Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Magnetocalorics of singlet ground state induced moment magnets

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In induced-moment antiferromagnets, the critical soft mode exists only at zero field and at the critical field, and is arrested everywhere in between.

desk verdict Solid finite-field extension of the singlet-singlet induced-moment model with useful thermodynamic fingerprints; the headline 'arrested soft mode' claim rests on a static/dynamic RPA split that a referee should push on. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03513 v2 pith:YBSRZ7F7 submitted 2025-07-04 cond-mat.str-el

Peter Thalmeier This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords inducedmomentmagnetismsingletgroundstatemagnetocaloriceffectbarocaloricmagneticexcitonsoftmodequantumcriticalpointPrIr3
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 studies magnets in which the ordered moment is induced rather than pre-existing: the crystalline electric field leaves the f-electron ground state a nonmagnetic singlet, and inter-site exchange spontaneously mixes in an excited singlet, creating order only when the control parameter $\xi_s = m_s^2 I_e/(2\Delta)$ exceeds the quantum critical value $\xi_s^c=1$. The author derives the field and temperature dependence of specific heat, entropy, and adiabatic magneto- and barocaloric cooling rates for ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic versions of the two-singlet model, and shows the two order types respond very differently to an applied field. The central new claim is that in the antiferromagnetic case the critical magnetic-exciton soft mode is fragile: along the field-dependent ordering-temperature line $T_m(h')$ it is arrested with finite frequency everywhere except exactly at $h'=0$ and at $h'=h'_c$. If correct, neutron scattering can use this arrested mode as a sharp signature of singlet-induced magnets, since conventional magnets soften all along their ordered phase boundary.

What carries the argument

The machine is the two-singlet CEF Hamiltonian in pseudo-spin form, $H=\Delta\sum_i S^z_i - \frac{m_s^2 I_e}{2}\sum_{\langle ij\rangle} S^x_iS^x_j - m_s h \sum_i S^x_i$, whose single-site eigenstates are field-mixed singlets. Its control parameter is $\xi_s = m_s^2 I_e/(2\Delta)$, with $\xi_s^c=1$ the quantum critical point between disordered and induced-magnetic ground states. The argument that produces the arrested soft mode uses two separate response functions: the static RPA susceptibility $\chi_0(T,h')=\chi_0^{vV}+\chi_0^C$ contains a pseudo-Curie piece $\propto (1/T)(1-1/\hat\Delta_T^2)(1-f_s^2)$ that sets the transition temperature, while the dynamic susceptibility entering the RPA excitation pole contains only the van Vleck piece, Eq. (37). Equation (41) combines the two to give the mode frequency exactly on the phase boundary.

What would settle it

Perform inelastic neutron scattering on a singlet-ground-state induced antiferromagnet with $\xi_s>1$ and measure the lower magnetic-exciton energy at the ordering wave vector as a function of field along the transition line $T_m(h')$. Finding $\omega_-(\mathbf{Q},T_m(h'),h')=0$ at any intermediate field $0<h'<h'_c$ would disprove the central prediction; observing a finite gap that closes only at $h'=0$ and $h'=h'_c$ would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with the minimal singlet-singlet CEF model in pseudo-spin representation, the paper defines the order by the self-consistent mean-field equations and obtains the $H$-$T$ phase diagram for both ferro- and antiferromagnetic exchange. The ferromagnetic transition at zero field turns into a smooth crossover for any finite field, while the antiferromagnetic transition survives up to the critical field $h'_c(\xi_s)$. Thermodynamic potentials give the specific heat: the AFM jump shrinks and slides down the Schottky background as $h'$ grows, vanishing at $h'_c$, whereas the FM jump merges into the background anomaly. The new dynamical result, Eq. (41), is that the AFM soft-mode frequency at the ordering wave vector, evaluated along the transition line $T_m(h')$, obeys $\omega_-(\mathbf{Q},T_m(h'),h') \propto [(\hat\Delta^2_{T_m}-1)(1-f_s^2(T_m))]^{1/2} \ge 0$, which vanishes only at $h'=0$ and $h'=h'_c$. The reason is that $T_m(h')$ is fixed by the static RPA susceptibility, whose pseudo-Curie term is absent from the dynamic van Vleck susceptibility that determines the mode pole.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ordering temperature can be defined by the static susceptibility with its pseudo-Curie term while the mode frequency is defined by the dynamic susceptibility without it, and that this mean-field/RPA split remains accurate near the quantum critical point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The relative location of the zero-field ordering temperature $T_m$ and the Schottky maximum $T_{\max}$ gives an estimate of the control parameter $\xi_s$; for PrIr3 the comparison yields $\xi_s\approx 1.08$ and a singlet splitting $\Delta=24.4$ K.
  • In induced-moment antiferromagnets, the specific-heat jump at $T_m(h')$ shrinks and slides down the Schottky flank, vanishing at the critical field, while in ferromagnets any finite field replaces the transition by a crossover.
  • The adiabatic magnetocaloric coefficient diverges for the FM on approaching $T_m$ from below at $h\to0$, while for the AFM it changes sign at the phase boundary, giving distinct cooling behaviors for the two order types.
  • The barocaloric coefficient shows a sign-changing step at the critical pressure where $\xi_s$ drops below 1; the step is smoothed for the FM but persists with a shifted critical pressure for the AFM.
  • Along the AFM transition line, the magnetic-exciton soft mode is true only at $h'=0$ and $h'=h'_c$ and is arrested for intermediate fields, so neutron scattering should see a re-opening gap rather than a gapless mode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, the same static-versus-dynamic susceptibility split should also produce a detectable minimum-with-gap in the field dependence of $\omega_-(\mathbf{Q},T,h')$ at fixed temperature, with the gap size set by the pseudo-Curie term.
  • The paper stops short of emphasizing that the arrested mode gives an especially clean diagnostic: a neutron experiment that observes a finite gap on the transition line would identify a singlet-induced antiferromagnet even without a full dispersion measurement; that diagnostic is my inference.
  • If the RPA mechanism survives beyond mean field, related gapped-critical-mode behavior should appear in singlet-doublet and singlet-triplet compounds, with the arrest window controlled by the strength of the Curie-type term; this extrapolation is mine.
  • Because the barocaloric coefficient changes sign where $\xi_s$ crosses 1, pressure experiments on near-critical ferromagnets like PrIr3 could locate the quantum critical point; the paper provides the model curves but does not propose this specific experimental route.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a pseudospin model of two CEF singlets coupled by Ising-type exchange, using mean-field theory for thermodynamics and RPA for magnetic excitons. It computes order parameters, phase boundaries, specific heat, adiabatic magnetocaloric and barocaloric coefficients for FM and AFM induced-moment magnets, applies the model to PrIr3, and derives the field and temperature dependence of magnetic exciton modes. The central new prediction is that along the AFM field-dependent transition line T_m(h'), the lower magnetic exciton frequency at the ordering wavevector vanishes only at h'=0 and h'=h'_c, and remains positive at intermediate fields because the static pseudo-Curie term raises T_m(h') above the temperature at which the dynamic van Vleck pole would soften.

Significance. If correct, the arrested-soft-mode prediction gives a distinctive, falsifiable signature of singlet-induced AFM order: inelastic neutron scattering should show a gapped exciton at the phase boundary for intermediate fields, with full softening only at zero and critical field. The paper's analytic derivations are transparent and the central result Eq. (41) follows from closed-form expressions; the specific-heat and caloric predictions are also concrete. No code or data are supplied, but the model calculations are standard enough to be independently reproduced. The PrIr3 discussion is useful as an illustrative application, although the parameters are extracted from the same data being compared.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (41); abstract] The claim that 'a true soft mode occurs only at T_m(h') for h'=0, h'_c' is stated in the abstract and summary without qualification. However, the static RPA susceptibility used to define T_m(h') (Eq. (22)) includes the pseudo-Curie term chi_C, which in the dynamical susceptibility appears as a zero-frequency (relaxational) contribution. Consequently the full static susceptibility diverges at every point along the phase boundary, implying a central peak at omega=0 for all 0<h'<h'_c. The arrest proven in Eq. (41) is an arrest of the propagating magnetic exciton pole, not an absence of a zero-frequency critical mode. Please qualify the central claim, e.g., by stating that the propagating mode is arrested, and ideally compute or estimate the weight and width of the zero-frequency central peak to show that the inelastic mode remains the relevant soft mode. This is load-bearing because the abstract's 'critical soft mode ... exists only at specific points' is otherwise misleading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (27)] In the definition of Deltahat_T, the printed expression '[1 = (m_s h' + ...' should read '[1 + (m_s h' + ...'.
  2. [Eq. (29)] The entropy expression is incorrect as written: it should be S = (1/2) sum_lambda [ ln(2 cosh((Delta/2T) Deltahat_T^lambda)) - (Delta/2T) Deltahat_T^lambda f_s^lambda ], as given in Eq. (30), but the displayed formula has 1/2 sum_lambda Z_lambda and a factor of two in the first term. Although the correct expression appears immediately afterward, this displayed equation should be fixed.
  3. [Sec. V] The text refers to 'KTmSe3 [29]' but reference [29] is titled 'quantum Ising magnet KTmSe2'; please correct the compound formula.
  4. [Sec. V A, Fig. 5] The parameters Delta=24.4 K and xi_s=1.08 are inferred from the same zero-field specific heat data (T_C and Schottky peak position) against which the model is compared, and the comparison also scales both the peak position and value. The paper does state that the comparison is not intended to be quantitative, but this point should be stated more prominently so that the agreement is not read as an independent test.
  5. [Sec. III, Eq. (23)] Please clarify that <Sx>_0 in Eq. (23) is the T=0 homogeneous magnetisation at the critical field, obtained from Eq. (10), and not the zero-field saturation moment; the current notation invites confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central soft-mode derivation is self-contained; the PrIr3 illustration is a mildly circular fitted comparison but not load-bearing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V A (PrIr3) and Fig. 5 caption]
    "In the case of PrIr3 it was observed that the maximum(T γV max) of γV =CV(T)/T coincides with the ordering temperature. Then, following the arguments in the previous section this leads to values Δ=24.4K for the singlet splitting and a control parameter ξs=1.08 for PrIr3. ... For comparison the magnetic specific heat of PrIr3 (TC=7.5 K) adapted from Ref. 4 is shown by the red symbols (with residual T=0 γ-value subtracted and the maximum position and value scaled to coincide)."

    The model parameters Δ and ξs are fixed by requiring that the model's Schottky-maximum/ordering-temperature coincidence reproduces the observed PrIr3 T_C = 7.5 K and the observed γV maximum. Figure 5 then compares the resulting model curve with the same PrIr3 data, with the maximum position and value explicitly scaled to coincide. The agreement of the jump with the Schottky maximum is therefore imposed by the parameter choice rather than supplied by an independent test. The paper does disclaim quantitative comparison, so this is a minor application issue and not part of the central soft-mode claim.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper, the arrested soft mode in the AFM singlet-singlet model, is derived from a stated physical split: T_m(h') is determined by the static RPA susceptibility Eq. (22), which contains the pseudo-Curie term, while the exciton pole is obtained from the dynamic van Vleck susceptibility Eq. (37), which omits that zero-frequency term. Eq. (41) is an algebraic consequence of these two independent conditions, not a retrodiction of a fitted quantity. This may be a debatable approximation, and the skeptic's concern about a zero-frequency central peak is a physical-correctness issue, not a circularity. The model equations are rederived in the paper from an explicit Hamiltonian, and the central result does not rest on importing an unverified conclusion from the author's prior work. The only notable circularity is in the PrIr3 application: Δ and ξs are inferred from the same specific-heat features that Fig. 5 then claims to reproduce. Since the paper explicitly says it does not intend a quantitative comparison, this is a minor fitted-input issue rather than a load-bearing weakness. Overall, no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a schematic two-singlet CEF model with an adjustable control parameter xi_s. No new physical entities are introduced. The main theoretical burden is the MF/RPA treatment and the static/dynamic susceptibility distinction behind the arrested soft mode.

free parameters (3)
  • xi_s = 1.08 for PrIr3; 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 in model scans
    Central control parameter, the ratio of exchange to CEF splitting. It is adjustable in the model and estimated from specific heat anomaly positions for PrIr3 in Sec. V.A.
  • Delta (singlet-singlet CEF splitting) = 24.4 K for PrIr3; otherwise used as the energy unit
    Sets the thermal energy scale. For PrIr3 it is inferred from T_C=7.5 K together with the Schottky maximum position; all dimensionless results scale with Delta.
  • m_s = <0|J_z|1> = not specified numerically; absorbed into xi_s and h'
    CEF matrix element between the two singlets. It enters through g_eff=m_s g_J and is not independently measured in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CEF level scheme is reduced to two singlets at splitting Delta, with all higher CEF states and conduction-electron degrees of freedom neglected.
    Invoked in constructing Eq. (1) and Sec. II; this is the defining simplification of the induced-moment model.
  • domain assumption Only J_z has non-zero matrix elements between the singlets, giving a purely longitudinal (Ising-type) pseudo-spin model with no transverse susceptibility.
    Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (1); this suppresses transverse modes and fixes the longitudinal character of all response functions.
  • domain assumption Molecular-field self-consistency and RPA response functions are quantitatively accurate, including near the quantum critical point.
    Used for order parameters (Eq. 8), specific heat (Eq. 26/32), and exciton dispersions (Eqs. 18-19, 38-40); fluctuation corrections are absent.
  • domain assumption The lattice is treated as a simple cubic Bravais lattice with structure factor gamma(q), and exchange as z I_0 gamma(q).
    Used in Eqs. (18)-(19) and Fig. 10; real materials have lower symmetry and different coordination, so the dispersion plots are schematic.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-Curie term contributes to the static susceptibility, defining T_m(h'), but not to the dynamic van Vleck pole defining the mode frequency.
    This RPA-level distinction drives the arrested soft mode prediction in Sec. VI and Eq. (41); if the pseudo-Curie term also enters the dynamics, the arrest can disappear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetocalorics of singlet ground state induced moment magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBSRZ7F7

@misc{pith2026250703513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetocalorics of singlet ground state induced moment magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBSRZ7F7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03513}
}
read the original abstract

In f-electron materials like Pr or U compounds with non-Kramers states of the f-shell the ground state may be a nonmagnetic singlet due to the action of the crystalline electric field. Nevertheless these compounds can order magnetically. They develop a ground state moment and long range order due to the spontaneous admixture of the excited state into the ground state caused by inter-site exchange. This mechanism can establish magnetic order if a control parameter exceeds a critical value defining the quantum critical point between disordered and magnetic phase. Here we investigate the magnetocaloric properties of such quantum magnets where the entropy release at low temperature is due to a competition between thermal depopulation and spontaneous order effects. We determine field and temperature dependence of specific heat for ferro- and antiferromagnetic order and also calculate the adiabatic magneto- and barocaloric cooling rates. As a model application we discuss the magnetic specific heat of the new induced ferromagnet PrIr3. Furthermore we analyze the excitation spectrum of the singlet induced moment magnets in an external field with particular emphasis on field and temperature dependence of the critical soft mode. We find that the latter is fragile and exists only at specific points in the phase diagram.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Homogeneous moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Temperature variation of FM and AFM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Specific heat for AFM case with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Specific heat coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. left panel: Two contributions to the entropy release: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Magnetocaloric coefficients (adiabatic cooling rate with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Barocaloric coefficient (adiabatic cooling rate with pres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Magnetic exciton dispersions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Temperature dependence of the AFM arrested soft mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore strictly, even in a singlet-singlet model a true soft mode occurs only atT m(h′)forh ′ = 0, h′ c while an ’ar- rested’ soft mode withω −(Q, Tm(h′), h′)>0is observed in the interval0< h ′ < h′ c. (In a singlet-triplet induced moment magnet this happens already at zero field due to the effect of the genuine Curie terms in the static susceptibility...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Inserting this into Eq

    At zero temperature the population difference in Eq.(11) reaches its maximum, meaningf s( ˆTm(h′ c))= 1. Inserting this into Eq. (22) leads to the implicit equation for the critical field according to h′ c(ξs) = 1 ms (ξ 2 3 s −1) 1 2 + 2ξs⟨Sx⟩0 ,(23) which starts with a singular slope at the QCPξ s = 1. Indeed close to the QCP withξ s = 1 +δ(δ≪1)a compari...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Thalmeier and A

    P. Thalmeier and A. Akbari, Induced quantum magnetism in crystalline electric field singlet ground state models: Thermo- dynamics and excitations, Phys. Rev. B109, 115110 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Gornicka, M

    K. Gornicka, M. J. Winiarski, R. J. Cava, M. A. McGuire, and T. Klimczuk, Ferromagnetism and structural phase transition in rhombohedralPrIr 3, Phys. Rev. B110, 064431 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Majlis,The Quantum Theory of Magnetism(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2007)

    N. Majlis,The Quantum Theory of Magnetism(World Scien- tific, Singapore, 2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Schmidt and P

    B. Schmidt and P. Thalmeier, Frustrated two dimensional quan- tum magnets, Physics Reports703, 1 (2017), frustrated two di- mensional quantum magnets

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Thalmeier, Induced order and collective excitations in three- singlet quantum magnets, Phys

    P. Thalmeier, Induced order and collective excitations in three- singlet quantum magnets, Phys. Rev. B103, 144435 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    For the dimensionless field we may alternatively defineˆh= msh′ =g effµBH/∆with the effective g-factor of the two singlets given byg eff =m sgJ

    or substitution with nonmagnetic elements [9] has been achieved. For the dimensionless field we may alternatively defineˆh= msh′ =g effµBH/∆with the effective g-factor of the two singlets given byg eff =m sgJ. The above Hamiltonian ˆhλ mf is readily diagonalised leading to energy levels ϵ± λ =±ϵ λ =± ∆ 2 [1 + (γ′ λ)2] 1 2 ,(5) and sublatticeλ=A,B- depende...

    work page

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    K. R. Lea, J. J. M. Leask, and W. P. Wolf, The raising of angu- lar momentum degeneracy of f-electron terms by cubic crystal fields, J. Phys. Chem Solids23, 1381 (1962)

    1962

  2. [10]

    Then we may write for the strain depen- dent energy scale∆(ϵ) = ∆(1−Ωϵ)and control parameter ξs(ϵ) =ξ s(1 + Ωϵ)and this leads to the strain dependence of the free energy in Eq

    [16, 17]. Then we may write for the strain depen- dent energy scale∆(ϵ) = ∆(1−Ωϵ)and control parameter ξs(ϵ) =ξ s(1 + Ωϵ)and this leads to the strain dependence of the free energy in Eq. (31) which determines thermal ex- pansion, magnetostriction and barocaloric coefficients g...

  3. [11]

    M. T. Hutchings, Solid State Physics (Academic Press, 1964) p. 227

    1964

  4. [12]

    Jensen, K

    J. Jensen, K. A. McEwen, and W. G. Stirling, Magnetic excita- tions in the longitudinally polarized antiferromagnetic phase of praseodymium, Phys. Rev. B35, 3327 (1987)

    1987

  5. [13]

    B. R. Cooper and O. V ogt, Transition from van vleck param- agnetism to induced antiferromagnetism inTb ζY1−ζSb, Phys. Rev. B1, 1218 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    Jensen and A

    J. Jensen and A. R. Mackintosh,Rare Earth Magnetism (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991)

    1991

  7. [15]

    Str¨assle, A

    T. Str¨assle, A. Furrer, Z. Hossain, and C. Geibel, Magnetic cool- ing by the application of external pressure in rare-earth com- pounds, Phys. Rev. B67, 054407 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    E. Gati, B. Schmidt, S. L. Bud’ko, A. P. Mackenzie, and P. C. Canfield, Controlling crystal-electric field levels through symmetry-breaking uniaxial pressure in a cubic super heavy 15 fermion, npj Quantum Materials8, 69 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    M. P. Zic, L. Ye, M. H. Martinez, and I. R. Fisher, Giant elas- tocaloric cooling at cryogenic temperatures inTmVO 4 via a load-unload strain technique, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 014079 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    V . K. Pecharsky and K. A. Gschneidner Jr, Magnetocaloric effect and magnetic refrigeration, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials200, 44 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    K. G. Sandeman, Magnetocaloric materials: The search for new systems, Scripta Materialia67, 566 (2012), viewpoint Set No. 51: Magnetic Materials for Energy

    2012

  12. [20]

    Novikov, E

    V . Novikov, E. Pilipenko, and S. Bud’ko, Crystal electric field effects and thermal expansion of rare-earth hexaborides, Solid State Communications252, 51 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Thalmeier and B

    P. Thalmeier and B. L ¨uthi, Handbook on the Chemistry and Physics of Rare Earths (North Holland, 1991) Chap. 96, pp. 225–341

    1991

  14. [22]

    W. J. L. Buyers, T. M. Holden, and A. Perreault, Temperature dependence of magnetic excitations in singlet-ground-state sys- tems. II. Excited-state spin waves near the Curie temperature in Pr3Tl, Phys. Rev. B11, 266 (1975)

    1975

  15. [23]

    R. J. Birgeneau, J. Als-Nielsen, and E. Bucher, Magnetic exci- tons in singlet-ground-state ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.27, 1530 (1971)

    1971

  16. [24]

    D. B. McWhan, C. Vettier, R. Youngblood, and G. Shirane, Neutron scattering study of pressure-induced antiferromag- netism in PrSb, Phys. Rev. B20, 4612 (1979)

    1979

  17. [25]

    Kawarazaki, Y

    S. Kawarazaki, Y . Kobashi, M. Sato, and Y . Miyako, Observa- tion of the singlet-singlet crystal-field excitons in PrCu 2 by in- elastic neutron scattering, Journal of Physics: Condensed Mat- ter7, 4051 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    P. S. Savchenkov, E. S. Clementyev, P. A. Alekseev, and V . N. Lazukov, Induced magnetism and ”magnetic hole” in singlet ground state system PrNi, J. Magn. Magn. Materials489, 165413 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    G. H. Rao, Q. Huang, H. F. Yang, D. L. Ho, J. W. Lynn, and J. K. Liang, Magnetic phase transitions in Pr 5Ge4, Phys. Rev. B69, 094430 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    I. W. Sumarlin, J. W. Lynn, T. Chattopadhyay, S. N. Barilo, D. I. Zhigunov, and J. L. Peng, Magnetic structure and spin dynamics of the pr and cu in Pr2CuO4, Phys. Rev. B51, 5824 (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    R. J. Birgeneau, J. Als-Nielsen, and E. Bucher, Neutron scatter- ing from fcc pr and Pr3Tl, Phys. Rev. B6, 2724 (1972)

    1972

  22. [30]

    B. R. Cooper, Magnetic excitons in real singlet-ground-state ferromagnets: Application toPr 3Tl and fcc Pr, Phys. Rev. B 6, 2730 (1972)

    1972

  23. [31]

    T. M. Holden, E. C. Svensson, W. J. L. Buyers, and O. V ogt, Magnetic excitations in tbsb, Phys. Rev. B10, 3864 (1974)

    1974

  24. [32]

    Wawrzynzcak, B

    R. Wawrzynzcak, B. Tomasello, P. Manuel, D. Khalyavin, T. D. Le, T. Guidi, A. Cervellino, T. Ziman, M. Boehm, G. J. Nilsen, and T. Fennell, Magnetic order and single-ion anisotropy Tb3Ga5O12, Phys. Rev. B100, 094442 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Zheng, H

    S. Zheng, H. Wo, Y . Gu, R. L. Luo, Y . Gu, Y . Zhu, P. Stef- fens, M. Boehm, Q. Wang, G. Chen, and J. Zhao, Exchange- renormalized crystal field excitations in the quantum Ising mag- netKTmSe 2, Phys. Rev. B108, 054435 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kumar, M

    S. Kumar, M. Klicpera, A. Elias, M. Kratochv ´ılova, K. Za- leski, M. Sliwinska-Bartkowiak, R. H. Colman, and G. Bastien, Induced quantum magnetism on a triangular lattice of non- Kramers ions in PrMgA l11O19 (2025), arXiv:2410.07885 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Marino, M

    A. Marino, M. Sundermann, D. S. Christovam, A. Amorese, C.- F. Chang, P. Dolmantas, A. H. Said, H. Gretarsson, B. Keimer, M. W. Haverkort, A. V . Andreev, L. Havela, P. Thalmeier, L. H. Tjeng, and A. Severing, Singlet magnetism in intermetal- licUGa 2 unveiled by inelastic x-r...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Grauel, A

    A. Grauel, A. B ¨ohm, H. Fischer, C. Geibel, R. K¨ohler, R. Mod- ler, C. Schank, F. Steglich, G. Weber, T. Komatsubara, and N. Sato, Tetravalency and magnetic phase diagram in the heavy- fermion superconductorUPd 2Al3, Phys. Rev. B46, 5818 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    T. E. Mason and G. Aeppli, Neutron scattering study of heavy fermion systems, Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser45, 231 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Thalmeier, Dual model for magnetic excitations and super- conductivity in UPd 2Al3, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems27, 29 (2002)

    P. Thalmeier, Dual model for magnetic excitations and super- conductivity in UPd 2Al3, The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems27, 29 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Sundermann, M

    M. Sundermann, M. W. Haverkort, S. Agrestini, A. Al-Zein, M. M. Sala, Y . Huang, M. Golden, A. de Visser, P. Thalmeier, L. H. Tjeng, and A. Severing, Direct bulk-sensitive probe of 5f symmetry in URu 2Si2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 13989 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Marino, D

    A. Marino, D. S. Christovam, C.-F. Chang, J. Falke, C.-Y . Kuo, C.-N. Wu, M. Sundermann, A. Amorese, H. Gretarsson, E. Lee- Wong, C. M. Moir, Y . Deng, M. B. Maple, P. Thalmeier, L. H. Tjeng, and A. Severing, Fe substitution inURu 2Si2: Singlet magnetism in an extended Doniach...

    2023

  33. [41]

    H. S. Jeevan, C. Geibel, and Z. Hossain, Quasiquartet crystal- electric-field ground state with possible quadrupolar ordering in the tetragonal compoundYbRu 2Ge2, Phys. Rev. B73, 020407 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Santini and G

    P. Santini and G. Amoretti, Crystal field model of the magnetic properties of URu2Si2, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1027 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    Haule and G

    K. Haule and G. Kotliar, Complex Landau-Ginzburg theory of the hidden order in URu 2Si2, Europhysics Letters89, 57006 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Takimoto and P

    T. Takimoto and P. Thalmeier, Theory of induced quadrupo- lar order in tetragonalYbRu 2Ge2, Phys. Rev. B77, 045105 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    E. W. Rosenberg, J.-H. Chu, J. P. C. Ruff, A. T. Hristov, and I. R. Fisher, Divergence of the quadrupole-strain susceptibility of the electronic nematic system YbRu 2Ge2., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A116, 7232 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Akbari, B

    A. Akbari, B. Schmidt, and P. Thalmeier, Topological paramag- netic excitons of localizedfelectrons on the honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. B108, 045143 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    M. J. Daum, A. Ramanathan, A. I. Kolesnikov, S. Calder, M. Mourigal, and H. S. La Pierre, Collective excitations in the tetravalent lanthanide honeycomb antiferromagnetNa 2PrO3, Phys. Rev. B103, L121109 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    H. Ge, C. J. Huang, Q. Zhang, N. Zhao, J. Yang, L. Wang, Y . Fu, L. Zhang, Z. M. Song, T. T. Li, F. Ding, J. B. Xu, Y . F. Zhang, X. Tong, S. M. Wang, J. W. Mei, A. Podlesnyak, L. S. Wu, G. Chen, and J. M. Sheng, Interplay of itinerant electrons and Ising moments in a hybrid h...

    2022

  41. [49]

    A. Liu, F. Song, Z. Li, M. Ashtar, Y . Qin, D. Liu, Z. Xia, J. Li, Z. Zhang, W. Tong, H. Guo, and Z. Tian, Ba9RE2(SiO4)6 (RE=Ho-Yb): A new family of Rare-earth based honeycomb lattice magnets (2023), arXiv:2305.12214 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fulde and I

    P. Fulde and I. Peschel, Some crystalline field effects in metals, Advances in Physics21, 1 (1972)

    1972

  43. [51]

    S. R. P. Smith, Soft modes in singlet ground state ferromagnets, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics5, L157 (1972)

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.