Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Ab Initio Investigation of Pressure Effects in the Spin-Liquid Candidate Y-Kapellasite

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure steers kagome magnet toward spin liquid by bending one bond

desk verdict Pressure-dependent DFT on Y-kapellasite: qualitative trend toward spin-liquid region is robust, absolute couplings depend on an untested U-freezing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07341 v1 pith:AUEGHDQI submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.str-el

Federico Abbruciati , Aleksandar Razpopov , Joao Elias F. S. Rodrigues , Gaston Garbarino , Matthieu Le Tacon , Roser Valenti , Pascal Puphal , Björn Wehinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el PACS 75.10.Jm75.30.Et71.15.Mb
keywords kagomeantiferromagnetspinliquidY-kapellasitehydrostaticpressuremagneticexchangecouplingsuperexchangeCu-O-Cubondanglehydrogengeometry
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

This paper uses density functional theory calculations on experimentally measured crystal structures of Y-kapellasite (Y3Cu9(OH)19Cl8), a distorted kagome antiferromagnet, to show that hydrostatic pressure suppresses one of the three dominant magnetic exchange couplings (J9) while leaving the other two (J' and J) nearly unchanged. This selective suppression increases the ratios J'/J9 and J/J9, moving the system toward the spin-liquid region of the classical kagome phase diagram. The mechanism is geometric: pressure alters the Cu–O–Cu bond angle that mediates superexchange, and the dominant coupling depends nonlinearly (cubic rather than linear) on this angle. The authors further show that hydrogen atom positions — both the O–H bond length and the out-of-plane angle — significantly affect the absolute values of the exchange couplings, enough to account for discrepancies with prior theoretical work, though the pressure-driven trend toward the spin-liquid regime is robust against hydrogen-position uncertainty.

What carries the argument

Three nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange couplings (J', J9, J) on a distorted kagome lattice, mediated by hydroxide (Cu–O–Cu) superexchange paths. The Cu–O–Cubond angle controls the couplings via a nonlinear (cubic) dependence. Hydrogen positions (O–H bond length and out-of-plane angle τ) provide a secondary tuning of the couplings. The classical J1–J2–J3 kagome phase diagram (with J'=J1, J9=J2, J=J3) features a spin-liquid region whose boundaries depend on the ratios of these three couplings.

What would settle it

Measurement of the Curie-Weiss temperature under pressure that reveals substantial U-dependence, or neutron diffraction determination of hydrogen positions under pressure that contradicts the assumed O–H geometry, could shift the quantitative location of Y-kapellasite on the phase diagram.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Pressure suppresses the exchange coupling J9 in Y-kapellasite because it modifies the Cu–O–Cu bond angle, and this coupling depends cubically (not linearly, as previously assumed) on that angle. The result is that J'/J9 and J/J9 both increase with pressure, pushing the system toward the spin-liquid region of the kagome phase diagram. Hydrogen geometry — specifically the O–H bond length and out-of-plane angle — is a second, previously underappreciated control on the absolute coupling values, with each hydrogen position mainly affecting its corresponding exchange path.

Load-bearing premise

The Hubbard U parameter is calibrated to reproduce the ambient-pressure Curie-Weiss temperature of -100 K and then held fixed across all pressures, because no experimental measurement of the pressure dependence of that temperature exists. If U changes substantially under pressure, the absolute coupling values and the system's exact position on the phase diagram could shift.

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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents ab initio DFT calculations (FPLO, GGA+U, TEMA) of the pressure-dependent magnetic exchange couplings in Y-kapellasite Y3Cu9(OH)19Cl8, a distorted kagome antiferromagnet. Using experimentally determined crystal structures at pressures up to 7.9 GPa (293 K) and 7.0 GPa (3 K), the authors find that hydrostatic pressure primarily suppresses J9 while leaving J and J' approximately constant, driving the system toward the spin-liquid region of the classical kagome phase diagram. The Hubbard U is calibrated to reproduce the ambient-pressure Curie-Weiss temperature θCW = -100 K and then held fixed across all pressures. The authors additionally investigate the influence of hydrogen positions (O-H bond length and out-of-plane angle τ) on the exchange couplings, finding significant sensitivity that helps reconcile discrepancies with prior DFT studies. The central qualitative claim—that pressure drives Y-kapellasite toward the spin-liquid regime by suppressing J9—is supported by the data, though the precision of the trajectory on the phase diagram depends on the unverified assumption of pressure-independent U.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: the microscopic mechanism behind pressure-induced suppression of magnetic order in Y-kapellasite, recently reported experimentally. The DFT methodology is standard and well-converged, and the eight-coupling sanity check (Tables S7–S12) confirming three-coupling dominance under pressure is a valuable verification. The systematic study of hydrogen geometry effects on exchange couplings is a genuine contribution, as hydrogen positions are notoriously difficult to determine experimentally and their impact on superexchange in hydroxide-bridged systems is underappreciated. The cubic fit to the Cu-O-Cu angle dependence (Fig. 5) improves on the linear approximation used in prior experimental work. Reproducible data is provided via Zenodo and CCDC deposition. The qualitative conclusion (pressure drives toward SL region) is shown to be robust across U = 4–10 eV in the supplemental data, which strengthens the central claim beyond the specific U-calibration choice.

major comments (1)
  1. §III.A and Supplemental §IV: The central methodological choice is calibrating U to reproduce θCW = -100 K at ambient pressure and then holding U fixed across all pressures. This creates a partial circularity: θCW is computed from the couplings via the mean-field formula θCW = -(1/3)ΣJi (Supplemental §IV), and U is chosen so that the couplings reproduce the experimental θCW. Under pressure, the computed |θCW| drifts from 100 K to 86.6 K at 7.9 GPa (Table S4), indicating the frozen U is not self-consistent with the pressure-evolved structure. The authors acknowledge this ('the pressure dependence of the Curie temperature remains undetermined'), but the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how sensitive the phase-diagram trajectory is to this assumption. The supplemental U-scan data (Tables S7, S9) partially mitigates this concern: the qualitative trend (J9 suppressed
minor comments (6)
  1. Table S12: The J9 values at U = 7 eV (80.7 K) and U = 9 eV (41.2 K) appear anomalously low compared to the corresponding full-eight-coupling values in Table S11 (179.6 K and 140.7 K respectively) and compared to the monotonic trend seen in all other tables. This is likely a typographical error. Please correct.
  2. Notation: The coupling labeled J9 in the main text and J7 in several supplemental tables (S1, S4–S12) should be unified. The Hamiltonian in §III.A uses J9, but the supplemental tables switch to J7, which creates confusion.
  3. §III.B, Table I: The caption states the structures have 'almost similar Cu-O-Cu angles but different τ,' but Table S1 shows ϕ_J9 differs by 0.5° between Olex2 and Jana2020. This is small but should be acknowledged as a confound in the disentanglement.
  4. Fig. 5: The cubic fit is described as better capturing both AFM and FM regimes, but no functional form or fitting parameters are given. Including the fit equation and R² would make the comparison with the linear model of Ref. [40] more quantitative.
  5. §IV: The statement 'pressures above 10 GPa are likely required within the classical phase diagram' is an important caveat but appears only in the Discussion. Consider mentioning this limitation earlier, when the phase-diagram trajectory is first shown in Fig. 2(b).
  6. Ref. [56]: The journal name is given as 'Physical Review Retters' — should be 'Physical Review Letters'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies the one substantive methodological issue in our work: the partial circularity introduced by calibrating U to the ambient-pressure θCW and then holding it fixed under pressure. We agree that this deserves a more explicit discussion and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Below we address the comment point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §III.A and Supplemental §IV: The central methodological choice is calibrating U to reproduce θCW = -100 K at ambient pressure and then holding U fixed across all pressures. This creates a partial circularity: θCW is computed from the couplings via the mean-field formula θCW = -(1/3)ΣJi (Supplemental §IV), and U is chosen so that the couplings reproduce the experimental θCW. Under pressure, the computed |θCW| drifts from 100 K to 86.6 K at 7.9 GPa (Table S4), indicating the frozen U is not self-consistent with the pressure-evolved structure. The authors acknowledge this ('the pressure dependence of the Curie temperature remains undetermined'), but the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how sensitive the phase-diagram trajectory is to this assumption. The supplemental U-scan data (Tables S7, S9) partially mitigates this concern: the qualitative trend (J9 suppressed

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the partial circularity in the U-calibration procedure and the sensitivity of the phase-diagram trajectory to the frozen-U assumption deserve a more explicit and quantitative discussion than what is currently in the manuscript. We will revise the manuscript to incorporate the following points. First, we will add a paragraph in Section III.A (or the Discussion) that explicitly states the circularity: U is tuned so that the ambient-pressure couplings reproduce the experimental θCW via the mean-field relation, and this U is then held fixed because no experimental θCW(P) is available. The drift of the computed |θCW| from 100 K to 86.6 K at 7.9 GPa (Table S4) is a direct consequence of this choice and reflects the fact that U would need to increase modestly under pressure to maintain self-consistency—if one assumes θCW remains at -100 K. Second, and more importantly, we will make explicit use of the U-scan data already present in the Supplemental Material (Tables S7–S12) to demonstrate the robustness of the qualitative conclusion. Specifically, at 7.9 GPa, the full eight-coupling calculations at U = 4, 5, 7, and 9 eV (Table S9) all show J9 suppressed relative to J, with J/J9 > 1, placing the system on the same side of the phase-diagram boundary as at the calibrated U. The same holds at 3.6 GPa and 3 K (Table S11). The ratios J'/J9 and J/J9 shift quantitatively with U, but the direction of the pressure-induced trajectory—toward the spin-liquid region—does not reverse for any U in the physically reasonable range of 4–10 eV. We will state this explicitly and, if space permits, include a small figure or table summarizing the phase-diagram coordinates (J'/J9, J/J9) at ambient and highest pressure for representative U values, to make the robustness直观 revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the U-calibration to θCW is standard fitting, not a circular derivation, and the central pressure-dependent claim is independently supported by DFT-computed couplings with U-robustness verified.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) experimentally determined crystal structures at various pressures (from Ref. [40]) are used as input to DFT+U calculations; (2) total energy mapping analysis extracts exchange couplings Ji(U) from DFT energies of different magnetic configurations — these couplings are independent DFT outputs, not defined in terms of θCW; (3) the Hubbard U is calibrated by requiring that the mean-field relation θCW = -(1/3)ΣJi yield the experimental θCW = -100 K at ambient pressure; (4) this U is held fixed, and couplings at all other pressures are genuine DFT predictions. The potential 'loop' identified by the reader — U fitted to θCW, θCW defined in terms of Ji — is not circular in the relevant sense: the couplings Ji(U) are computed from DFT total energy differences, and the mean-field formula is used only to select U (one scalar parameter). The ambient-pressure θCW = -100 K is reproduced by construction, but the paper presents this as calibration, not as a prediction. The central claim — that pressure drives the system toward the spin-liquid region — rests on the ratios J'/J9 and J/J9, which are not constrained by the θCW fit (which fixes only the sum ΣJi). Moreover, Tables S7 and S9 show the qualitative trend (J9 suppressed, ratios increasing) persists across U = 4–10 eV, making the central claim U-robust. The drift of |θCW| from 100 K to 86.6 K under pressure (Table S4) is a genuine prediction, not a fit. Ref. [35] (phase diagram, overlapping authors Razpopov/Valenti) is used as an external computational reference, not re-derived or invoked to forbid alternatives. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or postulated entities. All physical objects (Cu, O, H, Cl, Y atoms; exchange couplings J', J9, J) are standard. The free parameters are the Hubbard U (fitted to θCW) and the O–H bond length (assumed in refinement). The key ad-hoc assumption is the pressure-independent U.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U (293 K) = 9.27 eV
    Fitted to reproduce experimental θCW = -100 K at ambient pressure on the 293 K structure. Held fixed across all pressures for that temperature series.
  • Hubbard U (3 K) = 9.44 eV
    Fitted to reproduce experimental θCW = -100 K at ambient pressure on the 3 K structure. Held fixed across all pressures for that temperature series.
  • Hund's coupling JH = ~1 eV
    Set to a standard value for Cu 3d systems, not fitted in this work.
  • O–H bond length (structural refinement) = 0.98 Å
    Assumed constant in the Olex2 structural refinement. The paper validates this by showing a 3% shortening changes J'/J9 by only 4%.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The classical J1-J2-J3 kagome phase diagram from Monte Carlo (Ref. [35]) correctly locates the spin-liquid region.
    Used in Fig. 2(b) to place the system relative to the SL boundary. The authors acknowledge a full quantum treatment could shift boundaries.
  • domain assumption GGA+U with the atomic limit method and gross population projection adequately describes the electronic structure of Cu 3d states in this system.
    Standard assumption for Cu-based kagome magnets, invoked in §II. The choice of U is calibrated but the functional form is assumed.
  • domain assumption Three nearest-neighbor couplings suffice to describe the magnetic Hamiltonian.
    Verified by computing up to 8th NN (Tables S7–S12), confirming J4–J8 are negligible. Invoked in §III.A.
  • standard math The mean-field relation θCW = -(1/3)ΣJi correctly connects exchange couplings to the Curie-Weiss temperature.
    Standard mean-field result from statistical mechanics (Ref. [49]). Used in Supplemental §IV to calibrate U.
  • ad hoc to paper U does not change significantly under pressure.
    The pressure dependence of θCW is unknown, so U is held fixed. This is a practical assumption, not derived from first principles. Invoked in §III.A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab Initio Investigation of Pressure Effects in the Spin-Liquid Candidate Y-Kapellasite." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUEGHDQI

@misc{pith2026260707341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab Initio Investigation of Pressure Effects in the Spin-Liquid Candidate Y-Kapellasite},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUEGHDQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07341}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by recent experiments showing pressure-induced suppression of magnetic order and the emergence of a dynamical ground state in the anisotropic kagome antiferromagnet Y-kapellasite Y3Cu9(OH)19Cl8, we perform ab initio density functional theory (DFT)calculations to investigate the evolution of magnetic exchange interactions under hydrostatic pressure. We show that pressure efficiently tunes the magnetic Hamiltonian by altering the CuOCu bond geometry, thereby driving the system towards a spin-liquid regime. This evolution is governed by a nonlinear dependence of the dominant exchange coupling on the CuOCu bond angle. We further examine the influence of hydrogen positions and find that both the OH bond length and the hydrogen out-of-plane angle strongly affect the magnetic interactions. Our results provide a microscopic explanation for the experimentally observed pressure-induced enhancement of frustration and highlight the key role of hydrogen geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A top view of Y-kapellasite showing the kagome [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Pressure evolution of the magnetic exchange cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) a-b plane view of the different hydrogen position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Exchange coupling behavior as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Biesner, S

    T. Biesner, S. Roh, A. Razpopov, J. Willwater, S. S¨ ullow, Y. Li, K. M. Zoch, M. Medarde, J. Nuss, D. Gor- bunov, Y. Skourski, A. Pustogow, S. E. Brown, C. Krell- ner, R. Valent´ ı, P. Puphal, and M.Dressel, Multi-center magnon excitations open the entire brillouin zone to ter- ahertz magnetometry of quantum magnets, Advanced Quantum Technologies5, 22000...

    work page 2022

  2. [40]

    P. W. Anderson, Antiferromagnetism. theory of superex- change interaction, Physical Review79, 350 (1950)

    work page 1950

  3. [1]

    For each structure we calculated the isotropic magnetic exchange couplingsJby applying total energy mapping analysis (TEMA) via spin-polarized DFT calculations [24, 35, 41–43]

    were used as a starting point for DFT calculations. For each structure we calculated the isotropic magnetic exchange couplingsJby applying total energy mapping analysis (TEMA) via spin-polarized DFT calculations [24, 35, 41–43]. This method consists of a two step pro- cess, where first we calculated the total energy of dif- ferent magnetic configurations ...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Prior calculations for this material [35] demonstrated that only the first three nearest-neighbor (NN) exchange parameters are significant, while all oth- ers are negligible

    software, with the assumption of a constant O-H dis- tance of 0.98 ˚A. Prior calculations for this material [35] demonstrated that only the first three nearest-neighbor (NN) exchange parameters are significant, while all oth- ers are negligible. To verify this, we computed up to the 8th NN couplings and confirmed the persistence of this behavior under pre...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21216749

  5. [3]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [5]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spin liquid states, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [6]

    Rousochatzakis and N

    I. Rousochatzakis and N. B. Perkins, Classical spin liq- uid instability driven by off-diagonal exchange in strong spin-orbit magnets, Physical Review Letters118, 147204 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [7]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, A field guide to spin liq- uids, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 451 (2019)

    2019

  2. [8]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Nor- man, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  3. [9]

    Thede, A

    M. Thede, A. Mannig, M. M˚ ansson, D. H¨ uvonen, R. Khasanov, E. Morenzoni, and A. Zheludev, Pressure- induced quantum critical and multicritical points in a frustrated spin liquid, Physical Review Letters112, 087204 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    R¨ uegg, A

    C. R¨ uegg, A. Furrer, D. Sheptyakov, T. Str¨ assle, K. Kr¨ amer, H.-U. G¨ udel, and L. M´ el´ esi, Pressure-induced quantum phase transition in the spin-liquid TlCuCl 3, Physical Review Letters93, 257201 (2004)

    2004

  5. [11]

    Biesner and E

    T. Biesner and E. Uykur, Pressure-tuned interactions in frustrated magnets: pathway to quantum spin liquids?, Crystals10, 4 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    Malavi, S

    P. Malavi, S. Pal, D. Muthu, S. Sahoo, S. Karmakar, and A. Sood, Pressure-induced tuning of quantum spin liquid state in ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Physical Review B101, 214402 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    Wehinger, C

    B. Wehinger, C. Fiolka, A. Lanza, R. Scatena, M. Kubus, A. Grockowiak, W. A. Coniglio, D. Graf, M. Skoulatos, J.-H. Chen, J. Gukelberger, N. Casati, O. Zaharko, P. Macchi, K. W. Kr¨ amer, S. Tozer, C. Mudry, B. Nor- mand, and C. R¨ uegg, Giant pressure dependence and dimension...

    2018

  8. [14]

    P. W. Anderson, Resonating valence bonds: A new kind of insulator?, Materials Research Bulletin8, 153 (1973)

    1973

  9. [15]

    L. F. Tocchio, H. Feldner, F. Becca, R. Valent´ ı, and C. Gros, Spin-liquid versus spiral-order phases in the anisotropic triangular lattice, Physical Review B87, 035143 (2013)

    2013

  10. [16]

    Kaneko, S

    R. Kaneko, S. Morita, and M. Imada, Gapless Spin- Liquid Phase in an Extended Spin 1/2 Triangular Heisen- berg Model, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan83, 093707 (2014)

    2014

  11. [17]

    Iqbal, W.-J

    Y. Iqbal, W.-J. Hu, R. Thomale, D. Poilblanc, and F. Becca, Spin liquid nature in the Heisenberg J1-J2 tri- angular antiferromagnet, Physical Review B93, 144411 (2016)

    2016

  12. [18]

    Zhu and S

    Z. Zhu and S. R. White, Spin-Liquid Phase of theS= 1/2 J1-J2 Heisenberg Model on the Triangular Lattice, Physical Review B92, 041105 (2015)

    2015

  13. [19]

    A. O. Scheie, E. A. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. A. M. Paddi- son, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. D. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. J. Woods, D. Abernathy, P. D. M. T. J. Williams, S.-S. Zhang, L. O. Manuel, A. E. Trumper, C. D. Pem- maraju, A. S. Sefat, D. S. Parker, T. P. Devereaux, R. Movshovi...

    2024

  14. [20]

    Riedl, E

    K. Riedl, E. Gati, and R. Valent´ ı, Ingredients for gener- alized models ofκ-phase organic charge-transfer salts: A review, Crystals12, 1689 (2022)

    2022

  15. [21]

    R. Bag, S. Xu, N. E. Sherman, L. Yadav, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. A. Podlesnyak, E. S. Choi, I. Da Silva, J. E. Moore, and S. Haravifard, Evidence of a dirac quan- tum spin liquid in YbZn 2GaO5, Physical Review Letters 133, 266703 (2024)

    2024

  16. [22]

    Mendels and F

    P. Mendels and F. Bert, Quantum kagome frustrated antiferromagnets: One route to quantum spin liquids, Comptes Rendus. Physique17, 455 (2016)

    2016

  17. [23]

    M. R. Norman, Colloquium: Herbertsmithite and the search for the quantum spin liquid, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 041002 (2016)

    2016

  18. [24]

    Mendels and F

    P. Mendels and F. Bert, Quantum kagome antiferromag- net ZnCu 3(OH)6Cl2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan79, 011001 (2010)

    2010

  19. [25]

    T.-H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, and Y. S. Lee, Fraction- alized excitations in the spin-liquid state of a kagome- lattice antiferromagnet, Nature492, 406 (2012)

    2012

  20. [26]

    H. O. Jeschke, F. Salvat-Pujol, and R. Valent´ ı, First- principles determination of heisenberg hamiltonian pa- rameters for the spin-1/2 kagome antiferromagnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Physical Review B—Condensed Mat- ter and Materials Physics88, 075106 (2013)

    2013

  21. [27]

    Khuntia, M

    P. Khuntia, M. Velazquez, Q. Barth´ elemy, F. Bert, E. Kermarrec, A. Legros, B. Bernu, L. Messio, A. Zorko, and P. Mendels, Gapless ground state in the archetypal quantum kagome antiferromagnet ZnCu 3(OH)6Cl2, Na- ture Physics16, 469 (2020)

    2020

  22. [28]

    D. E. Freedman, T. H. Han, A. Prodi, P. Muller, Q.- Z. Huang, Y.-S. Chen, S. M. Webb, Y. S. Lee, T. M. McQueen, and D. G. Nocera, Site specific x-ray anoma- lous dispersion of the geometrically frustrated kagom´ e magnet, herbertsmithite, ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2, Journal of the American...

    2010

  23. [29]

    R. K. Kremer, S. Bette, J. Nuss, and P. Puphal, Chemical and structural disorder in the kagome spin 1/2 systems ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2 and YCu 3(OH)6Br2 [Brx(OH)1−x], Physical Review B111, 024424 (2025)

    2025

  24. [30]

    Colman, C

    R. Colman, C. Ritter, and A. Wills, Toward perfection: Kapellasite, Cu 3Zn(OH)6Cl2, a New ModelS= 1/2 Kagome Antiferromagnet, Chemistry of Materials20, 6897 (2008)

    2008

  25. [31]

    Colman, A

    R. Colman, A. Sinclair, and A. Wills, Comparisons be- tween haydeeite,α-Cu 3Mg(OD)6Cl2, and kapellasite,α- Cu3Zn(OD)6Cl2: IsostructuralS= 1/2 kagome mag- nets, Chemistry of Materials22, 5774 (2010)

    2010

  26. [32]

    F˚ ak, E

    B. F˚ ak, E. Kermarrec, L. Messio, B. Bernu, C. Lhuil- lier, F. Bert, P. Mendels, B. Koteswararao, F. Bouquet, J. Ollivier, A. Hillier, A. Amato, R. H. Colman, and A. S. Wills, Kapellasite: A kagome quantum spin liq- uid with competing interactions, Physical Review Letters 109...

    2012

  27. [33]

    Puphal, M

    P. Puphal, M. Bolte, D. Sheptyakov, A. Pustogow, K. Kliemt, M. Dressel, M. Baenitz, and C. Krellner, Strong magnetic frustration in Y 3Cu9(OH)19Cl8: A dis- torted kagome antiferromagnet, Journal of Materials Chemistry C5, 2629 (2017)

    2017

  28. [34]

    Barth´ elemy, P

    Q. Barth´ elemy, P. Puphal, K. M. Zoch, C. Krellner, H. Luetkens, C. Baines, D. Sheptyakov, E. Kermarrec, P. Mendels, and F. Bert, Local study of the insulating quantum kagome antiferromagnets YCu 3(OH)6OxCl3−x (x= 0,1/3), Physical Review Materials3, 074401 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Chatterjee, P

    D. Chatterjee, P. Puphal, Q. Barth´ elemy, J. Willwater, S. S¨ ullow, C. Baines, S. Petit, E. Ressouche, J. Ollivier, K. M. Zoch, M. P. Krellner, C., A. Riss, F. Garmroudi, A. Pustogow, P. Mendels, E. Kermarrec, , and F. Bert, From spin liquid to magnetic ordering in the aniso...

    2023

  30. [37]

    Hering, F

    M. Hering, F. Ferrari, A. Razpopov, I. I. Mazin, R. Va- lent´ ı, H. O. Jeschke, and J. Reuther, Phase diagram of a distorted kagome antiferromagnet and application to Y- Kapellasite, npj Computational Materials8, 10 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Kanamori, Superexchange interaction and symmetry properties of electron orbitals, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids10, 87 (1959)

    J. Kanamori, Superexchange interaction and symmetry properties of electron orbitals, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids10, 87 (1959)

    1959

  32. [39]

    J. B. Goodenough, Theory of the role of covalence in the perovskite-type manganites [La,M(II)]MnO 3, Phys- ical Review100, 564 (1955)

    1955

  33. [41]

    J. Wang, M. Spitaler, Y.-S. Su, K. Zoch, C. Krellner, P. Puphal, S. E. Brown, and A. Pustogow, Controlled frustration release on the kagome lattice by uniaxial- strain tuning, Physical Review Letters131, 256501 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Chatterjee, P

    D. Chatterjee, P. Doleˇ zal, F. Abbruciati, T. Biesner, K. M. Zoch, R. Khasanov, S. S. Islam, G. Kaur, S. Roh, F. Capitani, J. E. F. S. Rodrigues, G. Gar- barino, C. Krellner, P. Mendels, E. Kermarrec, M. Dres- sel, B. Wehinger, A. Pustogow, F. Bert, and P. Puphal, Emergence o...

    2026

  35. [43]

    J. K. Glasbrenner, I. Mazin, H. O. Jeschke, P. Hirschfeld, R. Fernandes, and R. Valent´ ı, Effect of magnetic frustra- tion on nematicity and superconductivity in iron chalco- genides, Nature Physics11, 953 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Riedl, Y

    K. Riedl, Y. Li, R. Valent´ ı, and S. M. Winter, Ab ini- tio approaches for low-energy spin hamiltonians, Physica Status Solidi (b)256, 1800684 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Razpopov, D

    A. Razpopov, D. A. Kaib, S. Backes, L. Balents, S. D. Wilson, F. Ferrari, K. Riedl, and R. Valent´ ı, Aj ef f= 1/2 Kitaev material on the triangular lattice: the case of NaRuO2, npj Quantum Materials8, 36 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Koepernik and H

    K. Koepernik and H. Eschrig, Full-potential nonorthog- onal local-orbital minimum-basis band-structure scheme, Physical Review B59, 1743 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    Eschrig, K

    H. Eschrig, K. Koepernik, and I. Chaplygin, Density functional application to strongly correlated electron sys- tems, Journal of Solid State Chemistry176, 482 (2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    Czy˙ zyk and G

    M. Czy˙ zyk and G. Sawatzky, Local-density functional and on-site correlations: The electronic structure of La2CuO4 and LaCuO 3, Physical Review B49, 14211 (1994). 8

    1994

  41. [49]

    Sugano,Multiplets of transition-metal ions in crystals (Elsevier, 2012)

    S. Sugano,Multiplets of transition-metal ions in crystals (Elsevier, 2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Pavarini, D

    E. Pavarini, D. Vollhardt, E. Koch, and A. Lichtenstein, The LDA+ DMFT approach to strongly correlated mate- rials, Tech. Rep. (Theoretische Nanoelektronik, 2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Suzuki, Lecture notes on statistical thermo- dynamics,https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/ ~suzuki/ ThermoStat.html

    M. Suzuki, Lecture notes on statistical thermo- dynamics,https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/ ~suzuki/ ThermoStat.html

  44. [52]

    O. V. Dolomanov, L. J. Bourhis, R. J. Gildea, J. A. Howard, and H. Puschmann, Olex2: a complete struc- ture solution, refinement and analysis program, Applied Crystallography42, 339 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L

    V. Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L. Palatinus, J. Pl´ aˇ sil, and M. Duˇ sek, Jana2020–a new version of the crystallographic com- puting system jana, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie- Crystalline Materials238, 271 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Lebernegg, Magneto-structural correlations in doubly hydroxo-bridged Cu (II)-dimers, Croatica Chemica Acta 84, 505 (2011)

    S. Lebernegg, Magneto-structural correlations in doubly hydroxo-bridged Cu (II)-dimers, Croatica Chemica Acta 84, 505 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Rocquefelte, K

    X. Rocquefelte, K. Schwarz, and P. Blaha, Theoretical investigation of the magnetic exchange interactions in copper (ii) oxides under chemical and physical pressures, Scientific Reports2, 759 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Shimizu, T

    T. Shimizu, T. Matsumoto, A. Goto, T. V. Chan- drasekhar Rao, K. Yoshimura, and K. Kosuge, Spin sus- ceptibility and superexchange interaction in the antifer- romagnet CuO, Phys. Rev. B68, 224433 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    Mizuno, T

    Y. Mizuno, T. Tohyama, S. Maekawa, T. Osafune, N. Motoyama, H. Eisaki, and S. Uchida, Electronic states and magnetic properties of edge-sharing Cu-O chains, Phys. Rev. B57, 5326 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Y. Li, S. M. Winter, and R. Valent´ ı, Role of hydrogen in the spin-orbital-entangled quantum liquid candidate H3LiIr2O6, Physical Review Retters121, 247202 (2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Kermarrec, A

    E. Kermarrec, A. Zorko, F. Bert, R. Colman, B. Koteswararao, F. Bouquet, P. Bonville, A. Hillier, A. Amato, J. Van Tol, A. Ozarowski, A. S. Wills, and P. Mendels, Spin dynamics and disorder effects in the S= 1/2 kagome heisenberg spin-liquid phase of kapella- site, Physical Re...

    2014

  52. [60]

    O. V. Dolomanov, L. J. Bourhis, R. J. Gildea, J. A. Howard, and H. Puschmann, Olex2: a complete structure solution, refinement and analysis program, Applied Crystallography42, 339 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Chatterjee, P

    D. Chatterjee, P. Doleˇ zal, F. Abbruciati, T. Biesner, K. M. Zoch, R. Khasanov, S. S. Islam, G. Kaur, S. Roh, F. Capitani, J. E. F. S. Rodrigues, G. Garbarino, C. Krellner, P. Mendels, E. Kermarrec, M. Dressel, B. Wehinger, A. Pustogow, F. Bert, and P. Puphal, Emergence of a ...

    2026

  54. [62]

    Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L

    V. Petˇ r´ ıˇ cek, L. Palatinus, J. Pl´ aˇ sil, and M. Duˇ sek, Jana2020–a new version of the crystallographic computing system jana, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie-Crystalline Materials238, 271 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Hering, F

    M. Hering, F. Ferrari, A. Razpopov, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent´ ı, H. O. Jeschke, and J. Reuther, Phase diagram of a distorted kagome antiferromagnet and application to Y-Kapellasite, npj Computational Materials8, 10 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Suzuki, Lecture notes on statistical thermodynamics,https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/ ~suzuki/ThermoStat.html

    M. Suzuki, Lecture notes on statistical thermodynamics,https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/ ~suzuki/ThermoStat.html

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.