Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Microscopic Origin of Reduced Magnetic Order in a Frustrated Metal

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that HoInCu$_4$, a frustrated metal, is quantitatively described by a spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic $J_1\approx0.65$ K and $J_2\approx0.30$ K, and that quantum fluctuations, not spin-wave physics…

desk verdict Solid experimental determination of J1/J2 in HoInCu4 with a new overdamped-dynamics observation; the quantum-fluctuation interpretation rests on an unshown 1/S calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08523 v3 pith:DJACRG6Y submitted 2025-02-12 cond-mat.str-el

X. Boraley , O. Stockert , J. Lass , R. Sibille , {O}. S. Fjellv{aa}g , S. H. Moody , A. M. Läuchli , V. Fritsch
show 1 more author
D. G. Mazzone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords frustratedmagnetismitinerantelectronsystemHoInCu4face-centeredcubiclatticeJ1-J2Heisenbergmodelquantumfluctuationsneutronscatteringspindynamics
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 show that the metallic, geometrically frustrated compound HoInCu$_4$ can be understood with a Hamiltonian that ignores its conduction electrons entirely. Using neutron diffraction and inelastic neutron scattering in the paramagnetic and field-polarized regimes, it extracts nearest-neighbour and next-nearest-neighbour exchange couplings $J_1\approx 0.64$–$0.66$ K and $J_2\approx 0.29$–$0.30$ K from an effective spin-1 Heisenberg model, yielding $J_2/J_1=0.45(5)$, just below the critical ratio $1/2$ at which the fcc antiferromagnet changes order. The same model predicts sharp spin waves in the zero-field antiferromagnet, but the measured response is a broad, overdamped, column-like continuum with relaxation rate $\Gamma=0.24(2)$ meV, about $4J_1$. The paper concludes that quantum fluctuations are responsible, renormalizing the ordered moment by roughly 30% and accounting for the observed $3.23(4)\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$ versus the $4.58\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$ expected from the crystal-field ground state. If this is right, HoInCu$_4$ becomes a concrete case where local-moment magnetism survives in a metal, and a rare experimental foothold close to the type-II/type-III phase boundary of the fcc lattice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a spin-1 Heisenberg model on the face-centered cubic lattice, $$H = J_1\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\vec S_i\cdot\vec S_j + J_2\sum_{\langle\langle i,j\rangle\rangle}\vec S_i\cdot\vec S_j,$$ with the Holmium spin truncated to $S=1$ because the crystal-field ground state is a triplet separated by about $1.6$ meV from the next level. The model is used twice: its diffuse-scattering intensities in the paramagnetic state fix $J_1$ and $J_2$, and its linear spin-wave spectrum in the field-polarized state fixes the same couplings independently. The same couplings are then fed into a linear spin-wave prediction for the zero-field type-III antiferromagnetic state, whose failure—overdamped excitations rather than sharp magnons—is the evidence that quantum fluctuations dominate the low-energy dynamics and renormalize the ordered moment.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a zero-field inelastic neutron scattering measurement with energy resolution better than the roughly $40\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$ gap predicted by linear spin-wave theory including dipole interactions: if sharp dispersive magnon branches appear below about $0.2$ meV once resolution is improved, the overdamped-column picture and the associated 30% quantum-renormalization claim would be wrong, and the reduced moment would need another explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that the magnetic properties of HoInCu$_4$ are governed by an effective spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbour $J_1$ and next-nearest-neighbour $J_2$ exchange, and that the two independently fitted determinations—from diffuse scattering above $T_N$ and from field-polarized spin waves at $\mu_0H=4$–$6.5$ T—agree with each other within errors. The fitted ratio $J_2/J_1=0.45(5)$ places the material in the type-III antiferromagnetic phase $0<J_2/J_1<0.5$, close to the boundary at which type-II order would be selected. In that ordered state the authors find that linear spin-wave theory fails: instead of two sharp magnon branches below $0.2$ meV, the zero-field spectrum shows overdamped column-like excitations centered at the magnetic wavevectors $(1,\tfrac12,0)$, with a relaxation rate of $\Gamma=0.24(2)$ meV. They attribute this to quantum fluctuations that leave about 30% of the Ho moment fluctuating within the long-range ordered state, matching the previously reported reduction of the ordered moment from the crystal-field triplet value $\mu_\mathrm{CEF}=4.58\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$ to $\mu=3.23(4)\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on treating HoInCu$_4$ as an array of localized spin-1 moments with only nearest- and next-nearest-neighbour Heisenberg exchange; if conduction-electron (itinerant) couplings, anisotropic exchange, or higher-order exchange contribute significantly, the fitted $J_1$, $J_2$, the spin-wave comparison, and the quantum-fluctuation conclusion would all be compromised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below $T_N=0.76$ K, the zero-field spin dynamics of HoInCu$_4$ consist of overdamped, weakly momentum-dependent magnetic excitations centered near the type-III AFM wavevectors, with relaxation rate $\Gamma=0.24(2)$ meV, rather than the two sharp magnon branches predicted by linear spin-wave theory.
  • About 30% of the Ho moment remains fluctuating at $T=40$ mK inside the long-range ordered state, matching the difference between the refined ordered moment $3.23(4)\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$ and the crystal-field triplet value $4.58\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$.
  • A field-induced regime exists between about 1 and 2.5 T where long-range AFM order is suppressed but short-range magnetic correlations survive; the fully polarized state is reached at $\mu_0H_c\approx2.5$ T.
  • Because $J_2/J_1=0.45(5)$ lies just below the critical value $1/2$, HoInCu$_4$ is a rare example of the type-III fcc antiferromagnet near the boundary where type-II order with propagation vector $(1/2,1/2,1/2)$ becomes favored.
  • The success of a charge-free Hamiltonian in this material supports the paper's broader claim that metals with low density of states at the Fermi surface can be modeled as local-moment systems, extending frustrated-magnetism studies to a class of itinerant compounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would cautiously extend this to nearby Ho-based or lanthanide fcc intermetallics with low Fermi-surface density of states: the same two-regime fitting protocol (paramagnetic diffuse scattering plus field-polarized spin waves) could locate other materials on the $J_2/J_1$ phase diagram without needing full itinerant theories.
  • The paper leaves open whether the moment reduction is homogeneous or half-disordered, because the ordering wavevector splits the fcc lattice into two independent Ho sublattices; a local-probe experiment (muon spin rotation or nuclear magnetic resonance) that distinguishes two Ho sites below $T_N$ would discriminate these pictures directly.
  • If the overdamped response is indeed a quantum-fluctuation effect tied to proximity to $J_2/J_1=0.5$, then chemical substitution or pressure that tunes this ratio across the boundary should suddenly convert the column-like continuum back into sharp magnons in the type-II phase—a testable prediction the paper does not make.
  • The dynamics suggest that standard linear spin-wave theory misses qualitative physics of the zero-field state even though it works in the field-polarized state; an explicit computation of the two-magnon decay channel in the $J_1$-$J_2$ fcc model would show whether the observed linewidth is quantitatively reproduced.
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 presents a neutron scattering study of the frustrated fcc intermetallic HoInCu4, aiming to show that a local spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor J1 and next-nearest-neighbor J2 exchange describes the magnetic properties of a metal with low electronic density of states. The exchange constants are determined independently from paramagnetic diffuse scattering (J1 = 0.64(6) K, J2 = 0.29(2) K) and from field-polarized inelastic neutron scattering (J1 = 0.66(3) K, J2 = 0.30(3) K), giving J2/J1 = 0.45(5), close to the type-II/type-III boundary at 0.5. In the zero-field antiferromagnetic state the authors observe overdamped column-like excitations with a relaxation rate Gamma = 0.24(2) meV, about 4J1, in contrast to the sharp spin waves predicted by linear spin-wave theory. They attribute this behavior to quantum fluctuations that renormalize the ordered moment by about 30%, matching both the reduced ordered moment (3.23(4) muB versus a CEF expectation of 4.58 muB) and a claimed 29.3% fluctuating moment fraction extracted from diffuse scattering.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the paper would be a noteworthy demonstration that a purely local spin Hamiltonian captures the magnetism of a frustrated metal with a low density of states, and it would provide a rare experimental example near the J2/J1 = 1/2 phase boundary of the fcc lattice where quantum fluctuations dominate the low-energy dynamics. The two independent determinations of J1 and J2 that agree with each other are a genuine strength, as is the direct observation of overdamped excitations. The use of publicly available software (SpinW, Sunny, Spinteract, PyCrystalField) and the deposition of experimental data are commendable. However, the central quantitative claim--that quantum fluctuations produce a ~30% ordered-moment reduction--rests on a 1/S calculation that is asserted but not shown, and the supporting 29.3% fluctuating fraction is derived from an under-specified diffuse-scattering constraint. Because these two numbers are the quantitative bridge between the overdamped dynamics and the missing moment, the significance of the central conclusion is not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, section 'The importance of quantum fluctuations was assessed...'; SM Note 4] The paper states that 'spin-wave theory including quantum corrections of the leading term in 1/S' yields a ~30% renormalization of the ordered moment, but no derivation, input parameters, or error estimate is provided in the main text or the Supplemental Material. Since this value is the quantitative anchor connecting the overdamped zero-field dynamics to the measured moment reduction (1 - 3.23/4.58 ~ 29.5%), the authors must either present the full calculation (including the spin-1 form, the specific dependence on J2/J1 = 0.45(5), and an assessment of convergence near the type-II/type-III boundary where the classical ground state is degenerate) or cite a published calculation with explicit parameter values. As written, the central conclusion that quantum fluctuations account for the missing moment is not fully supported.
  2. [SM Note 2] The derivation of the 29.3% fluctuating moment fraction is under-specified. The text says that 'identical J1 and J2 parameters as for the data above TN can be used, if the global scaling parameter is reduced by 50%', but it is not explained whether this 50% reduction is a free fit parameter, a fixed constraint, or a derived outcome, and no uncertainty is quoted. As presented, the agreement between 29.3% and the ~30% 1/S renormalization is not an independent confirmation but a consistency check with an unconstrained factor. Please clarify the fitting procedure and report the uncertainty on the fluctuating fraction.
  3. [SM Note 3 and Eq. (2) of the main text] The field-polarized spin-wave analysis relies on a field-dependent g-factor that is explicitly acknowledged to be approximate. The reported J1 = 0.66(3) K and J2 = 0.30(3) K are quoted without an estimate of the systematic error arising from this approximation. Because these parameters are subsequently used for the zero-field spin-wave comparison and the quantum-fluctuation interpretation, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of the fitted exchange constants to the g(H) model, or demonstrate that the effect is smaller than the statistical errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] The phrase 'a trait mark of quantum effects' should be 'a trademark' or rephrased; the word 'apriori' should be 'a priori'.
  2. [SM Note 2] The phrase 'This amounts to a magnetic moment value of 1-√0.5 = 29.3%' is misleading; the quantity is a fluctuating moment fraction, not a 'magnetic moment value' in units of μB.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 2 caption] It would be clearer to state explicitly that the ferromagnetic contribution to the (2,0,0) Bragg peak is used as a magnetization probe, rather than implying a separate ferromagnetic order.
  4. [Main text, section on the field-polarized state] The sentence 'We found that the linear Zeeman term is only approximate' would benefit from a quantitative statement of the expected deviation, as the reader cannot assess the magnitude of the approximation from the text.
  5. [Main text, discussion of the intermediate-field region] The phrase 'potentially hosts an intriguing quantum phase' is speculative; since the paper does not characterize this state, it should be more clearly labeled as an open question requiring further experimental and theoretical work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the exchange parameters are independently determined in two phases, and the quantum-fluctuation conclusion rests on an unshown but not definitionally circular 1/S calculation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The two determinations of J1 and J2 are genuinely independent: the paramagnetic diffuse scattering is fitted with Spinteract using the spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), while the field-polarized spin waves are fitted with SpinW using the same Hamiltonian plus a Zeeman term (Eq. 2), and the agreement J1 = 0.64(6)/0.66(3) K, J2 = 0.29(2)/0.30(3) K is a cross-check between two different datasets, not a fit of one quantity used to predict itself. The zero-field overdamped excitation spectrum is a direct experimental observation (Fig. 4) that is compared with, rather than derived from, the fitted parameters. The central conclusion that quantum fluctuations renormalize the ordered moment by about 30% is asserted through a 1/S spin-wave calculation that is not shown in the main text or the Supplemental Material; this is a missing derivation and a correctness risk, but it is not circular because the paper does not define the 30% in terms of the measured missing moment (1 - 3.23/4.58 = 29.5%) or fit it to that value. The paper explicitly acknowledges that neutron scattering cannot distinguish a homogeneously reduced moment from a half-disordered state, and that a full RPA treatment including CEF wave functions is deferred; these are honest limitations, not self-referential inputs. The self-citation [15] supplies external experimental facts (CEF scheme, ordered moment, low density of states) from a prior publication with overlapping authors, but those facts are independently measurable and are not equivalent to the present paper's fitted parameters or conclusions. No equation or fit in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own input, so no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling choices: a localized spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian restricted to nearest and next-nearest exchanges, a field-dependent g-factor read from the data themselves, and a 1/S quantum-correction calculation evaluated with the fitted J1 and J2. The free parameters are the two exchange constants plus the effective g-factors and the CEF parameters; the only candidate invented entity is the hypothesized intermediate-field phase. No new fundamental particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • J1 (nearest-neighbor exchange) = 0.64(6) K (paramagnetic), 0.66(3) K (field-polarized)
    Fitted with Spinteract to diffuse magnetic scattering and with SpinW to 820 field-polarized spin-wave points; the central quantity of the paper.
  • J2 (next-nearest-neighbor exchange) = 0.29(2) K (paramagnetic), 0.30(3) K (field-polarized)
    Obtained from the same two refinements; the ratio J2/J1 = 0.45(5) is the basis for the claimed proximity to the critical type-II/type-III boundary.
  • Field-dependent g-factor = g = 4.1(3), 3.8(2), 3.6(2) at 4, 5, 6.5 T
    Determined from the polarized spin-wave maxima and used as fixed inputs in the J1/J2 refinement; SM Note 3 records discrepancies with the CEF prediction.
  • CEF parameters B4, B6 = B4 = -0.2701, B6 = 0.0064 (printed units 'mK')
    Refined with PyCrystalField against inelastic CEF spectra; they justify the spin-1 ground state and feed the g-factor field dependence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption HoInCu4 can be treated as a localized spin system despite being a metal (charge degrees of freedom neglected).
    Invoked just before Eq. (1): 'Since the metal possesses a low electronic density of states at the Fermi surface [15], we approximate the material with a localized system similar to a magnetic insulator.' This is load-bearing for every fit in the paper.
  • domain assumption The crystal-field ground state is an isolated triplet, justifying an effective spin-1 Hamiltonian.
    SM Note 1: ground state triplet separated from the first excited doublet by about 1.6 meV; also used to justify the field-dependent g-factor treatment.
  • standard math Linear spin-wave theory is exact in the field-polarized state.
    Main text: 'as in this regime linear spin-wave theory is known to be exact'; used to extract J1 and J2 from the 5 T spectrum.
  • domain assumption The high-field background (10 T, and 7 T for the second alignment) contains no magnetic fluctuations below 0.9 meV.
    Stated in SM Note 4 and the experimental section; the entire zero-field spectrum is background-subtracted with this assumption.
  • domain assumption The diffuse scattering intensity maps to the fluctuating moment fraction through (1-f)^2 = 0.5 for a 50% scale reduction.
    SM Note 2: 'This amounts to a magnetic moment value of 1-sqrt(0.5) = 29.3% that is fluctuating'; the intensity-to-moment scaling is assumed rather than derived.
  • standard math The leading 1/S quantum correction to the ordered moment of the fcc J1-J2 model applies with the fitted parameters and gives about 30%.
    The main text asserts the ~30% renormalization without derivation, citing the theory literature (Refs 20-24) for the calculation.
invented entities (1)
  • Intermediate-field phase in HoInCu4 (about 1 to 2.5 T)
    purpose: Accounts for the field window in which magnetic long-range order is suppressed while short-range correlations survive; linear spin-wave theory fails to describe the state in this window.
    The paper says HoInCu4 'potentially hosts an intriguing quantum phase' and lists muon spin rotation, NMR, and uniaxial-pressure neutron diffraction as possible discriminating probes, but it specifies no quantitative falsifiable observable for the phase, so independent evidence is weak.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic Origin of Reduced Magnetic Order in a Frustrated Metal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJACRG6Y

@misc{pith2026250208523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic Origin of Reduced Magnetic Order in a Frustrated Metal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJACRG6Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08523}
}
abstract

Although magnetic frustration in metals provides a promising avenue for novel quantum phenomena, their microscopic interpretation is often challenging. Here we use the face-centered cubic intermetallic HoInCu$_4$ as model material to show that Hamiltonians neglecting the charge degree of freedom are appropriate for frustrated metals possessing low density of states at the Fermi surface. Through neutron scattering techniques we determine matching magnetic exchange interactions in the paramagnetic and field-polarized states using an effective spin-1 Heisenberg Hamiltonian, for which we identify antiferromagnetic nearest and next-nearest neighbour interactions $J_1$ and $J_2$ that are close to the critical ratio $J_2$/$J_1$ = 1/2. The study further provides evidence that spin-wave theory fails to predict the low-energy spin dynamics in the antiferromagnetic zero-field state, which is dominated by overdamped magnetic excitations. We conclude that the low-energy fluctuations arise from quantum fluctuations, accounting for the missing moment of the strongly renormalized magnetic long-range order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a shows the field-polarized excitation spectrum at µ0H = 5 T along a representative path in the (H, K, 0)-plane. The spectrum was measured at T = 40 mK on CAMEA. The field-polarized excitation spectra were analyzed using the same spin-1 Hamiltonian as in Eq. 1 with an additional Zeeman term accounting for the magnetic field anisotropy. HFP = HAFM − gµBµ0H X i S z i (2) The effective g-factors at µ0H = 4, 5 and 6.5 T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. c, showing a thin slice (E = 0.00(5) meV) around the elastic (H, K, 0)-plane. The resulting cuts shown in Fig. 4d were fitted to a damped harmonic oscillator, for which we find a global relaxation rate Γ = 0.24(2) meV (2.8(2) K) corresponding to roughly ∼4J1. Figure 4c reveals a broad elastic intensity distribution that is centered around the magnetic Bragg peaks and shows some finite intensity along the shortest pa… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    L. Balents, Spin liquids in frustrated magnets, Nature 464, 199 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Nor- man, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science 367, eaay0668 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

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

    2017

  4. [4]

    Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 064501 (2018)

    M. Vojta, Frustration and quantum criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 064501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Plumb, H

    K. Plumb, H. Changlani, A. Scheie, S. Zhang, J. Kriza, J. Rodriguez Rivera, Y. Qiu, B. Winn, R. Cava, and C. Broholm, Continuum of quantum fluctuations in a three-dimensional s = 1 heisenberg magnet, Nature Physics 15, 54 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Lacroix, Frustrated metallic systems: A review of some peculiar behavior, Journal of The Physical Society of Japan - J PHYS SOC JPN 79 (2010)

    C. Lacroix, Frustrated metallic systems: A review of some peculiar behavior, Journal of The Physical Society of Japan - J PHYS SOC JPN 79 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    S. Gao, O. Zaharko, V. Tsurkan, Y. Su, J. S. White, G. S. Tucker, B. Roessli, F. Bourdarot, R. Sibille, D. Chernyshov, T. Fennell, A. Loidl, and C. R¨ uegg, Spi- ral spin-liquid and the emergence of a vortex-like state in mnsc2s4, Nature Physics 13, 157 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    O. A. Starykh, Unusual ordered phases of highly frus- trated magnets: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics 78, 052502 (2015)

    2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Hayami and Y

    S. Hayami and Y. Motome, Topological spin crystals by itinerant frustration, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 443001 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange cou- pling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction elec- trons, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  3. [11]

    T. Kasuya, A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Antiferromagnetism on Zener’s Model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 16, 45 (1956), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/16/1/45/5266722/16-1-45.pdf

    1956

  4. [12]

    Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Phys

    K. Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  5. [13]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, M. Hirschberger, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, T. hisa Arima, and Y. Tokura, Skyrmion lattice with a giant topological hall effect in a frustrated triangular-lattice magnet, Science 365, 914 (2019), https://www.science.or...

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Kondo, Resistance Minimum in Dilute Mag- netic Alloys, Progress of Theoretical Physics 32, 37 (1964), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/32/1/37/5193092/32-1-37.pdf

    J. Kondo, Resistance Minimum in Dilute Mag- netic Alloys, Progress of Theoretical Physics 32, 37 (1964), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/32/1/37/5193092/32-1-37.pdf

    1964

  7. [15]

    Stockert, J.-U

    O. Stockert, J.-U. Hoffmann, M. M¨ uhlbauer, A. Senyshyn, M. M. Koza, A. A. Tsirlin, F. M. Wolf, S. Bachus, P. Gegenwart, R. Movshovich, S. Bobev, and V. Fritsch, Magnetic frustration in a metallic fcc lattice, 6 Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013183 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Chatterji, L

    T. Chatterji, L. P. Regnault, S. Ghosh, and A. Singh, Magnetic excitations in frustrated fcc type-iii antiferro- magnet mns2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 125802 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Matsuura, Y

    M. Matsuura, Y. Endoh, H. Hiraka, K. Yamada, A. S. Mishchenko, N. Nagaosa, and I. V. Solovyev, Classical and quantum spin dynamics in the fcc antiferromagnet nis2 with frustration, Phys. Rev. B 68, 094409 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    D. C. Joshi, P. Pramanik, S. Nayak, K. Dasari, R. J. Choudhary, and S. Thota, Magnetic exchange interac- tions and dielectric studies of zn1–x nixo–nio composites, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50, 325002 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Nakamura, N

    H. Nakamura, N. Kim, M. Shiga, R. Kmiec, K. Tomala, E. Ressouche, J. P. Sanchez, and B. Malaman, he par- tially disordered state of the frustrated face-centred cubic antiferromagnet, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 11, 1095 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Oitmaa, Ordered phases in the frustrated fcc lattice antiferromagnet, Phys

    J. Oitmaa, Ordered phases in the frustrated fcc lattice antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 108, 014414 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Sun and H.-Y

    N.-N. Sun and H.-Y. Wang, The j1-j2 model on the face- centered-cubic lattices, Journal of Magnetism and Mag- netic Materials 454, 176 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Yildirim, A

    T. Yildirim, A. B. Harris, and E. F. Shender, Frustration and quantum fluctuations in heisenberg fcc antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. B 58, 3144 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Schick, O

    R. Schick, O. G¨ otze, T. Ziman, R. Zinke, J. Richter, and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Ground-state selection by magnon interactions in a fcc antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 106, 094431 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Schick, T

    R. Schick, T. Ziman, and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Quantum versus thermal fluctuations in the fcc antiferromagnet: Alternative routes to order by disorder, Phys. Rev. B 102, 220405 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Batalov and A

    L. Batalov and A. Syromyatnikov, Order-by-disorder ef- fects in antiferromagnets on face-centered cubic lattice, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 414, 180 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Kiese, T

    D. Kiese, T. M¨ uller, Y. Iqbal, R. Thomale, and S. Trebst, Multiloop functional renormalization group approach to quantum spin systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023185 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. Mohapatra, T. Ziman, and T. Chatterji, Spin waves in the fcc lattice antiferromagnet: com- peting interactions, frustration, and instabilities in the hubbard model, Journal of Applied Physics 121, 073903 (2017), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.106...

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    J. Lass, S. H. Moody, and Øystein Slagtern Fjellv ˚ ag, Dm- cpy: A powder and single crystal neutron diffraction soft- ware for dmc (2025), arXiv:2501.08845 [physics.data-an]

    2025

  21. [29]

    J. A. M. Paddison, Spinteract: a program to refine mag- netic interactions to diffuse scattering data, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 495802 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    J. Lass, H. Jacobsen, K. M. L. Krighaar, D. Graf, F. Groitl, F. Herzog, M. Yamada, C. K¨ agi, R. A. M¨ uller, R. B¨ urge, M. Schild, M. S. Lehmann, A. Boll- halder, P. Keller, M. Bartkowiak, U. Filges, U. Greuter, G. Theidel, H. M. Rønnow, C. Niedermayer, and D. G. Mazzone, Co...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    J. Lass, H. Jacobsen, D. G. Mazzone, and K. Lefmann, Mjolnir: A software package for multiplexing neutron spectrometers, SoftwareX 12, 100600 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Dahlbom, H

    D. Dahlbom, H. Zhang, C. Miles, S. Quinn, A. Niraula, B. Thipe, M. Wilson, S. Matin, H. Mankad, S. Hahn, D. Pajerowski, S. Johnston, Z. Wang, H. Lane, Y. W. Li, X. Bai, M. Mourigal, C. D. Batista, and K. Bar- ros, Sunny.jl: A julia package for spin dynamics (2025), arXiv:2501....

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-q incommensurate magnetic structures, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Scheie, PyCrystalField: software for calculation, anal- ysis and fitting of crystal electric field Hamiltonians, Journal of Applied Crystallography 54, 356 (2021)

    A. Scheie, PyCrystalField: software for calculation, anal- ysis and fitting of crystal electric field Hamiltonians, Journal of Applied Crystallography 54, 356 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Q. Li, H. Li, J. Zhao, H.-G. Luo, and Z. Y. Xie, Magne- tization of the spin- 1 2 heisenberg antiferromagnet on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 105, 184418 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Spectral signatures of fractional- ization in the frustrated heisenberg model on the square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 98, 100405 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Q. Wang, A. de la Torre, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, A. A. Podlesnyak, W. Tian, A. A. Aczel, M. Matsuda, P. J. Ryan, J.-W. Kim, J. G. Rau, and K. W. Plumb, Pulling order back from the brink of disorder: Observation of a nodal-line spin liquid and fluctuation stabilized order in k2...

    2025

  30. [38]

    P. W. Anderson, Generalizations of the weiss molecular field theory of antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. 79, 705 (1950)

    1950

  31. [39]

    Villain, La structure des substances magnetiques, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 303 (1959)

    J. Villain, La structure des substances magnetiques, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 303 (1959)

    1959

  32. [40]

    S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Spin ice state in frustrated magnetic py- rochlore materials, Science 294, 1495 (2001), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1064761. Supplemental Material for: Microscopic Origin of Reduced Magnetic Order in a Frustrated Metal X...

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    (3) Here, Om l are the Stevens operators and Bl the CEF parameters

    + B6(O0 6 − 21O4 6). (3) Here, Om l are the Stevens operators and Bl the CEF parameters. The background of the neutron spectra was modeled with two Gaussians and a constant offset to account for incoherent scattering of the elastic line, a constant background noise and increas...

    2023

  34. [42]

    and (0, 0, 2) (see Fig. Suppl. 2b). Here µB is the Bohr magneton and E the excitation energy into the lowest excited state. The results are in qualitative agreement with one another so that for the further analysis the values g = 4.1(3), 3.8(2) and 3.6(2) were used for µ0H = 4...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.