Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Neel order, spin-spiral, and spin liquid ground state in frustrated three dimensional system CaMn2P2: A DFT+U and spin dynamics study

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the magnetism of CaMn2P2 reduces to a two-coupling Heisenberg model whose competition yields the observed spin spiral and, at strong frustration, a spin-liquid-like disordered phase.

desk verdict Credible first-principles model of CaMn2P2's spiral order; the spin-liquid claim is overreached and the q-space search needs clarification, but the core physics holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10254 v1 pith:CCRRUZJR submitted 2025-06-12 cond-mat.str-el

Bidyut Mallick , Sk. Soyeb Ali , S. K. Panda This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords CaMn2P2frustratedmagnetismJ1-J2HeisenbergmodelspinspiralliquidDFT+Uatomisticdynamicsmagneticforcetheorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the magnetism of the layered compound CaMn$_2$P$_2$ is governed by two competing antiferromagnetic exchange couplings: a strong coupling $J_1$ between adjacent Mn layers and a frustrated coupling $J_2$ within each triangular Mn layer. The authors extract both couplings from density functional theory with a Hubbard $U$ correction, then solve the resulting isotropic Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian by spin-wave minimization and by stochastic spin dynamics. The same minimal model reproduces the spin-spiral ordering vector $q=(1/6,1/6,0)$ seen in neutron diffraction and a magnetic transition temperature near 66 K, close to the measured 69.8 K. Tuning the ratio $J_2/J_1$, the model yields a phase diagram that runs from Néel order through two different spin spirals to a disordered spin-liquid-like state at large frustration. If correct, this would make CaMn$_2$P$_2$ a three-dimensional realization of the $J_1$-$J_2$ model, which until now has mostly been studied in two dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian $H = -J_1 \sum_{\langle ij\rangle} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_j - J_2 \sum_{\langle ik\rangle} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_k - J_3 \sum_{\langle il\rangle} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_l$, with exchange parameters extracted from the DFT+U electronic structure through the magnetic force theorem, a linear-response method that maps total-energy differences onto pairwise couplings. The essential competition is between the non-frustrated interlayer coupling $J_1$ and the frustrating intralayer coupling $J_2$ on the triangular Mn network. That Hamiltonian, truncated at the tiny $J_3$, is then used in two ways: a reciprocal-space spin-wave minimization selects the ordering vector of the classical ground state, and stochastic spin-dynamics simulations generate the finite-temperature phase behavior, including the ordering temperatures and the candidate spin-liquid signatures.

What would settle it

A DFT+U scan varying the Hubbard $U$ between roughly 2 and 6 eV would settle the ground-state prediction: if the ratio $J_2/J_1$ leaves the 0.23 to 0.52 interval under a reasonable choice of $U$, the computed $q=(1/6,1/6,0)$ spiral is not a robust consequence of the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that a classical isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian with only two significant exchange constants describes the magnetism of CaMn$_2$P$_2$: $J_1 = -39.96$ meV couples Mn spins across the bilayer along the $c$-axis and $J_2 = -16.02$ meV couples spins within the triangular $a$-$b$ plane, while the third-neighbor coupling $J_3$ is only about 4 percent of $J_1$ and can be neglected. Because $J_1$ is a non-frustrated antiferromagnet and $J_2$ is a frustrating antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice, the energy-minimizing spin configuration is an in-plane spiral with propagation vector $q=(1/6,1/6,0)$ and with adjacent layers coupled antiferromagnetically, exactly as measured by neutron diffraction. Finite-temperature spin dynamics on the same Hamiltonian give a magnetic specific-heat peak at 66 K, matching the observed transition temperature, and the computed spin autocorrelation and dynamical structure factor at $J_2/J_1 > 0.91$ show slow relaxation, aging, and broad momentum-selective spectral weight that the authors read as signatures of a spin-liquid-like ground state. The paper also claims a general phase diagram in the $J_2/J_1$ plane: Néel order below 0.23, the $q=(1/6,1/6,0)$ spiral between 0.23 and 0.52, a $q=(1/3,1/3,0)$ spiral above 0.52, and a disordered phase above 0.91.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that a classical isotropic Heisenberg model with only two significant exchange couplings, and no longer-range, biquadratic, or anisotropic terms, completely describes the magnetism of CaMn$_2$P$_2$, and that spin dynamics on a finite lattice can distinguish a spin-liquid-like state from a merely disordered or glassy one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, tuning $J_2/J_1$ by chemical substitution, pressure, or strain should move CaMn$_2$P$_2$ and structurally related 122 compounds through the predicted Néel-to-spiral-to-disordered sequence.
  • The agreement between the computed 66 K transition and the measured 69.8 K supports the quantitative accuracy of the DFT+U-derived exchange couplings and makes the same extraction method applicable to other frustrated 122 pnictides.
  • The $q=(1/6,1/6,0)$ spiral is the stable classical ground state of the extracted Hamiltonian, giving a microscopic explanation of the neutron diffraction structure without requiring an additional Potts-nematic ordering mechanism.
  • A material with $J_2/J_1$ above 0.91 would be predicted to show no long-range magnetic order down to zero temperature, with slow relaxation and persistent spin fluctuations characteristic of a spin-liquid-like phase.
  • Because $J_1$ acts along the $c$-axis while $J_2$ acts in the $a$-$b$ plane, the model represents a genuinely three-dimensional variant of the $J_1$-$J_2$ model, so its phase diagram is a distinct prediction rather than a copy of the well-studied two-dimensional results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check neither reported nor implied by the paper is finite-size scaling: repeating the $J_2/J_1 > 0.91$ simulations on progressively larger lattices would show whether the slow relaxation and broad spectral features persist or anneal into a conventional ordered or glassy state. (This check is an editorial suggestion, not a paper claim.)
  • The phase diagram implies a materials-search strategy: extracting $J_1$ and $J_2$ for the related compounds CaMn$_2$As$_2$, CaMn$_2$Sb$_2$, and CaMn$_2$Bi$_2$ would place each on the same ratio axis and could identify which, if any, already sits in the spin-liquid window. The paper discusses these compounds but does not compute their couplings.
  • The magnetic specific-heat peak shape from the simulations at the experimental ratio could be compared quantitatively with the measured anomaly as a natural next step; the paper reports the peak temperature and shows the measured data in an inset but does not carry out that line-shape comparison.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines DFT+U electronic structure calculations (WIEN2k and RSPt) with exchange coupling extraction via the magnetic force theorem, linear spin wave theory (SpinW), and atomistic spin dynamics (UppASD) to study the magnetism of CaMn2P2. The authors find an indirect-gap semiconductor with localized Mn2+ moments, and compute nearest-, next-nearest-, and third-nearest-neighbor exchanges J1 = -39.96 meV, J2 = -16.02 meV, and J3 = -1.72 meV. From a J1-J2-J3 Heisenberg model they identify a spin-spiral ground state with propagation vector q = (1/6, 1/6, 0), consistent with neutron diffraction, and reproduce the experimental ordering temperature (calculated TN = 66 K vs measured ~70 K). By tuning J2/J1 they construct a phase diagram with Néel order, two spiral phases, and, for J2/J1 > 0.91, a disordered slow-relaxing low-temperature phase that they interpret as a possible spin-liquid-like state. The central claims are that CaMn2P2 is a 3D realization of the J1-J2 model and that the computed exchanges quantitatively explain the magnetic properties.

Significance. If the claims are confirmed, the paper provides a valuable first-principles characterization of a three-dimensionally frustrated magnet, with parameter-free (up to U and Hund's coupling) extraction of exchange constants and a direct prediction of the experimental spiral wavevector and transition temperature. The use of two independent all-electron methods and the direct comparison with neutron diffraction and specific-heat data are strengths. The phase diagram for J2/J1, including the predicted Néel-to-spiral transitions and the disordered regime, is a useful guide for future chemical substitution or pressure experiments in CaAl2Si2-type compounds. However, the significance is moderated by two gaps: the global-minimization evidence for the spiral wavevector is not shown, and the spin-liquid-like phase is deduced from classical spin dynamics without finite-size or sensitivity analysis. The spin-liquid claim, as presently supported, is not yet commensurate with the strength of the wording in the title and abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, 'Magnetic ground state using linear spin wave theory', Fig. 3] The claim that the Luttinger-Tisza minimization identifies q=(1/6,1/6,0) as the global ground state is not supported by the data shown. Figure 3 compares energies for only three commensurate q vectors, (0,0,0), (1/6,1/6,0), and (1/3,1/3,0). For a classical Heisenberg model with J1-J2-J3, the Fourier transform J(q) is a sum of cosines, so the global minimum should vary continuously with J2/J1; a plateau in q over the range 0.23 < J2/J1 < 0.52 is therefore suspicious and suggests that only a discrete set of trial vectors was considered. Because the experimental q was one of the trial vectors, the agreement with neutron diffraction is weaker than claimed unless the authors demonstrate that no other q in the full Brillouin zone is lower in energy. I recommend showing a dense q-space scan of the classical energy for the ab initio J2/J1, providing the analytic minimum of J(q), or otherwise presenting evidence that the SpinW relaxation was not seeded by the experimental wavevector.
  2. [Section III, 'Magnetic transitions using atomistic spin dynamics simulations', Figs. 4(d) and 5] The assignment of a spin-liquid-like ground state for J2/J1 > 0.91 is not adequately supported. The evidence consists of (i) a broad, peak-less Cmag(T) at low temperature, (ii) a visually disordered spin texture in Fig. 4(h), (iii) waiting-time-dependent spin autocorrelations in Fig. 5(a), and (iv) a broad, incoherent dynamical structure factor in Fig. 5(b). All of these are expected for a classical, disordered, possibly glassy spin state on a finite lattice; they do not distinguish a spin liquid from a conventional frustrated classical paramagnet or a slowly relaxing glass. No system-size scaling, no cooling-rate dependence, no equilibration test, and no sensitivity of the phase boundary to the Hubbard U are reported. Moreover, the nominal S=5/2 moments make quantum spin-liquid behavior unlikely, so the manuscript should either supply substantially stronger evidence (e.g., scaling of the correlation length and absence of long-range order in the thermodynamic limit, comparison of classical and quantum results, or a clear statement that 'spin-liquid-like' means only 'classical disordered regime') or soften the title, abstract, and conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section III, 'Inter-site exchange couplings and Heiseberg Spin-Hamiltonian', Table I] The assertion that the isotropic Heisenberg model truncated at third-nearest neighbors fully captures the magnetism is not quantitatively demonstrated. The text states that Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya, symmetric anisotropic exchange, and single-ion anisotropy terms are negligible, but no computed values or comparison to J1 are given, and no convergence of Jij with distance beyond J3 is shown. Since the phase diagram and the predicted q vector depend on the ratio J2/J1 and on the possible presence of longer-range couplings, this missing support is load-bearing. I ask the authors to report the values (or bounds) of the anisotropic terms and of the next few exchange couplings, or to provide a convergence test with respect to the real-space cutoff.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'a isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian' should be 'an isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The notation '− →S i' is malformed; use \vec{S}_i and define the site average over the lattice.
  3. [Section III, text near Fig. 5] The sentence containing 'and and N is the number of lattice sites' has a duplicated 'and'.
  4. [Section II] 'The structure parameters used in our calculations' should read 'The structural parameters used in our calculations'.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption 'three di fferent ordering vector' should be 'three different ordering vectors'.
  6. [Section III, 'Magnetic transitions using atomistic spin dynamics simulations'] The manuscript does not state the system size (number of spins) and boundary conditions used in the UppASD simulations; these details are needed to judge the finite-size effects in Figs. 4 and 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the spiral q vector and transition temperature are independent outputs of first-principles exchange couplings, matched to experiment after the fact rather than fitted to it.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The exchange couplings J1, J2, and J3 are first-principles outputs: they are computed from DFT+U with the magnetic force theorem (Eq. 2), using U = 4 eV and Hund's J = 0.8 eV adopted from independent earlier studies (Refs. 33, 34), not fitted to any CaMn2P2 observable. The spiral propagation vector q = (1/6, 1/6, 0) is an output of minimizing the J1-J2-J3 Heisenberg Hamiltonian (Eq. 4) in reciprocal space via the Luttinger-Tisza/SpinW procedure (Section III, 'Magnetic ground state using linear spin wave theory'); the experimental q is not an input to the extraction of the J's, and the DFT-derived J2/J1 = 0.40 falls within the interval 0.23 < J2/J1 < 0.52 for which the model yields q = (1/6, 1/6, 0). The transition temperature TN = 66 K is a simulation output of sLLG dynamics using the same first-principles couplings, compared with rather than fitted to the experimental 69.8 K, and the computed Cmag(T) agrees with the experimental curve shown in the inset of Fig. 4(b). No parameter is adjusted to force any of these benchmark comparisons. Self-citations (Refs. 39-41, which include co-author S. K. Panda) appear only in a bracket supporting the general statement that the magnetic force theorem 'has been successfully used for many other transition metal compounds'; this is non-load-bearing context for a standard method whose foundational citations (Refs. 36-38) are external to the present authors, so the central claims do not reduce to a self-citation chain. Two caveats are weighed but do not constitute circularity: (i) Fig. 3 displays energies for only three trial q vectors (0,0,0); (1/6,1/6,0); and (1/3,1/3,0), so the strength of the claimed neutron-diffraction agreement depends on whether the Luttinger-Tisza minimization was truly global over q; even if the search were restricted to these candidates, the computation is not equivalent to its input, since the J's were not fitted to make q = (1/6, 1/6, 0) win. (ii) The spin-liquid-like claim for J2/J1 > 0.91 rests on hedged classical sLLG evidence ('suggesting a spin-liquid like state', 'possible spin liquid candidate') and on a classical model's inability to strictly certify a quantum spin liquid; this is an interpretive overreach rather than a circular reduction. Overall finding: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main result rests on the DFT+U-computed exchange couplings and the truncation of the spin Hamiltonian at three neighbors. The spin-liquid phase additionally rests on the assumption that classical spin dynamics captures the relevant ground-state physics. Hubbard U and Hund's J are input parameters taken from the literature, not derived in this paper; no invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Hubbard U (Mn 3d) = 4 eV
    Chosen from Refs. [33,34], not derived in this paper; directly controls the localized Mn2+ state and the magnitude of exchange couplings.
  • Hund's coupling J (Mn 3d) = 0.8 eV
    Chosen from Refs. [33,34], paired with U in the GGA+U calculation; affects the exchange parameters.
  • Gilbert damping alpha = 1.0
    Set to accelerate convergence in ASD; affects relaxation rates and thus the inferred slow-dynamics and spin-liquid signature.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian with only J1, J2, J3 couplings describes the magnetism (Eq. 4).
    Justified by quenched orbital moment and negligible SOC, but truncation at third neighbors and neglect of biquadratic terms is assumed; enters Section III, Eq. (4).
  • ad hoc to paper Classical spin dynamics (sLLG) with S treated as classical vectors captures the ground-state and finite-T properties, including the putative spin-liquid-like phase.
    Used in UppASD; for S=5/2 this is plausible for ordered states, but the spin-liquid claim relies on classical dynamics, which cannot represent quantum spin-liquid physics. Entered Section II and Section III, Fig. 5.
  • standard math Magnetic force theorem maps DFT+U energies to a Heisenberg model via Green's functions (Eq. 2).
    Standard linear-response method (Refs. 36-38); assumes a perturbation around a reference magnetic state.
  • standard math Luttinger-Tisza method finds the ground-state q vector.
    Used in SpinW; valid for classical Heisenberg models but may miss non-coplanar or multi-q states if the Hamiltonian allows them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neel order, spin-spiral, and spin liquid ground state in frustrated three dimensional system CaMn2P2: A DFT+U and spin dynamics study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCRRUZJR

@misc{pith2026250610254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neel order, spin-spiral, and spin liquid ground state in frustrated three dimensional system CaMn2P2: A DFT+U and spin dynamics study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCRRUZJR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10254}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the magnetic ground state and phase transitions in the frustrated three-dimensional system CaMn2P2 using first-principles calculations combined with spin-dynamics simulations. Our DFT+U calculations reveal that CaMn2P2 exhibits an indirect gap semiconducting ground state with a localized Mn2+ electronic configuration and negligible spin-orbit coupling effects. The computed exchange interactions show that the magnetic behavior is well described by a isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian. In this model, there are two major couplings: the NN interaction J1 couples the two Mn layers along the c-axis and next NN J2 is in the a-b plane where Mn ions form a hexagonal layer structure. Our results show that both J1 and J2 are antiferromagnetic in nature and as a consequence J2 induce frustration owing to the in-plane triangular geometry of the Mn-ions. The J1 is found to promote long-range antiferromagnetic order, while the J2 is responsible for spin canting and disorder. Our spin-wave analysis confirms that the system stabilizes a spin-spiral ground state with a propagation vector q = (1/6 , 1/6, 0) in agreement with neutron diffraction experiments. By tuning the J2/J1 ratio, we construct a phase diagram that reveals a transition from a collinear Neel antiferromagnetic state to different spin-spiral phases, and eventually to a disordered phase at large frustration. Atomistic spin-dynamics simulations capture the temperature evolution of the magnetism and reproduce the experimentally measured magnetic data with good accuracy. Furthermore, for large J2/J1, we identify a low temperature phase with slow spin relaxation and persistent fluctuations, suggesting a spin-liquid like state. Our study provides an understanding of frustration induced magnetism in CaMn2P2 and establishes it as a realization of J1-J2 model in three-dimensional lattice for exploring emergent magnetic phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10254 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The the unit cell of CaMn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The total density of states and partial density of states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energies per spin as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependent magnetic specific heat ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The time dependent spin autocorrelation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. S. Gardner, M. J. P. Gingras, and J. E. Greedan, Magnetic pyrochlore oxides, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 53 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Thus the spin moment of Mn arises from the five un- paired spin, giving rise to a significantly high value of 4.28µB

    configuration in accordance with Hund’s rule. Thus the spin moment of Mn arises from the five un- paired spin, giving rise to a significantly high value of 4.28µB. A weak hybridization between Mn- d and P- p orbitals is evi- dent from small spectral weight near the Fermi level, while the 4 FIG. 2. (a) The total density of states and partial density of sta...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Tokura and N

    Y . Tokura and N. Kanazawa, Magnetic Skyrmion Materi- als, Chemical Reviews 121, 2857 (2021), pMID: 33164494, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00297

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00297 2021

  4. [4]

    The second-nearest-neighbor interaction, J2, couples Mn atoms within the same triangular layer in the a-b plane, through the vector − →R2 = (0, 1.0, 0), with a separation of 4.10 Å

    with a Mn–Mn separa- tion of 2.92 Å. The second-nearest-neighbor interaction, J2, couples Mn atoms within the same triangular layer in the a-b plane, through the vector − →R2 = (0, 1.0, 0), with a separation of 4.10 Å. The third-nearest-neighbor interaction, J3 connects Mn atoms in the bilayer through the vector − →R3 = ( 2 3, 4 3, 1 4), spanning a distan...

    work page

  5. [5]

    G ¨obel, I

    B. G ¨obel, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Beyond skyrmions: Review and perspectives of alternative magnetic quasiparticles, Physics Reports 895, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Rastelli, A

    E. Rastelli, A. Tassi, and L. Reatto, Non-simple magnetic order for simple Hamiltonians, Physica B+C 97, 1 (1979)

    1979

  7. [7]

    Katsura, T

    S. Katsura, T. Ide, and T. Morita, The ground states of the clas- sical heisenberg and planar models on the triangular and plane hexagonal lattices, Journal of Statistical Physics 42, 381–404 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Mulder, R

    A. Mulder, R. Ganesh, L. Capriotti, and A. Paramekanti, Spi- ral order by disorder and lattice nematic order in a frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 81, 214419 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Oitmaa and R

    J. Oitmaa and R. R. P. Singh, Phase diagram of the J1− J2− J3 Heisenberg model on the honeycomb lattice: A series expan- sion study, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094424 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    R. F. Bishop, P. H. Y . Li, D. J. J. Farnell, and C. E. Campbell, The frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the honeycomb lattice: J1–J2 model, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 24, 236002 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Smirnova, M

    O. Smirnova, M. Azuma, N. Kumada, Y . Kusano, M. Mat- suda, Y . Shimakawa, T. Takei, Y . Yonesaki, and N. Kino- mura, Synthesis, Crystal Structure, and Magnetic Properties of Bi3Mn4O12(NO3) Oxynitrate Comprising S = 3/2 Honeycomb Lattice, Journal of the American Chemical Socie...

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Matsuda, M

    M. Matsuda, M. Azuma, M. Tokunaga, Y . Shimakawa, and N. Kumada, Disordered Ground State and Magnetic Field- Induced Long-Range Order in an S = 3/2 Antiferromagnetic Honeycomb Lattice Compound Bi 3Mn4O12(NO3), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 187201 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Okumura, H

    S. Okumura, H. Kawamura, T. Okubo, and Y . Motome, Novel Spin-Liquid States in the Frustrated Heisenberg Antiferromag- net on the Honeycomb Lattice, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 79, 114705 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    S. L. Brock, J. Greedan, and S. M. Kauzlarich, Resistivity and Magnetism of AMn 2P2(A = Sr, Ba): The E ffect of Structure Type on Physical Properties, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 113, 303 (1994)

    1994

  7. [15]

    Singh, A

    Y . Singh, A. Ellern, and D. C. Johnston, Magnetic, transport, and thermal properties of single crystals of the layered arsenide BaMn2As2, Phys. Rev. B 79, 094519 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Saparov and A

    B. Saparov and A. S. Sefat, Crystals, magnetic and electronic properties of a new ThCr 2Si2-type BaMn 2Bi2 and K-doped compositions, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 204, 32 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Singh, M

    Y . Singh, M. A. Green, Q. Huang, A. Kreyssig, R. J. Mc- Queeney, D. C. Johnston, and A. I. Goldman, Magnetic order in BaMn2As2 from neutron diffraction measurements, Phys. Rev. B 80, 100403 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    N. S. Sangeetha, S. Pakhira, Q.-P. Ding, L. Krause, H.- C. Lee, V . Smetana, A.-V . Mudring, B. B. Iversen, Y . Fu- rukawa, and D. Johnston, First-order antiferromagnetic tran- sitions of SrMn 2P2 and CaMn 2P2 single crystals contain- ing corrugated-honeycomb Mn sublattices, P...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    N. S. Sangeetha, A. Pandey, Z. A. Benson, and D. C. John- ston, Strong magnetic correlations to 900 K in single crys- tals of the trigonal antiferromagnetic insulators SrMn 2As2 and CaMn2As2, Phys. Rev. B 94, 094417 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    J. W. Simonson, G. J. Smith, K. Post, M. Pezzoli, J. J. Kistner- Morris, D. E. McNally, J. E. Hassinger, C. S. Nelson, G. Kotliar, D. N. Basov, and M. C. Aronson, Magnetic and structural phase diagram of CaMn2Sb2, Phys. Rev. B 86, 184430 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Bridges, V

    C. Bridges, V . Krishnamurthy, S. Poulton, M. Paranthaman, B. Sales, C. Myers, and S. Bobev, Magnetic order in CaMn2Sb2 studied via powder neutron di ffraction, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 321, 3653–3657 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Q. D. Gibson, H. Wu, T. Liang, M. N. Ali, N. P. Ong, Q. Huang, and R. J. Cava, Magnetic and electronic properties of CaMn2Bi2: A possible hybridization gap semiconductor, Phys. Rev. B 91, 085128 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    D. E. McNally, J. W. Simonson, J. J. Kistner-Morris, G. J. Smith, J. E. Hassinger, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, A. I. Kolesnikov, I. A. Zaliznyak, and M. C. Aronson, CaMn2Sb2: Spin waves on 9 a frustrated antiferromagnetic honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B 91, 180407 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Islam, T

    F. Islam, T. V . Trevisan, T. Heitmann, S. Pakhira, S. X. M. Riberolles, N. S. Sangeetha, D. C. Johnston, P. P. Orth, and D. Vaknin, Frustrated magnetic cycloidal structure and emer- gent Potts nematicity in CaMn 2P2, Phys. Rev. B 107, 054425 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Y . J. Li, F. Jin, Z. Y . Mi, J. Guo, W. Wu, Z. H. Yu, D. S. Wu, S. H. Na, C. Mu, X. B. Zhou, Z. Li, K. Liu, L. L. Sun, Q. M. Zhang, T. Xiang, G. Li, and J. L. Luo, First-order transition in trigonal structure CaMn2P2, Europhysics Letters 132, 46001 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Zheng, X

    P. Zheng, X. X. Man, Y . J. Li, W. Wu, Y . S. Xu, K. Liu, G. Li, and J. L. Luo, Abrupt change reflected by the van Hove singu- larity in the optical spectra of CaMn 2P2 , Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 305602 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous Electron Gas, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964)

    1964

  20. [28]

    R. O. Jones and O. Gunnarsson, The density functional formal- ism, its applications and prospects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 689 (1989)

    1989

  21. [29]

    Schwarz and P

    K. Schwarz and P. Blaha, Solid state calculations using WIEN2k, Computational Materials Science 28, 259 (2003), proceedings of the Symposium on Software Development for Process and Materials Design

    2003

  22. [30]

    O. K. Andersen, Linear methods in band theory, Phys. Rev. B 12, 3060 (1975)

    1975

  23. [31]

    J. M. Wills and B. R. Cooper, Synthesis of band and model Hamiltonian theory for hybridizing cerium systems, Phys. Rev. B 36, 3809 (1987)

    1987

  24. [32]

    J. M. Wills, O. Eriksson, M. Alouni, and D. L. Price, Electronic Structure and Physical Properties of Solids: The Uses of the LMTO Method (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

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

    1996

  26. [34]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, V . I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Density- functional theory and strong interactions: Orbital ordering in Mott-Hubbard insulators, Phys. Rev. B 52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

  27. [35]

    Mahajan, I

    R. Mahajan, I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and A. Kashyap, Importance of intersite Hubbard interactions inβ−MnO2: A first-principles DFT + U + V study, Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 104402 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Sakuma and F

    R. Sakuma and F. Aryasetiawan, First-principles calculations of dynamical screened interactions for the transition metal oxides MO (M=Mn, Fe, Co, Ni), Phys. Rev. B 87, 165118 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Bl¨ochl, O

    P. Bl¨ochl, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Improved tetrahedron method for Brillouin-zone integrations, Physical Review B 49, 16223 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, V . Antropov, and V . Gubanov, Local spin density functional approach to the the- ory of exchange interactions in ferromagnetic metals and alloys, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 67, 65 (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    M. I. Katsnelson and A. I. Lichtenstein, First-principles calcula- tions of magnetic interactions in correlated systems, Phys. Rev. B 61, 8906 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Y . O. Kvashnin, O. Grån¨as, I. Di Marco, M. I. Katsnelson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and O. Eriksson, Exchange parameters of strongly correlated materials: Extraction from spin-polarized density functional theory plus dynamical mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. B 91, 125133 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    S. K. Panda, Y . O. Kvashnin, B. Sanyal, I. Dasgupta, and O. Eriksson, Electronic structure and exchange interactions of insulating double perovskite La 2CuRuO6, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064427 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Kargeti, A

    K. Kargeti, A. Sen, and S. K. Panda, Strain-induced electronic and magnetic transition in the S = 3 2 antiferromagnetic spin chain compound LaCrS3, Phys. Rev. B 109, 035125 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    B. Lenz, B. Koteswararao, S. Biermann, P. Khuntia, M. Baenitz, and S. K. Panda, S = 1 dimer system K 2Ni(MoO4)2: A candi- date for magnon Bose-Einstein condensation, Phys. Rev. B106, L180408 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-Q in- commensurate magnetic structures, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    V . P. Antropov, M. I. Katsnelson, B. N. Harmon, M. van Schilf- gaarde, and D. Kusnezov, Spin dynamics in magnets: Equation of motion and finite temperature effects, Phys. Rev. B 54, 1019 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Skubic, J

    B. Skubic, J. Hellsvik, L. Nordstr ¨om, and O. Eriksson, A method for atomistic spin dynamics simulations: implementa- tion and examples, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 315203 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    J. Q. Liu, F.-Y . Li, G. Chen, and Z. Wang, Featureless quan- tum paramagnet with frustrated criticality and competing spi- ral magnetism on spin-1 honeycomb lattice magnet, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033260 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    J. T. Hertz, Q. Huang, T. McQueen, T. Klimczuk, J. W. G. Bos, L. Viciu, and R. J. Cava, Magnetism and structure of Li xCoO2 and comparison to NaxCoO2, Phys. Rev. B 77, 075119 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    S. Gao, M. A. McGuire, Y . Liu, D. L. Abernathy, C. d. Cruz, M. Frontzek, M. B. Stone, and A. D. Christianson, Spiral Spin Liquid on a Honeycomb Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 227201 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    J. M. Luttinger and L. Tisza, Theory of Dipole Interaction in Crystals, Phys. Rev. 70, 954 (1946)

    1946

  43. [51]

    Chandra and B

    P. Chandra and B. Doucot, Possible spin-liquid state at large S for the frustrated square Heisenberg lattice, Phys. Rev. B 38, 9335 (1988)

    1988

  44. [52]

    R ¨uckriegel, D

    A. R ¨uckriegel, D. Tarasevych, and P. Kopietz, Phase diagram of the J1−J2 quantum Heisenberg model for arbitrary spin, Phys. Rev. B 109, 184410 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Melzi, P

    R. Melzi, P. Carretta, A. Lascialfari, M. Mambrini, M. Troyer, P. Millet, and F. Mila, Li2VO(Si, Ge)O4, a Prototype of a Two- Dimensional Frustrated Quantum Heisenberg Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1318 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    R. Nath, A. A. Tsirlin, H. Rosner, and C. Geibel, Magnetic properties of BaCdVO(PO 4)2: A strongly frustrated spin- 1 2 square lattice close to the quantum critical regime, Phys. Rev. B 78, 064422 (2008)

    2008

  47. [55]

    A. A. Tsirlin, R. Nath, A. M. Abakumov, R. V . Shpanchenko, C. Geibel, and H. Rosner, Frustrated square lattice with spa- tial anisotropy: Crystal structure and magnetic properties of PbZnVO(PO4)2, Phys. Rev. B 81, 174424 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    G. J. MacDougall, A. A. Aczel, Y . Su, W. Schweika, E. Faul- haber, A. Schneidewind, A. D. Christianson, J. L. Zarestky, H. D. Zhou, D. Mandrus, and S. E. Nagler, Revisiting the ground state of CoAl2O4: Comparison to the conventional anti- ferromagnet MnAl2O4, Phys. Rev. B 94,...

    2016

  49. [57]

    L. Ge, J. Flynn, J. A. M. Paddison, M. B. Stone, S. Calder, M. A. Subramanian, A. P. Ramirez, and M. Mourigal, Spin order and dynamics in the diamond-lattice Heisenberg antifer- romagnets CuRh 2O4 and CoRh 2O4, Phys. Rev. B 96, 064413 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Mourigal, W

    M. Mourigal, W. T. Fuhrman, A. L. Chernyshev, and M. E. Zhit- omirsky, Dynamical structure factor of the triangular-lattice an- tiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 88, 094407 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Ferrari and F

    F. Ferrari and F. Becca, Dynamical structure factor of theJ1−J2 heisenberg model on the triangular lattice: Magnons, spinons, 10 and gauge fields, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031026 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

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

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

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.