Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Magnetic ground state of distorted 6H perovskite Ba$_3$CdIr$_2$O$_9$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Ba3CdIr2O9 carries tiny 0.3 μB moments and shows no magnetic order down to 2 K.

desk verdict Solid first characterization of a new Ba3CdIr2O9; the no-long-range-order and small-moment claims hold up, but the gapless spin-excitation conclusion rests on an unvalidated lattice subtraction and a field-induced signal, so the paper needs revision before the QSL narrative is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05163 v1 pith:A6VCPERW submitted 2019-08-14 cond-mat.str-el

Md Salman Khan , Abhisek Bandyopadhyay , Abhishek Nag , Vinod Kumar , A. V. Mahajan , Sugata Ray This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords Ba3CdIr2O96Hhexagonalperovskiteiridate5d4J=0singletquantumspinliquidmagneticfrustration113CdNMR
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

The paper establishes the magnetic ground state of the 6H hexagonal perovskite Ba3CdIr2O9, a 5d4 iridate in which Ir5+ is nominally a nonmagnetic J=0 singlet. Combining x-ray diffraction, dc susceptibility, heat capacity, and 113Cd NMR, the authors argue that a small but finite moment of about 0.3 μB per Ir develops on the Ir sites, probably through intradimer Ir–Ir hopping and local non-cubic crystal distortions. Despite a Curie–Weiss temperature of −21 K indicating antiferromagnetic exchange, no magnetic order or freezing appears down to at least 2 K, a hallmark of strong frustration on the triangular Ir lattice. At low temperatures the magnetic heat capacity and NMR relaxation rate both grow linearly with temperature, which the authors take as evidence for gapless spin excitations, placing the compound close to the elusive J=0 state and suggesting a quantum spin liquid like the Zn and Mg analogues.

What carries the argument

The central structural object is the Ir2O9 dimer, two face-sharing IrO6 octahedra that form the magnetic building block of the 6H hexagonal perovskite. Within each dimer, intradimer Ir-Ir hopping transfers holes and mixes the atomic J=0 singlet with higher J states, generating a small local moment; the non-cubic (monoclinic) crystal field around Ir further lifts the t2g degeneracy and contributes to this mixing. The dimers are arranged on a nearly equilateral triangular network, whose geometric frustration prevents the antiferromagnetic correlations (Θ_CW ≈ −21 K) from condensing into order. Experimentally, the key machinery is the decomposition of the heat capacity into lattice (one Debye plus two Einstein modes), a two-level Schottky term from ~0.5–0.8% paramagnetic centers, and the remaining magnetic contribution C_M, whose linear T-dependence at low temperatures in fields above 30 kOe is the fingerprint of a gapless spinon density of states.

What would settle it

Measure the heat capacity of a structurally identical nonmagnetic analogue (e.g., replacing Ir5+ with Ti4+ or Hf4+, which have no d electrons) over 2–300 K and subtract its measured lattice contribution from Ba3CdIr2O9; if the residual C_M no longer shows a linear T term, the gapless spinon interpretation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that Ba3CdIr2O9 realizes a magnetic ground state in which each Ir5+ ion carries a small effective moment (μ_eff ≈ 0.3 μB/Ir) rather than the pure nonmagnetic J=0 singlet expected for a 5d4 configuration with strong spin-orbit coupling. The moment is attributed to intersite Ir-Ir hopping inside the face-sharing Ir2O9 dimers and to monoclinic crystal-field distortions that mix the J=0 and J=1 states. The combined susceptibility, heat capacity, and NMR data rule out long- or short-range magnetic ordering down to 2 K, and the linear low-temperature magnetic heat capacity together with the linear 1/T1 NMR relaxation rate point to a gapless spectrum of spin excitations. The compound is thus proposed as a candidate quantum spin liquid, closer to the J=0 limit than the Ca and Sr analogues but slightly more magnetic than Ba3ZnIr2O9.

Load-bearing premise

The reported linear magnetic heat capacity and 40% entropy release rest on subtracting a lattice heat capacity that is modeled by one Debye and two Einstein terms fitted between 70 and 300 K and extrapolated down to 2 K; if that model overestimates the low-temperature lattice contribution, the gapless-excitation claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ba3CdIr2O9 joins Ba3ZnIr2O9 and Ba3MgIr2O9 as a 5d4 candidate quantum spin liquid on a frustrated triangular lattice, extending the family beyond the ordered Ca and Sr analogues.
  • The finite moment of ~0.3 μB/Ir demonstrates that real intersite hopping, not just excitonic Van Vleck physics, is sufficient to break the J=0 singlet in a 5d4 iridate.
  • The linear C_M(T) and linear 1/T1(T) imply a gapless spinon Fermi surface in an electronic insulator, a strong constraint on any proposed spin Hamiltonian for this system.
  • The temperature-independent 113Cd NMR shift, despite a Curie-Weiss bulk susceptibility, shows that Cd sits at a site with very weak hyperfine coupling; future NMR on Ir itself or muons would be needed to probe the intrinsic moment directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the lattice heat capacity model were to overestimate the low-T phonon contribution, the linear C_M term could be an artifact; a direct test would be measuring the specific heat of a nonmagnetic analogue with the same structure, such as replacing Ir with Ti4+ or Hf4+.
  • The gapless spinon interpretation predicts a low-temperature thermal conductivity that is finite and field-dependent, and a magnetic specific-heat coefficient C_M/T that remains constant as T → 0; both are testable in high-quality single crystals.
  • The similarity in intradimer Ir-Ir distance to Ba3MgIr2O9 while sharing the symmetry of Ca/Sr suggests that the degree of monoclinic distortion, rather than dimer distance alone, controls the frustration and moment size across the Ba3MIr2O9 series.
  • Because the NMR shift is temperature independent, the bulk Curie-Weiss moment might partly originate from a small fraction of extrinsic spins; if so, the intrinsic Ir moment could be even smaller than 0.3 μB, making the J=0 state even closer to realization.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a combined structural, magnetic, thermodynamic, and local-probe study of the 6H hexagonal perovskite Ba3CdIr2O9, a 5d4 (Ir5+) iridate in which the atomic J=0 singlet is expected. From X-ray diffraction, XPS, resistivity, dc susceptibility, heat capacity, and 113Cd NMR, the authors conclude that the compound hosts a small effective moment of about 0.3 μB/Ir, exhibits no magnetic ordering down to 2 K despite an antiferromagnetic Curie-Weiss temperature of about -21 K, and shows gapless spin excitations inferred from a linear low-temperature magnetic heat capacity at high fields and a linear NMR relaxation rate. The paper proposes a quantum spin liquid-like ground state with a gapless spinon Fermi surface.

Significance. If the central claims were fully established, Ba3CdIr2O9 would be a valuable addition to the small family of 6H Ba3MIr2O9 compounds near the J=0 limit, and the use of the NMR-active 113Cd nucleus as a local probe is a genuine strength that is not available in the Zn, Mg, Ca, or Sr analogues. The paper combines several complementary techniques (susceptibility, heat capacity, NMR, XPS, resistivity) and reports direct measurements that do not assume the no-ordering conclusion. The small-moment and no-long-range-order conclusions are reasonably supported. However, the strongest claim—gapless spin excitations—rests on a model-dependent lattice subtraction and on a field-induced linear heat capacity that is absent at zero field, and the NMR evidence for gaplessness is incomplete because the hyperfine coupling is not quantified. These load-bearing gaps prevent the paper from establishing the proposed gapless quantum spin liquid ground state as currently written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D, Fig. 4(c) and inset] The central claim of gapless spin excitations is not established because the linear magnetic heat capacity is observed only for applied fields above 30 kOe, while the authors explicitly state that any perceptible linear dependence is missing at H=0 and 10 kOe. A truly gapless zero-field spinon Fermi surface should produce a T-linear term at H=0; a field-induced quasi-linear tail is more naturally explained by a Schottky or impurity contribution. The authors should either present a quantitative zero-field linear term or substantially soften the gapless-spinon interpretation.
  2. [Section III.D, Eq. (1), inset to Fig. 4(a)] The intrinsic magnetic heat capacity CM is obtained by subtracting a lattice heat capacity fitted with one Debye and two Einstein terms over 70–300 K and extrapolated to 2 K, with no nonmagnetic analogue, no reported fit parameters, and no residuals. Because the same subtraction underlies both the reported T-linear CM and the ~40% entropy release in Fig. 4(d), a small overestimate of the low-temperature lattice contribution would directly manufacture the headline 'gapless' signal. The authors should validate the lattice extrapolation, for example by including a low-temperature acoustic-phonon (Debye T^3) anchor, by measuring a nonmagnetic analogue, or by showing that the extracted CM is robust to the fitting range and model details.
  3. [Section III.E, Fig. 5(b)] The linear 1/T1 versus T is offered as independent evidence for gapless spin excitations, but the 113Cd NMR shift is temperature independent, and the hyperfine coupling that converts nuclear relaxation into a measurement of the Ir spin susceptibility is not quantified. Consequently, the Korringa-like product K^2T1T/S stated in the text uses a shift K that is likely dominated by chemical shift, so the relaxation mechanism cannot be unambiguously attributed to Ir spin fluctuations without additional information. The authors should provide K(T), estimate the transferred hyperfine coupling, or acknowledge that the linear 1/T1 may have a nonmagnetic origin.
  4. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract claims to rule out 'any kind of magnetic long-/short-range ordering', but Section III.D reports a broad maximum in CM near 25 K attributed to frustrated short-range interactions, and Section III.C reports a kink near 50 K and short-range correlations. The data do not rule out short-range magnetic correlations; they rule out long-range static order. The wording should be corrected to 'no long-range magnetic ordering' and should distinguish the absence of static order from the presence of short-range correlations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C] The Curie-Weiss fitting parameters are stated to depend on the fitting range and applied field, but the authors do not report the fit range, uncertainties, or a table of the fit parameters; providing these would allow the reader to judge the robustness of Θ_CW ≈ -21 K and μ_eff ≈ 0.3 μB/Ir.
  2. [Section III.D] The g-value extracted from the Schottky fit is reported as approximately 1.42, but the text does not discuss why it deviates from the free-electron value of 2; a brief comment on this discrepancy would be helpful.
  3. [Fig. 4(c) inset] The linear fits to CM versus T in the inset lack labels and reported slopes or temperature ranges; specifying these fit details is important because the linear term is a central claim.
  4. [Section II] The 113Cd NMR reference compound is not identified; the reader needs to know the chemical reference used to define the shift scale.
  5. [Section III.B] The resistivity is fitted to the two-dimensional Mott variable-range-hopping form, but the justification for the 2D exponent (1/3) over a 3D exponent (1/4) is not given; the limited temperature range may also make the two forms hard to distinguish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ground-state and gapless-excitation claims rest on direct measurements and clearly stated model subtractions, not on inputs that presuppose the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The finite 0.3 mu_B/Ir moment and the Curie-Weiss temperature of -21 K come from a direct Curie-Weiss fit to measured chi(T); the absence of magnetic ordering is inferred from the absence of sharp anomalies in chi(T), Cp(T), and NMR spectra; and the gapless-spin-excitation claim is supported by two independent experimental signatures: a directly measured linear 1/T1 versus T in 113Cd NMR, and a T-linear magnetic heat capacity at high fields. The latter is admittedly model-dependent, since C_M is obtained by subtracting a Debye-Einstein lattice model fitted at 70-300 K and extrapolated to low T, plus a two-level Schottky term fitted to field-dependent Cp differences. However, the T-linear residual is not a fitted parameter of that model, and the authors explicitly state that any perceptible linear dependence is missing for H=0 and 10 kOe, so they do not claim the zero-field spinon term that a circularity would require. The self-citations (Refs. 24 and 26) provide comparative context and structural/magnetic analogies, not a uniqueness theorem or a conclusion built into the input. Any residual concern about the lattice extrapolation is a correctness or robustness issue, not circularity.

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

The paper's central moment and ordering results depend on several fitted quantities. The most load-bearing are the Curie-Weiss parameters (small moment, -21 K) and the lattice heat capacity extrapolation that defines C_M. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Curie-Weiss temperature Θ_CW = -21 K
    Fitted to dc susceptibility at 10 kOe using χ = C/(T-Θ_CW)+χ0. Authors note the result depends on fitting range and applied field.
  • Effective moment μ_eff = 0.3 μB/Ir
    Derived from the Curie constant C in the same Curie-Weiss fit. Central to the small-moment claim.
  • Temperature-independent susceptibility χ0 = not stated
    Included in the Curie-Weiss fit and subtracted before plotting 1/(χ-χ0); its fitted value is not reported.
  • Schottky fraction f = 0.5-0.8%
    Fitted to ΔCp,mag/T using the two-level Schottky formula in Section III.D. Determines the amount of isolated paramagnetic centers.
  • Schottky g-factor = 1.42
    Obtained from the linear fit of Δ/kB versus applied field using Δ = g μB H in the inset to Fig. 4(b).
  • Lattice model parameters (Debye and Einstein temperatures and coefficients) = not reported
    Debye-Einstein fit to Cp between 70 and 300 K in Section III.D; the extrapolation to 2 K defines C_M after subtraction and is not independently validated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ir5+ (5d4) with strong spin-orbit coupling has a nonmagnetic J=0 ground state as the reference, so finite moments require intradimer hopping or noncubic crystal field.
    Invoked in Sections I and III.B to interpret the small moment; not proven from the measured data alone.
  • standard math The two-level Schottky anomaly formula describes the field-dependent part of the heat capacity difference.
    Used in Eq. (1)-(2) in Section III.D to extract f and g from ΔCp,mag/T.
  • domain assumption One Debye plus two Einstein terms capture the lattice heat capacity over 70-300 K and can be extrapolated to 2 K.
    Section III.D. No nonmagnetic analogue exists to validate the extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Curie-Weiss behavior applies to the intrinsic susceptibility after subtracting χ0.
    Section III.C. The fitting range and field selection are justified qualitatively, but the parameters vary with the chosen range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic ground state of distorted 6H perovskite Ba$_3$CdIr$_2$O$_9$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6VCPERW

@misc{pith2026190805163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic ground state of distorted 6H perovskite Ba$_3$CdIr$_2$O$_9$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6VCPERW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05163}
}
abstract

Perovskite iridates of 6H hexagonal structure present a plethora of possibilities in terms of the variety of ground states resulting from a competition between spin-orbit coupling (SOC), hopping, noncubic crystal field ($\Delta_{CFE}^{NC}$) and superexchange energy scales within the Ir$_2$O$_9$ dimers. Here we have investigated one such compound Ba$_3$CdIr$_2$O$_9$ by x-ray diffraction, dc magnetic susceptibility($\chi$), heat capacity($C_p$) and also ${}^{113}$Cd nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. We have established that the magnetic ground state has a small but finite magnetic moment on Ir$^{5+}$ in this system, which likely arises from intradimer Ir-Ir hopping and local crystal distortions. Our heat capacity, NMR, and dc magnetic susceptibility measurements further rule out any kind of magnetic long-/short-range ordering among the Ir moments down to at least 2K. In addition, the magnetic heat capacity data shows linear temperature dependence at low temperatures under applied high fields ($>$ 30 kOe), suggesting gapless spin-density of states in the compound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) Rietveld refined XRD pattern of Ba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) (a) Valance band photoemission spect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online)(a)Temperature dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) (a)Temperature dependence of total s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Witczak-Krempa, G

    W. Witczak-Krempa, G. Chen, Y. B. Kim, and L. Balents, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5 , 57 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    M. J. Lawler, A. Paramekanti, Y. B. Kim, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 197202 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Pesin and L

    D. Pesin and L. Balents, Nat. Phys. 6 , 376 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Matsuhira, M

    K. Matsuhira, M. Wakeshima, R. Nakanishi, T. Yamada, A. Nakamura, W. Kawano, S. Takagi, and Y. Hinatsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 , 043706 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Fukazawa and Y

    H. Fukazawa and Y. Maeno, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71 , 2578 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Nakatsuji, Y

    S. Nakatsuji, Y. Machida, Y. Maeno, T. Tayama, T. Sakakibara, J. van Duijn, L. Balicas, J. N. Millican, R. T. Macaluso, and J. Y. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 087204 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    B. J. Kim, H. Jin, S. J. Moon, J.-Y. Kim,B. -G. Park, C.S. Leem, J.Yu,T. W. Noh, C.Kim, S.-J. Oh, J.-H. Park, V Durairaj, G. Cao, and E. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 076402 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    S.J. Moon, H. Jin, K.W. Kim, W.S. Choi, Y.S. Lee, J. Yu, G. Cao, A. Sumi, H. Funakubo, C. Bernhard, and T.W. Noh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 , 226402 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    B. J. Kim, H. Ohsumi, T. Komesu, S. Sakai, T. Morita, H. Takagi, and T. Arima, Science 323 , 1329 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Khaliullin, Phys

    G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 197201 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    G. Cao, T. F. Qi, L. Li, J. Terzic, S. J. Yuan, L. E. DeLong, G. Murthy, and R. K. Kaul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 , 056402 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    M. A. Laguna-Marco, P. Kayser, J. A. Alonso, M. J. Mart\' nez- Lope, M. van Veenendaal, Y. Choi, and D. Haskel, Phys. Rev. B 91 , 214433 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Dey et al

    T. Dey et al. , Phys. Rev. B 93 , 014434 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Bremholm, S

    M. Bremholm, S. E. Dutton, P. W. Stephens, and R. J. Cava, J. Solid State Chem. 184 , 601 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    A. Nag, S. Bhowal, A. Chakraborty, M. M. Sala, A. Efimenko, F. Bert, P. K. Biswas, A. D. Hillier, M. Itoh, S. D. Kaushik, V. Siruguri, C. Meneghini, I. Dasgupta, and Sugata Ray, Phys. Rev. B. 98 , 014431 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    O. N. Meetei, W. S. Cole, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B 91 , 054412 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    G. Chen, L. Balents, and A. P. Schnyder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 96406 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    X. Liu. et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 , 157401 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Bhattacharjee, S.-S

    S. Bhattacharjee, S.-S. Lee, and Y. B. Kim, New J. Phys. 14 , 073015 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    C. H. Kim, H. S. Kim, H. Jeong, H. Jin, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 , 106401 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Dodds, T

    T. Dodds, T. P. Choy, and Y. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 104439 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Jackeli and G

    G. Jackeli and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 067205 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    D. I. Khomskii, K. I. Kugel, A. O. Sboychakov, and S. V. Streltsov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 122 , 484 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    A. Nag, S. Middey, S. Bhowal, S. K. Panda, R. Mathieu, J. C. Orain, F. Bert, P. Mendels, P. G. Freeman, M. Mansson, H. M. Ronnow, M. Telling, P. K. Biswas, D. Sheptyakov, S. D. Kaushik, V. Siruguri, C. Meneghini, D. D. Sarma, I. Dasgupta, and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 , 097...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Sakamoto, Y

    T. Sakamoto, Y. Doi, and Y. Hinatsu, J. Solid State Chem. 179 , 2595 - 2601 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    A. Nag, S. Bhowal, F. Bert, A. D. Hillier, M. Itoh, Ilaria Carlomagno, C. Meneghini, T. Sarkar, R. Mathieu, I. Dasgupta, and S. Ray, Phys. Rev. B 97 , 064408 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    T. Dey, M. Majumder, J. C. Orain, A. Senyshyn, M. Prinz-Zwick, S. Bachus, Y. Tokiwa, F. Bert, P. Khuntia, N. B\" u ttgen, A. A. Tsirlin, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. B 96 , 174411 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    T. Dey, A. V. Mahajan, R. Kumar, B. Koteswararao, F. C. Chou, A. A. Omrani, and H. M. Ronnow, Phys. Rev. B 88 , 134425 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Rodriguez Carvajal, Physica B 192 , 55 (1993)

    J. Rodriguez Carvajal, Physica B 192 , 55 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    G. Cao, V. Durairaj, S. Chikara, L. E. DeLong, S. Parkin, and P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B 76 , 100402(R) (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Paula Kayser, Mar\' a Jes\' u s Mart\' nez-Lope, Jose Antonio Alonso, Mar\' a Retuerto, Mark Croft, Alexander Ignatov, and Maria Teresa Fern\' a ndez-D\' az, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 2014 , 178 - 185 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    G. Cao, A. Subedi, S. Calder, J.-Q. Yan, J. Yi, Z. Gai, L. Poudel, D. J. Singh, M. D. Lumsden, A. D. Christianson, B. C. Sales, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. B 87 , 155136 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Kennedy et al

    Brendan J. Kennedy et al. , J. Solid State Chem. 123 , 14 - 20 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    V. K. Dwivedi, A. Juyal, and S. Mukhopadhyay, Mater. Res. Express 3 , 115020 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Yoshii, and M

    S. Yoshii, and M. Sato, J.Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68 , 3034 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Okamoto, M

    Y. Okamoto, M. Nohara, H. Aruga-Katori, and H. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 137207 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    T. Dey, A. V. Mahajan, P. Khuntia, M. Baenitz, B. Koteswararao, and F. C. Chou, Phys. Rev. B 86 , 140405(R)(2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Kumar and A

    H. Kumar and A. K. Pramanik, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 409 , 20 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    L. T. Corredor, G. Aslan-Cansever, M. Sturza, Kaustuv Manna, A. Maljuk, S. Gass, T. Dey, A. U. B. Wolter, Olga Kataeva, A. Zimmermann, M. Geyer, C. G. F. Blum, S. Wurmehl, and B. B\" u chner, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 064418 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Abhishek Nag and Sugata Ray, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 424 , 93 - 98 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Kumar, D

    R. Kumar, D. Sheptyakov, P. Khuntia, K. Rolfs, P. G. Freeman, H. M. R nnow, T. Dey, M. Baenitz, and A. V. Mahajan, Phys. Rev. B 94 , 174410 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Balents, Nature 464 , 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature 464 , 199 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    J. G. Cheng, G. Li, L. Balicas, J. S. Zhou, J. B. Goodenough, Cenke Xu, and H. D. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 , 197204 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    M. R. Norman, and T. Micklitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 067204 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Shen, Y.-D

    Y. Shen, Y.-D. Li, H. Wo, Y. Li, S. Shen, B. Pan, Q. Wang, H. C. Walker, P. Steffens, M. Boehm, Y. Hao, D. L. Quintero-Castro, L. W. Harriger, M. D. Frontzek, L. Hao, S. Meng, Q. Zhang, G. Chen, and J. Zhao, Nature (London) 540 , 559 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    T. Dey, R. Kumar, A. V. Mahajan, S. D. Kaushik, and V. Siruguri, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 205101 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Aharen, J

    T. Aharen, J. E. Greedan, C. A. Bridges, A. A. Aczel, J. Rodriguez, G. MacDougall, G. M. Luke, T. Imai, V. K. Michaelis, S. Kroeker, H. Zhou, C. R. Wiebe, and L. M. D. Cranswick, Phys. Rev. B 81 , 224409 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

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