Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Spin dynamics in the Dirac $U(1)$ spin liquid YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read YbZn2GaO5's low-temperature spin dynamics match a gapless U(1) Dirac quantum spin liquid.

desk verdict The muon data robustly establish a dynamic non-magnetic ground state in YbZn2GaO5; the U1A01 Dirac QSL assignment is a plausible but not uniquely forced interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00130 v1 pith:34H4KKUZ submitted 2025-01-31 cond-mat.str-el

Hank C. H. Wu , Francis L. Pratt , Benjamin M. Huddart , Dipranjan Chatterjee , Paul A. Goddard , John Singleton , D. Prabhakaran , Stephen J. Blundell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumspinliquidU(1)DiracmuonrotationtriangularlatticemagnetYbZn2GaO5dynamicsentanglementwitnessfrustratedmagnetism
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 sets out to establish that the triangular-lattice magnet YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$ has a quantum spin liquid ground state, and more specifically that its low-temperature spin dynamics match a gapless U(1) Dirac spin liquid of the U1A01 type. Zero-field $\mu$SR measurements show no static magnetic order down to 48 mK, and longitudinal-field scans at eight temperatures are decomposed into a two-dimensional diffusive spectral density, a local fluctuation term, a background, and a level-crossing resonance. The extracted spin-diffusion rate follows $D_{2D}\propto T^{0.08(3)}$ in the low-temperature regime, which the authors interpret as the dynamical fingerprint of linearly dispersing spinon excitations. A sympathetic reader would care because this compound, unlike its better-known siblings, is free of chemical site disorder, so the fractionalized-spin-liquid interpretation is not an artifact of random Mg/Ga occupancy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-dimensional diffusive spectral density $J_{2D}(\omega)$ entering Eq. (2), which relates the measured muon relaxation rate to a spin-diffusion constant $D_{2D}$. The longitudinal-field dependence is fit as the sum of this 2D term, a 0D localized fluctuation term, a constant background, and a Gaussian level-crossing resonance, with only $D_{2D}$, $\nu$ and $f$ varying with temperature. The temperature dependence of $D_{2D}$ is the load-bearing quantity: its crossover at $T\sim J$ separates classical from quantum regimes, and its weak power law $\propto T^{0.08(3)}$ is read as the signature of the linear spinon dispersion of a U(1) Dirac spin liquid, classified as U1A01 in the projective symmetry group scheme, denoting a gapless state with zero flux per triangular plaquette and Dirac-cone spinon excitations.

What would settle it

Measure the zero-field muon asymmetry at temperatures below 48 mK on a high-quality crystal: resolved oscillations or a persistent 1/3 tail would show static magnetic order and falsify the dynamic spin-liquid picture. Independently, compute or measure whether the same $J_{2D}$ field dependence and weak power-law exponent are reproduced by a classical disordered triangular magnet; a match would remove the Dirac-spin-liquid specificity of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the longitudinal-field muon relaxation rate $\lambda(B_{\rm LF})$ in YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$ is well described by a four-term model, and the dominant low-field term follows a two-dimensional diffusive spectral density $J_{2D}$ whose spin-diffusion constant falls steeply on cooling and then flattens into $D_{2D}\propto T^{0.08(3)}$ below about $J$. This weak power law is the predicted dynamic signature of a U(1) Dirac spin liquid with a linear spinon dispersion, and the authors identify the state as U1A01 in the projective symmetry group classification. The same fits yield an entanglement length and a Quantum Fisher Information that grow strongly below $T\sim J$, supporting a crossover from classical fluctuations to a quantum entangled regime. The magnetization saturating near 15 T with a corrected moment of $2.1(1)\,\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ and the absence of order down to 48 mK are consistent with this gapless, dynamic picture.

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion rests on the assumption that the mathematical model used to fit the muon data, a two-dimensional diffusive spectral density carried over from the earlier YbZnGaO$_4$ study, is unique to a U(1) Dirac spin liquid; if the same model or the same weak power law $T^{0.08(3)}$ can arise from an ordinary or disordered magnet, the quantum spin liquid identification loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the assignment is correct, YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$ becomes a clean, disorder-free platform for studying U(1) Dirac spinon physics on a triangular lattice, in contrast to the sister compounds where mixed-site disorder can mimic quantum spin liquid signals.
  • The scaling $D_{2D}\propto T^{0.08(3)}$ gains status as a dynamical fingerprint for linear spinon dispersions, so future $\mu$SR experiments on other candidate materials can test whether the same weak power law appears.
  • The growth of entanglement length and Quantum Fisher Information below $T\sim J$ shows that longitudinal-field muon data can act as an entanglement witness in frustrated magnets.
  • The 2.7 T level-crossing resonance, present at high temperature and suppressed in the quantum regime, provides a pair-excitation probe whose disappearance marks the crossover into entangled spin-liquid behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the weak power-law scaling is genuine, nuclear magnetic resonance spin-lattice relaxation on the same crystals should show a correspondingly weak temperature dependence in the quantum regime, providing an independent check of the scenario.
  • Applying the same four-component decomposition to other clean triangular-lattice Yb materials could reveal whether $D_{2D}\propto T^{0.08(3)}$ is a generic Dirac spin liquid signature or a compound-specific fit.
  • A decisive extension would be momentum-resolved inelastic neutron scattering under applied field, since the U1A01 theory predicts a gapless spinon continuum whose field evolution differs from that of a gapped or $\pi$-flux state.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports zero-field and longitudinal-field muon spin rotation measurements on the triangular-lattice material YbZn2GaO5 down to 48 mK, together with pulsed-field magnetization at 0.5 K and DFT-based muon-site calculations. The zero-field data show exponential relaxation with no oscillations or missing asymmetry, establishing a dynamic non-magnetic ground state. Longitudinal-field relaxation data at eight temperatures are fit to a four-component model consisting of a 2D diffusive term, a 0D localized fluctuation term, a background, and a level-crossing resonance; the 2D diffusion rate D2D shows a crossover near J≈3.16 K and a weak power-law T^0.08(3) at low T, which the authors interpret as consistent with a gapless U(1) Dirac QSL of the U1A01 type. The paper also reports a 2.7 T level-crossing resonance, which it attributes to a muon-Yb-dimer singlet-triplet crossing, and derives entanglement length and Quantum Fisher Information from the fitted spectral density.

Significance. If the central identification were established, the paper would provide a showcase of a chemically ordered triangular-lattice material showing persistent spin dynamics down to milliKelvin temperatures, with a specific gapless U(1) Dirac QSL assignment and a constrained projective symmetry group. The paper's strongest asset is the raw muSR evidence: the base-temperature zero-field data show no static order, and the dynamic relaxation is present without invoking the global fit. The DFT muon-site assignment and the pulsed-field saturation moment are useful and appear carefully done. However, as the paper itself frames the QSL classification as 'consistent with', the specific U1A01 assignment is not uniquely determined: its decisive link, the exponent n_D of D2D(T) read from a generic 2D diffusive spectral density, is neither derived from the U1A01 parton theory nor compared with competing states. The stress-test concern that Eq. (2) is generic and that n_D is weakly constrained lands; the central claim is therefore plausible but currently under-supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2), Fig. 4(a), Table II] The identification of YbZn2GaO5 as a U1A01 Dirac QSL rests on interpreting the nearly flat low-temperature power law D2D ∝ T^{0.08(3)} as the fingerprint of a linear spinon dispersion, but the manuscript never derives J2D or D2D(T) from the U1A01 parton theory. The spectral density in Eq. (2) is imported from Ref. [26] as a generic two-dimensional diffusive form, and no calculation is shown that a Dirac spinon spectrum in the U1A01 ansatz produces n_D = 0.08(3), nor that alternatives such as U1A11, a gapless Z2 state, or a disorder-broadened paramagnet lead to measurably different exponents. Without this, the consistency argument cannot distinguish the claimed state from other dynamic spin-liquid or glassy scenarios. Please provide the missing calculation or visibly soften the classification claim.
  2. [Fig. 4(a) and global fit (Eq. 1-4)] The low-temperature regime T<J is covered by only four field scans (0.05, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.6 K), and D2D changes by only about 30% over this range. With the global fit containing ten or more parameters (A, D, λBG, m, B0, Bwid and temperature-dependent D2D, ν, f), the reported n_D = 0.08(3) is weakly constrained, and the systematic uncertainties of the global fit are not propagated into n_D. Please add robustness tests, such as varying the 0D exponent m within its error, excluding individual temperatures, and using alternative forms for J2D, and report how n_D changes. If the exponent is not robust, the statement that the data are consistent with a Dirac dispersion should be withdrawn or replaced by an upper bound on the low-temperature variation of D2D.
  3. [End Matter, 'Level-crossing resonance', Fig. 7] The 2.7 T level-crossing resonance is explained post hoc by the singlet-triplet gap of a Yb pair using J=3.16 K and g∥=3.436 from the literature. This is an interesting observation, but it is not evidence for a QSL: it uses a pair picture whose relation to the proposed U(1) Dirac spin liquid is not explained. If the resonance is a property of the high-temperature paramagnetic regime, then its presence or absence below T∼J should not be used in the QSL classification without clarifying how it arises in the parton description. Please either provide a microscopic account of the level-crossing resonance within the proposed spin-liquid framework or explicitly remove it from the QSL evidence.
  4. [Fig. 4(b,c) and End Matter, 'Quantum Fisher information'] The entanglement length ξE and the Quantum Fisher Information FQ are computed from the fitted 2D spectral density J2D, not from an independent measurement. They therefore inherit all assumptions of Eq. (2) and of the global fit, and they cannot be used as independent confirmation of the QSL state. The text should state this model dependence explicitly and avoid presenting the large FQ as a direct experimental entanglement witness without the caveat that the witness is evaluated on the best-fit spectral function.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Final paragraph before Acknowledgments] The word 'low-freqency' should be 'low-frequency'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The shading that distinguishes the four spectral contributions is not legible in a monochrome version of the figure; please use distinct line styles or labels for the 2D, 0D, background, and LCR components.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Table I] The fitted exponent m=7(1) for the 0D spectral density is unusually large, and no physical motivation is given; a brief comment on what such a sharp cutoff implies for the local field distribution would help the reader.
  4. [Abstract and main text] The abstract says the relaxation is consistent with a single dominant muon site, whereas the DFT calculations in Table III find four sites; the text later argues that site A dominates, but a quantitative statement on the expected occupancy of sites B-D would make the assignment more transparent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Dynamic-ground-state evidence is direct and independent; the U1A01 classification leg rests on a 2D-diffusive spectral-density ansatz and an entanglement-witness procedure imported from the authors' own Ref. [26], with the fitted D2D exponent read—not derived—as the Dirac signature.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Eq. (2) and following paragraph ("Detailed LF scans were made at eight temperatures")]
    "λ2D(BLF) = A2/4 J2D(D2D, ωe), (2) ... J2D is the spectral density associated with two-dimensional (2D) diffusive spin fluctuations [26]"

    Ref. [26] (Pratt, Lang, Steinhardt, Haravifard, Blundell) shares two of the present authors and is the sole source of the J2D spectral-density ansatz that produces the load-bearing fitted quantity D2D ∝ T^{0.08(3)}. No derivation of J2D from the U1A01 parton Hamiltonian is given, and no calculation shows competing states (U1A11, spin glass, disorder-broadened paramagnet) to predict a different exponent. The paper then stamps the fitted exponent as the Dirac fingerprint ("This theory has a linear (Dirac) dispersion, consistent with our measured small spin-diffusion power law"). The μSR leg of the U1A01 classification therefore reduces to a self-cited phenomenological ansatz plus an asserted mapping, not to an independent theory prediction.

  2. other [Paragraph after Fig. 4 ("Following the procedure used in Ref. [26]...") and End Matter, "Quantum Fisher information"]
    "Following the procedure used in Ref. [26], we derived the T-dependent quantum entanglement length ξE [Fig. 4(b)], which demonstrates that the spins become significantly entangled as D2D falls at low temperature ... FQ = 4/π ∫₀^∞ tanh²(ℏω/2kBT) J2D(ω) dω."

    By the End Matter definition, FQ (and ξE, via the Ref. [26] procedure) is a functional of the fitted spectral density J2D whose only T-dependent parameter is the fitted D2D. The claimed "substantial increase in multipartite entanglement" is therefore, by construction, a re-expression of the fitted 2D diffusion parameter falling on cooling, presented as a demonstrated physical finding. It is not a measurement independent of the fit, and it inherits the self-cited J2D ansatz from step 1, so it cannot independently corroborate the QSL classification.

full rationale

The core empirical finding is genuinely independent: zero-field μSR at 48 mK shows a single exponential decay with no oscillations (Fig. 2a), directly indicating a dynamic, non-ordered ground state, and the high-field level-crossing "prediction" of 2.73 T is not circular because it uses J = 3.16 K and g∥ = 3.436 from the independent Ref. [27], matching the fitted B0 = 2.7(1) T. The U1A01 assignment also draws on external support: the INS continuum and quadratic heat-capacity power law from Ref. [27] and the PSG classification of Ref. [42] with Dirac-spinon theory of Ref. [28], none authored by the present group. What is not independent is the μSR leg of the classification: the 2D-diffusive spectral density J2D (Eq. 2) and the entanglement-length/Quantum-Fisher procedure are imported from the authors' own Ref. [26], and the fitted exponent n_D = 0.08(3) is asserted to be consistent with a linear Dirac dispersion without any U1A01 calculation shown to yield that value. The weakness of this link (four low-T field scans, only ~30% change in D2D, unpropagated systematic errors, no competing-state calculation) is a correctness risk rather than a demonstrated reduction, so a high circularity score is not warranted. Because the classification leg substantially rests on a self-cited ansatz while the central claim retains independent experimental content, score 4 (some self-citation; central claim still has independent content) is the proportionate verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims depend on a multi-parameter phenomenological fit, an imported spectral-density model, and theoretical QSL classifications. The free parameters are mostly fit constants; the key axioms connect the fitted quantities to the U1A01 Dirac spin liquid and to entanglement witnesses.

free parameters (10)
  • Hyperfine coupling A (2D term) = 63(2) MHz
    Global fit parameter in Eq. (2); controls the amplitude of the 2D diffusive relaxation contribution.
  • Dipolar coupling D (0D term) = 18.4(5) MHz
    Global fit parameter in Eq. (3); controls the localized fluctuation contribution and is compared to the DFT dipolar estimate for Yb2.
  • Background relaxation rate lambda_BG = 0.067(3) us^-1
    Constant term in Eq. (1); assigned to the nearest Yb1a/1b ions.
  • Exponent m (0D spectral density) = 7(1)
    Global fit exponent in Eq. (3); describes the sharp field cutoff of the localized contribution.
  • LCR center B0 = 2.7(1) T
    Center of the Gaussian term in Eq. (4); captures the high-field resonance.
  • LCR width Bwid = 1.3(1) T
    Width of the Gaussian term in Eq. (4).
  • D2D(T) diffusion rate = T-dependent (Fig. 4a)
    Fitted at each temperature; its crossover and power-law exponent n_D=0.08(3) are the main evidence for the quantum regime and Dirac dispersion.
  • nu(T) localized fluctuation rate = T-dependent (Fig. 4a)
    Fitted at each temperature; part of the 0D contribution.
  • f(T) LCR amplitude = T-dependent (Fig. 4b)
    Fitted at each temperature; shows suppression of the resonance in the entangled low-T state.
  • Activation parameters for lambda(T) at high T = EA=25(2) meV
    Fit to lambda^-1 = nu0 + nu1 exp(-EA/kBT); EA is compared to calculated crystal-field levels.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Yb3+ ground-state Kramers doublet behaves as an effective spin-1/2 triangular lattice.
    Invoked in the Introduction and throughout; standard for Yb3+ in a crystal field, and supported by Ref. [27].
  • domain assumption Only the lowest-energy muon site A is populated.
    Stated after Table IV; DFT+mu gives four candidate sites but the data are explained assuming only site A.
  • domain assumption The spectral density J2D for 2D diffusive spin fluctuations (Eq. 2) from Ref. [26] applies to YbZn2GaO5.
    Used to fit the LF field dependence and to derive D2D, xi_E, and F_Q.
  • domain assumption The U1A01 Dirac QSL classification of Ref. [42] has a linear spinon dispersion and describes the observed low-T power law.
    Invoked in the penultimate paragraph; the consistency argument relies on this theoretical mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2.7 T resonance is a level crossing between the muon Larmor splitting and the singlet-triplet gap of a Yb pair with J=3.16 K and g_parallel=3.436.
    End Matter; the model is constructed after observing the resonance, using parameters from susceptibility measurements.
  • standard math The fluctuation-dissipation theorem connects the measured spectral density to the Quantum Fisher Information and entanglement length.
    End Matter; standard result from Refs. [32,48,49].
invented entities (1)
  • Muon level-crossing resonance from a Yb dimer singlet-triplet gap
    purpose: To explain the 2.7 T feature appearing in the high-temperature longitudinal-field relaxation scans.
    The model is proposed after the feature was observed; the predicted field 2.73 T uses independent J and g values but is checked against the fitted B0, so it is a consistency check rather than a new falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin dynamics in the Dirac $U(1)$ spin liquid YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34H4KKUZ

@misc{pith2026250200130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin dynamics in the Dirac $U(1)$ spin liquid YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34H4KKUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00130}
}
abstract

YbZn$_2$GaO$_5$ is a promising candidate for realizing a quantum spin liquid (QSL) state, particularly owing to its lack of significant site disorder. Pulsed-field magnetometry at 0.5 K shows magnetization saturating near 15 T, with a corrected saturation moment of 2.1(1) $\mu_\mathrm{B}$ after subtracting the van Vleck contribution. Our zero-field $\mu$SR measurements down to milliKelvin temperatures provide evidence for a dynamic ground state and the absence of magnetic order. To probe fluctuations in the local magnetic field at the muon site, we performed longitudinal field $\mu$SR experiments. These results provide evidence for spin dynamics with a field dependence that is consistent with a U1A01 Dirac QSL as a plausible description of the ground state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), with the well separated triangular layers illus￾trated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can experimentally-accessible measures of entanglement distinguish quantum spin liquids from disorder-driven "random singlet" phases ?

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum Fisher information grows as a power law with decreasing temperature in a quantum spin liquid but saturates exponentially in a random singlet phase, providing a measurable distinction.

  2. Magnetic ground state and persistent spin fluctuations in triangular-lattice antiferromagnet NdZnAl$_{11}$O$_{19}$

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NdZnAl11O19 shows a well-separated effective spin-1/2 doublet with moderate Ising anisotropy and persistent spin fluctuations down to 0.28 K, with no ordering to 50 mK, making it a candidate quantum spin liquid.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [26]

    F. L. Pratt, F. Lang, W. Steinhardt, S. Haravifard, and S. J. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B 106, L060401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Lacroix, P

    C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila, eds., Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism(Springer, Berlin, 2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [2]

    O. A. Starykh, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 052502 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Wen, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  5. [4]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  7. [6]

    Savary and L

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

    2016

  8. [7]

    Lancaster, Contemp

    T. Lancaster, Contemp. Phys. 64, 127 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Kitaev, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. 321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Trebst and C

    S. Trebst and C. Hickey, Phys. Rep. 950, 1 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Moessner and S

    R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Depenbrock, I

    S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 067201 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Y. Ran, M. Hermele, P. A. Lee, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 117205 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Iqbal, F

    Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B 87, 060405 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. B 63, 014413 (2000)

    2000

  8. [15]

    Z. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 207203 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Zheng, Y

    G. Zheng, Y. Zhu, K.-W. Chen, B. Kang, D. Zhang, K. Jenkins, A. Chan, Z. Zeng, A. Xu, O. A. Valen- zuela, J. Blawat, J. Singleton, P. A. Lee, S. Li, and L. Li, (2024), arXiv:2310.07989 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Zheng, D

    G. Zheng, D. Zhang, Y. Zhu, K.-W. Chen, A. Chan, K. Jenkins, B. Kang, Z. Zeng, A. Xu, D. Ratkovski, J. Blawat, A. Bangura, J. Singleton, P. A. Lee, S. Li, and L. Li, (2024), arXiv:2409.05600 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024

  11. [18]

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

    2016

  12. [19]

    W. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Ji, Y. Liu, J. Li, X. Wang, H. Lei, G. Chen, and Q. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 35, 117501 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. J. Cava, S. A. Kivelson, D. G. Nocera, M. R. Norman, and T. Senthil, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Clark and A

    L. Clark and A. H. Abdeldaim, Ann. Rev. Mater. Res. 51, 495 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Y. Li, G. Chen, W. Tong, L. Pi, J. Liu, Z. Yang, X. Wang, and Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 167203 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    Y. Li, D. Adroja, P. K. Biswas, P. J. Baker, Q. Zhang, J. Liu, A. A. Tsirlin, P. Gegenwart, and Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 097201 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    Z. Zhu, P. A. Maksimov, S. R. White, and A. L. Cherny- shev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 157201 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    J. A. M. Paddison, M. Daum, Z. Dun, G. Ehlers, Y. Liu, M. B. Stone, H. Zhou, and M. Mourigal, Nat. Phys. 13, 117 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    R. Bag, S. Xu, N. E. Sherman, L. Yadav, A. I. Kolesnikov, A. A. Podlesnyak, E. S. Choi, I. da Silva, J. E. Moore, and S. Haravifard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 266703 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B 107, 165146 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    F. L. Pratt, F. Lang, S. J. Blundell, W. Steinhardt, S. Haravifard, S. Ma˜ nas-Valero, E. Coronado, B. M. Hud- dart, and T. Lancaster, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.2462, 012038 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    S. J. Blundell, R. De Renzi, T. Lancaster, and F. L. Pratt, eds., Muon Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    F. L. Pratt, Physica B 289-290, 710 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. 12, 778 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Scheie, P

    A. Scheie, P. Laurell, A. M. Samarakoon, B. Lake, S. E. Nagler, G. E. Granroth, S. Okamoto, G. Alvarez, and D. A. Tennant, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224434 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, C. J. Mukherjee, M. M. Koza, M. Enderle, Z. Tylczynski, S. Okamoto, R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, and G. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 037201 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    J. S. M¨ oller, D. Ceresoli, T. Lancaster, N. Marzari, and S. J. Blundell, Phys. Rev. B 87, 121108 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Bernardini, P

    F. Bernardini, P. Bonf` a, S. Massidda, and R. De Renzi, Phys. Rev. B 87, 115148 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    S. J. Blundell and T. Lancaster, Appl. Phys. Rev. 10, 021316 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    S. J. Clark, M. D. Segall, C. J. Pickard, P. J. Hasnip, M. I. J. Probert, K. Refson, and M. C. Payne, Z. Kristal- logr. Cryst. Mater 220, 567 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    R. S. Hayano, Y. J. Uemura, J. Imazato, N. Nishida, T. Yamazaki, and R. Kubo, Phys. Rev. B 20, 850 (1979)

    1979

  32. [40]

    Wen, Phys

    X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165113 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Y.-D. Li, X. Wang, and G. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 94, 6 035107 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Li, Y.-M

    Y.-D. Li, Y.-M. Lu, and G. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054445 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    Huddart, A

    B. Huddart, A. Hern´ andez-Meli´ an, T. Hicken, M. Gomilˇ sek, Z. Hawkhead, S. Clark, F. Pratt, and T. Lancaster, Comput. Phys. Commun. 280, 108488 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Scheie, J

    A. Scheie, J. Appl. Cryst. 54, 356 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    F. R. Foronda, F. Lang, J. S. M¨ oller, T. Lancaster, A. T. Boothroyd, F. L. Pratt, S. R. Giblin, D. Prabhakaran, and S. J. Blundell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 017602 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´ e, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    T´ oth, Phys

    G. T´ oth, Phys. Rev. A85, 022322 (2012). END MA TTER A 1a 1b2 3 12a 2b 3b 3a 4a 4b B C 2a 2b 1 (a) (b) (c) FIG. 5. Local geometry around the muon site for (a) site A, (b) site B, and (c) site C. Nearby Yb 3+ ions are labelled according to the scheme in Table IV. E (meV) 0 20 ...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.