Rethinking 𝛼−RuCl 3 : Parameters, models, and phase diagram

Abstract

RuCl 3 was likely the first ever deliberately synthesized ruthenium compound, following the discovery of the 44 Ru element in 1844. For a long time it was known as an oxidation catalyst, with its physical properties being discrepant and confusing, until a decade ago when its allotropic form 𝛼−RuCl 3 rose to exceptional prominence. This “rediscovery” of 𝛼−RuCl 3 has not only reshaped the hunt for a material manifestation of the Kitaev spin liquid, but it has opened the floodgates of theoretical and experimental research in the many unusual phases and excitations that the anisotropic-exchange magnets as a class of compounds have to offer. Given its importance for the field of Kitaev materials, it is astonishing that the low-energy spin model that describes this compound and its possible proximity to the much-desired spin-liquid state is still a subject of significant debate ten years later. In the present study, we argue that the existing key phenomenological observations put strong natural constraints on the effective microscopic spin model of 𝛼−RuCl 3 , and specifically on its spin-orbit-induced anisotropic-exchange parameters that are responsible for the nontrivial physical properties of this material. These constraints allow one to focus on the relevant region of the multidimensional phase diagram of the 𝛼−RuCl 3 model, suggest an intuitive description of it via a different parametrization of the exchange matrix, offer a unifying view on the earlier assessments of its parameters, and bring closer together several approaches to the derivation of anisotropic-exchange models. We explore extended phase diagrams relevant to the 𝛼−RuCl 3 parameter space using quasiclassical, Luttinger-Tisza, exact diagonalization, and density-matrix renormalization-group methods, demonstrating a remarkably close quantitative accord between them on the general structure and hierarchy of the phases, with the zigzag, ferromagnetic, and incommensurate phases that are proximate to each other. As a result, one of the highlights is the detailed agreement on the nature of the incommensurate phases that realize two distinct counterrotating helical states.