The complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in Ba2YOsO6: A new approach to tuning spin-lattice interactions and controlling magnetic orderings in frustrated complex oxides

Hanghui Chen; Ruihan Yang; Yue-Wen Fang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

The complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in Ba2YOsO6: A new approach to tuning spin-lattice interactions and controlling magnetic orderings in frustrated complex oxides

T0 review · 3 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 At zero temperature, non-collinear spin order beats collinear order in six oxides

desk verdict Solid DFT prediction of non-collinear order in six double perovskites, but the claimed ground states are only proven within a four-sublattice ansatz and the strain switch sits on a very small energy gap. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01916 v1 pith:XHXLZXFO submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

Yue-Wen Fang , Ruihan Yang , Hanghui Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-elphysics.comp-ph

keywords frustratedmagnetismdoubleperovskiteoxidesnon-collinearmagneticorderingbiquadraticexchangeringspin-orbitcouplinguniaxialstraindensityfunctionaltheory

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

Using density-functional calculations, this paper argues that in a family of six frustrated double perovskite oxides the magnetic state seen in experiments—a type-I collinear antiferromagnet—is not the lowest-energy state at zero temperature. Instead, non-collinear orderings, both coplanar and fully three-dimensional, are predicted to be more stable, and their stability is driven by biquadratic and four-spin ring exchange that become important for the extended 4d and 5d orbitals of Ru and Os. The paper also shows that in Ba2YOsO6, a uniaxial strain of about 0.1 percent can shift the balance between two nearly degenerate non-collinear states. If correct, this predicts a collinear-to-non-collinear spin transition at low temperatures in these oxides and offers a mechanical way to control magnetic order.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a classical vector-spin Hamiltonian on the four spins of an fcc tetrahedron: Heisenberg exchange plus nearest-neighbor biquadratic and four-spin ring exchange, with the biquadratic and ring coefficients combined into a single parameter $\alpha_1 = a_1 + a_2$. On the fcc tetrahedron the Heisenberg term is a constant independent of spin direction, so the energy landscape is set entirely by the higher-order terms. Inserting a general two-angle parametrization of a four-spin ring yields an analytic energy $E/N = -2J_1 + \alpha_1\left(\frac{13}{4} - \cos\theta + \frac{7}{4}\cos 2\theta + 2\cos^4(\theta/2)\cos 2\phi\right) + E_0$, whose three extrema are exactly the collinear state $E_1$, the coplanar state $E_2$, and the non-coplanar state $E_3$. Positive $J_1$ and $\alpha_1$ give the ordering $E_3 < E_2 < E_1 < E_{FM}$ independent of their magnitudes. Adding spin-orbit coupling splits the states into nine distinct orderings; the near-degeneracy of two of them is what strain acts on.

What would settle it

Neutron scattering at millikelvin temperatures on Ba2YOsO6 or a similar compound: if the magnetic order stays type-I collinear down to the lowest temperature and no transition to the predicted coplanar or non-coplanar states appears, the central prediction is contradicted. Strain-dependent diffraction would further test the predicted switch at about 0.1% uniaxial compression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at zero temperature, non-collinear antiferromagnetic orderings are thermodynamically more stable than the type-I collinear ordering experimentally observed at finite temperatures in six frustrated double perovskite oxides: Sr2ScRuO6, Sr2YRuO6, Ba2YRuO6, Sr2ScOsO6, Sr2YOsO6, and Ba2YOsO6. The paper identifies two distinct non-collinear states of a tetrahedron of four $S=3/2$ spins—a coplanar state $E_2$ and a non-coplanar state $E_3$ with all spins at an angle $\arccos(1/3) \approx 71^\circ$—and shows that both sit lower in energy than the collinear state, independent of Hubbard $U$, exchange-correlation functional, and the presence or absence of spin-orbit coupling. With spin-orbit coupling included, the degeneracies split and nine stable orderings appear; in Ba2YOsO6 the two lowest, coplanar $E_{2a}$ and non-coplanar $E_{3a}$, are almost degenerate at about 0.10 meV per formula unit. Uniaxial strain moves the system across this near-degeneracy: tensile strain favors $E_{3a}$, while roughly 0.1% compressive strain makes $E_{2a}$ more stable.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume that the magnetic energy of each oxide is fully captured by the relative angles of four spins on one tetrahedron, with interactions only between nearest neighbors; longer-range or non-repeating magnetic patterns were not tested and could be lower in energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At sufficiently low temperatures, each of the six oxides should undergo a collinear-to-non-collinear magnetic transition, with the collinear state stabilized by entropy at finite temperature.
The non-collinear states $E_{3a}$ and $E_{2a}$ are predicted to be the zero-temperature ground states in all six compounds, not just Ba2YOsO6.
In Ba2YOsO6, the energy difference between the two lowest non-collinear states is about 0.10 meV per formula unit; uniaxial strain of about 0.1% compressive selects $E_{2a}$ and tensile strain selects $E_{3a}$.
The energy ordering is robust against the choice of exchange-correlation functional (PBEsol, PBE, LDA), against Hubbard $U$ from 0 to 5 eV, and against whether spin-orbit coupling is included.

Reading between the lines

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

The four-sublattice model confines the search to states compatible with a 40-atom supercell; the paper notes that second-neighbor exchange is a constant in such a cell, so other ordering wavevectors, longer-range interactions, or incommensurate states could be even lower in energy and would change the predicted ground state.
The strain-switching result suggests a general design rule: look for frustrated oxides with accidental near-degeneracies between non-collinear orders, since even small lattice distortions can select the ground state; Ba2YOsO6 is the first concrete candidate.
If the predicted low-temperature phases are confirmed by neutron scattering, they would give a direct measurement of biquadratic and four-spin ring exchange in 5d oxides, whose magnitudes are currently inferred mainly indirectly.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a worthwhile DFT paper with a clean result and one honest limitation. The material-specific predictions—non-collinear ground states in six double perovskites and a strain switch in Ba2YOsO6—are new, and the internal evidence is solid. The soft spot is that the search space is limited to the four-sublattice tetrahedron of the 40-atom cell, so J2 is a constant and longer-period or incommensurate orders are never tested. That does not kill the paper, but it does mean the ground-state claim is conditional.

What the paper does well: the energy ordering E3 < E2 < E1 < EFM is robust across PBEsol, PBE, LDA, across Hubbard U values, and with and without SOC. The spin model with Heisenberg plus biquadratic and ring exchange is simple and transparent; the fact that only the signs of J1 and α1 are needed to reproduce the ordering is a nice piece of physics. The archived data (Zenodo) makes the numbers checkable, and the experimental citations for the type-I order in these six oxides are relevant and current.

The soft spots: (1) the four-site cell misses wavevectors that are not commensurate with one tetrahedron; type-II, type-III, and spiral orders with larger cells are known to be competitive in fcc antiferromagnets, and the paper acknowledges J2 is a constant but does not attempt to bound its effect. If one of those states is lower, the predicted ground state changes. This is a genuine limitation, though not an unusual one for DFT. (2) The collinear-to-noncollinear transition at low temperature is inferred from an entropic argument, not computed; no free-energy or Monte Carlo is presented. Reasonable, but unproven. (3) The strain-switching prediction rests on an energy difference of ~0.1 meV/f.u. That is smaller than typical DFT error bars, though the near-degeneracy is independent of functional and the linear response to strain is physically plausible. I would flag this as promising but needing experimental confirmation, not as a logical flaw.

Who this is for: condensed-matter theorists and experimentalists working on frustrated double perovskites and 4d/5d magnetism. It deserves a serious referee—the predictions are concrete and the internal consistency is strong. I would want the authors to discuss the restricted search space more explicitly and, ideally, run one or two larger-cell checks on Ba2YOsO6 to see if the E3a/E2a states hold against type-II or spiral order. Even if those checks fail, the paper would still be useful because it maps the energy landscape within the 4-sublattice manifold. Recommending: send to peer review, with a request for those checks or a clear caveat.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports DFT+U spin-polarized calculations, with and without spin-orbit coupling, for six ordered double perovskite oxides (Sr2ScRuO6, Sr2YRuO6, Ba2YRuO6, Sr2ScOsO6, Sr2YOsO6, Ba2YOsO6). Using a 40-atom supercell containing four magnetic ions on an fcc tetrahedron, it finds that at zero temperature non-collinear coplanar and non-coplanar antiferromagnetic orderings (denoted E2 and E3) are lower in energy than the type-I collinear ordering observed experimentally at finite temperatures. A classical Heisenberg plus biquadratic and four-spin ring-exchange model is shown to reproduce the ordering E3 < E2 < E1 < EFM for positive nearest-neighbor J1 and positive combined coefficient α1. After including SOC, nine spin-orbit-split states are identified, with E3a and E2a almost degenerate in Ba2YOsO6; the paper predicts that roughly 0.1% uniaxial strain can switch between these two states. The central predictions are that a collinear-to-noncollinear magnetic transition occurs at low temperatures and that strain offers a mechanical route to control non-collinear magnetic orderings.

Significance. If the zero-temperature ground-state claim and the strain-switching prediction survive scrutiny, this would be a valuable contribution: it identifies concrete candidate non-collinear magnetic structures in frustrated double perovskites that could be tested by low-temperature neutron scattering, and it proposes a practical strain-based control mechanism. The DFT evidence is internally consistent: the ordering E3 < E2 < E1 < EFM is stable across different functionals, Hubbard U values, and the presence or absence of SOC, at least for Ba2YOsO6. The analytic spin-model derivation is transparent and requires no fitted parameter values, only signs. The authors also make their data openly available in Zenodo. The significance is tempered, however, by two gaps: all tested magnetic states are commensurate with a single four-magnetic-ion tetrahedron, and the finite-temperature transition is inferred without any free-energy calculation.

major comments (3)

[Section III.A, Fig. 1, and Eq. (2)] The search over magnetic orderings is restricted to a 40-atom supercell containing four magnetic ions, and the manuscript itself states that 'the second nearest-neighbor interaction is a constant in our DFT calculations'. Consequently, the energies compared in Figs. 3, 5, 7, and 8 only establish the relative stability of states commensurate with a single fcc tetrahedron. Frustrated fcc antiferromagnets can host type-II, type-III, and incommensurate spiral orderings with larger magnetic unit cells, and none of these is sampled here. This limitation is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusions claim that at zero temperature non-collinear orderings are 'more stable' than the type-I ordering, which implies a statement about the global ground state. The authors should either perform calculations in larger supercells containing candidate longer-period orders, or explicitly restrict the claim to the four-sublattice manifold. As written, the global ground-state claim is unproven.
[Section III.B and Section IV] The finite-temperature conclusion is inferred without any free-energy calculation. The paper states that an 'entropy-driven collinear-to-noncollinear magnetic transition' could occur, but no partition function, Monte Carlo sampling, or high-temperature expansion is presented for either the spin model or the DFT-derived states. Since the experimentally observed state at finite temperature is the collinear type-I order, the key physical puzzle is why entropy would favor a state that is higher in energy at T=0. The paper's assertion is plausible but is not supported by a calculation. To make the central claim about a collinear-to-noncollinear transition load-bearing, the authors should provide at least a classical Monte Carlo or analytical free-energy estimate showing that the collinear state becomes entropically selected at the relevant temperatures.
[Section III.B and Fig. 9] The strain-switching prediction rests on a very small energy difference, reported as about 0.10 meV/f.u. between E2a and E3a, and on a linear fit of DFT+SOC energies as a function of uniaxial strain. The critical strain is about 0.1%, which is comparable to the scale on which the two states are nearly degenerate. The manuscript does not report convergence of this energy difference with respect to k-point density, plane-wave cutoff, smearing, or structural relaxation tolerances, nor does it provide error bars or a measure of the quality of the linear fit. Because the sign of E2a - E3a under strain is the entire basis for the proposed mechanical switching, the authors should demonstrate that this small energy difference is numerically robust and not an artifact of computational settings. Without such tests, the strain-switching prediction is fragile even though the underlying near-degeneracy may be real.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Section I] The abstract says 'a wide range of magnetically frustrated oxides' and 'universal' language appears in the text, but only six compounds are studied and functional/SOC robustness is demonstrated in detail only for Ba2YOsO6; the wording should be matched to the evidence.
[Table I] The space groups are listed with different measurement temperatures in the parent references; a short note on whether the calculations use the low-temperature or room-temperature structures for each compound would improve reproducibility.
[Fig. 9 and Eq. (6)] The strain is defined as a percentage in Eq. (6), but the x-axis label in Fig. 9 is 'εxx(%)'; please make the definition consistent and state whether the fitted line uses the DFT points at all plotted strains.
[Supplementary Fig. S1] The energy zero is set to E3a in the main text but to E2a in Fig. S1; this is not an error, but the convention should be stated in every caption to avoid confusion.
[References] Some reference titles and journal names, especially Ref. [16], contain garbled or non-standard characters ('Zeitschrift fr anorganische und allgemeine Chemie'); these should be corrected.
[Eq. (1) and Fig. 2] The parameterization of the four-spin configuration is clear, but the text should state explicitly that this parameterization covers the zero-total-spin head-to-tail ring configurations considered in this work and that other closed configurations are not intended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

DFT ordering and strain-switch predictions are self-contained; only the biquadratic-mechanism interpretation is mildly circular because the coupling sign is read off the same DFT energy sequence.

fitted input called prediction [Section III A, Eq. (2)-(5) and the paragraph after Eq. (5)]
"For a positive J1 and a positive α1, Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) find an energy sequence E3 < E2 < E1 < EFM, irrespective of the values of J1 and α1. This reproduces our spin-polarized DFT results (fig. 5)."

In the model, Eqs. (4)-(5) give E1/N = -2J1 + 6α1 + E0, E2/N = -2J1 + 2α1 + E0, and E3/N = -2J1 + (2/3)α1 + E0, so E1-E2 = 4α1/N and E2-E3 = (4/3)α1/N. Thus the condition α1 > 0 is mathematically equivalent to the DFT-computed ordering E3 < E2 < E1. The paper does not determine α1 from an independent calculation; its sign is inferred by matching the same DFT energy ordering that the model is then said to 'reproduce'. Consequently, the mechanistic statement that higher-order biquadratic/ring exchange stabilizes the non-collinear states is a restatement of the DFT energy sequence in model language rather than an independent confirmation. The DFT total energies and the strain-switching result remain self-contained and external to this model-consistency step.

full rationale

The central predictions—zero-temperature non-collinear orderings and the uniaxial-strain switching in Ba2YOsO6—come directly from DFT total-energy comparisons in a 40-atom supercell, with results checked against multiple functionals and U values. These energies are computed, not generated by the classical spin model, so the core physics claims are not circular. The spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is introduced after the DFT energies are known, and the statement that positive J1 and α1 yield E3 < E2 < E1 < EFM is a consistency check: α1 is not independently measured or calculated, and the sign is effectively fitted to the DFT ordering. This gives a mild circularity in the mechanistic attribution, but it does not affect the primary DFT evidence or the strain prediction. The skeptical concern that the single-tetrahedron supercell makes J2 a constant is a limitation about untested ordering wavevectors, not a circularity, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. Overall score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central energy ordering is obtained directly from DFT and is therefore not constructed from the spin model. The spin model adds an explanatory layer but its coefficients are not fitted numerically; only signs are inferred. The main assumptions are methodological: DFT reliability, the four-sublattice ansatz, and the classical-spin treatment.

free parameters (2)

Hubbard U (Os/Ru) = 0 eV for main results; tested 0 to 5 eV
DFT+U parameter; U=0 gives Os moment closest to experiment (1.65 mu_B). Energy sequence E3<E2<E1<EFM is unchanged for U=0 to 5 eV, so U is not load-bearing for the central hierarchy.
Spin-model coefficients J1 and alpha1 (signs) = not numerically fitted; only J1>0 and alpha1>0 are used
Eqs. (4) and (5) require only positive J1 and alpha1 to reproduce the DFT ordering. The positivity of alpha1 is inferred from the same DFT energy ordering rather than computed independently, so the explanatory model adds no independent parameter values.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption DFT exchange-correlation functionals (PBEsol, PBE, LDA) reliably rank the energies of non-collinear spin states in 4d/5d double perovskites.
All central energy comparisons rely on DFT; the paper checks three functionals and a range of U, but no experimental zero-temperature ground state is available to validate the ordering.
domain assumption The magnetic ions can be treated as classical vector spins of fixed length S=3/2 (|Si|=1).
The spin model in Eq. (2) uses classical vectors; justified by large S, but quantum fluctuations are ignored.
domain assumption Only nearest-neighbor Heisenberg, biquadratic, and 4-spin ring exchange terms are needed; longer-range Heisenberg terms are constant for the 4-sublattice states considered.
Section III A states the 40-atom supercell makes J2 constant; the model accordingly omits J2 and other possible couplings, which is valid for the tested states but not proven for all possible orderings.
standard math The higher-order exchange terms arise from the t/U expansion of a half-filled Hubbard model, with alpha1 proportional to t^3/U^2.
Invoked to explain why biquadratic and ring terms are significant in 4d/5d systems; this is an established expansion, but the paper does not compute the coefficients from first principles.
domain assumption Experimental crystal structures are appropriate for comparing magnetic ordering energies.
Section II uses experimental structures from the references in Table I for all energy comparisons; structural relaxation is used only for the strain study.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in Ba2YOsO6: A new approach to tuning spin-lattice interactions and controlling magnetic orderings in frustrated complex oxides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XHXLZXFO

@misc{pith2026190801916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in Ba2YOsO6: A new approach to tuning spin-lattice interactions and controlling magnetic orderings in frustrated complex oxides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XHXLZXFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01916}
}

abstract

Frustrated magnets are one class of fascinating materials that host many intriguing phases such as spin ice, spin liquid and complex long-range magnetic orderings at low temperatures. In this work we use first-principles calculations to find that in a wide range of magnetically frustrated oxides, at zero temperature a number of non-collinear magnetic orderings are more stable than the type-I collinear ordering that is observed at finite temperatures. The emergence of non-collinear orderings in those complex oxides is due to higher-order exchange interactions that originate from second-row and third-row transition metal elements. This implies a collinear-to-noncollinear spin transition at sufficiently low temperatures in those frustrated complex oxides. Furthermore, we find that in a particular oxide Ba$_2$YOsO$_6$, experimentally feasible uniaxial strain can tune the material between two different non-collinear magnetic orderings. Our work predicts new non-collinear magnetic orderings in frustrated complex oxides at very low temperatures and provides a mechanical route to tuning complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in those materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01916 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: A general 4-sublattice antiferromagnetic spin configuration in three-dimensional space. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The magnetic orderings that are stabilized in Ba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Total density of states and projected densities of states of Ba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The total energies of ferromagnetic ordering ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: figure 6. Similar to the results of DFT calculations without SOC, we classify these nine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Energy sequence in ascending order of the nine stable antiferromagnetic orderings found [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: The energies of non-collinear non-coplanar antiferromagnetic ordering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Energy difference between the coplanar state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

C. Balz, B. Lake, J. Reuther, H. Luetkens, R. Sch¨ onemann, T. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, Y. Singh, A. N. Islam, E. M. Wheeler, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, et al., Nature Phys. 12, 942 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

Y. Li, D. Adroja, D. Voneshen, R. I. Bewley, Q. Zhang, A. A. Tsirlin, and P. Gegenwart, Nat. Commun. 8, 15814 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

T. A. Bojesen and S. Onoda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227204 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Lantagne-Hurtubise, J

E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. G. Rau, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021053 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

2010
[6]

Rousochatzakis, Y

I. Rousochatzakis, Y. Sizyuk, and N. B. Perkins, Nat. Commun. 9, 1575 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Savary and L

L. Savary and L. Balents, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

2016
[8]

Zhang, P

B. Zhang, P. J. Baker, Y. Zhang, D. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Su, D. Zhu, and F. L. Pratt, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 122 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 51 references

[9]

M. R. Norman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 041002 (2016)

2016
[10]

Kayser, B

P. Kayser, B. J. Kennedy, B. Ranjbar, J. A. Kimpton, and M. Avdeev, Inorg. Chem. 56, 2204 (2017)

2017
[11]

A. E. Taylor, R. Morrow, D. J. Singh, S. Calder, M. D. Lumsden, P. M. Woodward, and A. D. Christianson, Phys. Rev. B 91, 100406 (2015). 17

2015
[12]

A. E. Taylor, R. Morrow, R. S. Fishman, S. Calder, A. I. Kolesnikov, M. D. Lumsden, P. M. Woodward, and A. D. Christianson, Phys. Rev. B 93, 220408 (2016)

2016
[13]

Granado, J

E. Granado, J. W. Lynn, R. F. Jardim, and M. S. Torikachvili, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 017202 (2013)

2013
[14]

G. J. Nilsen, C. M. Thompson, G. Ehlers, C. A. Marjerrison, and J. E. Greedan, Phys. Rev. B 91, 054415 (2015)

2015
[15]

A. K. Paul, A. Sarapulova, P. Adler, M. Reehuis, S. Kanungo, D. Mikhailova, W. Schnelle, Z. Hu, C. Kuo, V. Siruguri, et al., Zeitschrift fr anorganische und allgemeine Chemie 641, 197 (2015)

2015
[16]

D. D. Maharaj, G. Sala, C. A. Marjerrison, M. B. Stone, J. E. Greedan, and B. D. Gaulin, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104434 (2018)

2018
[17]

Kayser, S

P. Kayser, S. Injac, B. Ranjbar, B. J. Kennedy, M. Avdeev, and K. Yamaura, Inorg. Chem. 56, 9009 (2017)

2017
[18]

Battle and W

P. Battle and W. Macklin, J. Solid State Chem. 52, 138 (1984)

1984
[19]

Izumiyama, Y

Y. Izumiyama, Y. Doi, M. Wakeshima, Y. Hinatsu, A. Nakamura, and Y. Ishii, J. Solid State Chem. 169, 125 (2002)

2002
[20]

Kermarrec, C

E. Kermarrec, C. A. Marjerrison, C. M. Thompson, D. D. Maharaj, K. Levin, S. Kroeker, G. E. Granroth, R. Flacau, Z. Yamani, J. E. Greedan, et al., Phys. Rev. B 91, 075133 (2015)

2015
[21]

Battle and C

P. Battle and C. Jones, J. Solid State Chem. 78, 108 (1989)

1989
[22]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comp. Mater. Sci. 6, 15 (1996)

1996
[23]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

1996
[24]

S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

1998
[25]

J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 136406 (2008)

2008
[26]

Chen, npj Quant

H. Chen, npj Quant. Mater. 3, 57 (2018)

2018
[27]

E. I. P. Aulesti, Y. W. Cheung, Y.-W. Fang, J. He, K. Yamaura, K. T. Lai, S. K. Goh, and H. Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 12902 (2018)

2018
[28]

Treiber and S

U. Treiber and S. Kemmler-Sack, Z. anorg. allg. Chem. (ZAAC) 478, 223 (1981)

1981
[29]

Chen and L

G. Chen and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094420 (2011)

2011
[30]

G. Lan, J. Song, and Z. Yang, J. Alloy. Compd. 749, 909 (2018). 18

2018
[31]

Kanungo, B

S. Kanungo, B. Yan, M. Jansen, and C. Felser, Phys. Rev. B 89, 214414 (2014)

2014
[32]

J. Chen, A. J. Millis, and C. A. Marianetti, Phys. Rev. B 91, 241111 (2015)

2015
[33]

Chen and A

H. Chen and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B 93, 205110 (2016)

2016
[34]

Oguchi, H

T. Oguchi, H. Nishimori, and Y. Taguchi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 54, 4494 (1985)

1985
[35]

C. J. Calzado, C. de Graaf, E. Bordas, R. Caballol, and J.-P. Malrieu, Phys. Rev. B 67, 132409 (2003)

2003
[36]

Coldea, S

R. Coldea, S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, T. G. Perring, C. D. Frost, T. E. Mason, S.-W. Cheong, and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5377 (2001)

2001
[37]

Xiang, C

H. Xiang, C. Lee, H.-J. Koo, X. Gong, and M.-H. Whangbo, Dalton Trans. 42, 823 (2013)

2013
[38]

N. S. Fedorova, C. Ederer, N. A. Spaldin, and A. Scaramucci, Phys. Rev. B 91, 165122 (2015)

2015
[39]

K. Penc, N. Shannon, and H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 197203 (2004)

2004
[40]

K. Penc, N. Shannon, Y. Motome, and H. Shiba, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 19, 145267 (2007)

2007
[41]

Shannon, K

N. Shannon, K. Penc, and Y. Motome, Phys. Rev. B 81, 184409 (2010)

2010
[42]

T. A. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. B 80, 012407 (2009)

2009
[43]

Takahashi, J

M. Takahashi, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 10, 1289 (1977)

1977
[44]

H. Yan, O. Benton, L. Jaubert, and N. Shannon, Phys. Rev. B 95, 094422 (2017)

2017
[45]

K. A. Ross, L. Savary, B. D. Gaulin, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021002 (2011)

2011
[46]

C. W. Hicks, D. O. Brodsky, E. A. Yelland, A. S. Gibbs, J. A. Bruin, M. E. Barber, S. D. Edkins, K. Nishimura, S. Yonezawa, Y. Maeno, et al., Science 344, 283 (2014)

2014
[47]

M. E. Barber, A. S. Gibbs, Y. Maeno, A. P. Mackenzie, and C. W. Hicks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 076602 (2018)

2018
[48]

Steppke, L

A. Steppke, L. Zhao, M. E. Barber, T. Scaﬃdi, F. Jerzembeck, H. Rosner, A. S. Gibbs, Y. Maeno, S. H. Simon, A. P. Mackenzie, et al., Science 355 (2017)

2017
[49]

Kissikov, R

T. Kissikov, R. Sarkar, M. Lawson, B. Bush, E. I. Timmons, M. A. Tanatar, R. Prozorov, S. Budko, P. C. Canﬁeld, R. Fernandes, et al., Nat. Commun. 9, 1058 (2018)

2018
[50]

Fang and H

Y.-W. Fang and H. Chen, The complex non-collinear magnetic orderings in Ba 2YOsO6: A new approach to tuning spin-lattice interactions and controlling magnetic orderings in frus- trated complex oxides (2019), Dataset archived in Zenodo, URL https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.32658...

2019 arXiv
[51]

Treiber and S

U. Treiber and S. Kemmler-Sack, Z. anorg. allg. Chem. (ZAAC) 478, 223 (1981). 5

1981

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

C. Balz, B. Lake, J. Reuther, H. Luetkens, R. Sch¨ onemann, T. Herrmannsd¨ orfer, Y. Singh, A. N. Islam, E. M. Wheeler, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, et al., Nature Phys. 12, 942 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Y. Li, D. Adroja, D. Voneshen, R. I. Bewley, Q. Zhang, A. A. Tsirlin, and P. Gegenwart, Nat. Commun. 8, 15814 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

T. A. Bojesen and S. Onoda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 227204 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Lantagne-Hurtubise, J

E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. G. Rau, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021053 (2018)

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

Rousochatzakis, Y

I. Rousochatzakis, Y. Sizyuk, and N. B. Perkins, Nat. Commun. 9, 1575 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Savary and L

L. Savary and L. Balents, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 016502 (2016)

2016

[8] [8]

Zhang, P

B. Zhang, P. J. Baker, Y. Zhang, D. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Su, D. Zhu, and F. L. Pratt, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 122 (2017)

work page 2017