Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Atomic-scale observation of $d$-$\pi$-$d$ spin coupling in coordination structures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1.25 spin-energy ratio reveals d-pi-d coupling

desk verdict Clean ratio test for d-π-d coupling, but the ferrimagnetic sign is theory-assigned, not experimentally verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01162 v1 pith:ESGAMM7S submitted 2025-01-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Xue Zhang , Xin Li , Jie Li , Haoyang Pan , Minghui Yu , Yajie Zhang , Gui-Lin Zhu , Zhen Xu
show 12 more authors
Ziyong Shen Shimin Hou Yaping Zang Bingwu Wang Kai Wu Shang-Da Jiang Ivano E. Castelli Lianmao Peng Per Hedegård Song Gao Jing-Tao Lü Yongfeng Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords d-pi-dspincouplingmetal-organiccoordinationscanningtunnelingmicroscopyexcitationspectroscopyHeisenbergmodelferrimagnetismorganicradicalretinoicacid
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 reports atomic-scale observation of d-pi-d spin coupling in a metal-organic coordination structure built from two iron atoms and four retinoic acid molecules on Au(111). By dehydrogenating selected molecules with the STM tip, the authors turn them into spin-1/2 radicals and measure spin excitations in differential conductance spectra. When the two bridging molecules are both radicalized, two excitation steps appear at 22.0 and 27.5 meV, and their ratio of 1.25 exactly matches a Heisenberg model in which the radical spins couple antiferromagnetically to a parallel Fe dimer. This establishes the ferrimagnetic ground state of the tetramer and provides a quantitative, parameter-free fingerprint for d-pi-d coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian $H_{bb} = j\,\mathbf{s}_{13}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{AB}$ (Eq. (2)), written for the two bridge-site radical spins (collectively $\mathbf{s}_{13}$) and the Fe dimer treated as one spin $\mathbf{S}_{AB}$ with length 4. Using the identity $\mathbf{S}_{\text{tot}} = \mathbf{s}_{13} + \mathbf{S}_{AB}$, the energies of the four lowest states become $4j$, $-j$, $0$, and $-5j$, so the first two excitation energies are $4j$ and $5j$. The ratio $\Delta E_2/\Delta E_1 = 5/4 = 1.25$ is independent of the coupling strength $j$, which is why the authors can claim a direct test of the spin structure rather than a fit parameter.

What would settle it

If the model is wrong, the ratio of the two spin-excitation energies in a doubly bridge-radicalized tetramer will deviate from 1.25. A direct test is to measure the spin-excitation spectrum while applying an external magnetic field: the ground state is predicted to be total spin $S=3$, so the Zeeman splitting pattern of the two steps should match that assignment; a different total spin would produce a different pattern. Alternatively, replacing the Fe dimer with a nonmagnetic metal pair should make the two-step spectrum disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By constructing a coordination tetramer of two Fe atoms and four retinoic acid molecules on Au(111) and then dehydrogenating selected molecules into spin-1/2 radicals with the STM tip, the authors observe spin excitations in dI/dV spectra. A single bridge-site radical gives one spin-flip step at about 22.9 meV, while a wing-site radical gives about 2.6 meV. When both bridge-site molecules are radicalized, two steps appear at $\Delta E_1 = 22.0$ meV and $\Delta E_2 = 27.5$ meV, with $\Delta E_2/\Delta E_1 = 1.25$. The central claim is that this 1.25 ratio is a fingerprint of d-pi-d coupling: in the Heisenberg Hamiltonian $H_{bb} = \frac{j}{2}[S_{\text{tot}}(S_{\text{tot}}+1) - s_{13}(s_{13}+1) - S_{AB}(S_{AB}+1)]$, with the Fe dimer treated as one spin $S_{AB}=4$ and the two bridge radicals as a composite spin $s_{13}\in\{0,1\}$, the four lowest states have energies $4j$, $-j$, $0$, and $-5j$, so the first two excitation energies are $4j$ and $5j$, giving exactly the measured ratio. The ground state is the ferrimagnetic $S=3$ configuration in which the radical pair is antiferromagnetically coupled to the Fe dimer while the two Fe spins are forced parallel.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on treating the two iron atoms as one rigid spin of length 4, with no direct iron-iron exchange and no substrate-induced renormalization large enough to alter the level ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 1.25 ratio is a coupling-strength-independent signature of two metal spins bridged by two radical spins, so it can be searched for in other metal-organic coordination geometries.
  • The ground state of the double-bridge-radical tetramer is a ferrimagnetic $S=3$ unit with a parallel Fe dimer ($S_{AB}=4$) and an anti-aligned radical pair, demonstrating atomic-scale construction of a ferrimagnetic building block.
  • The large difference between bridge-site coupling ($j \approx 5.1$ meV) and wing-site coupling ($J \approx 1.0$ meV) shows that coordination geometry controls the strength of d-pi-d exchange.
  • Competition between radical-Fe coupling and molecule-substrate coupling, observed when a radical is moved by STM pulses, explains the spread of measured excitation energies and indicates that weaker substrate coupling would make the d-pi-d interaction more dominant.
  • The spectroscopic two-step pattern offers a practical readout for verifying the integrity of d-pi-d coupled units in larger engineered spin arrays.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ratio identity is general, any dimer of two $S=2$ metal ions bridged by two $S=1/2$ radicals should show the same 5/4 ratio regardless of chemical details, so a measured deviation would signal direct metal-metal exchange or asymmetric coupling and could serve as a diagnostic tool.
  • The substrate-competition result implies that the same molecular unit on an insulating surface or in a bulk crystal could exhibit much stronger d-pi-d coupling, potentially raising magnetic ordering temperatures as the introduction argues.
  • The STM dehydrogenation method could be extended to other carboxylate radicals to build larger coupled spin arrays, where the 1.25 ratio could act as a built-in check that the intended d-pi-d coupling path is active.
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 low-temperature STM/AFM and dI/dV measurements on coordinated Fe–retinoic-acid (ReA) tetramers on Au(111), in which individual ReA molecules are dehydrogenated into spin-1/2 radicals. Single bridge-site radicals show a spin-excitation step at ΔE_B1 = 22.9 meV, single wing-site radicals show a much smaller step near 2.6 meV, and when the two bridge-site molecules are both radicals the spectrum shows two steps at ΔE1 = 22.0 meV and ΔE2 = 27.5 meV with ratio 1.25. The authors model the system with the Heisenberg Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), in which each bridge radical couples to the Fe dimer via j s·S_AB; for S_AB = 4 this gives ΔE2/ΔE1 = 5j/4j = 1.25, which they take as verification of the magnetic coupling between the two radical spins mediated by the Fe dimer. DFT and valence-bond theory are used to assign the antiferromagnetic (ferrimagnetic) sign of the radical–Fe exchange and to support the parallel alignment of the two Fe spins.

Significance. The parameter-free ratio ΔE2/ΔE1 = 1.25 is a clean fingerprint of a spin-1/2 pair exchange-coupled to an S = 4 spin center, and its agreement with the measured two-step spectrum is a genuine quantitative result that does not depend on any fitted exchange parameter. If the sign assignment is accepted, the work provides a striking atomic-scale realization of d–π–d-mediated ferrimagnetic coupling, with DFT connecting the measured excitation spectrum to the underlying electronic structure. The manuscript also contains useful control measurements (wing-wing and bridge-wing configurations) and a demonstration that tip manipulation can switch a coupled radical into a Kondo-dominated regime. The main weakness is that the zero-field inelastic tunneling data determine only the magnitude |j| and the S_AB = 4 manifold; the sign of j, and hence the claimed ferrimagnetic ground state, is imported from DFT/valence-bond theory and is not experimentally discriminated by the headline ratio.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theoretical analysis (Eq. 2) and Fig. 3(e); Abstract; Conclusions] The measured two-step spectrum is invariant under the sign change j → −j. For j > 0 the ground state is S_tot = 3 and the first two excitations are at 4j and 5j; for j < 0 the ground state is S_tot = 5 and the first two excitation energies from the new ground state are again 4|j| and 5|j|, with the two S_tot = 4 states merely ordered differently. Since zero-field inelastic tunneling spectroscopy measures only energy differences, the steps at 22.0 and 27.5 meV do not by themselves prove either the antiferromagnetic radical–Fe sign or the S_tot = 3 ground state. The ferrimagnetic claim in the Abstract and Conclusions therefore rests entirely on the DFT/valence-bond assignment of the sign, not on the experimental ratio; the text should state this separation of measured and inferred content explicitly, or provide an experimental discriminator such as a magnetic-field dependence of the step positions that selects the ground-state total spin.
  2. [Experimental and DFT Results, Fig. 2(f)] The DFT value for the wing-site excitation, ΔE_W1 = 5.2 meV, falls outside the observed experimental range 0.1–3 meV, and the paper attributes this to substrate effects without a quantitative or substrate-including calculation. Because the antiferromagnetic sign of both j and J is taken from the same DFT framework, this quantitative failure at the wing site weakens the theoretical support for the sign assignment; the manipulation experiment in Fig. 5 shows that j changes from roughly 5.1 meV to 1.2 meV under a local environment change, so the robustness of the computed sign to the acknowledged substrate and conformational variability should be addressed.
  3. [Fig. 3(e) and fitting procedure (SM Sec. 1.2)] The manuscript reports no uncertainty or linewidth for the fitted excitation energies ΔE1 and ΔE2, yet the claim of 'perfect agreement' with the ratio 1.25 is asserted to three significant figures. Given the visible width of the steps in Fig. 3(e) and the site-to-site scatter of the single-bridge excitations (19–25 meV), the paper should report the fitting errors and state explicitly that the ratio test confirms the model only within those uncertainties; it should also note that the absolute magnitudes predicted with j = 5.1 meV (20.4 and 25.5 meV) agree with the measured 22.0 and 27.5 meV only at the 8% level.
  4. [Theoretical analysis, Eq. (2)] The model treats the Fe dimer as a rigid S_AB = 4 spin and neglects direct Fe–Fe exchange; this is justified only if the Fe–Fe exchange exceeds j and keeps the dimer in its maximal-spin manifold. The observed ratio is indeed consistent with S_AB = 4 (the predictions for S_AB = 3, 2, and 1 would be 4/3, 3/2, and 2 respectively), but the paper should state the relevant energy scales and, ideally, report the DFT-computed Fe–Fe exchange, so that the 'verification of S_AB = 4' claim is not presented as if the model's assumption were itself the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The phrase 'in the x-↓-x form' appears to be a rendering artifact and should be corrected, as should the missing space in the title 'observation ofd-π-d' in the arXiv version.
  2. [Experimental methods / Figs. 2–3] The measurement temperature is not given in the main text; it should be stated because it determines the thermal broadening of the 22 meV steps.
  3. [Fig. 3(e)] The relative intensities of the two inelastic steps in the two-bridge case are not discussed; the model predicts specific transition matrix elements, and comparing the measured step heights with the model would strengthen the identification of the two S_tot = 4 final states.
  4. [Theoretical analysis] The paper should explicitly state that the single-bridge fit j = 5.1 meV predicts two-bridge steps of 20.4 and 25.5 meV, which fall within the observed site-to-site variation of the bridge-site excitation energy; the text currently emphasizes only the ratio, which is parameter-free.
  5. [Effect of substrate] The statement that the wing-site DFT overestimate is explained by substrate interaction is plausible but qualitative; the Fig. 5 result (j reduced from 5.0 to 1.2 meV) supports the mechanism and should be used explicitly as the quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the two-bridge excitation ratio 1.25 is a parameter-free consequence of the Heisenberg model; the antiferromagnetic sign, though external to the STS data, is not a circular input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against circularity. Single-radical spectra are used to fix |j| and |J| through explicit spin-algebra relations (ΔE_B1=9j/2, ΔE_W1=5J/2), and the two-bridge case is then a parameter-free prediction (ΔE1=4j, ΔE2=5j, ratio 5/4) for S_AB=4, checked against a different experimental configuration. The ratio is not fitted from the two-bridge data, so this is legitimate parameter transfer, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The only notable caveat is at the sentence 'Since j>0': the measured ratio is invariant under j→−j, so the STS spectrum does not by itself establish the antiferromagnetic/ferrimagnetic sign; that sign is imported from the VBT/DFT argument. This is underdetermination of the sign, not circularity, because the sign is not derived from the ratio it is claimed to verify. Self-citations (refs 28,34) support the radical-generation technique, but the paper also provides in-situ Kondo/inelastic-spectroscopy and DFT evidence for the radical spin state, so those citations are not load-bearing. No quoted equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a small set of standard assumptions and two fitted exchange parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unverified inputs are the Fe spin value, the symmetric coupling form, and the neglect of Fe-Fe exchange, all of which are stated but not independently constrained by experiment.

free parameters (2)
  • j (bridge-site radical-Fe exchange coupling) = 5.1 meV
    Extracted from the single bridge-radical spin excitation energy using ΔE_B1 = 9j/2 = 22.9 meV.
  • J (wing-site radical-Fe exchange coupling) = 1.0 meV
    Extracted from the single wing-radical spin excitation energy using ΔE_W1 = 5J/2 = 2.6 meV.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each Fe ion carries spin S = 2
    Taken from DFT calculations excluding the metal substrate; the Fe moment on Au(111) is not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Each ReA radical carries spin 1/2
    Established in prior work by the same group (Refs. 28 and 34) and assumed here.
  • domain assumption Exchange couplings are isotropic Heisenberg and only radical-Fe couplings are nonzero
    Eq. (1) includes only radical-Fe terms, omitting direct Fe-Fe exchange and radical-radical exchange.
  • domain assumption Bridge radical couples symmetrically to the Fe dimer
    Eq. (1) uses j s13 dot S_AB, implying equal coupling of the bridge radical to both Fe atoms.
  • domain assumption Positive j and J produce an antiferromagnetic radical-Fe ground state
    The positive sign is deduced from the valence bond exchange argument and supported by DFT, not directly measured.
  • standard math dI/dV spectra are described by Appelbaum-Ternes scattering theory
    Used for fitting spin excitation steps; details are in Supplementary Section 1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atomic-scale observation of $d$-$\pi$-$d$ spin coupling in coordination structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ESGAMM7S

@misc{pith2026250101162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atomic-scale observation of $d$-$\pi$-$d$ spin coupling in coordination structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ESGAMM7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01162}
}
abstract

Spin coupling between magnetic metal atoms and organic radicals plays a pivotal role in high-performance magnetic materials. The complex interaction involving multi-spin centers in bulk materials makes it challenging to study spin coupling at the atomic scale. Here, we investigate the $d$-$\pi$-$d$ spin interaction in well-defined metal-organic coordinated structures composed of two iron (Fe) atoms and four all-trans retinoic acid (ReA) molecules, using low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy. The ReA molecule is turned into a spin-$1/2$ radical state by dehydrogenation, facilitating strong magnetic coupling with the coordinated Fe atoms. Comprehensive theoretical analysis, based on density functional theory and valence bond theory, further elucidates the intrinsic mechanism of ferrimagnetic spin coupling in the coordination structure. Specifically, simultaneous antiferromagnetic coupling of Fe dimer to ReA radicals parallelizes the dimer spin orientation. This work contributes to the fundamental understanding of spin interaction in metal-organic coordination structures and provides microscopic insights for designing advanced magnetic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Perlepe, I

    P. Perlepe, I. Oyarzabal, A. Mailman, M. Yquel, M. Platunov, I. Dovgaliuk, M. Rouzieres, P. Negrier, D. Mondieig, E. A. Suturina, M.-A. Dourges, S. Bonhom- meau, R. A. Musgrave, K. S. Pedersen, D. Chernyshov, F. Wilhelm, A. Rogalev, C. Mathoniere, and R. Clerac, Metal-organic magnets with large coercivity and ordering temperatures up to 242 ◦C, Science 37...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Li, Q.-B

    X. Li, Q.-B. Liu, Y. Tang, W. Li, N. Ding, Z. Liu, H.- H. Fu, S. Dong, X. Li, and J. Yang, Quintuple func- tion integration in two-dimensional cr(ii) five- membered heterocyclic metal organic frameworks via tuning ligand spin and lattice symmetry, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145, 7869 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Cheng, X

    J. Cheng, X. Li, and J. Yang, Room-temperature fer- rimagnetism and size-modulated electronic structures in two-dimensional cluster-based metal-organic frame- works, Sci. China Chem. 67, 1334 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Each ReA radical spin couples to Fe through the carboxyl group with exchange energy j (bridge) and J (wing), respectively

    coupling with two Fe spins ( A and B). Each ReA radical spin couples to Fe through the carboxyl group with exchange energy j (bridge) and J (wing), respectively. FIG. 5. Competition between radical-F e coupling and molecule-substrate interaction. (a, b) STM images of a bridge-site ReA radical coupling to Fe atoms before (marked as B1) and after (marked as...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Li, W.-D

    J. Li, W.-D. Schneider, R. Berndt, and B. Delley, Kondo scattering observed at a single magnetic impurity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2893 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Madhavan, W

    V. Madhavan, W. Chen, T. Jamneala, F. Crommie M., and S. Wingreen N., Tunneling into a single magnetic atom: Spectroscopic evidence of the Kondo resonance, Science 280, 567 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    A. Zhao, Q. Li, L. Chen, H. Xiang, W. Wang, S. Pan, B. Wang, X. Xiao, J. Yang, J. G. Hou, and Q. Zhu, Con- trolling the Kondo effect of an adsorbed magnetic ion through its chemical bonding, Science 309, 1542 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Komeda, H

    T. Komeda, H. Isshiki, J. Liu, Y.-F. Zhang, N. Lorente, K. Katoh, B. K. Breedlove, and M. Yamashita, Obser- vation and electric current control of a local spin in a single-molecule magnet, Nat. Commun. 2, 217 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Mugarza, C

    A. Mugarza, C. Krull, R. Robles, S. Stepanow, G. Cebal- los, and P. Gambardella, Spin coupling and relaxation inside molecule–metal contacts, Nat. Commun. 2, 490 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    K. J. Franke, G. Schulze, and J. I. Pascual, Competition of superconducting phenomena and Kondo screening at the nanoscale, Science 332, 940 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Minamitani, N

    E. Minamitani, N. Tsukahara, D. Matsunaka, Y. Kim, N. Takagi, and M. Kawai, Symmetry-driven novel Kondo effect in a molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 086602 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Zhang, S

    Y.-h. Zhang, S. Kahle, T. Herden, C. Stroh, M. Mayor, U. Schlickum, M. Ternes, P. Wahl, and K. Kern, Temper- ature and magnetic field dependence of a kondo system in the weak coupling regime, Nat. Commun. 4, 2110 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Verlhac, N

    B. Verlhac, N. Bachellier, L. Garnier, M. Ormaza, P. Ab- ufager, R. Robles, B. M.-L., M. Ternes, N. Lorente, and L. Limot, Atomic-scale spin sensing with a single molecule at the apex of a scanning tunneling microscope, Science 366, 623 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Friedrich, A

    F. Friedrich, A. Odobesko, J. Bouaziz, S. Lounis, and M. Bode, Evidence for spinarons in Co adatoms, Nat. Phys. 20, 28 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    F. D. Natterer, K. Yang, W. Paul, P. Willke, T. Choi, T. Greber, A. J. Heinrich, and C. P. Lutz, Reading and writing single-atom magnets, Nature 543, 226 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Trishin, C

    S. Trishin, C. Lotze, F. Lohss, G. Franceschi, L. I. Glaz- man, F. von Oppen, and K. J. Franke, Tuning a two- impurity Kondo system by a Moir´ e superstructure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 176201 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    C. F. Hirjibehedin, C. P. Lutz, and A. J. Heinrich, Spin coupling in engineered atomic structures, Science 312, 1021 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    J. Bork, Y. Zhang, L. Diekh¨ oner, L. Borda, P. Simon, J. Kroha, P. Wahl, and K. Kern, A tunable two-impurity Kondo system in an atomic point contact, Nat. Phys. 7, 901 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Spinelli, M

    A. Spinelli, M. Gerrits, R. Toskovic, B. Bryant, M. Ternes, and A. F. Otte, Exploring the phase diagram of the two-impurity kondo problem, Nat. Commun. 6, 10046 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Ternes, Probing magnetic excitations and correlations in single and coupled spin systems with scanning tunnel- ing spectroscopy, Prog

    M. Ternes, Probing magnetic excitations and correlations in single and coupled spin systems with scanning tunnel- ing spectroscopy, Prog. Surf. Sci. 92, 83 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    D.-J. Choi, N. Lorente, J. Wiebe, K. von Bergmann, A. F. Otte, and A. J. Heinrich, Colloquium: Atomic spin chains on surfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 041001 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    S. Loth, S. Baumann, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler, and A. J. Heinrich, Bistability in atomic-scale antiferromag- nets, Science 335, 196 (2012). 6

    2012

  15. [23]

    K. A. Ako, W. Jens, C. Bruno, and W. Roland, Realiz- ing all-spin-based logic operations atom by atom, Science 332, 1062 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    T. Wang, A. Berdonces-Layunta, N. Friedrich, M. Vilas- Varela, J. Patrick Calupitan, J. Ignacio Pascual, D. Pena, D. Casanova, M. Corso, and D. G. de Oteyza, Aza- triangulene: On-surface synthesis and electronic and magnetic properties, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 4522 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Mishra, D

    S. Mishra, D. Beyer, K. Eimre, S. Kezilebieke, R. Berger, O. Gr¨ oning, C. A. Pignedoli, K. M¨ ullen, P. Lil- jeroth, P. Ruffieux, X. Feng, and R. Fasel, Topologi- cal frustration induces unconventional magnetism in a nanographene, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 22 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    S. Song, A. P. Sole, A. Matej, G. Li, O. Stetsovych, D. Soler, H. Yang, M. Telychko, J. Li, M. Kumar, Q. Chen, S. Edalatmanesh, J. Brabec, L. Veis, J. Wu, P. Jelinek, and J. Lu, Highly entangled polyradical nanographene with coexisting strong correlation and topological frustr...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Q. Sun, L. M. Mateo, R. Robles, P. Ruffieux, G. Bot- tari, T. Torres, R. Fasel, and N. Lorente, Magnetic in- terplay between π-electrons of open-shell porphyrins and d-electrons of their central transition metal ions, Adv. Sci. 9, 10.1002/advs.202105906 (2022)

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Y. Zhao, K. Jiang, C. Li, Y. Liu, G. Zhu, M. Pizzochero, E. Kaxiras, D. Guan, Y. Li, H. Zheng, C. Liu, J. Jia, M. Qin, X. Zhuang, and S. Wang, Quantum nanomagnets in on-surface metal-free porphyrin chains, Nat. Chem. 15, 53 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Y. He, N. Li, I. E. Castelli, R. Li, Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, C. Li, B. Wang, S. Gao, L. Peng, S. Hou, Z. Shen, J.-T. L¨ u, K. Wu, P. Hedeg ˚ ard, and Y. Wang, Observation of biradical spin coupling through hydrogen bonds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 236401 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Langner, S

    A. Langner, S. L. Tait, N. Lin, C. Rajadurai, M. Ruben, and K. Kern, Self-recognition and self-selection in multi- component supramolecular coordination networks on sur- faces, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104, 17927 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    S. L. Tait, Y. Wang, G. Costantini, N. Lin, A. Baraldi, F. Esch, L. Petaccia, S. Lizzit, and K. Kern, Metal- organic coordination interactions in Fe-Terephthalic acid networks on Cu (100), J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 2108 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    ˇCechal, C

    J. ˇCechal, C. S. Kley, T. Kumagai, F. Schramm, M. Ruben, S. Stepanow, and K. Kern, Convergent and divergent two-dimensional coordination networks formed through substrate-activated or quenched alkynyl ligation, Chem. Commun. 50, 9973 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    L. Dong, Z. Gao, and N. Lin, Self-assembly of metal– organic coordination structures on surfaces, Prog. Surf. Sci. 91, 101 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Langner, S

    A. Langner, S. L. Tait, N. Lin, R. Chandrasekar, V. Meded, K. Fink, M. Ruben, and K. Kern, Selective coordination bonding in metallo-supramolecular systems on surfaces, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 4327 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Karan, N

    S. Karan, N. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. He, I.-P. Hong, H. Song, J.-T. L¨ u, Y. Wang, L. Peng, K. Wu, G. S. Miche- litsch, R. J. Maurer, K. Diller, K. Reuter, A. Weismann, and R. Berndt, Spin manipulation by creation of single- molecule radical cations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 027201 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bocquet, N

    M.-L. Bocquet, N. Lorente, R. Berndt, and M. Gru- ber, Spin in a closed-shell organic molecule on a metal substrate generated by a sigmatropic reaction, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 131, 831 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    J. A. Appelbaum, Exchange model of zero-bias tunneling anomalies, Phys. Rev. 154, 633 (1967)

    1967

  30. [38]

    Ternes, Spin excitations and correlations in scanning tunneling spectroscopy, New J

    M. Ternes, Spin excitations and correlations in scanning tunneling spectroscopy, New J. Phys. 17, 063016 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.