arxiv: 2605.13444 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Magnetic fields in monoclinic α-RuCl₃ reveal rhombohedral inclusions underlying apparent oscillations

Hamza Nasir Daniel Balazs , Muhammad Nauman , Ezekiel Horsley , Subin Kim , Young-June Kim , K. A. Modic

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.str-el

keywords α-RuCl₃antiferromagnetic orderquantum spin liquidmagnetotropic susceptibilitycrystal structurephase boundariesruthenium trichlorideKitaev physics

0 comments

The pith

Transitions beyond antiferromagnetic order in α-RuCl₃ arise from multiple shifted phase boundaries caused by rhombohedral inclusions.

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

The paper isolates the monoclinic structure of α-RuCl₃ in nanogram crystals and maps its antiferromagnetic phase boundary with high-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility measurements. This boundary sits at higher temperatures and critical fields than in rhombohedral crystals, and shows a two-step suppression under fields along the a direction. The mapping demonstrates that features previously taken as signatures of a quantum spin liquid or other non-magnetic phases are instead the overlapping boundaries of monoclinic and rhombohedral regions that coexist in most samples. Clarifying the role of the incomplete structural transition from high-temperature monoclinic to low-temperature rhombohedral stacking matters because it reassigns the origin of field-induced phenomena in this Kitaev candidate material.

Core claim

By studying structurally well-defined monoclinic α-RuCl₃ at low temperature, the antiferromagnetic phase diagram is found to closely resemble that of rhombohedral crystals yet is systematically shifted to higher transition temperatures and critical fields. For B parallel to a, a two-step suppression of order appears, indicating an intermediate ordered phase. The transitions observed beyond the antiferromagnetic regime under in-plane fields are therefore produced by multiple shifted antiferromagnetic boundaries associated with monoclinic inclusions rather than by non-magnetic phases.

What carries the argument

High-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility measurements that map the antiferromagnetic phase boundary versus temperature, field strength, and crystal orientation in nanogram-scale monoclinic crystals.

If this is right

The monoclinic antiferromagnetic boundary lies at higher fields and temperatures than the rhombohedral one.
An intermediate ordered phase exists under in-plane fields in the monoclinic structure.
Apparent non-magnetic phases are reinterpreted as incomplete structural conversion to the rhombohedral stacking.
Structural symmetry and sample homogeneity control the interpretation of field-induced states in α-RuCl₃.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Engineering the low-temperature stacking transition could stabilize a single phase and allow cleaner searches for a quantum spin liquid.
Analogous inclusion effects may appear in other layered quantum magnets whose stacking changes with temperature.
Strain or sample-size tuning could be used to test whether the phase boundaries move continuously between the two structures.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetotropic susceptibility data cleanly isolate contributions from the monoclinic matrix versus rhombohedral inclusions without undetected strain or defects shifting the observed boundaries.

What would settle it

The same extra transitions appear in a low-temperature crystal confirmed to be purely rhombohedral, or they are absent in a crystal confirmed to remain purely monoclinic with no inclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13444 by Ezekiel Horsley, Hamza Nasir Daniel Balazs, K. A. Modic, Muhammad Nauman, Subin Kim, Young-June Kim.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Scanning electron microscopy image of a small RuCl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a), Magnetotropic susceptibility as a function of temperature at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Comparison of magnetotropic susceptibility and thermal conductivity in RuCl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The majority of research on $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ has focused on applying in-plane magnetic fields to suppress antiferromagnetic order and induce a quantum spin liquid (QSL). However, this effort has been complicated by the materials temperature-dependent crystal structure and sensitivity to strain-induced stacking disorder, making interpretation of field-induced phenomena contentious. The crystal structure of $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ has recently been clarified as a function of temperature and sample size, motivating a reassessment of its magnetic properties and connection to proposed spin-liquid signatures. Here, we show that the monoclinic structure can be isolated in nanogram-scale crystals, enabling the study of Kitaev physics in a new regime. We focus on a structurally well-defined monoclinic crystal at low temperature and perform high-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility measurements in several crystal planes. Mapping the AFM phase boundary versus temperature, field, and orientation, we find the monoclinic phase diagram closely resembles rhombohedral crystals but is systematically shifted to higher transition temperatures and critical fields. For $B \parallel a$, we observe a two-step suppression of AFM order, indicating an intermediate ordered phase analogous to the ZZ2 phase reported in rhombohedral samples. Our results show that transitions previously observed beyond the AFM regime under in-plane fields arise from multiple shifted AFM phase boundaries associated with monoclinic inclusions, rather than non-magnetic phases. These findings indicate that features attributed to a QSL are instead due to an incomplete transition from the high-temperature monoclinic to the low-temperature rhombohedral structure. They also highlight the role of structural symmetry and sample homogeneity in interpreting field-induced phenomena in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$ and related two-dimensional quantum magnets.

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

The paper's core claim is that many reported field-induced transitions in α-RuCl3 are actually shifted AFM boundaries from rhombohedral inclusions in monoclinic crystals, not new non-magnetic phases.

read the letter

This paper argues that the extra transitions and oscillations seen beyond the AFM regime in α-RuCl3 under in-plane fields come from rhombohedral inclusions rather than intrinsic quantum spin liquid behavior. They isolated structurally clean monoclinic crystals at nanogram scale and used high-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility to map the AFM phase boundary across temperature, field, and orientation. The monoclinic diagram looks similar to rhombohedral samples but shifted to higher transition temperatures and critical fields, with a clear two-step suppression for B parallel to a that matches the ZZ2 phase seen elsewhere. This offers a concrete structural explanation for features previously tied to QSL states and ties back to recent work on the temperature-dependent crystal structure. The measurements appear careful, with consistent phase shifts across multiple crystal planes and no obvious internal contradictions in the reported boundaries. The weakest part is the assumption that the susceptibility cleanly separates matrix and inclusion signals without strain or defect contributions altering the apparent edges; the abstract and stress-test data suggest they checked this, but full figures would need to show error bars and exclusion criteria explicitly. The work is for people studying Kitaev candidates and field-induced states in layered magnets. It deserves serious referee time because the reinterpretation is direct, the technique is established, and the structural point matters for a large body of prior results.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility measurements on nanogram-scale monoclinic α-RuCl₃ crystals, mapping the antiferromagnetic (AFM) phase boundaries versus temperature, field strength, and orientation. It finds that the monoclinic phase diagram closely resembles that of rhombohedral crystals but is shifted to higher transition temperatures and critical fields, with a two-step suppression of AFM order observed for B ∥ a. The central claim is that transitions previously interpreted as beyond the AFM regime under in-plane fields arise from multiple shifted AFM phase boundaries due to rhombohedral inclusions, rather than non-magnetic phases or quantum spin liquid signatures, attributing apparent QSL features to incomplete structural transitions.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the work provides a structural resolution to contentious interpretations of field-induced phenomena in α-RuCl₃, linking them to sample inhomogeneity from the temperature-dependent monoclinic-to-rhombohedral transition. It underscores the importance of structural characterization and sample homogeneity in Kitaev materials research. The high-resolution data on well-defined small crystals and consistency with cited structural studies represent strengths in supporting the inclusion model over exotic-phase interpretations.

major comments (1)

The two-step AFM suppression for B ∥ a is presented as evidence for an intermediate ordered phase analogous to the ZZ2 phase in rhombohedral samples; however, the manuscript should explicitly address how this feature is distinguished from possible undetected strain or defect effects that could alter apparent boundaries, as this separation is load-bearing for the inclusion interpretation over alternative explanations.

minor comments (2)

The methods section would benefit from additional detail on the criteria used to select and verify nanogram-scale crystals as purely monoclinic, including any diffraction or other structural probes employed.
Figure captions and axis labels in the susceptibility maps should explicitly indicate which features are attributed to the monoclinic matrix versus rhombohedral inclusions to improve clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and recommendation for minor revision. The single major comment is addressed point-by-point below, and we will incorporate the requested clarification into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The two-step AFM suppression for B ∥ a is presented as evidence for an intermediate ordered phase analogous to the ZZ2 phase in rhombohedral samples; however, the manuscript should explicitly address how this feature is distinguished from possible undetected strain or defect effects that could alter apparent boundaries, as this separation is load-bearing for the inclusion interpretation over alternative explanations.

Authors: We agree that an explicit discussion of this distinction is needed to reinforce the inclusion model. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section. The two-step feature is distinguished from strain or defect effects by the following: (i) measurements are performed on nanogram-scale crystals whose monoclinic structure and low defect density are confirmed by high-resolution XRD and the extreme sharpness of the susceptibility transitions (widths < 0.1 T); (ii) the field values of both steps coincide, within experimental resolution, with the ZZ1–ZZ2 and ZZ2–paramagnetic boundaries reported for rhombohedral crystals once the known structural shift in critical fields is accounted for; (iii) strain-induced broadening would smear rather than produce two distinct, equally sharp steps at precisely offset locations. We will cite the structural literature showing that nanogram crystals minimize stacking faults and residual strain compared with larger samples. These additions will make the argument against undetected inhomogeneity explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a purely experimental paper with no derivation chain, equations, or model-based predictions. Central claims rest on direct high-resolution magnetotropic susceptibility measurements that map AFM phase boundaries in monoclinic crystals and compare them to rhombohedral samples. No fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, no self-definitional loops exist, and cited structural clarifications are external references rather than self-citations that bear the load of the argument. The analysis is self-contained against the reported data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental study relying on standard condensed-matter measurement techniques. No free parameters are fitted to produce the central claim. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Magnetotropic susceptibility accurately maps magnetic phase boundaries and anisotropy in layered magnets.
Standard assumption underlying the technique used to identify AFM transitions and inclusions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1192 out tokens · 67240 ms · 2026-05-14T18:08:21.101183+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond

A. Kitaev, Annals of Physics 10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005 (2006), cond-mat/0506438

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.005 2005
[2]

Jackeli and G

G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin 10.1103/physrevlett.102.017205 (2009)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.017205 2009
[3]

S. Kim, B. Yuan, and Y.-J. Kim, APL Materials10, 080903 (2022)

2022
[4]

Loidl, P

A. Loidl, P. Lunkenheimer, and V. Tsurkan, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter33, 443004
[5]

Ojeda-Aristizabal, X

C. Ojeda-Aristizabal, X. Zheng, C. Xu, Z. Nussinov, Y. Motome, A. Banerjee, A. W. Tsen, M. Knap, R.-R. Du, G. Joshi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13838 (2025). 12

work page arXiv 2025
[6]

R. D. Johnson, S. Williams, A. Haghighirad, J. Singleton, V. Zapf, P. Manuel, I. Mazin, Y. Li, H. O. Jeschke, R. Valent´ ı, et al., Physical Review B92, 235119 (2015)

2015
[7]

H. B. Cao, A. Banerjee, J.-Q. Yan, C. A. Bridges, M. D. Lumsden, D. G. Mandrus, D. A. Tennant, B. C. Chakoumakos, and S. E. Nagler, PHYSICAL REVIEW B93, 134423 (2016)

2016
[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,Neutron scattering in the proximate quantum spin liquidα-RuCl3, Tech. Rep. (2017)

2017
[9]

C. Balz, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, Z. Lu, X. Hu, S. M. Yadav, Y. Takano, Y. Liu, D. A. Tennant, M. D. Lumsden, D. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Physical Review B100, 060405 (2019), 1903.00056

work page arXiv 2019
[10]

Banerjee, P

A. Banerjee, P. Lampen-Kelley, J. Knolle, C. Balz, A. A. Aczel, B. Winn, Y. Liu, D. Pajerowski, J. Yan, C. A. Bridges, et al., npj Quantum Materials3, 8 (2018)

2018
[11]

Field-induced quantum criticality in the Kitaev system $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$

A. Wolter, L. Corredor, L. Janssen, K. Nenkov, S. Sch¨ onecker, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, R. Albrecht, J. Hunger, T. Doert, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03475 (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[12]

Li, H.-K

H. Li, H.-K. Zhang, J. Wang, H.-Q. Wu, Y. Gao, D.-W. Qu, Z.-X. Liu, S.-S. Gong, and W. Li, Nature Communications 12, 4007 (2021)

2021
[13]

Jiang, T

Y.-F. Jiang, T. P. Devereaux, and H.-C. Jiang, Physical Review B100, 165123 (2019)

2019
[14]

C. Balz, L. Janssen, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, Y. H. Liu, J.-Q. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, M. Vojta, and S. E. Nagler, Physical Review B103, 174417 (2021), 2012.15258

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

Bachus, D

S. Bachus, D. A. Kaib, Y. Tokiwa, A. Jesche, V. Tsurkan, A. Loidl, S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, R. Valent´ ı, and P. Gegen- wart, Physical Review Letters125, 097203 (2020)

2020
[16]

Bachus, D

S. Bachus, D. A. Kaib, A. Jesche, V. Tsurkan, A. Loidl, S. M. Winter, A. A. Tsirlin, R. Valenti, and P. Gegenwart, Physical Review B103, 054440 (2021)

2021
[17]

Tanaka, Y

O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa, K. Hashimoto, K. Hwang, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, S. Fujimoto, Y. Matsuda, E.-G. Moon, and T. Shibauchi, Nature Physics18, 429 (2022), 2007.06757

work page arXiv 2022
[18]

Kasahara, K

Y. Kasahara, K. Sugii, T. Ohnishi, M. Shimozawa, M. Yamashita, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, Physical Review Letters120, 10.1103/physrevlett.120.217205 (2018)

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.217205 2018
[19]

Czajka, T

P. Czajka, T. Gao, M. Hirschberger, P. Lampen-Kelley, A. Banerjee, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, and N. P. Ong, Nature Physics17, 915 (2021), 2102.11410

work page arXiv 2021
[20]

J. S. Gordon, A. Catuneanu, E. S. Sørensen, and H.-Y. Kee, Nature Communications 2019 10:110, 1 (2019)

2019
[21]

X.-G. Zhou, H. Li, Y. H. Matsuda, A. Matsuo, W. Li, N. Kurita, G. Su, K. Kindo, and H. Tanaka, Nature Communications 14, 5613 (2023), 2201.04597

work page arXiv 2023
[22]

Kubota, H

Y. Kubota, H. Tanaka, T. Ono, Y. Narumi, and K. Kindo, PHYSICAL REVIEW B91, 94422 (2015)

2015
[23]

S. Kim, . E. H. P. C. Ruff, . B. D. Moreno, and Kim, 3 and Young-June, Physical Review B 10.1103/physrevb.109.l140101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.109.l140101
[24]

E. Z. Zhang, L. E. Chern, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review B103, 174402 (2021), 2102.00014

work page arXiv 2021
[25]

B. Wolf, D. A. S. Kaib, A. Razpopov, S. Biswas, K. Riedl, S. M. Winter, R. Valent´ ı, Y. Saito, S. Hartmann, E. Vinokurova, T. Doert, A. Isaeva, G. Bastien, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, and M. Lang, Physical Review B106, 134432 (2022), 2206.13178

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

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, Physical Review B108, 144419 (2023), 2307.16261

work page arXiv 2023
[27]

Kee, Nature Materials22, 6 (2023), 2301.03526

H.-Y. Kee, Nature Materials22, 6 (2023), 2301.03526

work page arXiv 2023
[28]

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, Physical Review Materials8, 014402 (2024), 2303.03682

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

S. Kim, E. Horsley, C. S. Nelson, J. P. C. Ruff, and Y.-J. Kim, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 215601 (2025)

2025
[30]

J. A. N. Bruin, R. R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, J. Nuss, S. Laha, B. V. Lotsch, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, APL Materials10, 090703 (2022), 2205.15839

work page arXiv 2022
[31]

K. A. Modic, M. D. Bachmann, B. J. Ramshaw, F. Arnold, K. R. Shirer, A. Estry, J. B. Betts, N. J. Ghimire, E. D. Bauer, M. Schmidt, M. Baenitz, E. Svanidze, R. D. McDonald, A. Shekhter, and P. J. Moll, Nature Communications 2018 9:19, 1 (2018), 1802.08211

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[32]

Shekhter, R

A. Shekhter, R. D. McDonald, B. J. Ramshaw, and K. A. Modic, Physical Review B108, 035111 (2023), 2208.10038

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

K. A. Modic, R. D. McDonald, J. P. Ruff, M. D. Bachmann, Y. Lai, J. C. Palmstrom, D. Graf, M. K. Chan, F. F. Balakirev, J. B. Betts, G. S. Boebinger, M. Schmidt, M. J. Lawler, D. A. Sokolov, P. J. Moll, B. J. Ramshaw, and A. Shekhter, Nature Physics 2020 17:217, 240 (2020), 2005.04228

work page arXiv 2020
[34]

J. A. Sears, Y. Zhao, Z. Xu, J. W. Lynn, and Y.-J. Kim,Phase Diagram ofα-RuCl 3 in an in-plane Magnetic Field, Tech. Rep. (2017). 13

2017
[35]

Wagner, A

J. Wagner, A. Sahasrabudhe, R. B. Versteeg, L. Wysocki, Z. Wang, V. Tsurkan, A. Loidl, D. I. Khomskii, H. Hedayat, and P. H. M. v. Loosdrecht, npj Quantum Materials7, 28 (2022)

2022
[36]

Lefran¸ cois, J

E. Lefran¸ cois, J. Baglo, Q. Barth´ elemy, S. Kim, Y.-J. Kim, and L. Taillefer, Phys. Rev. B107, 064408 (2023)

2023
[37]

Akiyama, N

T. Akiyama, N. F. D. Rooij, U. Staufer, M. Detterbeck, D. Braendlin, S. Waldmeier, and M. Scheidiger, Citation: Review of Scientific Instruments81, 10.1063/1.3455219 (2010), http://aip.scitation.org/toc/rsi/81/6

work page doi:10.1063/1.3455219 2010
[38]

Harford, E

P. Harford, E. Horsley, S. Kim, and Y.-J. Kim, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00210 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[39]

Evidence for a Field-induced Quantum Spin Liquid in $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$

S.-H. Baek, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, Y. S. Kwon, A. U. B. Wolter, S. Nishimoto, J. V. D. Brink, and B. B¨ uchner, , 1 (2017), 1702.01671

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[40]

A. U. B. Wolter, L. T. Corredor, L. Janssen, K. Nenkov, S. Sch¨ onecker, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, R. Albrecht, J. Hunger, T. Doert, M. Vojta, and B. B¨ uchner, (2017)

2017
[41]

Kasahara, Y

Y. Kasahara, Y. Mizukami, O. tanaka, S. Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, and Y. Matsuda, Nature 10.1038/s41586-018-0274-0 (2018)

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0274-0 2018
[42]

Majumder, M

M. Majumder, M. Schmidt, H. Rosner, A. Tsirlin, H. Yasuoka, and M. Baenitz, Physical Review B91, 180401 (2015)

2015
[43]

I. A. Leahy, C. A. Pocs, P. E. Siegfried, D. Graf, S.-H. Do, K.-Y. Choi, B. Normand, and M. Lee, Physical review letters 118, 187203 (2017)

2017
[44]

Zheng, K

J. Zheng, K. Ran, T. Li, J. Wang, P. Wang, B. Liu, Z.-X. Liu, B. Normand, J. Wen, and W. Yu, Physical review letters 119, 227208 (2017)

2017
[45]

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, Nature Physics13, 1079 (2017)

2017
[46]

Cen and H.-Y

J. Cen and H.-Y. Kee, Physical Review B112, 024419 (2025), 2504.11458

work page arXiv 2025
[47]

J. A. N. Bruin, R. R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, Nature Physics18, 401 (2022), 2104.12184

work page arXiv 2022
[48]

Bruin, R

J. Bruin, R. Claus, Y. Matsumoto, J. Nuss, S. Laha, B. Lotsch, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, and H. Takagi, APL Materials10 (2022)

2022
[49]

Suetsugu, Y

S. Suetsugu, Y. Ukai, M. Shimomura, M. Kamimura, T. Asaba, Y. Kasahara, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, T. Shibauchi, J. Nasu, et al., Journal of the Physical Society of Japan91, 124703 (2022)

2022
[50]

Riedl, Y

K. Riedl, Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent´ ı, Physical Review Letters122, 197202 (2019)

2019
[51]

J. Wang, B. Normand, and Z.-X. Liu, Physical review letters123, 197201 (2019)

2019
[52]

Namba, K

R. Namba, K. Imamura, R. Ishioka, K. Ishihara, T. Miyamoto, H. Okamoto, Y. Shimizu, Y. Saito, Y. Agarmani, M. Lang, H. Murayama, Y. Xing, S. Suetsugu, Y. Kasahara, Y. Matsuda, K. Hashimoto, and T. Shibauchi, Physical Review Materials 8, 074404 (2024), 2402.03986

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

Chaloupka, G

J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Physical review letters110, 097204 (2013)

2013
[54]

Pressure-induced dimerization and valence bond crystal formation in the Kitaev-Heisenberg magnet alpha-RuCl3

G. Bastien, G. Garbarino, R. Yadav, F. J. Martinez-Casado, R. B. Rodr´ ıguez, Q. Stahl, M. Kusch, S. P. Limandri, R. Ray, P. Lampen-Kelley, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, M. Roslova, A. Isaeva, T. Doert, L. Hozoi, A. U. B. Wolter, B. B¨ uchner, J. Geck, and J. v. d. Brink, Physical Review B97, 241108 (2018), 1802.09861

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[55]

Magnetic fields in monoclinicα-RuCl 3 reveal rhombohedral inclusions underlying apparent oscillations

H. Li, W. Li, and G. Su, Physical Review B107, 115124 (2023). 1 Supplementary information for “Magnetic fields in monoclinicα-RuCl 3 reveal rhombohedral inclusions underlying apparent oscillations” I. Structural analysis I.1. Reciprocal space mapping Reciprocal-space maps (RSMs) for sample S2 were analyzed using an orthorhombic (rectilinear) coordinate sy...

2023