Kitaev magnetism in honeycomb<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mtext>RuCl</mml:mtext><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math>with intermediate spin-orbit coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive studies of the interplay between spin-orbit coupling (SOC) and electronic correlations in transition-metal compounds have recently been undertaken. In particular, ${j}_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/2$ bands on a honeycomb lattice provide a pathway to realize Kitaev's exactly solvable spin model. However, since current wisdom requires strong atomic SOC to make ${j}_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/2$ bands, studies have been limited to iridium oxides. Contrary to this expectation, we demonstrate how Kitaev interactions arise in $4d$-orbital honeycomb $\ensuremath{\alpha}\text{\ensuremath{-}}{\mathrm{RuCl}}_{3}$, despite having significantly weaker SOC than the iridium oxides, via assistance from electron correlations. A strong-coupling spin model for these correlation-assisted ${j}_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/2$ bands is derived, in which large antiferromagnetic Kitaev interactions emerge along with ferromagnetic Heisenberg interactions. Our analyses suggest that the ground state is a zigzag-ordered phase lying close to the antiferromagnetic Kitaev spin liquid. Experimental implications for angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, neutron scattering, and optical conductivities are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".