Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 148 references

Evaluating SCAN and r$^2$SCAN meta-GGA functionals for predicting transition temperatures in antiferromagnetic materials

T0 review · 3 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 By mapping density functional energies onto a Heisenberg Hamiltonian and running classical Monte Carlo, SCAN and r2SCAN predict the Néel temperatures of 48 insulating antiferromagnets with mean absolute errors of 23% and 22%…

desk verdict Useful meta-GGA benchmark for 48 antiferromagnets, but the headline outperformance over GGA/GGA+U rests on an uncontrolled cross-set comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05914 v1 pith:VP2LIY4P submitted 2025-01-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Nafise Rezaei , Mojtaba Alaei , Artem R. Oganov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el PACS 71.15.Mb75.10.Hk75.30.Et75.50.Ee
keywords antiferromagnetismNéeltemperatureSCANfunctionalr2SCANmeta-GGAHeisenbergexchangecouplingsclassicalMonteCarloHSE06hybrid
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 asks whether two meta-GGA exchange-correlation functionals, SCAN and its regularized successor r2SCAN, can predict the temperature at which an antiferromagnetic insulator loses its magnetic order. The procedure is: compute total energies of many spin arrangements with density functional theory, fit the results to a classical Heisenberg Hamiltonian, and feed the fitted exchange couplings into Monte Carlo simulations. Across 48 insulating 3d antiferromagnets, the predicted Néel temperatures come within a mean absolute percentage error of 23% for SCAN and 22% for r2SCAN, with Pearson correlations of 0.97 and 0.98 against experiment. If this holds, materials scientists can estimate magnetic ordering temperatures without the per-material Hubbard-$U$ tuning that GGA+U requires, and the expensive hybrid functional HSE06 looks unnecessary for this property class.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mapping from density functional total energies to a classical Heisenberg Hamiltonian, $\hat{H} = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j} J_{ij} \hat{\mathbf{S}}_i \cdot \hat{\mathbf{S}}_j$, with unit spins on magnetic sites and exchange couplings $J_{ij}$ out to the needed neighbour shell. To get reliable couplings, the paper uses about three times the minimum number of magnetic configurations and extracts the $J_{ij}$ by least-squares fitting, excluding configurations that turn metallic during self-consistency because they spoil convergence. The fitted couplings are then inserted into classical Monte Carlo simulations with parallel tempering on supercells of at least 2000 magnetic sites. SCAN and r2SCAN enter at the first step, supplying the total energies that the fit converts into couplings, so the entire accuracy story rests on how well these functionals describe the energy differences between spin arrangements.

What would settle it

Recompute GGA and GGA+U transitions for all 48 materials using the same supercell, least-squares, and Monte Carlo pipeline; if their mean absolute percentage errors on the full set fall close to the 22-23% reported for the meta-GGA functionals, the headline improvement over GGA and GGA+U would be an artifact of comparing different material sets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the meta-GGA functionals SCAN and r2SCAN, despite having no empirical fit to magnetic data, produce Néel temperatures for a diverse 48-material set of insulating 3d antiferromagnets that track experiment across nearly three decades in temperature, from tens of kelvin to over a thousand kelvin. The authors report mean absolute percentage errors of 23% for SCAN and 22% for r2SCAN, with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.98, compared with reported errors of 87% for GGA and 54% for GGA+U from an earlier 29-material benchmark. They also find that the hybrid functional HSE06 yields smaller energy differences between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic configurations than SCAN and r2SCAN, and therefore infer it underestimates transition temperatures relative to experiment. For one compound, CrF2, r2SCAN incorrectly predicts ferromagnetic rather than antiferromagnetic order, a failure flagged for the otherwise similar functional.

Load-bearing premise

The outperformance claim assumes that the 87% and 54% error rates from the earlier 29-material GGA and GGA+U study can be compared directly with the 23% and 22% errors on the present 48-material set, even though 21 of the 48 materials were not in that earlier study and have no GGA or GGA+U data here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A screening workflow built on r2SCAN total energies, a Heisenberg fit, and classical Monte Carlo can estimate magnetic ordering temperatures of insulating 3d antiferromagnets with typical errors of about 22%, without Hubbard-$U$ tuning.
  • The systematic opposite biases of GGA, which overestimates, and GGA+U, which underestimates, reported in the earlier study are largely removed by the meta-GGA functionals, which scatter roughly evenly above and below experiment.
  • For most of the 48 materials, SCAN and r2SCAN agree: 77% of the compounds have lower SCAN than r2SCAN transition temperatures, but the distribution is centered near a ratio of 1.
  • HSE06, despite being more expensive, is not the right tool for this property: its smaller AFM-FM energy differences place its predicted transition temperatures below both meta-GGA predictions and experiment.
  • The high Pearson correlation and the absence of a fitted empirical parameter make r2SCAN a candidate for high-throughput and machine-learning-assisted prediction of magnetic transition temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same pipeline applied to 4d/5d or weakly itinerant magnets, which the 3d insulating selection deliberately excludes, would test whether the meta-GGA advantage survives spin-orbit coupling and longer-range interactions.
  • Editorial inference: the two large disagreements between the functionals, MnTe (232 K versus 356 K) and CrF2 (AFM versus FM), are natural targets for wavefunction benchmarks such as coupled-cluster or quantum Monte Carlo to decide which functional is closer to reality.
  • Editorial inference: because the absolute errors remain about one fifth of the transition temperature, the fitted exchange parameters may be more transferable than the temperatures themselves; using them as training data for machine-learned spin Hamiltonians is a plausible next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper benchmarks the SCAN and r2SCAN meta-GGA functionals for predicting Néel temperatures of 48 insulating 3d antiferromagnetic materials. The workflow combines DFT total energies of multiple magnetic configurations, least-squares fitting of Heisenberg exchange parameters, and classical Monte Carlo simulations of the resulting spin model. The authors report mean absolute percentage errors of 23% (SCAN) and 22% (r2SCAN) relative to experiment, with Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.98, and compare these against previously published GGA and GGA+U results from a 29-material study. They further use AFM-FM energy differences from small supercells to argue that the HSE06 hybrid functional underestimates transition temperatures relative to the meta-GGA functionals.

Significance. If the claims are supported, this is a valuable benchmark: it is a large, chemically diverse dataset; the transition temperatures are forward predictions from a Heisenberg model and Monte Carlo, with no fitting to experimental T_N; the exchange parameters are tabulated in the supplement; and the VASP/FHI-aims cross-check in Table I is a useful validation of the pseudopotential workflow. The paper also makes an honest effort to monitor exchange-parameter convergence as the number of magnetic configurations increases. However, the headline claim that SCAN and r2SCAN greatly outperform GGA and GGA+U currently rests on a cross-set comparison that is not controlled on the same materials, and the HSE06 conclusion is based on energy differences rather than simulated transition temperatures. These issues make the central comparative claim weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B and Figure 2 inset] The central comparison of MAPE values is not apples-to-apples. The SCAN and r2SCAN MAPE values of 23% and 22% are computed on the present 48-material set, whereas the GGA and GGA+U MAPE values of 87% and 54% are taken from reference [22], which used a 29-material set; only 27 of those 29 materials are in the present set, and the 21 additional materials have no GGA or GGA+U results in this paper. If the additional materials happen to be easier for meta-GGA functionals, the reported improvement is inflated. The abstract and conclusions present this comparison as the main result, so the authors should either recompute GGA and GGA+U on the full 48-material set or at least report the common-27-subset MAPE for all functionals.
  2. [Section III.C] The conclusion that HSE06 underestimates transition temperatures is an extrapolation from the AFM-FM energy difference per magnetic atom in small supercells (Figure 4), not from Monte Carlo simulations of HSE06 exchange parameters. An energy difference between two ordered states is a useful indicator but is not a transition temperature; moreover, some compounds are explicitly excluded because small supercells incorrectly stabilize ferromagnetism. The text softens this with 'expected to underestimate', but the abstract states it as a finding. The authors should either run the full MC workflow with HSE06 couplings on a tractable subset or restrict the claim to energy differences.
  3. [Section III.A and Figure 1(b)] The exclusion of metallic magnetic configurations is a modeling choice whose effect on the exchange parameters is demonstrated for only one compound (MnTe). Because the metallic versus insulating character of a configuration can depend on the functional, this exclusion could bias the comparison between functionals. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the extracted J values and resulting T_C are robust across a broader set of compounds when metallic configurations are included or excluded, or otherwise justify why the exclusion is unbiased.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.B] The text refers to 'CrF4' as one of the compounds with maximum errors; this appears to be a typo for CrF2, which is the compound listed in Figure 3 and Table II.
  2. [Abstract and Section III.B] The Pearson correlation coefficients are reported as 97% and 98%, but Pearson r is dimensionless and should be written as 0.97 and 0.98.
  3. [Reference [76]] The placeholder 'URL-will-be-inserted-by-publisher' should be replaced with the actual supplemental material identifier or repository link.
  4. [Table II and Section III.B] Several compounds have multiple experimental T_N values (e.g., CrCl2, MnSe, Fe2TeO6, K2NiF4). The authors should state how a single experimental value was selected for the MAPE calculation, or report the sensitivity of MAPE to the experimental choice.
  5. [Figure 4] The legend labels the DFT method as 'GGA', but the text and context suggest this is PBE; the authors should specify the exact functional and note whether the GGA and HSE06 energy differences were computed with the same supercells and cutoff as the SCAN and r2SCAN calculations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SCAN/r2SCAN transition temperatures are forward predictions from DFT energies via exchange-parameter fitting and Monte Carlo, with no fit to experimental Tc.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and forward: DFT total energies for multiple magnetic configurations are computed, Heisenberg exchange parameters are obtained by least-squares fitting to those DFT energy differences, and classical Monte Carlo simulations then produce Tc. Experimental transition temperatures enter only as a post-hoc comparison set in Table II and Figure 2; they are never used as fitting targets or as constraints in the exchange-parameter extraction. The convergence monitoring and the exclusion of metallic configurations are modeling choices aimed at obtaining stable exchange parameters, not fits to experimental Néel temperatures. The headline comparison of MAPE values (23% and 22% for SCAN/r2SCAN versus 87% and 54% for GGA/GGA+U) does import GGA/GGA+U numbers from the authors' previous work [22], and the comparison is weakened because it is not computed on the identical 48-material set; however, this is a benchmark-comparability limitation, not circularity, since the SCAN/r2SCAN predictions themselves do not depend on the GGA/GGA+U values. Self-citations to SUPERHEX [24], ESpinS [28], and earlier Heisenberg-mapping work [22, 26, 27] are methodological references to standard or previously published tools, not load-bearing circular premises that force the reported Tc values. Likewise, the HSE06 analysis does not produce a claimed prediction of Tc; it compares AFM-FM energy differences and states an expectation of lower Tc, which is an extrapolation rather than a derived circular result. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is therefore not circular; the central SCAN and r2SCAN Tc predictions stand on independent first-principles calculations.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claims rest on modeling choices, specifically Heisenberg truncation, structure fidelity, configuration selection, uncontrolled cross-study comparison, and the HSE06 proxy, all listed above.

free parameters (2)
  • Exchange interaction truncation distance = Approximately 7 Angstrom, with exceptions for near-180-degree bonds and interlayer coupling
    Hand-chosen cutoff in Section II.A that determines which J_ij enter the Heisenberg Hamiltonian and hence affects every predicted Tc.
  • Number of magnetic configurations in the least-squares fit = About 3 times the minimal number (n+1)
    Protocol choice stated in Section II.A; changes the fitted J values and their convergence behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The magnetic energy of each material is described by a classical Heisenberg Hamiltonian with pairwise exchange interactions and unit-spin vectors.
    Used from Section II.A onward; neglects biquadratic, multi-spin, and quantum effects. This is standard but unproven for the diverse 48-material set.
  • domain assumption Experimental crystal structures, used without relaxation, are adequate for evaluating functional accuracy.
    Section II.A: 'The experimental structures are directly used for all ab initio calculations. No ab initio geometrical optimization is performed.' This assumes functional errors at experimental geometry transfer to relaxed geometries.
  • ad hoc to paper Metallic magnetic configurations can be excluded without biasing the exchange parameters.
    Section III.A and Figure 1(b): J1 for MnTe converges only after excluding two metallic configurations. This is a post-hoc selection rule applied to improve convergence, and it may bias J if metallic states are physically relevant.
  • ad hoc to paper MAPE values from the previous 29-material GGA and GGA+U study [22] are directly comparable to the present 48-material SCAN and r2SCAN results.
    The headline outperformance comparison in Figure 2 inset uses the previous study's MAPE (87% and 54%) without recomputing GGA and GGA+U for the 21 additional materials, assuming equal difficulty.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy difference between AFM and FM configurations in small supercells is a reliable proxy for relative transition temperature, allowing HSE06 conclusions without Monte Carlo.
    Section III.C infers HSE06 underestimates TN from (E_FM minus E_AFM) per magnetic site alone, and excludes cases where small supercells incorrectly gave FM ground states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating SCAN and r$^2$SCAN meta-GGA functionals for predicting transition temperatures in antiferromagnetic materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VP2LIY4P

@misc{pith2026250105914,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating SCAN and r$^2$SCAN meta-GGA functionals for predicting transition temperatures in antiferromagnetic materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VP2LIY4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05914}
}
abstract

Recent advancements in exchange-correlation functionals within density functional theory highlight the need for rigorous validation across diverse types of materials properties. In this study, we assess the performance of the newly developed meta-GGA r$^2$SCAN and its predecessor, SCAN, in predicting the N\'eel transition temperature of antiferromagnetic materials. Our analysis includes 48 magnetic materials, spanning both simple and complex systems. Using DFT, we compute the energies of various magnetic configurations and extract exchange interaction parameters through a least-squares fitting approach. These parameters are then used in classical Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the transition temperatures. Our results demonstrate that both SCAN and r$^2$SCAN greatly outperform standard GGA and GGA+$U$ methods, yielding predictions that closely align with experimental values. The Pearson correlation coefficients for SCAN and r$^2$SCAN are 0.97 and 0.98, respectively, when compared to experimental transition temperatures. Additionally, we calculate the energy differences between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic configurations to assess the performance of the hybrid HSE06 functional. We found that the HSE06 functional underestimates transition temperatures compared to the meta-GGA functionals and experimental values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05914 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The plots illustrate the convergence behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Percentage error of transition temperatures calculated using MC simulations (T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Energy differences per magnetic atom between AFM and FM configurations for various compounds, calculated using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Mosleh and M

    Z. Mosleh and M. Alaei, Benchmarking density func- tional theory on the prediction of antiferromagnetic transition temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 108, 144413 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    Illas, I

    F. Illas, I. de P. R. Moreira, J. M. Bofill, and M. Filatov, Extent and limitations of density-functional theory in describing magnetic systems, Phys. Rev. B 70, 132414 7 TABLE II. N´ eel temperature predicted by MC simulations using exchange parameters from SCAN and r 2SCAN func- tionals compared to experimental values. Compound TSCAN C Tr2SCAN C Texp. C...

    2004

  3. [2]

    A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-S´ anchez, and W. Yang, Insights into current limitations of density functional theory, Sci- ence 321, 792 (2008)

    2008

  4. [3]

    J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Self-interaction correction to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5048 (1981)

    1981

  5. [4]

    D. C. Langreth and J. P. Perdew, Theory of nonuniform electronic systems. I. Analysis of the gradient approxi- mation and a generalization that works, Phys. Rev. B 21, 5469 (1980)

    1980

  6. [5]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  7. [6]

    F. Tran, G. Baudesson, J. Carrete, G. K. H. Madsen, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and D. J. Singh, Shortcomings of meta-GGA functionals when describing magnetism, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024407 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Cho and M

    J.-H. Cho and M. Scheffler, Ab initio pseudopotential study of fe, co, and ni employing the spin-polarized lapw approach, Phys. Rev. B 53, 10685 (1996)

    1996

Show all 148 references
  1. [8]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and Mott insulators: Hubbard U instead of Stoner I, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991)

    1991

  2. [9]

    V. I. Anisimov, F. Aryasetiawan, and A. I. Lichtenstein, First-principles calculations of the electronic structure and spectra of strongly correlated systems: the LDA+ U method, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 9, 767 (1997)

    1997

  3. [10]

    K¨ ummel and L

    S. K¨ ummel and L. Kronik, Orbital-dependent density functionals: Theory and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 3 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, and J. P. Perdew, Strongly Con- strained and Appropriately Normed Semilocal Density Functional, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036402 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Sokolovskiy, D

    V. Sokolovskiy, D. Baigutlin, O. Miroshkina, and V. Buchelnikov, Meta-GGA SCAN Functional in the Prediction of Ground State Properties of Magnetic Materials: Review of the Current State, Metals 13, 10.3390/met13040728 (2023)

    2023 doi

  6. [13]

    Hait and M

    D. Hait and M. Head-Gordon, Delocalization Errors in Density Functional Theory Are Essentially Quadratic in Fractional Occupation Number, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 9, 6280 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    A. D. Kaplan, M. Levy, and J. P. Perdew, The Predic- tive Power of Exact Constraints and Appropriate Norms in Density Functional Theory, Annual Review of Phys- ical Chemistry 74, 193 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    J. W. Furness, A. D. Kaplan, J. Ning, J. P. Perdew, and J. Sun, Accurate and Numerically Efficient r2SCAN Meta-Generalized Gradient Approximation, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11, 8208 (2020), pMID: 32876454

    2020

  9. [16]

    Kingsbury, A

    R. Kingsbury, A. S. Gupta, C. J. Bartel, J. M. Munro, S. Dwaraknath, M. Horton, and K. A. Persson, Per- formance comparison of r2SCAN and SCAN metaGGA density functionals for solid materials via an automated, high-throughput computational workflow, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 013801 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    A. J. Cohen, P. Mori-S´ anchez, and W. Yang, Challenges for Density Functional Theory, Chemical Reviews 112, 289 (2012), pMID: 22191548

    2012

  11. [18]

    Mej ´ ıa-Rodr ´ ıguez and S

    D. Mej ´ ıa-Rodr ´ ıguez and S. B. Trickey, Analysis of over- magnetization of elemental transition metal solids from the SCAN density functional, Phys. Rev. B 100, 041113 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Fu and D

    Y. Fu and D. J. Singh, Density functional methods for the magnetism of transition metals: SCAN in relation to other functionals, Phys. Rev. B 100, 045126 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    H. Liu, X. Bai, J. Ning, Y. Hou, Z. Song, A. Ramasamy, R. Zhang, Y. Li, J. Sun, and B. Xiao, Assessing r2SCAN meta-GGA functional for structural parameters, cohe- sive energy, mechanical modulus, and thermophysical properties of 3d, 4d, and 5d transition metals, The Jour- 8 na...

    2024

  14. [21]

    Swathilakshmi, R

    S. Swathilakshmi, R. Devi, and G. Sai Gautam, Perfor- mance of the r2SCAN Functional in Transition Metal Oxides, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19, 4202 (2023), pMID: 37329316

    2023

  15. [23]

    J. P. Perdew and K. Schmidt, Jacob’s ladder of density functional approximations for the exchange-correlation energy, AIP Conference Proceedings 577, 1 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Alaei and A

    M. Alaei and A. R. Oganov, Optimizing Supercell Struc- tures for Heisenberg Exchange Interaction Calculations (2024), arXiv:2410.14356 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Rezaei, T

    N. Rezaei, T. Hashemifar, M. Alaei, F. Shahbazi, S. J. Hashemifar, and H. Akbarzadeh, Ab initio investiga- tion of magnetic ordering in the double perovskite Sr2NiWO6, Phys. Rev. B 99, 104411 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Alaei and H

    M. Alaei and H. Karimi, A deep investigation of NiO and MnO through the first principle calculations and Monte Carlo simulations, Electronic Structure5, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Rezaei, M

    N. Rezaei, M. Alaei, and H. Akbarzadeh, ESpinS: A program for classical Monte-Carlo simulations of spin systems, Computational Materials Science 202, 110947 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    G. R. Blake, T. T. M. Palstra, Y. Ren, A. A. Nugroho, and A. A. Menovsky, Neutron diffraction, x-ray diffrac- tion, and specific heat studies of orbital ordering in YVO3, Phys. Rev. B 65, 174112 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Kjekshus, P

    A. Kjekshus, P. G. Peterzens, T. Rakke, and A. F. Andresen, Compounds with the marcasite type crystal structure. XIII. Structural and magnetic properties of CrtFe1-tAs2, CrtFe1-tSb2, Fe1-tNitAs2, and Fe1-tNitSb2, Acta Chemica Scandinavica A 33, 469 (1979)

    1979

  23. [31]

    J. W. Tracy, N. Gregory, E. Lingafelter, J. Dunitz, H.-C. Mez, R. Rundle, C. Scheringer, H. Yakel, and M. Wilkinson, The crystal structure of chromium (II) chloride, Acta Crystallographica 14, 927 (1961)

    1961

  24. [32]

    R. W. G. Wyckoff, Crystal Structures, 2nd ed. (Inter- science Publishers, New York, 1963)

    1963

  25. [33]

    Refinement of the α Al2O3, Ti2O3, V2O3 and Cr2O3 structures*, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie 117, 235 (1962)

    1962

  26. [34]

    S. A. L´ opez-Paz, Z. Guguchia, V. Y. Pomjakushin, et al., Dynamic magnetic crossover at the origin of the hidden-order in van der Waals antiferromagnet CrSBr, Nature Communications 13, 4745 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Kunnmann, S

    W. Kunnmann, S. La Placa, L. Corliss, J. Hastings, and E. Banks, Magnetic structures of the ordered trirutiles Cr2WO6, Cr2TeO6 and Fe2TeO6, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 29, 1359 (1968)

    1968

  28. [36]

    J. Zhang, Room-temperature compressibilities of MnO and CdO: further examination of the role of cation type in bulk modulus systematics, Physics and Chemistry of Minerals 26, 644 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    J. K. Clark, V. Yannello, A. M. Samarakoon, C. Ross, M. C. Uible, V. O. Garlea, and M. Shatruk, Inelastic Neutron Scattering Study of Magnetic Exchange Path- ways in MnS, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C125, 16183 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Q. Peng, Y. Dong, Z. Deng, H. Kou, S. Gao, and Y. Li, Selective Synthesis and Magnetic Properties of α-MnSe and MnSe2 Uniform Microcrystals, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry B 106, 9261 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Grønvold, N

    F. Grønvold, N. J. Kveseth, F. D. S. Marques, and J. Tichy, Thermophysical properties of manganese monotelluride from 298 to 700 K. Lattice constants, magnetic susceptibility, and antiferromagnetic transi- tion, The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 4, 795 (1972)

    1972

  32. [40]

    Y. D. Kondrashev and A. Zaslavskii, The structure of the modifications of manganese (IV) oxide, Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriya Fizicheskaya 15, 179 (1951)

    1951

  33. [41]

    X. Li, J. Lu, G. Peng, L. Jin, and S. Wei, Solvothermal synthesis of MnF2 nanocrystals and the first-principle study of its electronic structure, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 70, 609 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    X-ray and neutron diffraction study of the crystal struc- ture of MnS2, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crys- talline Materials 199, 13 (1992)

    1992

  35. [43]

    Burlet, E

    P. Burlet, E. Ressouche, B. Malaman, R. Welter, J. P. Sanchez, and P. Vulliet, Noncollinear magnetic struc- ture of MnTe2, Phys. Rev. B 56, 14013 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Galakhov, M

    V. Galakhov, M. Korotin, N. Ovechkina, E. Kurmaev, V. Gorshkov, D. Kellerman, S. Bartkowski, and M. Neu- mann, Electronic structure of LiMnO: X-ray emission and photoelectron spectra and band structure calcula- tions, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Comp...

    2000

  37. [45]

    Daoud-Aladine, C

    A. Daoud-Aladine, C. Martin, L. C. Chapon, M. Hervieu, K. S. Knight, M. Brunelli, and P. G. Radaelli, Structural phase transition and magnetism in hexagonal SrMnO3 by magnetization measurements and by electron, x-ray, and neutron diffraction studies, Phys. Rev. B 75, 104417 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    K. S. Knight, D. D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, C. L. Bull, and P. McIntyre, Nuclear and magnetic struc- tures of KMnF3 perovskite in the temperature interval 10 K–105 K, Journal of Alloys and Compounds 842, 155935 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Ressouche, M

    E. Ressouche, M. Loire, V. Simonet, R. Ballou, A. Stu- nault, and A. Wildes, Magnetoelectric MnPS 3 as a can- didate for ferrotoroidicity, Phys. Rev. B 82, 100408 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Calder, A

    S. Calder, A. V. Haglund, A. I. Kolesnikov, and D. Man- drus, Magnetic exchange interactions in the van der Waals layered antiferromagnet MnPSe 3, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024414 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Lautenschl¨ ager, H

    G. Lautenschl¨ ager, H. Weitzel, T. Vogt, R. Hock, A. B¨ ohm, M. Bonnet, and H. Fuess, Magnetic phase transitions of MnWO 4 studied by the use of neutron diffraction, Phys. Rev. B 48, 6087 (1993)

    1993

  42. [50]

    Strobel and B

    P. Strobel and B. Lambert-Andron, Crystallographic and magnetic structure of Li2MnO3, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 75, 90 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    Geller and J

    S. Geller and J. L. Durand, Refinement of the structure of LiMnPO4, Acta Crystallographica 13, 325 (1960)

    1960

  44. [52]

    Pauling and S

    L. Pauling and S. B. Hendricks, THE CRYSTAL STRUCTURES OF HEMATITE AND CORUNDUM, Journal of the American Chemical Society 47, 781 (1925). 9

    1925

  45. [53]

    Tsujimoto, C

    Y. Tsujimoto, C. Tassel, N. Hayashi, T. Watanabe, H. Kageyama, K. Yoshimura, M. Takano, M. Ceretti, C. Ritter, and W. Paulus, Infinite-layer iron oxide with a square-planar coordination, Nature 450, 1062 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    S. M. Selbach, M.-A. Einarsrud, T. Tybell, and T. Grande, Synthesis of BiFeO3 by Wet Chemical Meth- ods, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 90, 3430 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Sangaletti, L

    L. Sangaletti, L. E. Depero, B. Allieri, P. Nunziante, and E. Traversa, An X-ray study of the trimetallic LaxSm1- xFeO3 orthoferrites, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 21, 719 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    du Boulay, E

    D. du Boulay, E. N. Maslen, V. A. Streltsov, and N. Ishizawa, A synchrotron X-ray study of the electron density in YFeO3, Acta Crystallographica Section B 51, 921 (1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    Lan¸ con, H

    D. Lan¸ con, H. C. Walker, E. Ressouche, B. Ouladdiaf, K. C. Rule, G. J. McIntyre, T. J. Hicks, H. M. Rønnow, and A. R. Wildes, Magnetic structure and magnon dy- namics of the quasi-two-dimensional antiferromagnet FePS3, Phys. Rev. B 94, 214407 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Guo, M.-T

    H. Guo, M.-T. Fern´ andez-D ´ ıaz, A. C. Komarek, S. Huh, P. Adler, and M. Valldor, Long-Range Antiferromag- netic Order on Spin Ladders SrFe2S2O and SrFe2Se2O As Probed by Neutron Diffraction and M¨ ossbauer Spec- troscopy, European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry 2017, 3829 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    WEITZEL, Kristallstrukturverfeinerung von Wol- framiten und Columbiten, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallogra- phie - Crystalline Materials 144, 238 (1976)

    H. WEITZEL, Kristallstrukturverfeinerung von Wol- framiten und Columbiten, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallogra- phie - Crystalline Materials 144, 238 (1976)

    1976

  52. [60]

    L. C. Bartel and B. Morosin, Exchange Striction in NiO, Phys. Rev. B 3, 1039 (1971)

    1971

  53. [61]

    M. M. R. Costa, J. A. Paix˜ ao, M. J. M. de Almeida, and L. C. R. Andrade, Charge densities of two rutile struc- tures: NiF 2 and CoF 2, Acta Crystallographica Section B 49, 591 (1993)

    1993

  54. [62]

    A. Adam, D. Billerey, C. Terrier, R. Mainard, L. Reg- nault, J. Rossat-Mignod, and P. M´ eriel, Neutron diffrac- tion study of the commensurate and incommensurate magnetic structures of NiBr2, Solid State Communica- tions 35, 1 (1980)

    1980

  55. [63]

    S. Yano, D. Louca, J. Yang, U. Chatterjee, D. E. Bugaris, D. Y. Chung, L. Peng, M. Grayson, and M. G. Kanatzidis, Magnetic structure of NiS 2−xSex, Phys. Rev. B 93, 024409 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    M. A. McGuire, Crystal and magnetic structures in lay- ered, transition metal dihalides and trihalides, Crystals 7, 10.3390/cryst7050121 (2017)

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    Brec, Review on structural and chemical properties of transition metal phosphorous trisulfides MPS3, Solid State Ionics 22, 3 (1986)

    R. Brec, Review on structural and chemical properties of transition metal phosphorous trisulfides MPS3, Solid State Ionics 22, 3 (1986)

    1986

  58. [66]

    R. Brec, G. Ouvrard, A. Louisy, and J. Rouxel, Pro- prietes structurales de phases M(II)PX3 (X = S, Se), Annales de Chimie (Paris) (Vol=Year) 5, 499 (1980)

    1980

  59. [67]

    Scatturin, L

    V. Scatturin, L. Corliss, N. Elliott, and J. Hastings, Magnetic structures of 3 d transition metal double fluo- rides, KMeF3, Acta Crystallographica 14, 19 (1961)

    1961

  60. [68]

    R. O. Keeling, The structure of NiWO4, Acta Crystal- lographica 10, 209 (1957)

    1957

  61. [69]

    Rodriguez-Carvajal, M

    J. Rodriguez-Carvajal, M. T. Fernandez-Diaz, and J. L. Martinez, Neutron diffraction study on structural and magnetic properties of La2NiO4, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 3, 3215 (1991)

    1991

  62. [70]

    and Legrand, E., Structure magn´ etique de K2NiF4, J

    Plumier, R. and Legrand, E., Structure magn´ etique de K2NiF4, J. Phys. Radium 23, 474 (1962)

    1962

  63. [71]

    Lujan, J.-P

    M. Lujan, J.-P. Rivera, S. Kizhaev, H. Schmid, G. Triscone, J. Muller, Z.-G. Ye, B. Mettout, and R. Bouzerar, Magnetic measurements and magnetoelec- tric effect of pyroelectric KNiPO4 single crystals, Fer- roelectrics 161, 77 (1994)

    1994

  64. [72]

    Abrahams and K

    I. Abrahams and K. S. Easson, Structure of lithium nickel phosphate, Acta Crystallographica Section C 49, 925 (1993)

    1993

  65. [73]

    J. B. Forsyth, P. J. Brown, and B. M. Wanklyn, Mag- netism in cupric oxide, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 21, 2917 (1988)

    1988

  66. [74]

    Fischer, W

    P. Fischer, W. H¨ alg, D. Schwarzenbach, and H. Gamsj¨ ager, Magnetic and crystal structure of copper(II) fluoride, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 35, 1683 (1974)

    1974

  67. [75]

    V. Blum, R. Gehrke, F. Hanke, P. Havu, V. Havu, X. Ren, K. Reuter, and M. Scheffler, Ab initio molec- ular simulations with numeric atom-centered orbitals, Computer Physics Communications 180, 2175 (2009)

    2009

  68. [76]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for additional data

  69. [77]

    Reehuis, C

    M. Reehuis, C. Ulrich, P. Pattison, B. Ouladdiaf, M. C. Rheinst¨ adter, M. Ohl, L. P. Regnault, M. Miyasaka, Y. Tokura, and B. Keimer, Neutron diffraction study of YVO3, NdVO 3, and TbVO 3, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094440 (2006)

    2006

  70. [78]

    Holseth, A

    H. Holseth, A. Kjekshus, A. F. Andresen, L. Sch¨ afer, and A. Shimizu, Compounds with the Marcasite Type Crystal Structure. VI. Neutron Diffraction Studies of CrSb2 and FeSb2., Acta Chemica Scandinavica24, 3309 (1970)

    1970

  71. [79]

    B. C. Sales, A. F. May, M. A. McGuire, M. B. Stone, D. J. Singh, and D. Mandrus, Transport, thermal, and magnetic properties of the narrow-gap semiconductor CrSb2, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235136 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    J. W. Stout and R. C. Chisholm, Heat Capacity and Entropy of CuCl2 and CrCl2 from 11 ° to 300 °K. Mag- netic Ordering in Linear Chain Crystals, The Journal of Chemical Physics 36, 979 (1962)

    1962

  73. [81]

    Winkelmann, M

    M. Winkelmann, M. Baehr, M. Reehuis, M. Steiner, M. Hagiwara, and K. Katsumata, Structural and mag- netic characterization of a new phase of CrCl2, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 58, 481 (1997)

    1997

  74. [82]

    J. W. Cable, M. K. Wilkinson, and E. O. Wollan, Neu- tron Diffraction Studies of Antiferromagnetism in CrF 2 and CrCl2, Phys. Rev. 118, 950 (1960)

    1960

  75. [83]

    Chatterji and T

    T. Chatterji and T. C. Hansen, Magnetoelastic effects in Jahn–Teller distorted CrF2 and CuF2 studied by neu- tron powder diffraction, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 23, 276007 (2011)

    2011

  76. [84]

    Samuelsen, M

    E. Samuelsen, M. Hutchings, and G. Shirane, Inelastic neutron scattering investigation of spin waves and mag- netic interactions in Cr2O3, Physica 48, 13 (1970)

    1970

  77. [85]

    B. N. Brockhouse, Antiferromagnetic Structure in Cr2O3, The Journal of Chemical Physics21, 961 (1953)

    1953

  78. [86]

    Fiebig, D

    M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, and H. J. Thiele, Determination of spin direction in the spin-flop phase of Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. B 54, R12681 (1996)

    1996

  79. [87]

    E. J. Telford, A. H. Dismukes, K. Lee, M. Cheng, A. Wieteska, A. K. Bartholomew, Y.-S. Chen, X. Xu, A. N. Pasupathy, X. Zhu, C. R. Dean, and X. Roy, Layered Antiferromagnetism Induces Large Negative 10 Magnetoresistance in the van der Waals Semiconductor CrSBr, Advanced Materi...

    2020

  80. [88]

    M. Zhu, M. Matsumoto, M. B. Stone, Z. L. Dun, H. D. Zhou, T. Hong, T. Zou, S. D. Mahanti, and X. Ke, Am- plitude modes in three-dimensional spin dimers away from quantum critical point, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033111 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    Kohgi, Y

    M. Kohgi, Y. Ishikawa, and Y. Endoh, Inelastic neu- tron scattering study of spin waves in MnO, Solid State Communications 11, 391 (1972)

    1972

  82. [90]

    M. J. Grzybowski, C. Autieri, J. Domagala, C. Kra- sucki, A. Kaleta, S. Kret, K. Gas, M. Sawicki, R. Bo˙ zek, J. Suffczy´ nski, and W. Pacuski, Wurtzite vs. rock-salt mnse epitaxy: electronic and altermagnetic properties, Nanoscale 16, 6259 (2024)

    2024

  83. [91]

    R. J. Pollard, V. H. McCann, and J. B. Ward, Magnetic structures of α-MnS and MnSe from 57Fe Mossbauer spectroscopy, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 16, 345 (1983)

    1983

  84. [92]

    Uchida, H

    E. Uchida, H. Kondoh, and N. Fukuoka, Magnetic and Electrical Properties of Manganese Telluride, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 11, 27 (1956)

    1956

  85. [93]

    Szuszkiewicz, E

    W. Szuszkiewicz, E. Dynowska, B. Witkowska, and B. Hennion, Spin-wave measurements on hexagonal MnTe of NiAs-type structure by inelastic neutron scat- tering, Phys. Rev. B 73, 104403 (2006)

    2006

  86. [94]

    Ohama and Y

    N. Ohama and Y. Hamaguchi, Determination of the Ex- change Integrals in β-MnO2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 30, 1311 (1971)

    1971

  87. [95]

    H. Sato, K. Wakiya, T. Enoki, T. Kiyama, Y. Wak- abayashi, H. Nakao, and Y. Murakami, Magnetic Struc- ture of β-MnO 2: X-ray Magnetic Scattering Study, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 70, 37 (2001)

    2001

  88. [96]

    Nordblad, L

    P. Nordblad, L. Lundgren, E. Figueroa, and O. Beck- man, Specific heat and magnetic susceptibility of MnF2 and Mn0.98Fe0.02F2 near TN, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 23, 333 (1981)

    1981

  89. [97]

    Akutsu and H

    N. Akutsu and H. Ikeda, Specific Heat Capacities of CoF2, MnF 2 and KMnF 3 near the N´ eel Temperatures, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 50, 2865 (1981)

    1981

  90. [98]

    Chattopadhyay, T

    T. Chattopadhyay, T. Br¨ uckel, and P. Burlet, Spin cor- relation in the frustrated antiferromagnet MnS 2 above the N´ eel temperature, Phys. Rev. B44, 7394 (1991)

    1991

  91. [99]

    Chattopadhyay, H

    T. Chattopadhyay, H. Schnering, and H. Graf, First or- der antiferromagnetic phase transition in MnS2, Solid State Communications 50, 865 (1984)

    1984

  92. [100]

    Westrum, Edgar F

    J. Westrum, Edgar F. and F. Gro/nvold, Manganese Disulfide (Hauerite) and Manganese Ditelluride. Ther- mal Properties from 5 to 350 °K and Antiferromagnetic Transitions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 52, 3820 (1970)

    1970

  93. [101]

    Pasternak, Magnetization near an iodine impurity in antiferromagnetic mnte2, Phys

    M. Pasternak, Magnetization near an iodine impurity in antiferromagnetic mnte2, Phys. Rev. 184, 523 (1969)

    1969

  94. [102]

    Greedan, N

    J. Greedan, N. Raju, and I. Davidson, Long Range and Short Range Magnetic Order in Orthorhombic LiMnO2, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 128, 209 (1997)

    1997

  95. [103]

    Kellerman, J

    D. Kellerman, J. Medvedeva, V. Gorshkov, A. Kur- bakov, V. Zubkov, A. Tyutyunnik, and V. Trunov, Structural and magnetic properties of orthorhombic LixMnO2, Solid State Sciences 9, 196 (2007)

    2007

  96. [104]

    Battle, T

    P. Battle, T. Gibb, and C. Jones, The structural and magnetic properties of SrMnO3: A reinvestigation, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 74, 60 (1988)

    1988

  97. [105]

    Okazaki and Y

    A. Okazaki and Y. Suemune, The Crystal Structures of KMnF3, KFeF3, KCoF3, KNiF3 and KCuF3 above and below their N´ eel Temperatures, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 16, 671 (1961)

    1961

  98. [106]

    Hirakawa, K

    K. Hirakawa, K. Hirakawa, and T. Hashimoto, Mag- netic Properties of Potassium Iron Group Fluorides KMF3, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 15, 2063 (1960)

    1960

  99. [107]

    Suemune and H

    Y. Suemune and H. Ikawa, Thermal Conductivity of KMnF3, KCoF3, KNiF3, and KZnF3 Single Crystals, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 19, 1686 (1964)

    1964

  100. [108]

    Ogawa, Antiferromagnetism in KMnF 3, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 14, 1115 (1959)

    S. Ogawa, Antiferromagnetism in KMnF 3, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 14, 1115 (1959)

    1959

  101. [109]

    Le Flem, R

    G. Le Flem, R. Brec, G. Ouvard, A. Louisy, and P. Seg- ransan, Magnetic interactions in the layer compounds MPX3 (M = Mn, Fe, Ni; X = S, Se), Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 43, 455 (1982)

    1982

  102. [110]

    P. A. Joy and S. Vasudevan, Magnetism in the layered transition-metal thiophosphates MPS3 (M=Mn, Fe, and Ni), Phys. Rev. B 46, 5425 (1992)

    1992

  103. [111]

    Wiedenmann, J

    A. Wiedenmann, J. Rossat-Mignod, A. Louisy, R. Brec, and J. Rouxel, Neutron diffraction study of the layered compounds MnPSe3 and FePSe3, Solid State Commu- nications 40, 1067 (1981)

    1981

  104. [112]

    J. M. Mays, Nuclear Magnetic Resonances and Mn- O-P-O-Mn Superexchange Linkages in Paramagnetic and Antiferromagnetic LiMnPO 4, Phys. Rev. 131, 38 (1963)

    1963

  105. [113]

    Gnewuch and E

    S. Gnewuch and E. E. Rodriguez, Distinguishing the In- trinsic Antiferromagnetism in Polycrystalline LiCoPO 4 and LiMnPO 4 Olivines, Inorganic Chemistry 59, 5883 (2020), epub 2020 Apr 22

    2020

  106. [114]

    Arˇ con, A

    D. Arˇ con, A. Zorko, R. Dominko, and Z. Jagliˇ ciˇ c, A comparative study of magnetic properties of LiFePO4 and LiMnPO4, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 16, 5531 (2004)

    2004

  107. [115]

    J. Li, W. Tian, Y. Chen, J. L. Zarestky, J. W. Lynn, and D. Vaknin, Antiferromagnetism in the magnetoelectric effect single crystal LiMnPO4, Phys. Rev. B 79, 144410 (2009)

    2009

  108. [116]

    Gilad, M

    P. Gilad, M. Greenshpan, P. Hillman, and H. Shechter, On the curie temperature of α-fe2o3, Physics Letters 7, 239 (1963)

    1963

  109. [117]

    Oravova, Z

    L. Oravova, Z. Zhang, N. Church, R. J. Harrison, C. J. Howard, and M. A. Carpenter, Elastic and anelastic relaxations accompanying magnetic ordering and spin- flop transitions in hematite, Fe2O3, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 116006 (2013)

    2013

  110. [118]

    F. J. Morin, Magnetic Susceptibility of αFe2O3 and αFe2O3 with Added Titanium, Phys. Rev. 78, 819 (1950)

    1950

  111. [119]

    Neˇ skovi´ c, N. B. and Babi´ c, B. and Konstantinovi´ c, J., High temperature anomalous behaviour of the crystal lattice of hematite, physica status solidi (a) 41, K133 (1977)

    1977

  112. [120]

    Bia lek, J

    M. Bia lek, J. Zhang, H. Yu, and J.-P. Ansermet, Anti- ferromagnetic resonance in α-Fe2O3 up to its N´ eel tem- perature, Applied Physics Letters 121, 032401 (2022)

    2022

  113. [121]

    Sosnowska, T

    I. Sosnowska, T. P. Neumaier, and E. Steichele, Spiral magnetic ordering in bismuth ferrite, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 15, 4835 (1982)

    1982

  114. [122]

    Fischer, M

    P. Fischer, M. Polomska, I. Sosnowska, and M. Szyman- ski, Temperature dependence of the crystal and mag- 11 netic structures of BiFeO3, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, 1931 (1980)

    1980

  115. [123]

    Koehler and E

    W. Koehler and E. Wollan, Neutron-diffraction study of the magnetic properties of perovskite-like compounds LaBO3, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 2, 100 (1957)

    1957

  116. [124]

    K. Park, H. Sim, J. C. Leiner, Y. Yoshida, J. Jeong, S. ichiro Yano, J. Gardner, P. Bourges, M. Klicpera, V. Sechovsk´ y, M. Boehm, and J.-G. Park, Low-energy spin dynamics of orthoferrites AFeO3 (A=Y, La, Bi), Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 235802 (2018)

    2018

  117. [125]

    H. Shen, J. Xu, A. Wu, J. Zhao, and M. Shi, Mag- netic and thermal properties of perovskite YFeO3 single crystals, Materials Science and Engineering: B 157, 77 (2009)

    2009

  118. [126]

    K. C. Rule, G. J. McIntyre, S. J. Kennedy, and T. J. Hicks, Single-crystal and powder neutron diffraction ex- periments on FePS3: Search for the magnetic structure, Phys. Rev. B 76, 134402 (2007)

    2007

  119. [127]

    J. T. Dehn, R. E. Newnham, and L. N. Mulay, Mixed Magnetic Ordering: Magnetic Susceptibility and M¨ ossbauer Studies on Iron(III) Tellurate (Fe2TeO6), The Journal of Chemical Physics 49, 3201 (1968)

    1968

  120. [128]

    Yamaguchi and M

    M. Yamaguchi and M. Ishikawa, Magnetic Phase Tran- sitions in Inverse Trirutile-Type Compounds, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 63, 1666 (1994)

    1994

  121. [129]

    Buksphan, E

    S. Buksphan, E. Fischer, and R. Hornreich, Magneto- electric and M¨ ossbauer studies of Fe2TeO6, Solid State Communications 10, 657 (1972)

    1972

  122. [130]

    S. Huh, Y. Prots, P. Adler, L. H. Tjeng, and M. Vall- dor, Synthesis and Characterization of Frustrated Spin Ladders SrFe2S2O and SrFe2Se2O, European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry 2015, 2982 (2015)

    2015

  123. [131]

    J. Deng, L. Chang, P. Wang, E. Zhang, J. Ma, and T. Wang, Preparation and magnetic properties of CoWO4 nanocrystals, Crystal Research and Technology 47, 1004 (2012)

    2012

  124. [132]

    J. R. Tomlinson, L. Domash, R. G. Hay, and C. W. Montgomery, The High Temperature Heat Content of Nickel Oxide, Journal of the American Chemical Society 77, 909 (1955)

    1955

  125. [133]

    A. H. Cooke, K. A. Gehring, and R. Lazenby, The mag- netic properties of NiF2, Proceedings of the Physical Society 85, 967 (1965)

    1965

  126. [134]

    P. A. Fleury, Paramagnetic spin waves and correlation functions in nif 2, Phys. Rev. 180, 591 (1969)

    1969

  127. [135]

    P. Day, A. Dinsdale, E. R. Krausz, and D. J. Robbins, Optical and neutron diffraction study of the magnetic phase diagram of NiBr2, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 9, 2481 (1976)

    1976

  128. [136]

    R. H. Busey and W. F. Giauque, The Heat Capacity of Anhydrous NiCl2 from 15 to 300 °K. The Antiferro- magnetic Anomaly near 52 °K. Entropy and Free En- ergy1, Journal of the American Chemical Society 74, 4443 (1952)

    1952

  129. [137]

    P. A. Lindgard, R. J. Birgeneau, H. J. Guggenheim, and J. Als-Nielsen, Spin-wave dispersion and sublattice mag- netization in NiCl2, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 8, 1059 (1975)

    1975

  130. [138]

    M. A. Prosnikov, V. Y. Davydov, A. N. Smirnov, M. P. Volkov, R. V. Pisarev, P. Becker, and L. Bohat´ y, Lattice and spin dynamics in a low-symmetry antiferromagnet NiWO4, Phys. Rev. B 96, 014428 (2017)

    2017

  131. [139]

    Nakajima, K

    K. Nakajima, K. Yamada, S. Hosoya, T. Omata, and Y. Endoh, Spin-Wave Excitations in Two Dimensional Antiferromagnet of Stoichiometric La2NiO4, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 62, 4438 (1993)

    1993

  132. [140]

    R. J. Birgeneau, J. Skalyo, J., and G. Shirane, Phase Transitions and Magnetic Correlations in Two- Dimensional Antiferromagnets, Journal of Applied Physics 41, 1303 (1970)

    1970

  133. [141]

    M. B. Salamon and H. Ikeda, Specific Heat of Two- Dimensional Heisenberg Antiferromagnets: K 2MnF4 and K2NiF4, Phys. Rev. B 7, 2017 (1973)

    1973

  134. [142]

    Legrand and R

    E. Legrand and R. Plumier, Neutron diffraction investi- gation of antiferromagnetic K2NiF4, physica status so- lidi (b) 2, 317 (1962)

    1962

  135. [143]

    Pages, J.-R

    A. Pages, J.-R. Soh, M. J. Fesharaki, H. M. Ron- now, and H. Ahmadvand, Revisiting the magnetic and crystal structure of multiferroic KNiPO 4 (2022), arXiv:2207.06969

    2022 arXiv

  136. [144]

    Y. N. Kharchenko, N. F. Kharcheno, M. Baran, and R. Szymczak, Weak ferromagnetism and an interme- diate incommensurate antiferromagnetic phase in LiN- iPO4, Low Temperature Physics 29, 579 (2003)

    2003

  137. [145]

    Vaknin, J

    D. Vaknin, J. L. Zarestky, J.-P. Rivera, and H. Schmid, Commensurate-Incommensurate Magnetic Phase Tran- sition in Magnetoelectric Single Crystal LiNiPO4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 207201 (2004)

    2004

  138. [146]

    Hu and H

    J.-H. Hu and H. L. Johnston, Low Temperature Heat Capacities of Inorganic Solids. XVI. Heat Capacity of Cupric Oxide from 15 to 300 °K.1, Journal of the Amer- ican Chemical Society 75, 2471 (1953)

    1953

  139. [147]

    B. X. Yang, J. M. Tranquada, and G. Shirane, Neutron scattering studies of the magnetic structure of cupric oxide, Phys. Rev. B 38, 174 (1988)

    1988

  140. [148]

    R. J. Joenk and R. M. Bozorth, Magnetic properties of cuf2, Journal of Applied Physics 36, 1167 (1965). 12 Supplemental Material for: Evaluating SCAN and r2SCAN meta-GGA functionals for predicting transition temperatures in antiferromagnetic materials Nafise Rezaei1, Mojtaba A...

    1965

Pith tools

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