Magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the octanuclear nickel phosphonate-based cage

Hamid Arian Zad; Nerses Ananikian; Ralph Kenna

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 47 references

Magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the octanuclear nickel phosphonate-based cage

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A spin-1 Heisenberg model of the octanuclear nickel phosphonate cage, with exchange and single-ion anisotropy, predicts a ladder of magnetization plateaus and a double-peak specific heat that tracks the magnetization jumps.

desk verdict Solid isotropic validation, but the claimed 2/5 and 2/3 magnetization plateaus are impossible for this conserved-S^z Hamiltonian and need a major correction before the paper can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03614 v2 pith:F5AIVJSC submitted 2019-08-09 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-el

Hamid Arian Zad , Ralph Kenna , Nerses Ananikian This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el

keywords MagnetizationplateausSpecificheatPhasetransitionNickelcageSingle-ionanisotropyExchangeExactdiagonalization

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 asks whether anisotropy can be used as a control knob for the low-temperature magnetism of a real eight-nickel molecule with butterfly geometry. Working with a spin-1 Heisenberg model whose two exchange couplings are fixed by experiment, the authors show that exact diagonalization matches measured susceptibility and magnetization in the isotropic limit, then predict what anisotropy does beyond that limit. They find magnetization plateaus at 0, 1/8, 1/4, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of saturation at T = 1 K; exchange anisotropy changes the width and field position of every plateau, while increasing single-ion anisotropy widens plateaus and pushes them to stronger fields. The specific heat, a single Schottky peak near T ≈ 9 K for weak fields, becomes a double-peak curve when anisotropy is tuned, and the split coincides with the magnetization jumps. The payoff is a concrete, testable set of low-temperature signatures that would confirm the model's two-coupling description of this molecular magnet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the eight-site spin-1 Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), in which the eight nickel ions form four body-body dimers coupled by ferromagnetic J1 bonds and a network of antiferromagnetic wing-body J2 bonds; the model then adds a Zeeman term -gμB B Σ_j Sz_j, single-ion anisotropy D Σ_j (Sz_j)^2 (which favors or penalizes particular Sz levels on each nickel), and bond-dependent exchange anisotropy Δ in the Sz_i Sz_j products. The argument is carried by exact diagonalization of the full $3^{8}$ = 6561-state Hilbert space, which yields the partition function and hence magnetization, susceptibility, and specific heat through thermodynamic derivatives. A benchmark stage fixes the model's credibility: in the isotropic limit the exact-diagonalization magnetization agrees with quantum Monte Carlo and with the measured curves of the real compound, so every anisotropic prediction is a controlled extension of that validated Hamiltonian.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetization curve of the Ni8 phosphonate cage at T = 1 K in fields up to roughly 50 T: the prediction is plateaus at 0, 1/8, 1/4, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of saturation whose widths and positions respond to anisotropy. If the measured curve lacks this plateau ladder, or if the plateaus sit at different fields, the two-coupling model with the assumed parameters is wrong. Independently, specific-heat measurements at fields between 2 and 20 T should show a Schottky maximum near T ≈ 9 K in the isotropic limit and a second low-temperature peak as anisotropy is enhanced; absence of that double-peak structure in a sample with known anisotropy would also falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At low temperature the octanuclear nickel phosphonate cage is described, according to this paper, by an eight-site spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with a ferromagnetic body-body coupling J1 = 7.6 cm-1, an antiferromagnetic wing-body coupling J2 = -22.4 cm-1, a Zeeman term with g = 2.42, uniaxial single-ion anisotropy D, and exchange anisotropies Δ1, Δ2 that rescale the Sz_i Sz_j part of each bond. In the isotropic case the magnetization at T = 1 K shows plateaus at 0, 1/8, 1/4, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of saturation, and this ladder is validated against quantum Monte Carlo and experiment. Turning on anisotropy preserves the ladder but changes it: stronger single-ion anisotropy widens the plateaus at and above half saturation and delays saturation to higher fields, while changing the exchange anisotropies can either narrow all plateaus and move them to lower fields (small Δ1, |Δ2|) or widen them and move them to stronger fields (large Δ1, |Δ2|). The specific heat has one Schottky maximum near T ≈ 9 K in weak fields; increasing the field or adding anisotropy converts this into a double-peak temperature dependence, and the appearance of the second peak coincides with the magnetization jump out of the zero plateau into the first intermediate plateau. The paper therefore claims that the same anisotropy parameters that control the magnetization jumps also control the thermal response, and calls for experimental verification at low temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the premise that the real Ni8 molecule is fully captured by the eight-site spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with only two exchange couplings (J1 = 7.6 cm-1, J2 = -22.4 cm-1) and fixed g = 2.42, so that turning on D and Δ without renormalizing those values describes the actual compound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A low-temperature magnetization measurement on the real compound should find the predicted plateau ladder at 0, 1/8, 1/4, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of saturation, with the half-integer plateaus widening as single-ion anisotropy grows.
Measuring the specific heat at fixed fields should reveal a single Schottky peak near 9 K in weak fields, with a second low-temperature peak appearing as the field or anisotropy is increased.
Because the second heat-capacity peak tracks the magnetization jump out of the zero plateau, heat-capacity measurements can be used as a non-magnetic probe of the same ground-state phase transitions.
The two-parameter (D, Δ) control established here means that anisotropy, not just field strength, can be used to tune a molecular magnet between plateau phases.

Reading between the lines

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

If the model is right, the magnetocaloric response of the cage should be strongest near the field values where magnetization jumps occur, because those are crossings between plateau phases; the paper stops short of computing the magnetocaloric effect, so this is a direct testable extension.
The appearance of a 2/5 plateau is a nontrivial fraction for a spin-1 cluster; a perturbation or symmetry analysis of the four-dimer structure could identify which spin arrangement realizes this plateau, a mechanism the paper does not unpack.
The same exact-diagonalization pipeline could be applied to related butterfly nickel-lanthanide cages; the plateau positions in those compounds would then provide a fingerprint of exchange anisotropy without needing high-field magnetization.
Since the isotropic parameters are treated as fixed while D and Δ are varied freely, a natural next check is ab initio estimates of D and Δ; if those estimates place the material in the regime where the double heat peak appears, the prediction becomes a concrete experimental target.

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

Quick take: the isotropic half of this paper is genuinely good, but the central list of fractional plateaus (2/5 and 2/3) is impossible for the Hamiltonian as written. Total S^z is conserved by every term in Eq. (1), so at zero temperature M/Ms must be k/8 for integer k. 2/5 and 2/3 are not on that list. At T=1K you can get smooth finite-temperature curves with quasi-flat regions at those positions, but those are not ground-state plateaus, and the paper explicitly calls them "magnetic ground-state phase transitions." That is a load-bearing flaw, not a typo.

Credit where it's earned: the ED-QMC comparison for the isotropic model and the match to experimental susceptibility and magnetization at T=2K is solid and well documented. The anisotropic parameter scan (single-ion D, exchange anisotropies) for this specific Ni8 molecule appears to be new in the cited literature. The double-peak specific heat and its coincidence with magnetization jumps is an interesting observation, though it's a finite-size/temperature effect rather than a phase transition.

The other soft spots are addressable but real: no code or data shipped, QMC error bars absent, and the anisotropy values are chosen without experimental grounding. Those are documentation problems. The plateau issue is conceptual and it runs through the abstract, Section 3, and the conclusions.

Who gets value from this? People working on molecular magnets, especially Ni8 cages, who want a benchmark check against known experimental data and a hint of what anisotropy might do to the magnetization. The paper deserves a serious referee because the isotropic validation is useful and the anisotropic question is meaningful. The referees should insist on a corrected plateau discussion: either show the T=0 magnetization and demonstrate that only k/8 plateaus exist, or explicitly label the T=1K features as quasi-plateaus and drop the ground-state transition language. With that revision, the paper would be acceptable.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an eight-site S=1 Heisenberg model with XXZ exchange and single-ion anisotropy, proposed to describe the octanuclear nickel phosphonate cage [Ni8(µ3-OH)4(OMe)2(O3PR1)2(O2CtBu)6(HO2CtBu)8]. The authors first validate their exact diagonalization (ED) approach against QMC simulations and experimental measurements in the isotropic limit, then introduce exchange anisotropy (Delta1, Delta2) and single-ion anisotropy (D) and compute the low-temperature magnetization and specific heat. They report intermediate magnetization plateaus at fractions 0, 1/8, 1/4, 2/5, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 of saturation, with plateau widths and positions controlled by anisotropy, and a Schottky-to-double-peak crossover in the specific heat that they associate with magnetization jumps.

Significance. The isotropic validation is a strength: the agreement between ED and QMC, and with experiment if confirmed by the actual data plot, supports the use of the model for the compound. The anisotropic scans are internally consistent ED results, and the qualitative observation that strong single-ion anisotropy widens plateaus is a useful trend. However, the central quantitative claim about plateau positions is geometrically invalid for this Hamiltonian, and the arbitrary anisotropy parameters mean the predictions are not specific to the title compound. These issues prevent acceptance in the current form.

major comments (3)

[Section 3 (Fig. 2(c)) and Eq. (1)] The claimed ground-state plateaus at M/Ms = 2/5 and 2/3 are impossible because total S^z is conserved by every term of Eq. (1). All exchange terms in Eq. (2), the single-ion D(S^z)^2 term, and the Zeeman term commute with S^z, so eigenstates carry integer total S^z in the range -8,...,8. At T=0 the magnetization per saturation M/Ms = <S^z>/8 must be a multiple of 1/8; the values 2/5 and 2/3 are not. The flat regions observed at T=1 K are therefore finite-temperature rounded features, not magnetic ground-state phase transitions as stated. This error propagates to the abstract, Section 3, and the conclusions, and invalidates the central catalog of plateau positions. The authors should either eliminate the 2/5 and 2/3 entries or explicitly label them as finite-temperature quasi-plateaus, and should re-examine the T=1 K data for genuine k/8 plateaus.
[Section 3 (Figs. 3 and 4)] The anisotropy parameters D, Delta1, and Delta2 are varied over arbitrary sets (e.g., D/kB = 5, 10, 15, 20 K; Delta1/kB = 1, 5, 10 K; Delta2/kB = -2, -5, -10, -30 K) with no derivation from experiment, DFT, or crystal-field analysis for the specific Ni8 cage. Because the paper presents these scans as predictions for the compound and proposes experimental verification, the quantitative statements (e.g., saturation fields Bs approximately 28 T and 48 T, peak positions in Fig. 4) are not testable unless the anisotropy values are constrained. The authors should either fit D, Delta1, and Delta2 to the experimental data for this compound or reframe the section as a generic model study without claiming compound-specific predictions.
[Section 3 (Fig. 2)] The claim of 'excellent agreement' with experiment is not supported by the displayed material: the text says experimental data from Refs. [18,19,20] are compared, but no experimental data points are shown in the manuscript's Fig. 2, and the QMC results are presented without statistical error bars or algorithmic parameters (e.g., number of sweeps, thermalization). Without these, the quantitative QMC-ED-experiment comparison that underpins the validation cannot be assessed or reproduced. Please include the experimental curves and QMC uncertainties.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract and throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos (e.g., 'introducion', 'aniostropy', 'molcular', 'the the') and should undergo careful proofreading.
[Section 2, Eq. (1)] The notation S_i·S_j in Eq. (1) is inconsistent with the anisotropic form defined in Eq. (2); please write the Hamiltonian explicitly with the J(...)+Delta(...) expression for each bond or clarify the convention in the text.
[Section 3, Fig. 2(a)] The caption contains a capitalization error ('QMC results for The temperature dependence'), and the text states g = 2.4 while the model section specifies g = 2.42; please make these consistent.
[Section 3, Fig. 2(b)] The axis label 'M (N/uni03BCB)' appears garbled; it should read 'M (N μB)' or similar, and the LaTeX symbol for micro should be rendered properly.
[Section 3, Fig. 3(b) caption] The caption has broken formatting, e.g., '/uni03941 /kB = 1 KΔ /uni03942 /kB = − 2 K'; the symbols Delta1 and Delta2 are not rendered correctly and should be fixed.
[Section 3, Fig. 2(a)] The magnetic susceptibility comparison in Fig. 2(a) is limited to QMC results; showing the ED result for chi T as well would strengthen the validation of the ED method.
[References] The paper cites Refs. [18,19,20] for experimental data, but it would be helpful to specify which of the three references corresponds to which measured quantity (chi T, M(B), etc.) in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the anisotropic predictions are parameter scans built on externally fitted isotropic couplings, not outputs folded back into the model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with the isotropic couplings J1 = 7.6 cm^-1, J2 = -22.4 cm^-1 and g = 2.42, is adopted from the external experimental analyses of Refs. [18,19,20], and the paper first validates its exact-diagonalization and QMC implementations against those experimental results in Fig. 2. The subsequent anisotropy study is a numerical scan over Delta1, Delta2, and D with J1, J2, and g held fixed; no parameter is fitted to the predicted magnetization plateaus or specific-heat features, and no predicted quantity is used to redefine or re-tune the Hamiltonian. The authors' self-citations appear only as background on other spin-chain and small-cluster studies and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The skeptical concern that 2/5 and 2/3 cannot be exact zero-temperature magnetization plateaus because total S^z is conserved in Eq. (1) is a substantive correctness and interpretation issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain, because the plotted T = 1 K curves are thermal quantities rather than ground-state plateaus obtained by fitting. No circular step was found, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on six effective parameters: J1, J2, and g inherited from experimental fits, and D, Delta1, Delta2 chosen by hand. Four axioms describe the model topology, the anisotropy form, the sign of D, and the reliability of the numerical methods. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

J1 (body-body exchange coupling) = 7.6 cm^-1 (J1/kB = 7.6 K)
Taken from experimental fits in Refs. [18,19]; enters the Hamiltonian and fixes the energy scale of all plateau predictions.
J2 (wing-body exchange coupling) = -22.4 cm^-1 (J2/kB = -22.4 K)
Taken from experimental fits; the strong antiferromagnetic coupling is responsible for the multiple plateaus.
g (gyromagnetic ratio) = 2.42 (2.4 in Fig. 2a)
Taken from Ref. [18]; sets the field-to-energy conversion in magnetization plots.
D/kB (single-ion anisotropy) = Default 10 K; scanned over 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 K
Chosen by hand with no experimental constraint; it is the central knob for plateau width and specific-heat peak structure.
Delta1/kB (exchange anisotropy for J1) = 1, 5, 10 K
Hand-chosen values parameterizing the scan; no experimental basis.
Delta2/kB (exchange anisotropy for J2) = -2, -5, -10, -30 K
Hand-chosen negative values echoing the sign of J2; no experimental basis.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Ni8 cage is described by an eight-site spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with coupling topology J1 (body-body) and J2 (wing-body) given in Eq. (1).
Borrowed from Refs. [18,19] and validated only in the isotropic limit; all anisotropic predictions inherit this topology and parameterization.
domain assumption Exchange anisotropy takes the form J(Sx_i Sx_j + Sy_i Sy_j) + Delta Sz_i Sz_j in Eq. (2).
Assumed without derivation; the same form is applied to both couplings with independent Deltas.
domain assumption Single-ion anisotropy is uniaxial and positive, D sum (Sz_j)^2.
Only positive D values are scanned; negative D or rhombic terms are excluded.
standard math Exact diagonalization and ALPS QMC yield converged estimates of the model thermodynamics.
These are established numerical methods; no formal proof is given, but they are standard and cross-checked against each other.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the octanuclear nickel phosphonate-based cage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5AIVJSC

@misc{pith2026190803614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic and thermodynamic properties of the octanuclear nickel phosphonate-based cage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5AIVJSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03614}
}

abstract

We report a detailed theoretical investigation into the influence of anisotropy on the magnetic and thermodynamic properties of an octanuclear nickel phosphonate cage with butterfly-shaped molecular geometry, namely $\mathrm{Ni}_8(\mu_3-\mathrm{OH})_4(\mathrm{OMe})_2(\mathrm{O}_3\mathrm{PR}_1)_2 (\mathrm{O}_2\mathrm{C}^t\mathrm{Bu})_6 (\mathrm{HO}_2\mathrm{C}^t\mathrm{Bu})_8$. To validate our exact diagonalization approach, we firstly compare results with simulations and experiment in the isotropic case. Having established concurrence, we then introduce uniaxial single-ion anisotropy and Heisenberg exchange anisotropy between interacted nickel atoms. We then examine effects of both anisotropy parameters on the magnetization process, as well as on the specific heat of the model. We predict intermediate magnetization plateaus, including zero plateau, and magnetization jumps with magnetic ground-state phase transitions at low temperature $T=1$K. The magnetization plateaus are strongly dependent on both the levels of exchange anisotropy and single-ion anisotropy. Varying the former leads to change in width and magnetic position of all intermediate plateaus while they become wider upon increasing the latter. The specific heat of the model manifests a Schottky-type maximum at moderate temperature in the presence of weak magnetic fields, when the system is isotropic. The introducion of aniostropy results in substantial variations in the thermal behavior of the specific heat. Indeed, by tuning anisotropy parameters the Schottky peak convert to a double-peak temperature dependence that coincided with the magnetization jumps. We call for these theoretical predictions to be verified experimentally at low temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03614 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) QMC results for The temperature dependence of the product of magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) ED results for the magnetization per saturation value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Specific heat of the isotropic Heisenberg octanuclear nickel cage as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, (VCH Publishers, (1993))

O. Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, (VCH Publishers, (1993))

work page 1993
[2]

R. L. Carlin, Magnetochemistry (Springer, (1986))

work page 1986
[3]

Furrer, and O

A. Furrer, and O. Waldmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 367 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

Lacroix, Ph

C. Lacroix, Ph. Mendels, and F. Mila, Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism. (Springer, Heidelberg, (2011))

work page 2011
[5]

Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, (2011))

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, (2011))

work page 2011
[6]

Vidal, J

G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

2003
[7]

Gu and G

B. Gu and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 75, 174437 (2007). 13

work page 2007
[8]

Dillenschneider, Phys

R. Dillenschneider, Phys. Rev. B 78, 224413 (2008)

work page 2008

Show all 47 references

[9]

N. B. Ivanov, J. Richter and J. Schulenburg,Phys. Rev. B 79, 104412 (2009)

2009
[10]

Werlang, C

T. Werlang, C. Trippe, G. A. P. Ribeiro and G. Rigolin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 095702 (2010)

2010
[11]

Rojas, M

O. Rojas, M. Rojas, N. S. Ananikian and S. M. D. Souza, Phys. Rev. A 86, 042330 (2012)

2012
[12]

Torrico, M

J. Torrico, M. Rojas, S. M. D. Souza, O. Rojas and N. S. Ananikian, Europhys. Lett. 108, 50007 ( 2014)

2014
[13]

Streˇ cka, R

J. Streˇ cka, R. C. Alecio, M. Lyra and O. Rojas, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 409, 124 (2016)

2016
[14]

Konar, P.S

S. Konar, P.S. Mukherjee, E. Zangrando, F. Lloret, N.R. Chaudhuri, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed . 41, 1561 (2002)

2002
[15]

Ananikian, V

N.S. Ananikian, V. V. Hovhannisyan and R. Kenna, Physica A 396, 51 (2014)

2014
[16]

Hovhannisyan, N

V. Hovhannisyan, N. Ananikian, and R. Kenna, Physica A 453, 116 (2016)

2016
[17]

V. S. Abgaryan, N. S. Ananikian, L. N. Ananikyan and V. Hovhannisyan, Solid State Comm. 224, 15 (2015)

2015
[18]

J. A. Sheikh, A. Adhikary, H. S. Jena, S. Biswas, and S. Konar, Inorg. Chem. 53, 1606 (2014)

2014
[19]

J. A. Sheikh, H. S. Jena, A. Clearﬁeld, and S. Konar, Acc. Chem. Res. 49, 1093 (2016)

2016
[20]

B. A. Breeze, M. Shanmugam, F. Tuna, and R. E. P. Winpenny, Chem. Commun. 5185 (2007)

2007
[21]

Khuntia, M

P. Khuntia, M. Mariani, A. V. Mahajan et al. , Phys. Rev. B 84, 184439 (2011). 14

2011
[22]

Goura, I

J. Goura, I. Oyarzabal, E. Colacio, and V. Chandrasekhar, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem., 5601 (2015)

2015
[23]

X. Bao, W. Liu, L. L. Mao, S. D. Jiang, J. L. Liu, Y. C. Chen, and M. L. Tong, Inorg. Chem. 52, 6233 (2013)

2013
[24]

Kalita, J

P. Kalita, J. Goura, J. M. Herrera, E. Colacio and V. Chandrasekhar, ACS Omega 3, 5202 (2018)

2018
[25]

Kar ˇlova, J

K. Kar ˇlova, J. Streˇ cka, and J. Richter, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 125802 (2017)

2017
[26]

Kar ˇlova, and J

K. Kar ˇlova, and J. Streˇ cka,J. Low Temp. Phys. 187, 727 (2017)

2017
[27]

Streˇ cka and K

J. Streˇ cka and K. Karˇlova, AIP Advances 8, 101403 (2018)

2018
[28]

Streˇ cka, J

J. Streˇ cka, J. Richterb, O. Derzhko, T. Verkholyakc, K. Karˇlov´ a,Physica B 536, 364 (2018)

2018
[29]

Streˇ cka, K

J. Streˇ cka, K. Karˇlov´ a, Vasyl Baliha and O. Derzhko, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174426 (2018)

2018
[30]

Arian Zad, M

H. Arian Zad, M. Sabeti, A. Zoshki and N. Ananikian, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 31, 425801 (2019)

2019
[31]

Arian Zad, N

H. Arian Zad, N. Ananikian and R. Kenna, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 31, 445802 (2019)

2019
[32]

Arian Zad and N

H. Arian Zad and N. Ananikian, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 29, 455402 (2017)

2017
[33]

X. Y. Feng, G. M. Zhang and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 087204 (2007)

2007
[34]

S. N. Saadatmand, B. J. Powell and I. P. McCulloch, Phys. Rev. B 91, 245119 (2015)

2015
[35]

Valverde, O

J.S. Valverde, O. Rojas and S. M. de Souza, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 20, 345208 (2008). 15

2008
[36]

N. S. Ananikian, L. N. Ananikyan, L. A. Chakhmakhchyan and O. Rojas, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 24, 256001(2012)

2012
[37]

V. S. Abgaryan, N. S. Ananikian, L. N. Ananikyan and V. Hovhannisyan, Solid State Comm. 203, 5 (2015)

2015
[38]

Rojas, M

O. Rojas, M. Rojas, S. M. D. Souza, J. Torrico, J. Strecka and M. L. Lyra, Physica A 486, 367 (2017)

2017
[39]

Arian Zad and N

H. Arian Zad and N. Ananikian, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 30, 165403 (2018)

2018
[40]

V. M. L. D. Prasad Goli, S. Sahoo, S. Ramasesha and D.Sen, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 25, 125603 (2013)

2013
[41]

Sahoo, V

S. Sahoo, V. M. L. D. Prasad Goli, D.Sen and S. Ramasesha, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 26, 276002 (2014)

2014
[42]

G. Giri, D. Dey, M. Kumar, S. Ramasesha, and Z. G. Soos, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224408 (2017)

2017
[43]

Hovhannisyan, J

V. Hovhannisyan, J. Strecka and N. Ananikian, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 28, 085401(2016)

2016
[44]

Furrer, F

A. Furrer, F. Juranyi, K. W. Kraemer, M. Schneider, and Th. Straessle, Phys. Rev. B 83, 024404 (2011)

2011
[45]

H. J. , E. J. Kan, M.-H. Whangbo, C. Lee, Su-Huai Wei, and X. G. Gong, Phys. Rev. B 83, 174402 (2011)

2011
[46]

Bauer, L

B. Bauer, L. D. Carr, H.G. Evertz et al. , J. Stat. Mech. P05001 (2011)

2011
[47]

A. F. Albuquerque, et al. , J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 310, 1187 (2007). 16

2007

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, (VCH Publishers, (1993))

O. Kahn, Molecular Magnetism, (VCH Publishers, (1993))

work page 1993

[2] [2]

R. L. Carlin, Magnetochemistry (Springer, (1986))

work page 1986

[3] [3]

Furrer, and O

A. Furrer, and O. Waldmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 367 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Lacroix, Ph

C. Lacroix, Ph. Mendels, and F. Mila, Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism. (Springer, Heidelberg, (2011))

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, (2011))

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, (2011))

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Vidal, J

G. Vidal, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 227902 (2003)

2003

[7] [7]

Gu and G

B. Gu and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B 75, 174437 (2007). 13

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Dillenschneider, Phys

R. Dillenschneider, Phys. Rev. B 78, 224413 (2008)

work page 2008