winn, S. Chi, R. A. Mole, D. H. Yu, B. Gao, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B101, 134418 (2020)

2020
[17]

Chen, J.-H

L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, B. Winn, V. O. Garlea, D. L. Abernathy, B. Gao, M. Au- gustin, E. J. G. Santos, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. X11, 031047 (2021)

2021
[18]

J. A. Schneeloch, L. Daemen, and D. Louca, Phys. Rev. B109, 024409 (2024)

2024
[19]

J. A. Schneeloch, A. A. Aczel, F. Ye, and D. Louca, Phys. Rev. B110, 144439 (2024)

2024
[20]

R. Eto, I. Salgado-Linares, M. Mochizuki, J. Knolle, and A. Mook, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13900 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[21]

Lu, J.-L

Y.-S. Lu, J.-L. Li, and C.-T. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 217202 (2021)

2021
[22]

Granroth, D

G. Granroth, D. Vandergriff, and S. Nagler, Physica B: Condensed Matter385-386, 1104 (2006)

2006
[23]

Granroth, A

G. Granroth, A. Kolesnikov, T. Sherline, J. Clancy, K. Ross, J. Ruff, B. Gaulin, and S. Nagler, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 251 (2010) p. 012058

2010
[24]

R. Liu, M. B. Stone, S. Gao, M. Nakamura, K. Ka- mazawa, A. Krajewska, H. C. Walker, P. Cheng, R. Yu, Q. Si, P. Dai, and X. Lu, Nature Communications16, 5212 (2025)

2025
[25]

Y. Li, Y. Shangguan, X. Wang, R. Liu, C. Liu, Y. Han, Z. Wang, C. Balz, R. Stewart, S.-L. Yu, J. Wen, J.-X. Li, and X. Lu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06753 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

M. B. Stone, G. E. Granroth, D. M. Pajerowski, D. L. Abernathy, D. L. Conner, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, V. R. Fanelli, R. Goyette, A. I. Kolesnikov, R. Mills,et al., Scientific Reports15, 31936 (2025)

2025
[27]

Arnoldet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment764, 156 (2014)

O. Arnoldet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment764, 156 (2014)

2014
[28]

Ewings, A

R. Ewings, A. Buts, M. Le, J. van Duijn, I. Bustinduy, and T. Perring, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment834, 132 (2016)

2016
[29]

Z. Cai, S. Bao, Z.-L. Gu, Y.-P. Gao, Z. Ma, Y. Shang- guan, W. Si, Z.-Y. Dong, W. Wang, Y. Wu, D. Lin, J. Wang, K. Ran, S. Li, D. Adroja, X. Xi, S.-L. Yu, X. Wu, J.-X. Li, and J. Wen, Phys. Rev. B104, L020402 (2021)

2021
[30]

S. E. Nikitin, B. F˚ ak, K. W. Kr¨ amer, T. Fennell, B. Nor- mand, A. M. L¨ auchli, and C. R¨ uegg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 127201 (2022)

2022
[31]

S.-H. Do, J. A. M. Paddison, G. Sala, T. J. Williams, K. Kaneko, K. Kuwahara, A. F. May, J. Yan, M. A. McGuire, M. B. Stone, M. D. Lumsden, and A. D. Chris- tianson, Phys. Rev. B106, L060408 (2022)

2022
[32]

Elliot, P

M. Elliot, P. A. McClarty, D. Prabhakaran, R. Johnson, H. Walker, P. Manuel, and R. Coldea, Nature Commu- nications12, 3936 (2021)

2021
[33]

Scheie, P

A. Scheie, P. Laurell, P. A. McClarty, G. E. Granroth, M. B. Stone, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 097201 (2022)

2022
[34]

Scheie, P

A. Scheie, P. Laurell, P. A. McClarty, G. E. Granroth, M. B. Stone, R. Moessner, and S. E. Nagler, Phys. Rev. B105, 104402 (2022)

2022