pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11106 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Contrasting structural reversibility and magnetic correlations in isostructural honeycomb magnets CrCl₃ and α-RuCl₃

Zachary Morgan (1) , Iris Ye (2) , Jiasen Guo (1) , Michael A McGuire (3) , Jiaqiang Yan (3) ((1) Neutron Scattering Division , Oak Ridge National Laboratory , Oak Ridge , Tennessee
show 3 more authors
USA (2) Next Generation Pathway to Computing Program Participant (3) Materials Science Technology Division USA)
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 00:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords honeycomb magnetsstructural transitionmagnetic correlationsneutron diffractionCrCl3RuCl3interlayer slidingantiferromagnetism
0
0 comments X

The pith

CrCl3 remains structurally reversible across its layer transition while α-RuCl3 degrades, due to differences in electronic configuration despite identical honeycomb structures.

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

The paper compares neutron single-crystal diffraction data from CrCl3 and α-RuCl3, two layered compounds with the same honeycomb arrangement of metal ions. Both undergo a first-order structural change from high-temperature C2/m to low-temperature R-3 symmetry accompanied by a step-like expansion along the c axis from interlayer sliding. α-RuCl3 however shows an abrupt hysteretic jump in the in-plane lattice and progressive crystal degradation after repeated thermal cycling, while CrCl3 evolves smoothly and retains quality. Magnetically CrCl3 develops A-type antiferromagnetic order at 14 K together with diffuse scattering that persists up to roughly 40 K, whereas α-RuCl3 orders in a zigzag structure at 7.6 K with no detectable diffuse intensity above the transition. The authors conclude that these structural and magnetic contrasts stem from an interplay between interlayer sliding energetics and the distinct electronic configurations of the Cr3+ and Ru3+ ions.

Core claim

Both compounds undergo the same first-order structural transition involving stacking rearrangement, yet their in-plane lattice responses diverge: α-RuCl3 exhibits abrupt, hysteretic in-plane contraction and irreversible degradation upon cycling, while CrCl3 shows continuous, reversible evolution. Magnetically, CrCl3 orders antiferromagnetically at 14 K with pronounced diffuse scattering extending to 40 K, indicating persistent correlations, whereas α-RuCl3 orders at 7.6 K without observable diffuse scattering above TN. The contrasting behaviors are attributed to differences in interlayer sliding energetics governed by the electronic configurations of the transition-metal ions.

What carries the argument

Interlayer sliding energetics modulated by the distinct electronic configurations of Cr3+ (3d3) and Ru3+ (4d5) ions.

If this is right

  • α-RuCl3 develops irreversible crystalline degradation upon thermal cycling through the structural transition.
  • CrCl3 maintains structural robustness with smooth in-plane lattice evolution across the same transition.
  • Diffuse magnetic scattering appears above TN in CrCl3 but is absent above TN in α-RuCl3.
  • Both materials order antiferromagnetically but with different structures and transition temperatures linked to their electronic configurations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The electronic-configuration dependence suggests that ion substitution or alloying could be used to tune structural reversibility in related honeycomb halides.
  • Stronger or more localized magnetic correlations in CrCl3 may arise from weaker interlayer coupling compared with α-RuCl3.
  • If sliding energetics control degradation, pressure or strain could be applied to switch the reversible/irreversible character in either compound.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in in-plane lattice response and diffuse magnetic scattering are driven primarily by electronic configuration rather than by defects, stacking-fault details, or sample-to-sample variations.

What would settle it

Measuring the same structural and diffuse-scattering contrasts in multiple crystals of both compounds with quantified defect densities or directly comparing computed interlayer shear barriers would test whether electronic configuration is the dominant cause.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11106 by Iris Ye (2), Jiaqiang Yan (3) ((1) Neutron Scattering Division, Jiasen Guo (1), Michael A McGuire (3), Oak Ridge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Technology Division, Tennessee, USA), USA (2) Next Generation Pathway to Computing Program Participant (3) Materials Science, Zachary Morgan (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Stacking sequence of honeycomb layers with transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Crystalline degradation upon thermal cycling occurs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the lattice constant (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Base-temperature ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Magnetic diffuse scattering in CrCl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Absence of magnetic diffuse scattering in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report a comparative neutron single crystal diffraction study of the structural and magnetic properties of layered halides CrCl$_3$ and $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$, which host a honeycomb arrangement of transition metal ions with distinct electronic configurations and undergo a first-order structural transition between high-temperature \textit{C}2/\textit{m} and low-temperature \textit{R}$\bar{3}$. Both compounds show a step-like change in the $c$-lattice, consistent with an expected stacking rearrangement. In contrast, the in-plane lattice response is quite different: $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ exhibits an abrupt hysteretic change across the transition accompanied by progressive crystalline degradation upon thermal cycling, whereas CrCl$_3$ shows a smooth in-plane lattice evolution and remains structurally robust. Magnetically, CrCl$_3$ orders into an A-type antiferromagnetic structure at T$_N$=14\,K and exhibits pronounced diffuse magnetic scattering extending up to about 40\,K. $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ shows no observable magnetic diffuse scattering above its zig-zag antiferromagnetic ordering temperature T$_N$=7.6\,K. These results suggest that the contrasting structural and magnetic behaviors arise from an interplay between interlayer sliding energetics and the fundamentally different electronic configurations of the two compounds.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a comparative single-crystal neutron diffraction study of CrCl₃ and α-RuCl₃, both undergoing a first-order structural transition from C2/m to R-3 with a step-like c-axis change. CrCl₃ exhibits smooth in-plane lattice evolution, structural robustness under thermal cycling, A-type antiferromagnetic order at TN=14 K, and diffuse magnetic scattering up to ~40 K. α-RuCl₃ shows abrupt hysteretic in-plane changes with crystalline degradation, zig-zag antiferromagnetic order at TN=7.6 K, and no diffuse scattering above TN. The authors interpret the contrasts as arising from an interplay between interlayer sliding energetics and the distinct electronic configurations (d³ Cr³⁺ vs. d⁵ Ru³⁺).

Significance. If the attribution to electronic configuration differences holds, the work offers useful experimental benchmarks for how d-electron count modulates structural reversibility and magnetic fluctuations in honeycomb halides, with relevance to Kitaev physics in α-RuCl₃. The use of neutron diffraction for direct comparison of lattice and magnetic responses is appropriate and yields clear qualitative distinctions that could inform models of interlayer energetics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion / Interpretation of results] The central interpretive claim (abstract and discussion) that contrasting in-plane response, structural reversibility, and magnetic diffuse scattering arise primarily from the interplay of interlayer sliding with electronic configurations (d³ vs d⁵) is not fully supported. The study examines individual single crystals without reported quantitative defect densities, stacking-fault statistics, rocking-curve widths, or cross-batch comparisons, leaving open that the hysteretic degradation and suppressed fluctuations in α-RuCl₃ could stem from compound-specific defect sensitivity or residual strain rather than intrinsic electronic differences. A direct test would require defect characterization or multi-sample statistics.
  2. [Results (lattice parameters and magnetic scattering)] Quantitative support for the lattice-parameter evolution and magnetic ordering is limited by the absence of reported error bars, full data tables, or detailed fitting procedures for the c-axis step, in-plane changes, and diffuse scattering intensity, as noted in the soundness assessment. This affects assessment of the claimed smoothness vs. hysteresis and the temperature extent of diffuse scattering.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction / Discussion] The abstract and text would benefit from explicit reference to prior work on stacking-fault energetics in these specific compounds to contextualize the interlayer sliding discussion.
  2. [Throughout] Notation for the low-temperature space group should consistently use R-3 with the bar symbol rendered clearly in all figures and text.

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 help clarify the scope and limitations of our comparative study. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central interpretive claim (abstract and discussion) that contrasting in-plane response, structural reversibility, and magnetic diffuse scattering arise primarily from the interplay of interlayer sliding with electronic configurations (d³ vs d⁵) is not fully supported. The study examines individual single crystals without reported quantitative defect densities, stacking-fault statistics, rocking-curve widths, or cross-batch comparisons, leaving open that the hysteretic degradation and suppressed fluctuations in α-RuCl₃ could stem from compound-specific defect sensitivity or residual strain rather than intrinsic electronic differences. A direct test would require defect characterization or multi-sample statistics.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of quantitative defect characterization and multi-sample statistics means we cannot definitively exclude sample-specific effects as a contributing factor. Our interpretation is offered as the most plausible explanation for the observed contrasts, given that both compounds are isostructural, the differences align with their distinct d-electron counts, and the lack of diffuse scattering above TN in α-RuCl₃ is consistent with prior reports on this material. In the revised manuscript we will expand the discussion section to explicitly acknowledge alternative explanations, including possible roles of defects or residual strain, and to state that dedicated defect studies or cross-batch comparisons would be required to test the interpretation more rigorously. We do not claim the electronic-configuration difference is the sole cause, only that it provides a coherent framework for the contrasting behaviors reported. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Quantitative support for the lattice-parameter evolution and magnetic ordering is limited by the absence of reported error bars, full data tables, or detailed fitting procedures for the c-axis step, in-plane changes, and diffuse scattering intensity, as noted in the soundness assessment. This affects assessment of the claimed smoothness vs. hysteresis and the temperature extent of diffuse scattering.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and will strengthen the quantitative presentation. Error bars will be added to all lattice-parameter and intensity plots in the revised figures. A supplementary table will be included that lists the refined lattice parameters (with uncertainties) at representative temperatures, together with the fitted parameters for the magnetic ordering and diffuse-scattering intensities. The methods section will be expanded to describe the data-reduction and fitting procedures used for the c-axis step, in-plane lattice changes, and the temperature dependence of the diffuse magnetic scattering. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational experimental comparison

full rationale

The paper reports neutron single-crystal diffraction results on structural transitions and magnetic ordering in CrCl3 and α-RuCl3. The central claim is an interpretive suggestion linking observed differences (smooth vs. hysteretic lattice response, presence vs. absence of diffuse scattering) to interlayer energetics and electronic configurations (d3 vs. d5). No derivations, equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text or abstract. The observations are independent of any self-referential construction, making the report self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental diffraction study; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced. Lattice parameters and magnetic structures are extracted from standard refinements against measured intensities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5605 in / 1202 out tokens · 34660 ms · 2026-05-13T00:44:50.145722+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    comparative neutron single crystal diffraction study of the structural and magnetic properties of layered halides CrCl3 and α-RuCl3... contrasting structural reversibility and magnetic correlations arise from an interplay between interlayer sliding energetics and the fundamentally different electronic configurations

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    CrCl3 orders into an A-type antiferromagnetic structure at TN=14 K... α-RuCl3 shows no observable magnetic diffuse scattering above its zig-zag antiferromagnetic ordering temperature TN=7.6 K

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Magnetism in two- dimensional van der waals materials, Nature563, 47 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Gong and X

    C. Gong and X. Zhang, Two-dimensional magnetic crystals and emergent heterostructure devices, Science363, eaav4450 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Kitaev materials, Physics Reports950, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Plumb, J

    K. Plumb, J. Clancy, L. Sandilands, V. V. Shankar, Y. Hu, K. Burch, H.-Y. Kee, and Y.-J. Kim,𝛼-rucl 3: A spin-orbit assisted mott insulator on a honeycomb lattice, Physical Review B90, 041112 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    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, S. Bhattacharjee, D. L. Kovrizhin, R. Moessner, D. A. Tennant, D. G. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Proximate kitaev quantum spin liquid behaviour in a honeycomb magnet, Nature Mater15, 733 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    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, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Layer-dependent ferromagnetism in a van der waals crystal down to the monolayer limit, Nature546, 270 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Chen, J.-H

    L. Chen, J.-H. Chung, B. Gao, T. Chen, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, Q. Huang, and P. Dai, Topological spin excitations in honeycomb ferromagnet cri3, Phys. Rev. X8, 041028 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Z. Cai, S. Bao, Z.-L. Gu, Y.-P. Gao, Z. Ma, Y. Shangguan, 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, Topo- logical magnon insulator spin excitations in the two-dimensional ferromagnet crbr3, Phys. Rev. B104, L020402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    S. Gao, M. A. McGuire, Y. Liu, D. L. Abernathy, C. d. Cruz, M. Frontzek, M. B. Stone, and A. D. Christianson, Spiral spin liquid on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 227201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    M. A. McGuire, Crystal and magnetic structures in layered, transition metal dihalides and trihalides, Crystals7, 121 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    M. A. McGuire, H. Dixit, V. R. Cooper, and B. C. Sales, Cou- pling of crystal structure and magnetism in the layered, ferro- magnetic insulator cri3, Chem. Mater.27, 612 (2015)

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Kratochv ´ılov´a, P

    M. Kratochv ´ılov´a, P. Doleˇ zal, D. Hovanˇc´ık, J. Posp´ıˇsil, A. Ben- dov´a, M. Duˇsek, V. Hol` y, and V. Sechovsk` y, Crystal structure evolution in the van der waals vanadium trihalides, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter34, 294007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Park, S.-H

    S.-Y. Park, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, D. Jang, T.-H. Jang, J. Scheffer, C.-M. Wu, J. S. Gardner, J. M. S. Park, J.-H. Park, and S. Ji, Emergence of the isotropic kitaev honeycomb lattice\alpha- rucl3 and its magnetic properties, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter36, 215803 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, H.-Y. Chao, Q. Zheng, M. Chi, B. C. Sales, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, H. Miao, F. Ye, and J. Yan, Stacking disorder and thermal transport properties of ??-rucl3, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 014402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    J. W. Cable, M. K. Wilkinson, and E. O. Wollan, Neutron diffraction investigation of antiferromagnetism in crcl3, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids19, 29 (1961)

    work page 1961

  16. [16]

    J. A. Sears, M. Songvilay, K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, Y. Qiu, Y. Zhao, D. Parshall, and Y.-J. Kim, Magnetic order in $\ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{- }{\text{RuCl}} {3}$: A honeycomb-lattice quantum magnet with strong spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B91, 144420 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    R. D. Johnson, S. C. Williams, A. A. Haghighirad, J. Singleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent ´ı, and R. Coldea, Mono- clinic crystal structure of $\ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{- 10 }{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$ and the zigzag antiferromagnetic ground state, Phys. Rev. B92, 235119 (2015)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    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, Neutron scattering in the proximate quantum spin liquid𝛼-RuCl3, Science356, 1055 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    F. Lang, P. Baker, A. Haghighirad, Y. Li, D. Prabhakaran, R. Va- lent´ı, and S. Blundell, Unconventional magnetism on a honey- comb lattice in𝛼-rucl 3 studied by muon spin rotation, Physical Review B94, 020407 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Yan and M

    J.-Q. Yan and M. A. McGuire, Self-selecting vapor growth of transition-metal-halide single crystals, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 013401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    F. Ye, Y. Liu, R. Whitfield, R. Osborn, and S. Rosenkranz, Implementation of cross correlation for energy discrimination on the time-of-flight spectrometer corelli, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 51, 315 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Kim and H.-Y

    H.-S. Kim and H.-Y. Kee, Crystal structure and magnetism in $\ensuremath{\alpha}\ensuremath{- }{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$: An ab initio study, Phys. Rev. B93, 155143 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lums- den, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chakoumakos, and S. E. Nagler, Low-temperature crystal and magnetic structure of ??-rucl3, Phys. Rev. B93, 134423 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    M. A. McGuire, G. Clark, S. KC, W. M. Chance, G. E. Jellison, V. R. Cooper, X. Xu, and B. C. Sales, Magnetic behavior and spin-lattice coupling in cleavable van der waals layered crcl3 crystals, Phys. Rev. Mater.1, 014001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Kratochv ´ılov´a, P

    M. Kratochv ´ılov´a, P. Doleˇ zal, D. Hovanˇc´ık, J. Posp´ıˇsil, A. Ben- dov´a, M. Duˇsek, V. Hol´ y, and V. Sechovsk´ y, Crystal structure evolution in the van der waals vanadium trihalides, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter34, 294007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    S. Mu, K. D. Dixit, X. Wang, D. L. Abernathy, H. Cao, S. E. Nagler, J. Yan, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. Mandrus, C. A. Polanco, L. Liang, G. B. Hal ´asz, Y. Cheng, A. Banerjee, and T. Berlijn, Role of the third dimension in searching for majorana fermions in𝛼- rucl 3 via phonons, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013067 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Sears, Y

    J. Sears, Y. Shen, M. J. Krogstad, H. Miao, J. Yan, S. Kim, W. He, E. S. Bozin, I. K. Robinson, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, Y.-J. Kim, and M. P. M. Dean, Stack- ing disorder in $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{- }}{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$ investigated via x-ray three- dimensional difference pair distribution function analysis, Phys. Rev. B108, 144419 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Zhang, P

    B. Zhang, P. Lu, R. Tabrizian, P. X.-L. Feng, and Y. Wu, 2d magnetic heterostructures: spintronics and quantum future, npj Spintronics2, 6 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Morgan, I

    Z. Morgan, I. Ye, C. L. Sarkis, X. Wang, S. Na- gler, and J. Yan, Structure transition and zigzag magnetic order in ir/rh-substituted honeycomb lat- tice $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{- }}{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 016201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    J. A. Schneeloch, A. A. Aczel, F. Ye, and D. Louca, Role of stacking defects on the magnetic behavior of crcl3, Phys. Rev. B110, 144439 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    S.-J. Hong, T. Y. Kim, and C.-H. Park, First- principles study of bulk stacking, ${J} {\mathrm{eff}}$ picture, magnetic hamiltonian, $g$ factors, and struc- tural distortions of $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{- }}{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$, Phys. Rev. B113, 014427 (2026)

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    S. Kim, E. Horsley, J. P. Ruff, B. D. Moreno, and Y.-J. Kim, Structural transition and magnetic anisotropy in𝛼-rucl 3, Phys- ical Review B109, L140101 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    See supplemental material at [url] for further details regarding the structural, magnetic, and diffuse scattering analysis which includes [10, 34–39, 54–58]

    work page

  34. [34]

    Herbst-Irmer and G

    R. Herbst-Irmer and G. M. Sheldrick, Refinement of ob- verse/reverse twins, Acta Cryst B58, 477 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Perez-Mato, S

    J. Perez-Mato, S. Gallego, E. Tasci, L. Elcoro, G. De La Flor, and M. Aroyo, Symmetry-based computational tools for magnetic crystallography, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.45, 217 (2015)

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    J. A. M. Paddison, Scattering signatures of bond-dependent magnetic interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 247202 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    S. Gao, V. Kocsis, M. Soda, F. Ye, Y. Liu, A. F. May, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, T.-h. Arima, W. Schweika, A. D. Christianson, and M. B. Stone, Suppressed incommensurate order in swedenbor- gite ca0.5y0.5baco4o7, Phys. Rev. B104, L140408 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    L. Chen, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, B. Winn, W. Shon, P. Dai, and J.-H. Chung, Massless dirac magnons in the two dimensional van der waals honeycomb magnet crcl3, 2D Mater. 9, 015006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    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. Christianson, Gaps in topological magnon spectra: Intrinsic versus extrinsic effects, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060408 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    J. A. Schneeloch, Y. Tao, Y. Cheng, L. Daemen, G. Xu, Q. Zhang, and D. Louca, Gapless dirac magnons in crcl3, npj Quantum Mater.7, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Ritter, Zigzag type magnetic structure of the spin jeff =½ compound𝛼-RuCl3 as determined by neutron powder diffrac- tion, J

    C. Ritter, Zigzag type magnetic structure of the spin jeff =½ compound𝛼-RuCl3 as determined by neutron powder diffrac- tion, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.746, 012060 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    X. Wang, F. Zhu, M. Braden, K. Schmalzl, W. Schmidt, M. Meven, E. Feng, Y. Zhu, A. Bertin, P. Steffens, and Y. Su, Tilted and twisted magnetic moments in the kitaev magnet𝛼- RuCl3, Chinese Phys. Lett. (2026)

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    Havemann, F

    R. Havemann, F. Hammerath, P. Lepucki, P. Fritsch, A. P. Dio- guardi, M. Gr ¨onke, M. Valldor, M. Roslova, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Hampel, T. Doert, H.-J. Grafe, S. Wurmehl, and B. B¨ uchner, Comparison of local structure of ${\mathrm{CrCl}} {3}$ bulk and nanocrystals above and below the structural phase transition, Phys. Rev. B110, 024202 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    A. G. Khachaturyan, Theory of structural transformations in solids (Courier Corporation, 2013)

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    Osborn, D

    R. Osborn, D. Pelc, M. J. Krogstad, S. Rosenkranz, and M. Greven, Diffuse scattering from correlated electron systems, Science Advances11, eadt7770 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Liu and C

    Y. Liu and C. Petrovic, Anisotropic magnetocaloric effect and critical behavior in ${\mathrm{CrCl}} {3}$, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014424 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Doleˇ zal, M

    P. Doleˇ zal, M. Kratochv´ılov´a, D. Hovan ˇc´ık, V. Hol´ y, V. Se- chovsk´ y, and J. Posp´ıˇsil, Formation of domains within a lower- to-higher symmetry structural transition in cri 3, Inorg. Chem. 63, 976 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Laurell and S

    P. Laurell and S. Okamoto, Dynamical and thermal magnetic properties of the kitaev spin liquid candidate𝛼-RuCl3, npj Quantum Mater.5, 2 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Revelli, M

    A. Revelli, M. Moretti Sala, G. Monaco, C. Hickey, P. Becker, F. Freund, A. Jesche, P. Gegenwart, T. Eschmann, F. L. Buessen, S. Trebst, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, J. van den Brink, and M. Gr¨ uninger, Fingerprints of Kitaev physics in the magnetic excitations of honeycomb iridates, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043094 (2020), Publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Yamashita, J

    M. Yamashita, J. Gouchi, Y. Uwatoko, N. Kurita, and H. Tanaka, Sample dependence of half-integer quantized thermal hall effect in the kitaev spin-liquid candidate𝛼-rucl 3, Physical Review B 11 102, 220404 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Kasahara, S

    Y. Kasahara, S. Suetsugu, T. Asaba, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and Y. Matsuda, Quantized and unquan- tized thermal hall conductance of the kitaev spin liquid candidate 𝛼-rucl 3, Physical Review B106, L060410 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. F. May, H. Miao, B. C. Sales, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, M. A. McGuire, and J. Yan, Sample-dependent and sample-independent thermal trans- port properties of $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{- }}{\mathrm{RuCl}} {3}$, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 114403 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Vesta 3 for three-dimensional visu- alization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J Appl Cryst44, 1272 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    T. M. Michels-Clark, A. T. Savici, V. E. Lynch, X. Wang, and C. M. Hoffmann, Expanding lorentz and spectrum corrections to large volumes of reciprocal space for single-crystal time-of- flight neutron diffraction, J Appl Crystallogr49, 497 (2016)

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    C. W. Dwiggins, Rapid calculation of x-ray absorption correc- tion factors for spheres to an accuracy of 0.05%, Acta Cryst A 31, 395 (1975)

    work page 1975

  56. [56]

    Petˇr´ıˇcek, L

    V. Petˇr´ıˇcek, L. Palatinus, J. Pl ´aˇsil, and M. Du ˇsek, Jana2020 – a new version of the crystallographic computing system jana, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials238, 271 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    P. J. Becker and P. Coppens, Extinction within the limit of validity of the darwin transfer equations. i. general formalism for primary and secondary extinction and their applications to spherical crystals, Acta Cryst A30, 129 (1974)

    work page 1974

  58. [58]

    c: Mathematical, phys- ical and chemical tables / hrsg

    International tables for crystallography. c: Mathematical, phys- ical and chemical tables / hrsg. e. prince, Springer Netherland, Berlin, , 3. ed., 1. online ed ed., 2007

    work page 2007