Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Modeling Bond-Dependent Kitaev-like interaction in 2D Edge-Sharing Tetrahedral Magnets: FeX (X=Te, Se)

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Monolayer FeTe and FeSe host previously unrecognized bond-dependent Kitaev-like Ising interactions that dominate magnetic anisotropy in FeTe and compete with single-ion anisotropy in FeSe.

desk verdict A credible qualitative case that bond-dependent anisotropy exists in tetrahedral FeTe/FeSe monolayers, but the quantitative Kitaev-like parameters are not uniquely established by the fitting scheme presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13427 v1 pith:XRRRMMLH submitted 2026-08-13 physics.comp-ph

Mengdong Li , Can Huangb , Bingjie Liu , Zhixin Liu , Yanfei Pan , Jiyu Fan , Chunlan Ma , Daning Shi
show 1 more author
Yan Zhua
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords Kitaevinteractionbond-dependentmagneticanisotropyenergyedge-sharingtetrahedralmagnetsiron-basedsuperconductorsFeTeSespinfrustration
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

The paper sets out to show that bond-dependent, Kitaev-like Ising interactions are not confined to edge-sharing octahedral magnets but also appear in edge-sharing tetrahedral ones, using monolayer FeTe and FeSe as concrete cases. It argues that chalcogen-driven spin-orbit coupling combined with the tetrahedral crystal field produces a measurable bond-directional anisotropy, which it isolates by fitting first-principles magnetic anisotropy energies for ferromagnetic, Néel, and bicollinear antiferromagnetic orders. The fit gives a Kitaev-like term that dominates magnetic anisotropy in FeTe ($K_1 = -1.63$ meV) and competes with an opposite-sign single-ion anisotropy in FeSe ($K_1 = -0.37$ meV vs $A_k = 0.27$ meV). Because the local quantization axes of different bonds cannot be satisfied simultaneously, the paper concludes that these interactions generate intrinsic single-site spin frustration, a possible microscopic mechanism for the magnetic disorder observed in iron-based superconductors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kitaev-like Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), a bond-dependent spin model in which each Fe-Fe pair $i,j$ carries a Kitaev-like coupling $K_{ij}$ and an off-diagonal coupling $\Gamma_{ij}$, plus a single-ion anisotropy $A_k$. The quantization axes are fixed by the tetrahedral bond vectors $w_p$: for a pair in a given Fe-X-Fe-X plane the Ising axis is the difference of the two out-of-plane bond directions, $w_{p+2}-w_{p+3}$, which is perpendicular to the Fe-Fe bond. The load-bearing machinery is the MAE energy-mapping scheme: out-of-plane and in-plane anisotropy curves are computed from first principles for ferromagnetic, Néel, and bicollinear antiferromagnetic orders, and least-squares fitting to the analytic formulas separates the bond-dependent terms from single-ion anisotropy, which is identical across orders. The nonzero in-plane anisotropy of the BAFM order, which pure single-ion anisotropy forbids, is what forces the inclusion of second-neighbor Kitaev-like terms.

What would settle it

Measure the in-plane magnetic anisotropy of monolayer FeTe in its bicollinear antiferromagnetic (BAFM) state: the model predicts a $\sin^2\phi$ oscillation whose amplitude is set by the second-neighbor Kitaev-like parameters, together with an out-of-plane easy axis tilted roughly 50 degrees from c. Observing no such bond-directional anisotropy, or finding that the fitted parameters shift when Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya terms are added to the Hamiltonian, would falsify the Kitaev-like identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to demonstrate a previously unrecognized bond-dependent Ising-type interaction, of Kitaev form, in monolayer FeTe and FeSe, whose Fe atoms sit in edge-sharing tetrahedra of Te or Se. In the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), each neighbor pair carries Kitaev-like ($K$) and off-diagonal ($\Gamma$) couplings whose quantization axes are set by the Fe-X bond geometry; fitting first-principles magnetic anisotropy energies across ferromagnetic, Néel, and bicollinear antiferromagnetic orders yields $K_1=-1.63$ meV for FeTe (with $A_k=-0.73$ meV) and $K_1=-0.37$ meV for FeSe (with $A_k=0.27$ meV). The sign and magnitude comparison shows the Kitaev-like term dominates in FeTe but competes with an opposite-signed single-ion anisotropy in FeSe. Since the local axes for different bonds are mutually noncollinear, the paper concludes these interactions create intrinsic single-site spin frustration, offering a microscopic mechanism for magnetic disorder beyond isotropic exchange models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic anisotropy of FeTe and FeSe is completely captured by single-ion anisotropy plus the Kitaev-like and off-diagonal exchange of the assumed Hamiltonian, with no comparable Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya or biquadratic terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bond-directional exchange must be included in any low-energy magnetic model of monolayer FeTe and FeSe; Heisenberg-plus-single-ion models will misassign the anisotropy.
  • The second-neighbor Kitaev-like terms are directly observable: they produce the in-plane $\sin^2\phi$ anisotropy of the BAFM state and the roughly 50-degree tilt of its out-of-plane easy axis.
  • Single-site spin frustration can arise from noncollinear local easy axes alone, even without geometric frustration of exchange bonds, offering a microscopic route to magnetic disorder in iron-based parent compounds.
  • Edge-sharing tetrahedral lattices become a legitimate setting for Kitaev-like physics, extending the search beyond honeycomb and octahedral coordination compounds.
  • The fitted values supply quantitative targets: $K_1=-1.63$ meV for FeTe and $K_1=-0.37$ meV with $A_k=0.27$ meV for FeSe can be checked against spin-wave or inelastic-scattering data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension the paper does not compute is to add Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and biquadratic terms to Eq. (1) and re-fit; if the extracted $K_1$ values shift substantially, the Kitaev-like identification would not be unique.
  • The same MAE-mapping procedure could be applied to strained or doped FeTe/FeSe; the paper's spin-orbit argument predicts $K_1$ should track the ligand's effective spin-orbit coupling strength.
  • Because the local axes are noncollinear, classical or quantum Monte Carlo simulations of Eq. (1), which the paper does not report, would show whether the predicted ground state is actually noncollinear and how much degeneracy remains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies monolayer FeTe and FeSe, which have edge-sharing tetrahedral coordination, and proposes that bond-dependent (Kitaev-like) spin interactions coexist with single-ion anisotropy. The authors construct a Hamiltonian with first- and second-neighbor Kitaev-like K and off-diagonal Gamma terms, fit its parameters to DFT+U+SOC magnetic anisotropy energies for ferromagnetic, Néel antiferromagnetic, and bicollinear antiferromagnetic orders, and conclude that a negative nearest-neighbor Kitaev term dominates MAE in FeTe while competing with positive SIA in FeSe. They further propose that the noncollinear local easy axes generate single-site spin frustration, offering a mechanism for magnetic disorder in iron-based parent compounds.

Significance. The qualitative central observation—MAE depends strongly on magnetic order and the BAFM state exhibits in-plane anisotropy that cannot be captured by single-ion anisotropy alone—is convincing and is a useful step toward recognizing bond-dependent anisotropy in tetrahedral magnets. The geometric construction of local Ising axes from Fe-X bond directions is a helpful conceptual contribution. However, the quantitative extraction of K1, K2, Gamma1, Gamma2, and Ak is not uniquely established: the model form is assumed, the parameters are fitted to the same data used for validation, and alternative bond-dependent terms are not tested. The paper's significance depends on strengthening the identifiability of the Kitaev-like parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The data exclude pure SIA, but they do not select the Kitaev-like form of Eq. (1) over other symmetry-allowed bond-dependent terms. A 1NN Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term, or a small rotation of the assumed Ising axis away from w3-w4, also produces a nonzero in-plane BAFM anisotropy of the observed sin^2(phi) form. Because the fitted values of K1, K2, Gamma1, Gamma2, and Ak are only meaningful if the Hamiltonian is complete, the paper should test at least one alternative decomposition (e.g., including DM terms or allowing the Ising axis to relax) and show that the Kitaev-like model is selected by the data.
  2. [Fig. 3 and the 'self-consistency' statement] The validation is circular: the parameters are obtained by least-squares fitting to the same MAE data that the fitted curves are then compared with, so the 'perfect match' in Fig. 3 is expected and carries no independent confirmation. Provide an out-of-sample test, such as calculating MAE for a magnetic order not used in the fit, or quantitatively compare the predicted BAFM easy-axis angle with the experimental 50 degrees mentioned in the text; currently the predicted angle is never reported.
  3. [Main text paragraph introducing 2NN interactions] The 2NN Kitaev-like terms were added after the 1NN-only model failed to reproduce the BAFM in-plane MAE. This is a post hoc model extension, and the DOS-based justification ('holds equal status') is qualitative. Report a quantitative model comparison (e.g., residual sum of squares per degree of freedom, or an information criterion) between 1NN-only and 1NN+2NN fits, and state whether the extracted K2 is identifiable from the available MAE curves or degenerate with other parameters.
  4. [Fig. 4(a) and parameter values] The fitted parameters are quoted without uncertainties or a uniqueness check. Given the paper's central quantitative conclusions (K1 = -1.63 meV dominating in FeTe; K1 = -0.37 meV competing with Ak = 0.27 meV in FeSe), report confidence intervals from the least-squares fit and check that the minimum is unique with respect to plausible perturbations of the Hamiltonian.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption lists 'Cr by blue atoms, and I by purple atoms,' species that do not appear in monolayer FeX; this appears to be a leftover from the CrI3 example and should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix A and Supplemental Material] The acronym GAFM is used without definition; specify that it denotes G-type (Néel) antiferromagnetic order.
  3. [Introduction and main text] There is a typo, 'magneitc anisotropy energy,' and the phrase 'obtained the the full set' has a doubled article; these should be corrected.
  4. [Equations throughout] The equations are poorly typeset in the submitted text (for example, Eq. (1) and the Appendix A formulas are garbled); please ensure all equations are legible in the final version.
  5. [Model summary] The term 'Kitaev-like' is used to include both the K and the off-diagonal Gamma terms; please state explicitly which terms are Ising-type and which are off-diagonal in the model summary.
  6. [Fig. 3] No residuals or goodness-of-fit values are given; reporting them would help the reader judge the 'perfect match' claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

In-sample fitting of the Kitaev-like parameters is presented as self-consistency verification, while the central qualitative claim rests on an independent SIA-only null test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, paragraph following Fig. 4(a) (parameter extraction); see also SM Sec. 6, 'The detailed derivation of the formulas'.]
    "By fitting the calculation results of linear MAE under different magnetic configurations with the theoretical formulas using the least squares method, as shown in Fig. 4(a), we obtained the the full set of magnetic interaction parameters. As shown in Fig. 3, the fitted curves utilizing these parameters perfectly match the calculated values. This demonstrates the correctness of our proposed Kitaev-like model and points to a unique bond-dependent interaction model associated with SOC in 2D tetrahedral coordination structures."

    The parameters K1, K2, Γ1, Γ2, and Ak are obtained by least-squares fitting to the very MAE(θ/φ) curves of Fig. 3 that are then shown as 'perfectly matched.' The MAE formulas in Appendix A are linear in these fitted parameters, so in-sample reproduction is a mathematical consequence of the fit, not an independent test of the Hamiltonian form. The claim that this 'demonstrates the correctness' and points to a 'unique' model is therefore a fitting check presented as validation. The circularity is partial: the order-dependent failure of a pure SIA model is an independent, non-circular observation, but the quantitative parameter set and its 'uniqueness' are not independently established by the displayed match.

full rationale

The paper's central qualitative claim—that monolayer FeTe and FeSe exhibit bond-dependent magnetic anisotropy beyond single-ion anisotropy—is not circular. It is supported by a genuine null-model comparison: the DFT MAE profiles differ strongly between FM, Néel AFM, and BAFM orders, and the BAFM in-plane anisotropy is strictly forbidden in a pure SIA model. Those DFT results are external first-principles data, and the SIA-only expectation is argued from the Hamiltonian itself rather than imported from a cited authority. The Kitaev-like Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) is an explicit ansatz based on bond geometry, not derived from the target result, so no self-definitional circularity is present. The self-citations [21–23] introduce the MAE-mapping scheme, but the essential SIA-independence argument is given in the text, so these citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. The main circularity concern is the validation step: the fitted curves in Fig. 3 are generated from parameters fitted to those same curves, so the 'perfect match' is an in-sample fit, not a prediction. The paper further claims this demonstrates correctness and uniqueness, which overstates what a fit can establish. However, because the qualitative existence of bond-dependent anisotropy does not reduce to that in-sample fit, the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a phenomenological spin model with five fitted parameters per material. Only K1 and Ak are quoted in the text. There is no independent validation of the parameter values, and the Hamiltonian form is assumed rather than derived from a microscopic calculation.

free parameters (10)
  • K1 (FeTe) = -1.63 meV
    Nearest-neighbor Kitaev-like parameter, fitted to MAE data and reported as dominant in FeTe.
  • K1 (FeSe) = -0.37 meV
    Nearest-neighbor Kitaev-like parameter for FeSe, quoted as the leading term.
  • Ak (FeTe) = -0.73 meV
    Single-ion anisotropy coefficient fitted for FeTe and quoted in the text.
  • Ak (FeSe) = 0.27 meV
    Single-ion anisotropy coefficient fitted for FeSe, opposite in sign to K1 and quoted.
  • K2 (FeTe)
    Second-neighbor Kitaev-like parameter from the least-squares fit; value not quoted in the available text.
  • K2 (FeSe)
    Second-neighbor Kitaev-like parameter for FeSe; value not quoted.
  • Gamma1 (FeTe)
    Off-diagonal 1NN exchange parameter fitted for FeTe; value not quoted.
  • Gamma1 (FeSe)
    Off-diagonal 1NN exchange parameter fitted for FeSe; value not quoted.
  • Gamma2 (FeTe)
    Off-diagonal 2NN exchange parameter fitted for FeTe; value not quoted.
  • Gamma2 (FeSe)
    Off-diagonal 2NN exchange parameter fitted for FeSe; value not quoted.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The spin Hamiltonian is restricted to bond-dependent Kitaev-like terms, off-diagonal Gamma terms, and single-ion anisotropy; all other terms are neglected.
    Model assumption stated in the main text; no microscopic derivation proves these are the only relevant terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Ising axes of the Kitaev-like interaction are determined by Fe-X bond directions and are perpendicular to the Fe-X-Fe-X planes.
    Geometric analogy to octahedral Kitaev models; not derived from a superexchange calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper 2NN Kitaev-like interactions have the same form as 1NN and are necessary to reproduce the BAFM in-plane anisotropy.
    Introduced after the 1NN-only model failed to explain the data; the DOS arguments are qualitative.
  • domain assumption DFT with GGA+U (U=0.5 eV) and SOC quantitatively captures magnetic anisotropy energies.
    Standard computational approach, but the U value is chosen without validation against experiment or higher-level theory.
  • domain assumption The three collinear magnetic orders (FM, Neel AFM, BAFM) provide sufficient information to uniquely determine all fitted parameters.
    No identifiability analysis or cross-validation is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Bond-Dependent Kitaev-like interaction in 2D Edge-Sharing Tetrahedral Magnets: FeX (X=Te, Se)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRRRMMLH

@misc{pith2026260813427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Bond-Dependent Kitaev-like interaction in 2D Edge-Sharing Tetrahedral Magnets: FeX (X=Te, Se)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRRRMMLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13427}
}
read the original abstract

Bond-dependent magnetic interactions, exemplified by the Kitaev model, are known to arise from the interplay between spin-orbit coupling(SOC) and specific coordination geometries, yet their existence has so far been predominantly associated with edge-sharing octahedral systems. Whether analogous interactions survive in edge- sharing tetrahedral environments - relevant to iron-based superconductor parent compounds - remains an open question. Here, we construct a Kitaev-like model for monolayer FeTe and FeSe and demonstrate the presence of a previously unrecognized bond-dependent Ising-type interaction, induced jointly by chalcogen-mediated SOC and the tetrahedral crystal-field geometry. By mapping the first-principles calculations derived magnetic anisotropy energy mapping across representative linear magnetic orders, we disentangle the bond-dependent contributions from single-ion anisotropy. We reveal that the Kitaev-like interaction dominates the magnetic anisotropy in FeTe, whereas in FeSe, it fiercely competes with a single-ion anisotropy of opposite sign. The resulting noncollinear local anisotropy axes generate intrinsic single-site spin frustration, providing a microscopic mechanism for magnetic disorder beyond isotropic exchange models. Our results establish edge-sharing tetrahedral magnets as a new setting for bond-dependent interactions and extend the scope of Kitaev physics beyond octahedral coordination.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator? Mater. Res. Bull. 8, 153–160 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature464,199–208(2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature464,199–208(2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spinliquidstates,Rev.Mod.Phys.89,025003(2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    J. Wen, S. L. Yu, S. Li, W. Yu, and J. X. Li, Experimental identification of quantum spin liquids, npjQuantumMater.4,12(2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev Quantum Spin Liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 045003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Dorier, F

    J. Dorier, F. Becca, and F. Mila, Quantum compassmodelonthesquarelattice,Phys.Rev.B72, 024448(2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Chern and C.-J

    G.-W. Chern and C.-J. Wu, Orbital ice: An exact Coulomb phase on the diamond lattice, Phys. Rev. E 84,061127(2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Nussinov and J

    Z. Nussinov and J. van den Brink, Compass models: Theory and physical motivations, Rev. Mod. Phys.87,1(2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Shang, O

    C. Shang, O. Ganter, N. Heinsdorf et al., IrF4: From tetrahedral compass model to topological semimetal,Phys.Rev.B107,125111(2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    C. Kim, S. Kim, P. Park et al., Bond-dependent anisotropy and magnon decay in cobalt-based Kitaev triangular antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys. 19, 1624–1629 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    S. K. Pandey, Q. Gu, Y. Lin, R. Tiwari, and J. Feng, Emergence of bond-dependent highly anisotropic magnetic interactions in Sr4RhO6: A theoreticalstudy,Phys.Rev.B107,115119(2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Y. Gu, Y. Gu, F. Liu, S. Ohira-Kawamura, N. Murai & J.Zhao, Signatures of Kitaev interactions in the van der Waals ferromagnet VI3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132,246702(2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Kesharpu and P

    K. Kesharpu and P. A. Maksimov, Quantum selection of order and dynamic properties of the Kitaev-Heisenbergferromagnetonatriangularlattice, Phys.Rev.B112,054416(2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model andbeyond,Ann.Phys.321,2–111(2006)

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model andbeyond,Ann.Phys.321,2–111(2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    K. W. Plumb, J. P. Clancy, L. J. Sandilands, V. V.Shankar,Y.F.Hu,K.S.Burch,H.-Y.Kee&Y.J. Kim,α-RuCl3:Aspin-orbitassistedMottinsulatoron ahoneycomblattice,Phys.Rev.B90,041112(2014). [16]H.-S.Kim,V.V.Shankar,A.Catuneanu&H.-Y. Kee, Magnetism in honeycomb α-RuCl3 with intermediate...

    2014

  8. [17]

    P. A. Maksimov and A. L. Chernyshev, Rethinking α-RuCl3, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033011 (2020). [18]T.Minakawa,Y.Murakami,A.Koga&J.Nasu, Majorana-mediated spin transport in Kitaev quantum spinliquids,Phys.Rev.Lett.125,047204(2020)

    2020

  9. [19]

    Ralko and J

    A. Ralko and J. Merino, Novel chiral quantum spin liquids in Kitaev magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 217203(2020)

    2020

  10. [20]

    Tanaka, Y

    O. Tanaka, Y. Mizukami, R. Harasawa et al., Thermodynamicevidencefor afield-angle-dependent Majorana gap in a Kitaev spin liquid, Nat. Phys. 18, 429–435(2022)

    2022

  11. [21]

    Huang, B

    C. Huang, B. Liu, L. Jiang, Y. Pan, J. Fan, D. Shi, C. Ma, Q. Luo & Y. Zhu, Evidence of Kitaev interactioninmonolayer1T-CrTe2,Phys.Rev.B108, 094433(2023)

    2023

  12. [22]

    J. Xu, S. Wu, C. Huang et al., Effective magnetic modulation of monolayer 1T-CrSe2 under small strain: Magnetic ground state and magnetic anisotropy,Appl.Phys.Lett.127,152402(2025)

    2025

  13. [23]

    Jiang, C

    Z. Jiang, C. Huang, L. Jiang et al., Origin of magnetic anisotropy in monolayer CrI3: Identifying the J−K1−Γ’1−K2−Ak magnetic interaction model, Phys.Rev.B113,024419(2026)

    2026

  14. [24]

    L. H. Xia, Y. P. Gao, Z. Y. Dong & J. X. Li, Ligand spin orbit coupling enhanced 4f5 Kitaev antiferromagnet: Application to SmI3, Phys. Rev. B 112,125108(2025)

    2025

  15. [25]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, H. Xiang et al., Interplay between Kitaev interaction and single ion anisotropy in ferromagnetic CrI₃ and CrGeTe3 monolayers, npj Comput.Mater.4,57(2018)

    2018

  16. [26]

    J. Xian, C. Wang, J. Nie et al., Spin mapping of intralayer antiferromagnetism and field-induced spin reorientation in monolayer CrTe2, Nat. Commun. 13, 257(2022)

    2022

  17. [27]

    Liang, X.-X

    Y. Liang, X.-X. Wu & J.-P. Hu, Electronic structure properties in the nematic phases of FeSe, Chin.Phys.Lett.32,117402(2015)

    2015

  18. [28]

    Kang & R

    J. Kang & R. M. Fernandes, Superconductivity in FeSe thin films driven by the interplay between nematic fluctuations and spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev.Lett.117,217003(2016)

    2016

  19. [29]

    Borisenko, D

    S. Borisenko, D. Evtushinsky, Z. H. Liu et al., Direct observation of spin–orbit coupling in iron- based superconductors, Nat. Phys. 12, 311–317 (2016)

    2016

  20. [30]

    L. L. Zhao, Y. Z. Li, X. M. Zhao, T. A. Dai, Y. R. Li & L. J. Meng, Dirac-cone-like electronic states on nematic antiferromagnetic FeSe and FeTe, J. Phys.:Condens.Matter34,325801(2022)

    2022

  21. [31]

    L. C. Li, B. Zhang, Z. Chen et al., Effects of Kitaev interaction on magnetic order and anisotropy, Phys.Rev.B100,214435(2024). 9

    2024

  22. [32]

    Zakeri, D

    K. Zakeri, D. Rau, J. Jandke, F. Yang, W. Wulfhekel & C. Berthod, Direct probing of a large spin-orbit coupling in the FeSe superconducting monolayeronSTO,ACSNano17,9575(2023). [33]M.Ma,P.Bourges,Y.Sidis,Y.Xu,S.Li,B.Hu, J. Li, F. Wang & Y. Li, Prominent role of spin-orbit coup...

    2023

  23. [34]

    J. Li, B. Lei, D. Zhao, L. P. Nie et al., Spin- orbital-intertwined nematic state in FeSe, Phys. Rev. X10,011034(2020)

    2020

  24. [35]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed methods andfurtherdiscussions,whichincludesRefs.[36-40]

  25. [37]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke & M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys.Rev.Lett.77,3865(1996)

    1996

  26. [38]

    Jiang, C

    L. Jiang, C. Huang, Y. Zhu, Y. Pan, J. Fan, K. Zhang, C. Ma, D. Shi, and H. Zhang, Tuning the size of skyrmion by strain at the Co/Pt3 interfaces, iScience25,104039(2022)

    2022

  27. [39]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov & J. Zaanen, Density-functional theory and strong interactions: orbital ordering in Mott-Hubbard insulators, Phys. Rev.B52,R5467(1995)

    1995

  28. [40]

    Hobbs, G

    D. Hobbs, G. Kresse & J. Hafner, Fully unconstrained noncollinear magnetism within the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 62, 11556(2000)

    2000

  29. [41]

    F. Ma, W. Ji, J. Hu, Z.-Y. Lu & T. Xiang, First- principles calculations of the electronic structure of tetragonal α-FeTe and α-FeSe crystals: Evidence for abicollinearantiferromagneticorder,Phys.Rev.Lett. 102,177003(2009)

    2009

  30. [42]

    J. J. Moon, Q. Zou & H. Zhang et al., Magnetic field-induced spin nematic phase up to room temperature in epitaxial antiferromagnetic FeTe thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy, ACS Nano 17,16886–16894(2023)

    2023

  31. [43]

    Y. Kim, M. S. Kim, D. Kim et al., Kondo interaction in FeTe and its potential role in the magneticorder,Nat.Commun.14,4145(2023)

    2023

  32. [44]

    H. Cao, S. Chen & H. Xiang et al., Anti- ferromagnetic ground state with pair-checkerboard orderinFeSe,Phys.Rev.B91,020504(2015). [45]Y.Gu,Q.Wang&H.Woetal.,Frustratedmag- netic interactions in FeSe, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060504(2022)

    2015

  33. [45]

    The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional[37] was used

    DFTComputationalMethods We employed first-principles calculations under the generalized Bloch condition using the Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP)[36] based on DFT pseudopotential plane-wave method. The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional[37] was used. VASP solve...

  34. [46]

    Rößler, C

    S. Rößler, C. Koz, Z. Wang et al., Two types of magnetic shape-memory effects from twinned microstructure and magneto-structural coupling in Fe1+yTe, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 16697– 16702(2019). 1 Modeling Bond-Dependent Kitaev-like interaction in 2D Edge-Sharing Tet...

    2019

  35. [47]

    From a crystallographic perspective, each Cr atom occupies the center of a near-perfect octahedral coordination environment constituted by six nearest-neighbor I atoms

    ComputationalDetails Taking the hexagonal lattice 1T-CrI3 as an exemplary system, the Kitaev spin model is intimately correlatedwithitsdistinctivecrystalstructureandspin-orbitcouplingeffects.AsillustratedinFig.1(c), 1T-CrI3 exhibits a characteristic sandwich-type layered archi...

  36. [48]

    As illustrated in Figs

    DetailedDerivationoftheKitaev-likeInteraction In monolayer FeTe/FeSe systems, the Kitaev-like interactions are similarly dependent on the unique tetrahedral coordination structure. As illustrated in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), the fundamental structuralunitofmonolayer FeX(X=Te,Se) co...

  37. [49]

    (a) and (b) show the band structures without and with SOC, respectively

    ElectronicStructureofFeTe Figure S1: Electronic structure ofmonolayer FeTewith and without SOC, along with schematic illustrations of orbital interactions. (a) and (b) show the band structures without and with SOC, respectively. The red ellipses indicate the lifting of band de...

  38. [50]

    (a) and (b) show the band structures without and with SOC, respectively

    TheelectronicstructureofFeSe Figure S2: Electronic structure of monolayer FeSe with and without SOC, along with schematic illustrations of orbital interactions. (a) and (b) show the band structures without and with SOC, respectively. The red ellipses indicate the lifting ofban...

  39. [51]

    (a) Ferromagnetic order (FM), (b) Neel antiferromagnetic order (NéelAFM), (c) Bilinear antiferromagnetic order (BAFM)

    Thedetailedderivationoftheformulas Figure S3: Magnetic orders and corresponding anisotropy landscapes in monolayer FeX Schematic of Possible Magnetic Orders in Monolayer FeX and SIA(θ), MAE(θ/φ). (a) Ferromagnetic order (FM), (b) Neel antiferromagnetic order (NéelAFM), (c) Bil...

  40. [52]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method,Phys.Rev.B59,1758(1999)

    1999

  41. [53]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke & M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev.Lett.77,3865(1996)

    1996

  42. [54]

    Jiang, C

    L. Jiang, C. Huang, Y. Zhu, Y. Pan, J. Fan, K. Zhang, C. Ma, D. Shi, and H. Zhang, Tuning the sizeofskyrmionbystrainattheCo/Pt3interfaces,iScience25,104039(2022). [39]A.I.Liechtenstein,V.I.Anisimov&J.Zaanen,Density-functionaltheoryandstronginteractions: orbitalorderinginMott-H...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.